Death Penalty Debate: Carjacker

Sampson, 44, pleaded guilty to carjacking and murder, admitting he killed Jonathan Rizzo, 19, and Philip McCloskey, 69, during the same week in July 2001 so he could take their cars. He faces separate charges for a slaying in New Hampshire during the spree.

The judge formally imposed the death sentence decided by a jury in December. Sampson’s lawyer has said he plans to appeal the sentence.

So here we have a carjacker who kills two people in cold blood in the pursuit of profit. I think this is exactly the kind of offense the death penalty should be for. I doubt that criminals like this can be rehabilitated and they sure the hell can’t be released. Why let them have a nice long career in prison educating others on how to be a stone cold killer?

Because killing is wrong?

Because the death penalty in many states is flawed and innocent people get put to death?

Nah, that can’t be it. That’s what appeals are for. And this guy confessed and had overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Also, convicted serial killers should be offed. They deserve neither compassion or clemency.

(I do love trees and furry animals, don’t forget!)

This has nothing to do with this particular man deserving compassion or clemency. When you have an institutional death penalty, it will be used to some frequency. I can’t think of any way to create a legal distinction so that a death penalty won’t be used except when we’re “really really certain that he deserves it.” In theory, our current death penalty is already only supposed to be used when we’re really really certain… but we’ve seen how well that works.

So… bringing up a clear cut case like this murdering asshole doesn’t really change the debate for or against the death penalty much, except on an emotional level.

[edit] Oh, and about the “That’s what appeals are for” comment… we already have appeals, and we’re still killing innocent people.

Well, I believe that the problem is that the death penalty is used in too many cases. Clear cut cases like the carjacker and serial or mass murderers should qualify in my book. Less death sentences but applied to truly deserving criminals. I know this won’t convince anyone who is completely against it.

I don’t support cruel, premeditated murder, period, so how can I be for the death penalty? Murder is wrong, no matter who it concerns.

I don’t think the state is capable of administrating the death penalty in a fair manner, but even if it was, what’s the point? What’s the goal of executing people?

Political posturing? Revenge? Closure for the community?

I honestly don’t know. I see no purpose in capital punishment. It’s expensive, time consuming, and can cause more grief and strife than the original crime did.

I’d better just stop here, I feel a rant coming on that could easily end up being 10,000 plus words. :wink: I shouldn’t get involved in discussion about the criminal justice system in this country.

[color=red][size=6]AH HA HA HA HA.[/size][/color]

(Doesn’t this BBS have any other way to emphasize text?) Tell that to all the guys released by the Innocence Project after exhausting all of their appeals and extraordinary writs.

Even if there were no uncorrected mistakes in the criminal justice system (AH HA HA HA HA), it’s wrong for the state to kill its own citizens. I used to be in favor of the death penalty in principle but against it because it was so unfairly applied, but in the last five years I’ve decided I’m just against it in principle. It’s barbaric and has no place in an enlightened democracy.

Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

So you’re saying that jail is unconstitutional and that everyone who’s sent to jail should be executed instead?

Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.[/quote]

Ok. What’s the point of giving someone a life sentence?

Compassion. Its much more compassionate to kill someone than lock him away for life. Jail is a form of cruel and unusual punishment.[/quote]

Ok. What’s the point of giving someone a life sentence?[/quote]

er, I don’t get it. I don’t believe there is a “point” to the death penalty, but clearly there is a point to life sentences: seperating the people who have proven they are unfit to live with the rest of society from the rest of us.

Killing them has the same effect.
And in the long run … [size=6]It’s cheaper.[/size]

Actually it’s not cheaper.

That’s only because of the procedure slapped on top of the killing. Shoot first, ask questions later, and it’s a LOT cheaper!

If compassion means the Green River killer gets to spend the rest of his life in prison… then I’m against it.

In confessing to more murders than any other serial killer in U.S. history Wednesday, the 54-year-old former truck painter provided heart-wrenching details of the 48 women he murdered to their families gathered in a Seattle courtroom to hear his confession.

Ridgway pleaded guilty to 48 counts of aggravated murder and agreed to provide information to help locate remains lost for nearly two decades in exchange for prosecutors agreeing not to seek the death penalty.

This person has earned the right to die for his crimes. But he cut a deal. Some justice system we’ve got.

Earned the right to die? Maybe. But who has earned the right to kill him?

Since we’d need laws to actually explain this “new, improved death penalty,” how would it be definied, in a legal sense?

“When they’re really, really bad people?”

“When the crime is really, really awful?”

I’m not entirely sure how you judge one murder somehow better or worse than another, but I’d think it would be impossible to make any sort of meaningful legal distinctions (beyond the existing ones, first, second-degree, etc.).

And I"m with others: used to be for it, still can say, “Yeah, the world would be better off without that Green River killer,” but have become opposed to the entire concept of the death penalty.