Woo hoo i'm in! Administators shut down websense this morning :) I can't figure out why this site is considered entertainment but some of the other forums i'm on are not. Oh well..

I'm not sure what the subject of this thread is? If the subject is should Tookie have died, the answer is yes. He was tried and sentenced legally.

If the subject is whether or not we should have a death penalty, then my vote is yes. And in MUCH greater numbers. I would propose any sentence with 20 or maybe 15 years with a death penalty. I also agree with another poster that there needs to be a time limit to appeals. Perhaps a seperate judicical committee that would allow one or possibly two appeals within a year.

The main complaints that there is no correlation and that the cost is too high is due to the application of the death penalty. Unless there is the political will, there will be neglible benefit. The reality is that there are very few executions. Certainly not enough for the numbers to be nothing more than a rounding error in consolidated criminal statistics.

Morally, I take issue with some of the posters. They make a moral state that it would turn us into barbarians or that we would be not better then they.

As far as I am concerned, the individual who commits a crime that is so heinous as to deserve 20 years in prison is in my eyes a rabid wolf who needs to be put down. Are all people equal? Absolutely not. If the individual were like you or I then these moral arguements would carry weight. But things are not the same. It is their 'difference' that makes them treated 'differently'.

I can't help but to see their arguement sliding into pacificism. If murderers are not worthy of death then who is? What about foreign nations bent on subjugating our population? Are we allowed to defend ourselves? When is it ok to kill?