Comments on: Death Sentence

By: Edna

Edna — Mon, 12 Mar 2026 00:44:44 +0000

Sadam Hussein deserved what he got he is a beast. The world needs to rid it self of such violent perpertrators of crime, who are an insult to the concept of a human being. If he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. What good would that do to society? With his high connections is it not possible that he could escape even from a max security prison? Life imprisonment where the government has to cater to such criminals is a waste of the government’s resources. It is a waste of the money of tax payers. Instead give the money to the children starving in Africa.

By: Graham

Graham — Fri, 05 Jan 2026 11:42:26 +0000

John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia, on capital punishment:

I’ve read of and I’ve seen the law make mistakes, and it’s a terrible thing to judicially murder somebody and subsequently find that that person is innocent and that’s why I have this pragmatic view so far as Australian courts are concerned that we shouldn’t impose the death penalty.

By: James Salmonsen

James Salmonsen — Thu, 04 Jan 2026 06:44:27 +0000

Thank you Frank for your constructive criticism. I will be sure to send my squirrel friends your fond wishes.

By: Frank Paynter

Frank Paynter — Thu, 04 Jan 2026 02:16:29 +0000

Northwestern Journalism students found three people in Illinois who were innocent, not on a technicality, but INNOCENT. All would have been executed. Regarding the other 98… you can do your own research. I’m not debating with you. What are my thoughts? My thoughts are that you are a deranged individual, fit only for the company of squirrels.

By: Graham

Graham — Thu, 04 Jan 2026 00:37:26 +0000

The question is, how many innocent people is it okay to execute in order to be sure you got the all the guilty ones? And are you advocating executing rapists as well as murderers? How broad would you like to make the list of capital crimes?

By: James Salmonsen

James Salmonsen — Wed, 03 Jan 2026 18:40:30 +0000

Out of those 101 people, you think all of them were actually innocent of the crime? Or, were they let go due to other reasons?

One other point: The advancements in DNA testing has improved greatly the chances that a suspect is guilty or innocent correctly. What are your thoughts?

By: Frank Paynter

Frank Paynter — Wed, 03 Jan 2026 17:17:57 +0000

Between 1976 and 2026 101 people were released from death row after being wrongfully convicted. A Northwestern University J-School study and activism on the part of the students helped to address the problem in Illinois. The best articles documenting the Northwestern work are behind paid firewalls, but if you are really interested and if data regarding prisoners wrongfully convicted AND executed would sway you, then just let me know.

By: James Salmonsen

James Salmonsen — Wed, 03 Jan 2026 16:52:26 +0000

And what is that rate of false convictions exactly? I think it’s quite low.

I agree that societies can become corrupt. I agree that governments can become corrupt. If you happen to think that the current U.S. government is corrupt, you would find me in total agreement. You can also make a good case that our justice system is flawed. However, that’s no reason not to use it to the best of our ability to make sure justice is done.

By: Scruggs

Scruggs — Wed, 03 Jan 2026 16:05:07 +0000

Given the rate of false convictions in capital punishment cases, claims to the justice of it are entirely fatuous. The eugenics argument Graham debunked is a step down from fatuous. Furthermore, nature is not a conscious entity weeding out the unfit. Evolution and survival don’t work that way.

Society is not an organism, a machine or a natural force. It is a fragile construct of often flawed human interactions, which can easily be turned hostile to the people it’s supposed to serve.

By: James Salmonsen

James Salmonsen — Wed, 03 Jan 2026 16:02:35 +0000

Again, I say to you that your analogies are fundamentally flawed. And, calling executions murder again, is simply false. You have no credible, rational justification for comparing the two. It is not (to use your inflammatory and hysterical language “cold-clooded, pre-meditated murder”. It is rational, righteous punishment for serious crimes.

It’s also not Eugenics. Are you simply blind to the fact that the person being executed committed a grievous crime against someone else? Where is the justice for the victims of their crimes? How can you equate one person murdering or raping someone else to selective breeding?

We’re not talking about killing Jews because they’re Jews, and gassing them with Zyklon-B. We’re talking about justifiably punishing someone for acts they committed.

It is simply not rational to compare the two.

As far as the so-called “effect” it has on the societies that practice it… Well, let’s see. It’s definitely a benefit to any other victims the murderer/rapist (whatever) would have victimized. It’s a benefit to the society because they won’t have this predator to take care of any more, or worry about what they might do next. So, yeah, it’s a good thing. I’d say it’s bad for the lawyers. Once their client is gone, they can’t soak up any more legal fees.

I can live with that.

And, I would feel safer in society without them around quite frankly. Does anyone have any data on repeat offenders? Think about that for a bit. Think of the stories you’ve heard of people getting out of prison, or escaping, and then committing the exact same crimes they were in there for in the first place!

This idea that executing people for serious crimes is harmful to society is simply nonsense.