Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

If convicted of Premeditated Murder, should Casey Anthony get the Death Penalty ?


Mickalino

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I can honestly say that I've gone back and forth on this...pretty much since it happened. Obviously, I am 100% convinced that this little hooker killed her beautiful child. What I don't know is if she intended to or if it was an accident that she tried to/is trying to cover up. She's a sociopath, for sure. However, all things considered, I guess I'm surprisingly against putting her to death just because I do believe that accidental deaths are on a completely different plane. If there is even a shred of reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony decided and intended to kill her daughter, then she should just spend the rest of her life in prison. As a father of two young children, that pains (and surprises) me to write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're not putting down a vicious animal. Would you kill her with your own hand? Would killing another human give you no pause?

The hell I wouldn't be. Any person who could do this to a child, any child, is not a human being in my book. They are animals. Yes, I would have no problem stepping up to the task if needed. You may view this a cruel and you are entitled to your opinion. However, that child asked for none of this.

Does allowing a creature that is willing to kill their own child without provocation and or remorse not give you cause to pause? I could never bring myself to hurt that child but I could easily flip the switch on the person who could be so monstrous as to commit such an act. No, I don't believe that I would have any issue, at all, with executing this person if found guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering the same thing. As far as I can tell, though, it's some pretty woman who couldn't deal with the responsibilities of being a parent and may've killed her kid.

That's about all I've picked up from this whole thing.

That's the absolute short version. Well done. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hell I wouldn't be. Any person who could do this to a child, any child, is not a human being in my book. They are animals. Yes, I would have no problem stepping up to the task if needed. You may view this a cruel and you are entitled to your opinion. However, that child asked for none of this.

Does allowing a creature that is willing to kill their own child without provocation and or remorse not give you cause to pause? I could never bring myself to hurt that child but I could easily flip the switch on the person who could be so monstrous as to commit such an act. No, I don't believe that I would have any issue, at all, with executing this person if found guilty.

How would you feel, if, 5 years later it came to light that she wasn't in fact the killer. One big problem with putting people to death for crimes, is that future discovery of evidence becomes irrelevant. What if DNA evidence, discovered years later exonerated her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you feel, if, 5 years later it came to light that she wasn't in fact the killer. One big problem with putting people to death for crimes, is that future discovery of evidence becomes irrelevant. What if DNA evidence, discovered years later exonerated her?

I would feel like she is still a mother who regularly used various methods to put her child to sleep in order to party with people. I would still feel feel like she was a mother who left her child in the trunk of a car so she could nightclub. I would still feel like she was a mother who, knowing her child was missing went out the very next day and picked her boyfriend up from the AP and went out clubbing with him and basically getting all screwed up and having sex until the late hours of the next day all the while here child is missing? I would feel like she had it coming for just those things alone.

How would you feel if in 5 years, after she was serving time she confessed to murdering her child and even worse? Would you then demand she were put to death for it? Too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you feel if in 5 years, after she was serving time she confessed to murdering her child and even worse? Would you then demand she were put to death for it? Too late.

I think that's his point...if your most severe punishment isn't irreversible, you can always go back. If she's serving life in prison without parole and it's found that she did more heinous things than originally thought? Oh well, she's already in prison. If you put her to death and find out she was innocent (I realize she isn't innocent, but I'm just stating this as an example), then you can always "un-do" something that isn't DEATH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's his point...if your most severe punishment isn't irreversible, you can always go back. If she's serving life in prison without parole and it's found that she did more heinous things than originally thought? Oh well, she's already in prison. If you put her to death and find out she was innocent (I realize she isn't innocent, but I'm just stating this as an example), then you can always "un-do" something that isn't DEATH.

For me it's pretty simple. If she had been even somewhat responsible that baby would be alive right now. Because she was not, that baby died a horrible death. She is responsible for this. Life in prison is not the means by which I would favor her punishment to take place. The "Oh well, she's already in prison" doesn't cut it for me. She deserves to be dead for the things she has done. In 5 years, are they going to find that she was a responsible mother after all? I don't think so. If she had taken care of her Baby, this would not have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making assumptions about her guilt based on the 'facts' as they are known today. What if those facts change?

I remember when everyone was sure that JonBenet Ramsey's mom killed her. The tabloids told us that for a decade.

Except it apparently wasn't true.

The problem with crime investigations is that they are done by fallable people, people with biases or who make mistakes. Law enforcement is not perfect. No one is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making assumptions about her guilt based on the 'facts' as they are known today. What if those facts change?

I'm making no assumptions at all. I think everybody on this board would agree that she was an unfit mother with little to know history of responsible behavior where this child is concerned. Her defense is not even one of guilt or not guilt. They have already conceded that point. They are trying to prove that it was not murder. However, since you mention this point, I have already stated that it is based on the verdict of guilt. I am assuming nothing.

---------- Post added June-27th-2011 at 11:23 AM ----------

I remember when everyone was sure that JonBenet Ramsey's mom killed her. The tabloids told us that for a decade.

Except it apparently wasn't true.

The problem with crime investigations is that they are done by fallable people, people with biases or who make mistakes. Law enforcement is not perfect. No one is.

Yes, but I don't believe that the parents of the Ramsey Girl were ever tried. If I am mistaken on that point, please forgive me. This women is on trial and a verdict will be had. If that verdict is guilty, then I believe she should get the death penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but I don't believe that the parents of the Ramsey Girl were ever tried. If I am mistaken on that point, please forgive me. This women is on trial and a verdict will be had. If that verdict is guilty, then I believe she should get the death penalty.

No, they weren't tried.

My point was, they might have been. And they might have been convicted. And if they were convicted and executed, there would be no way to undo it later. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they weren't tried.

My point was, they might have been. And they might have been convicted. And if they were convicted and executed, there would be no way to undo it later. :whoknows:

I think at that point, you have to allow the legal system to work and a Jury of peers to come to a decision. I think that if a trial had happened, a lot more evidence would have come to light and that would have allowed for a fair trial. On the other hand, I think that the fact that the AG of Colorado or even the Feds didn't prosecute is telling. Had they thought they had enough evidence to make a case, you and I both know that they probably would have. They didn't have enough evidence to get a conviction on the Ramsey Parents. I think that this is a fairly significant difference in the two situations. In Anthony case, they have her for manslaughter and criminal child abuse. There isn't even a question there. The question is, is it 1st degree murder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABQ, I don't believe that you would feel great about pulling the lever to execute any of these people, to then later find out that they were innocent.

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php

The Innocent and the Death Penalty

Seventeen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 209 years in prison – including 187 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

Kirk Bloodsworth served eight years in Maryland prison – including two years on death row – for a murder and rape he didn’t commit, before he was exonerated in 1993.

Rolando Cruz, and his co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, served more than 10 years on Illinois death row for a murder they didn’t commit before DNA testing proved both men innocent in 1995.

Verneal Jimerson and Dennis Williams were sentenced to death in the infamous Ford Heights Four case in Illinois for a pair of 1978 murders they didn’t commit. Jimerson was cleared in 1995 after a decade on death row and Williams served more than 17 years on death row before he was freed in 1996.

Robert Miller spent nine years on Oklahoma’s death row for a murder and rape he didn’t commit before he was cleared by DNA testing in 1998.

Ron Williamson spent a decade on Oklahoma’s death row for a murder he didn’t commit before DNA testing secured by the Innocence Project proved him innocent in 1999. His co-defendant, Dennis Fritz, was sentenced to life and spent 11 years in prison before DNA cleared him as well.

Ronald Jones, an Innocence Project client, served a decade on Illinois death row for a murder and rape he didn’t commit before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his release in 1999.

Earl Washington, a Virginia man with limited mental capacity, was sentenced to death after he allegedly confessed to committing a 1982 murder he didn’t commit. He served a decade on death row, once coming within nine days of execution before receiving a stay. He would serve a total of 17 years behind bars before DNA testing obtained by the Innocence Project cleared him in 2000.

Frank Lee Smith died of cancer on Florida’s death row after serving 14 years for a murder and rape he didn’t commit. He was cleared by DNA testing obtained by the Innocence Project 11 months after his death.

Charles Irvin Fain served more than 17 years on death row in Idaho for a murder and rape he didn’t commit before DNA testing proved his innocence in 2001.

Ray Krone served a decade in Arizona prison – including four years on death row – for a murder and rape he didn’t commit before DNA testing proved his innocence in 2002.

Nicholas Yarris served more than 21 years on Pennsylvania’s death row before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his release in 2003.

Ryan Matthews served five years on Louisiana’s death row for a murder he didn’t commit before he was exonerated by DNA testing in 2004. His co-defendant, Travis Hayes, was sentenced to life in prison and served eight years before he was cleared in 2007.

Curtis McCarty served 21 years in Oklahoma prison – including nearly 18 years on death row – for a murder he didn’t commit before DNA tests secured by the Innocence Project led to his exoneration in 2007. He was convicted twice and sentenced to death three times based on forensic misconduct.

Kennedy Brewer, an Innocence Project client, served 15 years behind bars – including seven years on death row – for a murder and sexual assault he didn’t commit before DNA testing from 2001 finally led to his exoneration in 2008.

Michael Blair served 13 years on death row for a murder he didn’t commit before DNA testing obtained by his lawyers at the Innocence Project proved his innocence and led to his exoneration in 2008.

The death penalty is irreversable, and these 17 people are examples of convictions that were later overturned. I'm sure glad we didn't kill these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABQ...I agree with you on your opinions of Casey Anthony and her role in her daughter's death. You make a great point that they aren't even trying to disprove that, just that she didn't intentionally kill her daughter. However, "unfit mother leading to death" is a very slippery slope. In this case, being an unfit mother appears to be directly related to the death. What about a case where it's strongly, but indirectly, related? Do you then kill that defendant too?

Believe me, I'll sleep fine if I hear that Casey Anthony is convicted and is sentenced to death. I'm simply saying that I could see the case for not putting her to death. Maybe this puts me on the other side of the death penalty argument. I think it comes down to me not knowing where I stand when it comes to "in the moment" crimes. For serial killers who plan out and execute their murders, kill them. For self-defense or things like that, don't kill them. For these types of situations where someone was doing something wrong but probably didn't INTEND to kill someone...I'm torn.

Great debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you feel, if, 5 years later it came to light that she wasn't in fact the killer. One big problem with putting people to death for crimes, is that future discovery of evidence becomes irrelevant. What if DNA evidence, discovered years later exonerated her?
You're making assumptions about her guilt based on the 'facts' as they are known today. What if those facts change?

You can have that view-point, and that's fine.

As long as you're not one of those people who staunchly defends people who are aquitted, simply on the sole concept of "Come on, people, he/she was found not guilty by a jury of their peers, so let it go, and let them go", even though evidence shows otherwise.

It works both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABQ...I agree with you on your opinions of Casey Anthony and her role in her daughter's death. You make a great point that they aren't even trying to disprove that, just that she didn't intentionally kill her daughter. However, "unfit mother leading to death" is a very slippery slope. In this case, being an unfit mother appears to be directly related to the death. What about a case where it's strongly, but indirectly, related? Do you then kill that defendant too?

Believe me, I'll sleep fine if I hear that Casey Anthony is convicted and is sentenced to death. I'm simply saying that I could see the case for not putting her to death. Maybe this puts me on the other side of the death penalty argument. I think it comes down to me not knowing where I stand when it comes to "in the moment" crimes. For serial killers who plan out and execute their murders, kill them. For self-defense or things like that, don't kill them. For these types of situations where someone was doing something wrong but probably didn't INTEND to kill someone...I'm torn.

Great debate.

I will tell you, I don't believe that Anthony will get the death penalty. I believe she will get convicted but I don't think they are going to give her the death penalty.

For me, her actions immediately after the disappearance of her child and subsequent behavior since tells me that this woman has no remorse for her role in this child's death. If she had another child, I think she would do the same thing. It may not be in the same way but I think that she would have that same disregard for life if it served her own personal needs. To me, it is a greater responsibility a parent has to his or her children. I would kill to save my children. Could that be considered murder? Yes, I suppose it could. However, in my own mind, I would be justified in those actions if I felt like it was done to protect my kids. To kill your own child, and we're really not talking about turning your eyes away for a second and losing track of a child that falls into a pool of water or the like. I would have hard feeling about that situation as well but I would understand how that could happen. We are talking about giving a baby harmful chemicals as inhalants. Chemicals that, if the child did not die from the usage of these chemicals, could easily suffer brain damage as a result, and then leave this child in the back of a car unattended and for what? I guess I just think that the responsibility to a child is much greater then for other things. I don't even know that this idea is supported by law but that's what I believe. People must be held accountable for these kinds of actions and it must be demonstrated for all to see. We are not a nation of people who have no regard for our children. We show it every day in how we vote and how we spend our resources. One of the biggest arguments we have in this country is the Right To Life issue. Whatever side of that issue you are one, the people who argue it say that they do it to protect the children. Pro Life to protect the lives of these children and Pro Right to save these children from a terrible existence. I just think that this kind of thing, where parents do not protect children must be dealt with in the strictest possible manner. It might not bring that poor child back but it might make the the next dumb arse mother or father think twice about doing the same thing to their kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think at that point, you have to allow the legal system to work and a Jury of peers to come to a decision.

I agree. You have to do your best and get criminals off the street. Mistakes will be made, and you just try to minimize them.

But that argument has nothing to do with justifying the death penalty, really. At least not to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. You have to do your best and get criminals off the street. Mistakes will be made, and you just try to minimize them.

But that argument has nothing to do with justifying the death penalty, really. At least not to me.

I think it does in that in order for the death penalty to even be an option, you must first prove that a defendant is guilty of a crime that even allows for the death penalty and that the conviction must come from your peers. It is not a trivial thing. However, I do understand the distinction you are trying to make here. They are two different points. I understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have that view-point, and that's fine.

As long as you're not one of those people who staunchly defends people who are aquitted, simply on the sole concept of "Come on, people, he/she was found not guilty by a jury of their peers, so let it go, and let them go", even though evidence shows otherwise.

It works both ways.

Agreed. OJ is a good use case, and even though he was found innocent, I don't staunchly defend anything he does.

I do think though that the side of the coin you're referring to is of lesser importance (the guilty who get set free). Our legal system is based (in part) on the principle that we'd rather let 5 guilty people go free, than send one innocent person to jail. And I agree, its more important to err on the side of caution, and not imprison (or kill) innocents, even if that means a few more guilties go free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. OJ is a good use case, and even though he was found innocent, I don't staunchly defend anything he does.

I do think though that the side of the coin you're referring to is of lesser importance (the guilty who get set free). Our legal system is based (in part) on the principle that we'd rather let 5 guilty people go free, than send one innocent person to jail. And I agree, its more important to err on the side of caution, and not imprison (or kill) innocents, even if that means a few more guilties go free.

I don't know that I agree with this Stadium. I kind of always felt like our legal system was based on Justice. Now, you can argue that it's a dead concept and that's a pretty good argument these days. However, I do still believe that this is what our legal system should be about. It should be about Justice for all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our legal system is based (in part) on the principle that we'd rather let 5 guilty people go free, than send one innocent person to jail. And I agree, its more important to err on the side of caution, and not imprison (or kill) innocents, even if that means a few more guilties go free.

I don't totally agree with that, because many killers who are set free, often go out and kill again.

So, by letting a killer go free, many times the result is an innocent person getting killed, or multiple innocents, which makes it not very different from the reverse situation of executing a possibly innocent person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe anyone who kills someone with the intent to kill deserves the death penalty. I'm not talking about you shoved a person causing they fell down and slammed their head into a rock. I'm talking about premeditated. If you had ever intent to kill and carried it out they deserve it. This isn't a matter of it won't bring them back. Its a matter of justice. They took someone's life and by doing so they give away theirs. Why should a person be able to murder another and be allowed the chance to live a full life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that I agree with this Stadium. I kind of always felt like our legal system was based on Justice. Now, you can argue that it's a dead concept and that's a pretty good argument these days. However, I do still believe that this is what our legal system should be about. It should be about Justice for all.
I don't totally agree with that, because many killers who are set free, often go out and kill again.

So, by letting a killer go free, many times the result is an innocent person getting killed, or multiple innocents, which makes it not very different from the reverse situation of executing a possibly innocent person.

Well, I think the "letting 5 guilty go free rather than convicting 1 innocent" principle comes from our desire to keep our government in check. We all want to be protected from crime, but we also want to make sure that the government can't convict innocent people with impunity, because that takes us down a very slippery slope toward totalitarianism.

The murder rate in China or Saudia Arabia is a mere fraction of the murder rate in the USA - but at what cost?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...