Evolving Opinion on the Ultimate Penalty

Overall the years, I’ve developed a more or less anti death penalty stance. It’s financially wasteful. Depending on what method, it may violate the condemned’s 8th Amendment rights. It leaves a new class of stigmatized widows & orphans.

However, watching a program about a young Atlanta wonan killed by a repeat offender, i’m not sure I still hold that POV. Few articles remain as this was the end of the ‘80’s, but research Julie Love murder, or Julie Love/Mark Kaplan if interested.

Turned out Emmanuel Hammond, convicted & executed for killing her w a shotgun, had priors for similar incidents of forcing young women into his car for purpose of robbing them for drug money. One young woman was stabbed & left in a remote wooded area to die. Ms. Love was raped by an accomplice & killed in an illegal dump site.

He was the average size adult male, she a “5’0’ fitness instructor w a glass eye due to childhood disease. Her remains were found when the girlfriend he battered turned him in.

Few would have hesitation about euthanizing an animal that has killed someone, or showed itself to be too temperamental to be placed in a shelter adoption.

Yet there still is hesitation by some to execute a repeat violent offender. Thoughts?

If you can prove beyond all doubt that the person did it then I tend to have no issues with it. I do have a problem with innocent people being put to death. So if you are police or lawyers involved in putting an innocent man to death then you should get the same penalty.

1 Like

Hot take here! :smile:

I’m anti-death penalty - it only takes a couple of bad actors to poison due process.

That is why I am for killing anyone who corrupts the process.

Part of the reason it costs so much to execute people is to address your concerns.

Now you’re just being silly. Nobody wants to be liable for that.

If you had your way, nobody would want to be a judge, lawyer, police officer…

Sometimes DNA or some other forensic removes all reasonable doubt and the defendant is found guilty of horrendous designated crimes where the death penalty should be deemed appropriate.

This agnostic, agrees with one of the few “commandments” that is actually law.
Thou shall not kill.

That includes the state.

Lock’em up for the rest of their life.


Police and lawyers just have to be above in all they do and no issues.

Death penalty was part of that law code.

And that one, I do not agree with. Along with most from that list.

The Abrahamic God, is pretty hypocritical, along with having no problem killing babies.


Well the law was not to murder. Death penalty was only at two witnesses and lying got you the death penalty.

Who are we to question the will of God?

I’ve actually kind of gone in the reverse direction.

We lethally inject with the most comfort possible. That is not the courtesy Mark Kaplan showed so why should he receive it?

Nope, let them stay in prison until their appeals run out and let them be bullied by fellow inmates for the rest of their miserable lives.

Locard’s Principal states evidence of an individual’s presence, but not what they did when they were at the scene.

One could, for instance, have DNA on a coffee cup in the home of a decedent. They could even have had a difficult relationship with that person. But such proof indicates only their presence.

The evidence against Emmanuel Hammond was obtained by his ex wearing a wire & obtaining it in conversation with his accomplice, now serving LWOP.

Those anti, I’ve always considered treason an issue, where national secrets have been sold to an enemy nation, placing many lives at risk. I believe death to be an appropriate penalty, providing guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mark Kaplan is the CEO of a wrap restaurant in Atlanta—the young woman’s then fiancé.

Emmanuel “Demon” Hammond was her killer who habitually robbed & attacked women to obtain their cash for drug money.

He was executed back in ‘11.

Eh, sorry about that. My bad. Still, the sentiment stands :wink:

1 Like

Mike Dukakis’ response to Bernard Shaw’s question about what his thoughts would be on the death penalty if his wife was raped and killed was that he would still oppose the death penalty. While that’s a valid position to take, given he had always been opposed to the death penalty, it did reveal him to be, at a minimum, passionless.

A much better response would have been to say, that as much as he might have personally wanted to strangle the SOB that did it, he believed that government shouldn’t be in the business of killing people.

I have to agree, our government should not be in the business of killing people. Life without any chance parole is morally a more acceptable punishment and I think in some way a more painful punishment.