Life In Prison or The Dealth Penalty?

[DPancoast]

http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/24351.php

Prosecutors in Moussaoui Trial Play Cockpit Recordings from 9/11 Attacks

The jury in the death-penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui Wednesday will hear the cockpit voice recording from one of the four jetliners that were hijacked on September 11th, 2001 to be used as missiles.

United Flight 93 crashed in a field in western Pennsylvania after its passengers apparently rose up against the hijackers, keeping the plane from reaching a target in Washington.

The 30-minute recording has never been aired publicly before.

Prosecutors are approaching the end of their death-penalty case against Moussaoui, an admitted al-Qaida conspirator.

After several days of testimony related to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the focus shifted Tuesday to the Pentagon.

The jury must decide whether Moussaoui deserves execution or life in prison.

The defense says he should be spared because of his limited role in the attacks, evidence he is mentally ill and because his execution would only play into his dream of martyrdom.

[DPancoast]

P.S. I just realised that my poll is totally not right...so if someone is able to change it, go for it haha.

[CustomRider13]

In this case, I think the death penalty will be feasable to the justice system.

[DPancoast]

yo Im on that comic site everyday, and Im always laughing my ass off at work.

[CustomRider13]

haha yeah, they are pretty funny.

[snowrocker_21]

ya he should die..but he wants to..in his religion he's dyin in a holy war and he wants the virgins and ****..don't kill him..let him rott in a cell and suffer the rest of his life

[thedude]

put him in a cell with a gun and say you can live in the cell or killy ourself. that'll really **** him over

[kelly]

yeah.. of course, put the criminal in a cell with a gun.. brilliant ;)

[SimonInAustralia]

Fry the fu cker!

He doesn't deserve to breath the air, or have taxpayers money spent on accomodating, feeding and looking after him.

If he was found to be involved, and admits he was involved, he doesn't deserve the luxury of life.

If he didn't admit it, then they would have to be pretty sure that he did do it, cause they can't turn it back if they find later that he was innocent.

[Levi]

Why are we even having the trial!!!

[kelly]

I'm not a fan of the death penalty.

[SimonInAustralia]

If he was involved in the taking of so many innocent lives, then he doesn't deserve his life.

Why do you think he should be housed, fed, etc. at the tax payers expense, after what he has done to so many innocent people, their familes, their friends, etc.?

[kelly]

I don't think it makes sense to kill someone to punish them for killing someone. You're doing the same thing they did. Why is it right for you and wrong for them?

[SimonInAustralia]

I don't think it makes sense to kill someone to punish them for killing someone. You're doing the same thing they did. Why is it right for you and wrong for them?Simply that life is a right and luxury that they have forfeited by taking the lives of so many others. Think about how many people died, those innocent people that have lost their lives, how many others it affected, family, friends, etc. Then think about housing this person for the rest of his live at the expense of the taxpayers. He has forfeited his right to be a part of society, and I don't think he should be kept alive in the relative comfort of a prison at the taxpayers expense. I think the severity of his crimes warrant the death penalty, he simply should not have the pleasure of living after that.

[kelly]

Yes, well I don't think that anyone has the right to decide whether or not someone should live or die, even if the person does need to be punished. I don't think death is ever an appropriate punishment.

[Levi]

Sorry kel but some people need to die!!!

[SimonInAustralia]

Yep, for sure...there is no other option in my view.

What are you gonna do, sit him in the corner and tell him he is a bad boy, don't do it again?

It is the decision of the society to implement the death penalty for such crimes, it is not any one person that is making the decision.

[kelly]

the decision of society? that's not how the court system works.

[SimonInAustralia]

the decision of society? that's not how the court system works.Society elects a government, the government creates and enforces the laws, a jury made up from members of the society decide whether the person is guilty and what the punishment should be.

If it is not the society that is behind these decisions, who is?

[Levi]

So buy not killing him and just putting him in prison, do you think he will not do mankind any harm. Bin Laden is a damn cave and can still kill at will!!!

[kelly]

Well, I just mean it's not society as a whole making these decisions, it's the judge and jury. A small group of individuals.
I don't believe in killing people for any reason, that's that. Arguing that it saves tax dollars to kill someone certainly isn't going to sway me.

[DPancoast]

Why are we even having the trial!!!

:confused: didn't you learn anything is school?! :tongue:

[wolfmanwax]

hummmm, i'm thinking that i probably mostly agree with kelly but not completely. i really see no reason or justification for the death-penalty. first of all i don't think that Zacarias Moussaoui is currently or ever will be a serious threat to society ... killing him will not make any of us safer or more secure. second, who exaclty did this guy kill?? people on 9-11?? wasn't this guy like locked up in jail somewhere on 9/11?? furthermore, the government lawyers prosecuting the case "blatantly" violated the judges orders and almost had a mistrial U.S. blunder may save Moussaoui (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/13/moussaoui.trial/index.html)

i don't think that economic reason justify killing anyone ... although i'm kinda secretly wondering how much money i might be able to get on the medical black market for some of your body parts :fear:

why are we having a trial? ... i thought it was because were not nazis ... but perhaps i'm wrong:hurt:

however, if i truely believed that Zacarias Moussaoui was an immediate serious threat to myself, friends, family, and society ... i'd probably have no problem taking him out myself.:rip:

[Gumby21]

i agree with kelly. death penalty isn't about justice, it's about revenge, pure and simple. even if he could have done something to prevent the 9/11 attacks and knowingly refused to do so, that doesn't make it the right thing to do to take his life away.

on a side note, in most cases it costs much more to put someone to death than it does to house them in prison for their natural life, because when someone is sentenced to death, they generally go through years of appeals, at taxpayers' expense.

[Snow Wolf]

I say put him in prison for life and only offer him pork to eat!!

[CustomRider13]

Gumby, how is the death penalty "revenge"? It's punishment and it's also a warning to potential criminals of the consequences they will face if they broke the laws.
I am against the death penalty also, but I would justify it in this case by saying that it is a war (holy war as they call it or war on terrorism as we call it) and he will be a casualty of war. Our criminals have a chance to reform, but this guy is an enemy. I'd say string him up but throwing him into the yard in a prison would be good too. haha. I'm kidding. He should get an execution by firing squad. Fast and easy.
He wants to die, but in the hands of the US? I think not. haha. He wants to die with a bomb around his waist or hijacking a plane.

[RideTheory]

I don't think it makes sense to kill someone to punish them for killing someone. You're doing the same thing they did. Why is it right for you and wrong for them?
i have to disagree..with my bad spelling and all...first we aren't Murdering innocent people...we are putting a terrorist/Murderer to death...there is a diff. plus...The death penalty serves as more of a Deterence ( to deter others from commiting the same crime)in our Justice system, at least that is the "ideal" model...anyway...thats just my 2 cents

[RideTheory]

i agree with kelly. death penalty isn't about justice, it's about revenge, pure and simple. even if he could have done something to prevent the 9/11 attacks and knowingly refused to do so, that doesn't make it the right thing to do to take his life away.

on a side note, in most cases it costs much more to put someone to death than it does to house them in prison for their natural life, because when someone is sentenced to death, they generally go through years of appeals, at taxpayers' expense.
which is why we should limit the number of appeals that Death Row inmates get..considering the "Right" to an appeal isnt one protected in the Bill of Rights

[kelly]

The right to appeal is something that is built into our constitution throught the creation a structure of higher appellate courts ending in the supreme court. What would be the point in appellate courts if there was no right to appeal? As well, I think it fits into Amendment 6's right to a fair trial, because in order for a trial to be fair, you would have to have the ability to bring the verdict into question if new evidence was found. This is a person's life we are dealing with, shouldn't they be able to fight for it if they claim to be innocent?

[RideTheory]

The right to appeal is something that is built into our constitution throught the creation a structure of higher appellate courts ending in the supreme court. What would be the point in appellate courts if there was no right to appeal? As well, I think it fits into Amendment 6's right to a fair trial, because in order for a trial to be fair, you would have to have the ability to bring the verdict into question if new evidence was found. This is a person's life we are dealing with, shouldn't they be able to fight for it if they claim to be innocent?
you a partialy right (i know i spelled partialy wrong:)an appeal is created through higher appealet courts by way of Artical 3 of the constitution..but...they are not gaurenteed an appeal...a higher court can either grant a writ of Certiorari or not...meaning they can choose to hear the case on appeal or not, it is true that many lower apealet courts will hear death penalty cases more because they always argue that there civil rights are being violated..but the supreme court only hears less than 1% of all cases that are presented for Certiorari..sorry...i realized after i posted my responce that i left some basic stuff out...i deff believe that the appeals process is an important one but i just think if they limited the # of Death row appeals it would just be alot better for taxpayers, and when i say limit i dont mean take away there appeals altogether. but thats just my opinion...

[RideTheory]

also...being convicted of a Capitol crime isnt easy...most prosecuters wont even consider death unless they have sufficent evidence to get the jury to agree "Beyond a resonable doubt" that the Defendant desserves death over life in prison. so for me...if someone is convicted by a jury to Death...than im of the opinion that they absolutly did it...which is were my idea for limited death row appeals comes from...maybe i have just become more synical being in the field of study im in..

[RideTheory]

i have an up-date...so i just got done taking my Constitutional Law final and i have to update my info about the right to an Appeal...in Douglas v. California (1963) the Supreme Court held that the First Appeal is a right itself neccessitated by counsel but the right does not extend to any additional Appeals

[Snow Wolf]

also...being convicted of a Capitol crime isnt easy...most prosecuters wont even consider death unless they have sufficent evidence to get the jury to agree "Beyond a resonable doubt" that the Defendant desserves death over life in prison. so for me...if someone is convicted by a jury to Death...than im of the opinion that they absolutly did it...which is were my idea for limited death row appeals comes from...maybe i have just become more synical being in the field of study im in..

While I see where you`re basing your logic, I am curious about your thoughts regarding the tragically large numbers of cases where modern DNA evidence has actually shown the person executed was actually not guilty. I also would disagree with your assertion that it is a sure thing just because a jury convicts a defendant. There have been too many cases where there system has broken down....especially in the case of black men who are charged with a crime. Not picking a fight here, just wondering if you have really though it through.

[thedude]

yeah.. of course, put the criminal in a cell with a gun.. brilliant ;)
a cell with no windows, reiforced door, and a gun with only one bulet, and Margaritaville will play looped in the cell until he has had enough of it. :evil:

[Gumby21]

Gumby, how is the death penalty "revenge"? It's punishment and it's also a warning to potential criminals of the consequences they will face if they broke the laws.
I am against the death penalty also, but I would justify it in this case by saying that it is a war (holy war as they call it or war on terrorism as we call it) and he will be a casualty of war. Our criminals have a chance to reform, but this guy is an enemy. I'd say string him up but throwing him into the yard in a prison would be good too. haha. I'm kidding. He should get an execution by firing squad. Fast and easy.
He wants to die, but in the hands of the US? I think not. haha. He wants to die with a bomb around his waist or hijacking a plane.

the death penalty in general. not necessarily just this particular case. whenever you see interviews with the victim's families when they're pushing for the death penalty, it's obvious that it's a 100% emotional response. they lost someone they loved, so they want the responsible person to pay dearly. they want them to suffer, like they suffered. they're practically bursting with anger. to quote a cliche, "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind."

[wolfmanwax]

Well, looks like Judge Leonie Brinkema sent Zacarias Moussaoui to prison for life (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20060504%2F1715055995.htm&sc=1110&photoid=20060503VACJ118) ... although doesn't look like we will be hearing much from him anymore ... to bad, that guy was freak'n entertaining as hell :dance:


They should put cameras and microphones in his cell and broadcast it 24/7 on payper view or on the internet ... let people pay to view and/or run ads ... let the profits go to a 9-11 victums fund. After all if there really is a "War on Terror" and he is the "Enemy" ... i certianly believe in getting to know your enemy. What is that saying ... 'keep your friends close ... keep your enemies closer' :grouphug:

[snowrocker_21]

yup got life..haha he was pissed..hes not dieing in a holy war so now he is screwd in his mind..he gets to suffer and we all get to enjoy it..

[CustomRider13]

the death penalty in general. not necessarily just this particular case. whenever you see interviews with the victim's families when they're pushing for the death penalty, it's obvious that it's a 100% emotional response. they lost someone they loved, so they want the responsible person to pay dearly. they want them to suffer, like they suffered. they're practically bursting with anger. to quote a cliche, "An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind."
Well Gumby, the death penalty isn't decided according to the victims friends and families. It's by a jury and they're not allowed to read the media or have outside influences, so what are you trying to prove with this post?

[wolfmanwax]

Well, now that the Moussaoui trail is over it should be interesting to see what happens with Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Against Defense Department for Withholding Video of 9/11 Attack on Pentagon
(http://www.judicialwatch.org/5724.shtml)