Canadian on death row in U.S. down to last legal remedy

This guy in the news again, geeez. I already thought the state killed this stupid fucker.

Get it done with already.

Ahhh, the old eye for and eye argument...

There's no moral way to justify murdering someone IMHO. I say toss him in deep dark hole and forget about him.

Well, I guess he should'a kept his yap shut then. After all, it was HIM that asked for the death penalty.

That's true, but people like to say how enlightened us Westerners are, but this is a perfect example of at least way in which we are not as civilized as we pretend to be.

Well, while I may agree with you in principle, to me, it depends on how the murder was carried out. Not in this guy's case but generally. If you are cold blooded enough to plan and execute a murder, or have no problem firing into a crowd of people to get your intended target, you don't deserve the benefits of civilization.

However, after having said that, I also believe that a very specific set of conditions must be met before a death sentence can even be considered.
I'm sure you already know what they are since we've debated this topic before

I'm against the death penalty. A civilized state does not kill people in retribution.

But I'm also all about going by the laws of the country/state you find yourself in. You don't want to get fried, don't commit a crime in states that kill. Simple.

He should have come to his event horizon years, do it so we can all move on to better topic.

Totally agree with you there bud! Way too many times we, do-gooders, object to the laws of foreign lands.

Now let's get the US army out of anywhere that they are not welcome. (Like that is going to happen!)

Seconded, as long as forgetting about him includes forgetting to feed him.

Seconded, as long as forgetting about him includes forgetting to feed him.

Nope, I was thinking more like 20 years of solitary...just kidding.

No, if I ran the prison system, it would be far different.

Rapists, murderers, bank robbers (and any other violent offenders) would be locked up and NEVER let out. Their prisons wouldn't have internet, or cigarettes or TVs or any other amenities whatsoever. Just four walls, a cot and a toilet. Meals would be very basic (1/6 meat, 1/2 veggies, 2/6 starch) and offer no variety at all. The only exercise would be walking around the courtyard one at a time. No basketball, no weights, nothing.

For less serious crimes, medium and minimum security prisons would have a few amenities and provide some sort of training that they could use after they were released (like say teaching them to be a welder or pipe-fitter or something). At least then, they would have a skill and maybe not be as likely to re-offend. After two stays in the minimum/medium system, the next conviction would automatically mean a stay (for the same amount of time) in a maximum security prison. If they re-offended a fourth time, then they'd get the same lifetime sentence as the violent criminals, although they would be eligible for parole after say 20 years.

I can respect that statement.

I agree.

While I can't agree with your personal opinion, I do agree whole heartedly with your very astute second paragraph.

I guess this clown is just plain unlucky that Montana wasn't a civilized state, like, say, Michigan.