Guy who shot Larry Flynt (and killed 22 people) to be executed November 20

[Dan Druff]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

His name is Joseph Paul Franklin. He will be executed on Wednesday.

He killed people for white supremacy reasons. He went after Flynt for publishing a magazine in 1975 that depicted a black man having sex with a white woman.



Larry Flynt actually opposes this guy being executed because of his opposition to the death penalty in general.

Flynt also has said that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Franklin actually said in the article that he disagrees, and that life in prison is far better than being put to death.

I think it's hilarious how anti-death-penalty liberals like to use the argument that the death penalty is actually easier on criminals than life in prison, yet almost none of the condemned criminals (or ones possibly facing the death penalty) feel that way. Obviously it's not easier, and it's just something liberals like to say because they don't actually have their own lives at stake.

This guy obviously deserves to die, except it should have happened 30 years ago.

[Sloppy Joe]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

His name is Joseph Paul Franklin. He will be executed on Wednesday.

He killed people for white supremacy reasons. He went after Flynt for publishing a magazine in 1975 that depicted a black man having sex with a white woman.



Larry Flynt actually opposes this guy being executed because of his opposition to the death penalty in general.

Flynt also has said that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Franklin actually said in the article that he disagrees, and that life in prison is far better than being put to death.

I think it's hilarious how anti-death-penalty liberals like to use the argument that the death penalty is actually easier on criminals than life in prison, yet almost none of the condemned criminals (or ones possibly facing the death penalty) feel that way. Obviously it's not easier, and it's just something liberals like to say because they don't actually have their own lives at stake.

This guy obviously deserves to die, except it should have happened 30 years ago.

The 'life in prison is worse' is a dumb argument that need not ever be made.

The death penalty is shameful because it is inequitable (both economically and racially), expensive for taxpayers, not a crime deterrent, and since 1970-something over 140+ people have been released from death row due to mistakes. etc etc.

[LLL]

[Dan Druff]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

His name is Joseph Paul Franklin. He will be executed on Wednesday.

He killed people for white supremacy reasons. He went after Flynt for publishing a magazine in 1975 that depicted a black man having sex with a white woman.



Larry Flynt actually opposes this guy being executed because of his opposition to the death penalty in general.

Flynt also has said that life in prison is worse than the death penalty.

Franklin actually said in the article that he disagrees, and that life in prison is far better than being put to death.

I think it's hilarious how anti-death-penalty liberals like to use the argument that the death penalty is actually easier on criminals than life in prison, yet almost none of the condemned criminals (or ones possibly facing the death penalty) feel that way. Obviously it's not easier, and it's just something liberals like to say because they don't actually have their own lives at stake.

This guy obviously deserves to die, except it should have happened 30 years ago.

The 'life in prison is worse' is a dumb argument that need not ever be made.

The death penalty is shameful because it is inequitable (both economically and racially), expensive for taxpayers, not a crime deterrent, and since 1970-something over 140+ people have been released from death row due to mistakes. etc etc.

"Since 1970" is the key term above. The ability to prevent wrongful convictions through today's technology is MUCH greater than it was 40 years ago. Also, keep in mind that some of the releases you're referring to have been due to technicalities, where the person was still guilty but allowed to go free anyway.

It is not fair to say it's inequitable "both economically and racially" because there is also a huge inequity both economically and racially regarding the number of people committing violent crimes. While you have an edge if you are super rich and can afford superstar attorneys (like OJ), for most people the chance is roughly the same that they will get the death penalty for the same crime. For example, Scott Peterson, who is white (and not poor), got the death penalty in California for killing his Hispanic wife, despite the fact that all evidence against him was circumstantial. I am not seeing a racial bias to where black men are given the death penalty where white men are spared under the same circumstances.

The death penalty does need reform. The number of appeals need to be reduced, with some sort of common-sense review board to where they are not allowed more than once in cases of super-obvious guilt. The appeals should have to take place within a reasonable amount of time. We should not be taking 30 years to execute people. In general, there should be a higher certainty of guilt to qualify for the death penalty than a normal conviction. For example, in the case regarding this guy in my original post, there is zero doubt and he should be executed. In a case like Scott Peterson's, while I believe he did it, he should have gotten life in prison, as there was no direct evidence against him, and there remained a very small chance he was innocent.

Some may say, "If even one innocent man gets executed, the death penalty is unjust", but that's feelgood rhetoric which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Innocent people die every day due to mistakes on the government's part. The military occasionally kills innocent people with friendly fire or accidentally attacking the wrong target, but that doesn't mean we should disband the military. High-speed police pursuits sometimes result in the death of innocent bystanders, but that doesn't mean we should allow criminals to speed away without consequence. While these are tragic, you cannot halt something for the greater public good because of the occasional accidental death. The proper thing to do is take steps to prevent it, such as the reform I mentioned above. It is simply not fair that murderers (especially serial killers) get to live out full lives in prison despite obvious guilt, while their victims lay in the ground for those same decades.

[son of lockman]

So 30 years and 30 million dollars later in appeals we off the guy? I like the Chinese way. Next day they shoot you after your conviction.

[Dan Druff]

The death penalty also accomplishes one other thing. It often secures sure convictions against criminals who fear it.

The Unabomber is a good example. He accepted life without the possibility of parole, in lieu of a death penalty trial. He would have taken his chances in court if there were no death penalty to fear. There are thousands of other lesser profile cases where the same has occurred.

It's a great law enforcement bargaining chip.

"You tell us the truth now, and we will take the death penalty off the table."

This works surprisingly well -- and not just on TV.

[Dan Druff]

So 30 years and 30 million dollars later in appeals we off the guy? I like the Chinese way. Next day they shoot you after your conviction.

We need something in the middle.

The hilarious thing is that liberals love to complain about the cost of the death penalty, but they are the ones who caused the cost to rise so high in the first place!

The appeals process is ridiculous and almost comical, and needs major reform.

Everyone should have the right to appeal something as serious as a death sentence, but not for 30 years, and not repeatedly in the case of 100% obvious guilt beyond any doubt.

[mulva]

plol in 40 years?

[son of lockman]

3 million more down the crapper...

Stay of execution granted for serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin

ST. LOUIS, MO (KTVI) – St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigative reporter Jeremy Kohler is reporting that serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin’s execution is stayed by a federal judge

U.S. District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey says that the fact that Missouri’s execution drug has changed “does not mean the controversy has.”

The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Central Division issued this order:

Plaintiff Joseph Franklin is one of twenty-one Plaintiffs currently challenging the constitutionality of the execution protocol issued by the Missouri Department of Corrections. On August 14, 2013, the Missouri Supreme Court ordered that Franklin be executed on November 20, 2013. Pending before the court is Franklin’s Motion for Stay of Execution. [Doc. 157]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion for Stay of Execution is GRANTED.

The Missouri State Supreme Court denied a stay of execution earlier on Tuesday.

One of the issues raised before the Missouri Supreme Court was the first time use of pentobarbital as the execution drug. It is commonly used to euthanize pets.

Franklin was sentenced to death in 1997 for the sniper shooting death of Gerald Gordon in 1977. Gordon was leaving a synagogue in Richmond Heights after a bar-mitzvah when Franklin shot him from ambush. He fired several more shots, wounding another man and sending a bullet through the clothes of a third. The third man was not injured. Franklin made his getaway riding a bike to where he parked his car then took off down I-55.

http://fox2now.com/2013/11/19/stay-o...paul-franklin/

[John Stamos]

The 'life in prison is worse' is a dumb argument that need not ever be made.

The death penalty is shameful because it is inequitable (both economically and racially), expensive for taxpayers, not a crime deterrent, and since 1970-something over 140+ people have been released from death row due to mistakes. etc etc.

"Since 1970" is the key term above. The ability to prevent wrongful convictions through today's technology is MUCH greater than it was 40 years ago. Also, keep in mind that some of the releases you're referring to have been due to technicalities, where the person was still guilty but allowed to go free anyway.

It is not fair to say it's inequitable "both economically and racially" because there is also a huge inequity both economically and racially regarding the number of people committing violent crimes. While you have an edge if you are super rich and can afford superstar attorneys (like OJ), for most people the chance is roughly the same that they will get the death penalty for the same crime. For example, Scott Peterson, who is white (and not poor), got the death penalty in California for killing his Hispanic wife, despite the fact that all evidence against him was circumstantial. I am not seeing a racial bias to where black men are given the death penalty where white men are spared under the same circumstances.

The death penalty does need reform. The number of appeals need to be reduced, with some sort of common-sense review board to where they are not allowed more than once in cases of super-obvious guilt. The appeals should have to take place within a reasonable amount of time. We should not be taking 30 years to execute people. In general, there should be a higher certainty of guilt to qualify for the death penalty than a normal conviction. For example, in the case regarding this guy in my original post, there is zero doubt and he should be executed. In a case like Scott Peterson's, while I believe he did it, he should have gotten life in prison, as there was no direct evidence against him, and there remained a very small chance he was innocent.

Some may say, "If even one innocent man gets executed, the death penalty is unjust", but that's feelgood rhetoric which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Innocent people die every day due to mistakes on the government's part. The military occasionally kills innocent people with friendly fire or accidentally attacking the wrong target, but that doesn't mean we should disband the military. High-speed police pursuits sometimes result in the death of innocent bystanders, but that doesn't mean we should allow criminals to speed away without consequence. While these are tragic, you cannot halt something for the greater public good because of the occasional accidental death. The proper thing to do is take steps to prevent it, such as the reform I mentioned above. It is simply not fair that murderers (especially serial killers) get to live out full lives in prison despite obvious guilt, while their victims lay in the ground for those same decades.

This is one of the biggest false equivalencies I have ever heard you make Druff. Death penalty should definitely be abolished and there really isn't much of an educated and progressive argument for the death penalty.

#drexelRIP

[Ryback_feed_me_more]

"Since 1970" is the key term above. The ability to prevent wrongful convictions through today's technology is MUCH greater than it was 40 years ago. Also, keep in mind that some of the releases you're referring to have been due to technicalities, where the person was still guilty but allowed to go free anyway.

It is not fair to say it's inequitable "both economically and racially" because there is also a huge inequity both economically and racially regarding the number of people committing violent crimes. While you have an edge if you are super rich and can afford superstar attorneys (like OJ), for most people the chance is roughly the same that they will get the death penalty for the same crime. For example, Scott Peterson, who is white (and not poor), got the death penalty in California for killing his Hispanic wife, despite the fact that all evidence against him was circumstantial. I am not seeing a racial bias to where black men are given the death penalty where white men are spared under the same circumstances.

The death penalty does need reform. The number of appeals need to be reduced, with some sort of common-sense review board to where they are not allowed more than once in cases of super-obvious guilt. The appeals should have to take place within a reasonable amount of time. We should not be taking 30 years to execute people. In general, there should be a higher certainty of guilt to qualify for the death penalty than a normal conviction. For example, in the case regarding this guy in my original post, there is zero doubt and he should be executed. In a case like Scott Peterson's, while I believe he did it, he should have gotten life in prison, as there was no direct evidence against him, and there remained a very small chance he was innocent.

Some may say, "If even one innocent man gets executed, the death penalty is unjust", but that's feelgood rhetoric which doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Innocent people die every day due to mistakes on the government's part. The military occasionally kills innocent people with friendly fire or accidentally attacking the wrong target, but that doesn't mean we should disband the military. High-speed police pursuits sometimes result in the death of innocent bystanders, but that doesn't mean we should allow criminals to speed away without consequence. While these are tragic, you cannot halt something for the greater public good because of the occasional accidental death. The proper thing to do is take steps to prevent it, such as the reform I mentioned above. It is simply not fair that murderers (especially serial killers) get to live out full lives in prison despite obvious guilt, while their victims lay in the ground for those same decades.

This is one of the biggest false equivalencies I have ever heard you make Druff. Death penalty should definitely be abolished and there really isn't much of an educated and progressive argument for the death penalty.

#drexelRIP

I disagree recently they executed a dude who stated in no uncertain terms he would keep killing unless he was executed. Dude killed 7 people out in public and then killed 2 more inmates in jail. That guy is living proof of the need for the death penalty. Some people just dont deserve to be fed and kept alive on the public nickel in jail for decades. The issue in the cost is the insane appeals process. There was one guy recently executed I think it was in AZ who was on death row for 30+years.. WTF seriously it was open and shut they had him he admitted it in jail tryin to repent for his crimes but the bleeding heart asshole lawyers fought to keep this peice of trash alive..

[4Dragons]

Serial killer Joseph Paul Franklin executed in Missouri



http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...,2989739.story