Comments:United States confirms first military death sentence since 1957
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
It is hard to believe that a country such as the united states can allow such barbaric proceedings anymore.
Killing a man cannot undo the damage he caused so it is a waste of a person who could be put to work doing
something useful. —GuitarMan666 (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah you say that until your mother/sister or even child gets raped and killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.12.186 (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your argument goes straight to the point... Justice is not about revenge. The USA like China, Iran, Pakistan, etc., has a justice system based on revenge. "An eye for an eye"...
- That is not justice... It's just revenge. Noone and nothing has the right to take the life of a being without his/her consent. There will always be criminals everywhere... The question is, will society continue to go down to their level because of its lust for revenge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.242.246.193 (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- America has its legal system and brand of justice distinct among all others -- what it as a nation decides is correct is correct if only for that nation. The Death Penalty is one aspect that has been upheld much like gun ownership that come to represent far more than the law itself, and vilified by our allies. IT IS AMERICAN LAW. PERIOD. I myself an American against the Death Penalty but do not find it use that reprehensible; uch like Virginia state Tim Kaine, who personally dislikes the death sentence, yet has allowed 8 to be carried out without his veto. Why? Because upon review of the crime, court case, and sentencing, he has found “no reason” to disagree with the proceedings and turn over what the courts have decided. In short, he agrees with the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers within the commonwealth even though he is the Executive Power and highest citizen. Our allies should think about that and the Rule of Law in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.44.2 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- No matter how you believe U.S. allies should consider the availability of a death penalty as an option, you cannot dismiss their concerns and condemnation. It is a barbaric practice which cannot be undone in the event of a miscarriage of justice.
- Personally, I can see no reason for any state to reserve the power to kill an individual for any crime. The numbers of murders within the U.S is evidence enough that it is no effective deterrent, so what soundly based argument can be put for having such an option on the statute books? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- America has its legal system and brand of justice distinct among all others -- what it as a nation decides is correct is correct if only for that nation. The Death Penalty is one aspect that has been upheld much like gun ownership that come to represent far more than the law itself, and vilified by our allies. IT IS AMERICAN LAW. PERIOD. I myself an American against the Death Penalty but do not find it use that reprehensible; uch like Virginia state Tim Kaine, who personally dislikes the death sentence, yet has allowed 8 to be carried out without his veto. Why? Because upon review of the crime, court case, and sentencing, he has found “no reason” to disagree with the proceedings and turn over what the courts have decided. In short, he agrees with the Rule of Law and Separation of Powers within the commonwealth even though he is the Executive Power and highest citizen. Our allies should think about that and the Rule of Law in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.44.2 (talk) 14:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
hang 'em[edit]
They should hang em-make an example of them.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.65.7 (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)