Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

Hi Oni,I have to ask; do you really trust the authorities with your life?I mean, it's not as though you have previously expressed a great deal of trust in the USA's system of government. In fact you've always been extremely sceptical of authority and with good reason. It is a fact that America has corrupt cops, corrupt DAs, corrupt public prosecutors, corrupt judges, even corrupt public defenders. America is hardly alone in this of course, every barrel has a few rotten apples, but I am constantly amazed at the stories of police and judicial corruption that come out of the US. Are these really the people you want to have the power of life and death over you? You trust them that much? Really? You've never expressed much trust in them before.Things like DNA evidence are only as good as the justice system that handles them. There's no value in exonerating forensic evidence if it is withheld by prosecutors. There's no value in DNA evidence if your own lawyers aren't going to bother to look for it. It is very easy for corrupt officials to make a case look far more watertight than it really is and we know that there are individuals who are willing to do these things.You say that in some cases there is so little doubt that we can execute without fear of error. I find that naive, not usually a trait that I would associate with you. "One of my {colleagues} said on the radio that if no one else is prepared to hang people he is quite prepared to do the job himself. I ask him a rather different question. Because of his views, is he prepared to be hanged by mistake?" - Edward HeathMutate and Survive

It just seems odd to me that you would distrust the authorities to the extent that you can accuse of gross corruption on multiple levels and yet simultaneously trust them with your life, or that of your children.It strikes me as hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency. I can see why you don't want to talk about it. You want to gloss over this because it highlights how your little scheme involves handing over innocent lives to the trust of corrupt scum. I would call that a flaw in your system. He did freely confess to his guilt, multiple times. That's kind of an indicator. But this is a red herring... I agree, it is.Where exactly did I say that I was in favour of killing him? Not the point. The point is that that one person (in actual fact, certainly more than one person) is being killed in cold blood, by their own government, to no tangible benefit to society.These people are at the mercy of the authorities. The practicalities of whether to kill them or not are simple. The practicalities of preventing "what is done to innocent lives in third world countries" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are not simple, and you know it. There seems to be no comparison here. I would not dispute that he deserves it. That does not mean that it is right for any individual to actually do it. And if that life were yours? Or your child's? Would you be willing to sacrifice those lives for society's revenge? Clearly you don't. Please speak for yourself.Mutate and Survive

Traditionally, you have to catch the guy first. Trying someone in their absence kinda buggers up the defence. WTF!? Is this your argument in favour of the death penalty? That occasionally innocent people are fitted up? Are you sure that's the best way to make your case?Anyway, I thought you didn't want to talk about corruption? I thought you wanted to ignore the fact that your argument involves handing the power of life and death over every single citizen to a bunch of racist, venal, evil corrupt goons.I am still perplexed as to why you would trust these people with your life. The notion of police, prosecutors, DAs or judiciary framing someone is not imaginary. It can and does happen. Why give them the opportunity to take their corruption to lethal extremes? Not by governments, no. I don't think that governemnts should have the power of life and death over their citizens. I think that citizens should have the power of life and death over their governments. Arguably in the death penalty can be supported in the case of dictators. there is no doubt over their guilt and there is a clear benefit to society in drawing a line under their regimes. I might support assassinations under similar circumstances, it would depend upon a lot of factors.But anyway, none of that matters. Assassinations, deaths that occur whilst resisting arrest, deaths in warfare... None of these are valid comparisons to the death penalty. You're not comparing like with like. All of these examples are uncontrolled situations, where the outcome is in question and violence is used, not so much as an end in itself, but a means of achieving a goal.With the death penalty it's very different. The death penalty is only an option when the criminal is already caught and at the mercy of his captors in a jail cell. this situation is under total control. The fate of the prisoner is not subject to fate or chance or happenstance. It is under the complete control of his captors. There is no goal to be achieved, other than to make people feel better about the,selves because someone they hated died. that is how psychopaths behave. It is not how a government should behave. This is what makes this such a cold blooded and cruel form of homicide, in my opinion. There damn well is from me! We don't routinely arm our police over here and astonishingly few Brit's would tolerate such a notion. It's simply anathema to us.Again though, you're not comparing like with like. You're trying to draw a parallel between an uncontrolled situation and one where the state has total control. It's just not valid. At least when some gun-toting cop shoots an innocent person we can hope that they were honestly trying to protect innocent lives or uphold the law. There is a reason behind it, an arguable benefit (of sorts) to society. With the death penalty there is no such benefit other than to please ghouls. If a cop shoots someone in an attempt to protect innocent lives, that is not by any stretch of the imagination an example of capital punishment. Homicide yes, capital punishment no.On the other hand, if a cop shoots someone for nothing more than running away, that is arguably a form of capital punishment. But I would find that absolutely as abhorrent as the death penalty. I've explained why above. Besides, this conversation is not about military matters, despite your best efforts to make it so. It's about the death penalty. did you consider that perhaps it does concern me more? I believe most extra-judicial assassinations to be a greater evil than the death penalty. But this thread is about the death penalty. And you still haven't answered my question? What if the innocent who died as a result of capital punishment was you? Or your kid? Would you still think it worth the cost then? Would you be willing to hang for a crime you did not commit?It's an important question. I accept the fact that some people will be falsely imprisoned. I accept the fact that it might be me some day. That is the price I willingly pay for a society of laws, where the weak are protected. The death penalty is too high a price. At least if I am wrongly imprisoned I can hope to gather new evidence and appeal. At least my family (who presumably did nothing wrong - did you ever stop to consider the cost of the death penalty to the perpetrator's family?) could still visit me. There is no appeal from the grave. It's too high a price. Yet the death penalty turns people, those who perform the executions, into state-sanctioned hired killers. That is a whole separate concern. Dude, I know you do. That's why I'm trying to appeal to your better nature, as opposed to telling you to go fuck yourself. Mutate and Survive

I have already made it clear that I don't completely trust them. That is an argument against the death penalty as much as it is against assassinations. Also, I've already made it clear that I did not support the notion of assassinating Bin Laden (not that he actually was assassinated), so please give it a rest. Again, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. Quit changing the subject. a) This is bullshit. If you were about to be shot by some criminal and an armed cop was there, damn right you'd want him to use his judgement and shot the perp.b) Even after a trial and an appeal, the Birmingham Six stayed in jail for an astonishing sixteen years. The corrupt establishment guaranteed that. Had the death penalty been on the statutes, they might never have been freed. Trials and appeals are not the magic bullets you seem to think they are.c) Trial Tri-al. Trial. Gah! I would not support the assassination of dictators by governments. There is no contradiction.But we're not talking about assassinations. Death penalty, remember? This is an argument for prison reform, not the death penalty. The control is over the life or death of the prisoner. You are twisting my words. That control is absolutely real.As for your argument about prison violence, I find that abhorrent. You are essentially arguing that we should kill someone for crimes that he might commit. Might as well argue to omit trials altogether, just in case a guilty party gets free and kills again. You keep doing this shit and it's annoying. Who the fuck said that was my only other option?I would support wholesale reform of the prison system, which I regard as an ongoing human rights crime, even in so-called developed countries. You cite this in another message. You cite it wrong. Try to read what I'm actually saying here. I don't support routinely arming police. Absolute nonsense. There are clear differences between firing on someone to save lives and the cold-blooded execution of a helpless victim. I've been over this and you have not responded. Clearly. You are in favour of execution, but seem unwilling to be executed. You would care about the innocent victims of wrongful execution soon enough if you were one of them. It's only that the fact that it's happening to other people that allows you to turn a blind eye to the fact that your policy would lead to innocent lives being taken by the state.Mutate and Survive

Except that you insist upon ignoring the context for that selection; avoidability and clear social benefit. Executions are 100% avoidable and provide no social benefit that you have ever pointed out. That's why these comparisons to police shootings or military killings are a pointless waste of time. And since the former option is not available in life or death policing situations, what you would prefer is yet another pointless waste of pixels. Do you plan on ever telling us what form it might take?So far you have told us that it will make you feel better and that the executee will be killed for crimes s/he has not yet committed. Pardon me if I find these alleged benefits less than compelling. Except that it's not a single situation, as you well know.Guildford Four and Maguire Seven - WikipediaTo pretend that the Birmingham Six are the only example of a deliberate miscarriage is justice is asinine. You think he could resist? Force them not to execute him? No? Then he is helpless. Clearly he is the victim of a homicide. The fact that he is an evil man who has committed multiple homicides does not change this. That the death row inmate is a helpless victim is simply a fact, one that you are trying to obscure with cheap appeals to emotion. I understand that dehumanising someone is a vital first step toward killing them, but I have always considered this attitude to be a gross mistake.Gacy was not some kind of ogre, living in the hills. He was all too human, an otherwise ordinary Homo sapiens, who just so happened to like killing people. To mislabel such individuals as other than human is nothing but a sop to our unwillingness to acknowledge that violence is an unfortunate part of human nature. I'm not trying to excuse someone like Gacy; nothing could excuse those actions. But to call him inhuman is simply childish nonsense and, in my opinion, dangerous nonsense. If we are ever to understand what makes a man like Gacy into a killer (and hopefully reduce the chances of it happening with other people) then acknowledging his humanity is a vital first step. To do otherwise is to sweep an uncomfortable truth under the carpet.And to think, you chide us with old Bill Hicks routines, telling us to stay asleep, whilst engaging in such a silly fantasy. Remove the log from your own eye. Did you really imagine that shock tactics were going to work on me? I know what these people do. It changes nothing. I don't dispute that they are evil or that they deserve to die. I just don't think that turning yet another person into a killer makes the situation any better. See, there's the hypocrisy. You are happy for innocent people to die so that you can enjoy a nice cathartic homicide, but only so long as it is someone else who pays that price. If I were wrongfully imprisoned, I would be livid about it, but I would not be calling for the abolition of prisons as a result. If, on the other hand, you were on death row, would you really say "Well, I may be innocent, but my death is a price I am willing to pay for the sake of the wonderful benefits that state-sanctioned homicide brings our society."? No you would not. You're happy for innocent people to die 100% avoidable deaths, but only so long as it's not you or yours. Forgive me if I find that attitude both reprehensible and short-sighted.Perhaps we could introduce a rule whereby only proponents of the death penalty can be executed.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Indeed we do. But I notice that you're moving the goalposts. Suddenly you're talking about shootings by beat cops - something that I oppose.We do have armed police in the UK though; we have specialist, highly trained firearms units. They are necessary. When someone does get hold of a firearm and goes crazy with it, the police need to be armed to stand a chance of stopping him. That is the clear social benefit to armed police; they are equipped to protect people when the shit has hit the fan.Routinely arming police is a different matter. That leads to many needless deaths. Having some atrmed police is a trade off. It will lead to innocent deaths on occasion, but that is balanced by the benefit of having adequate protection against armed criminals. In the case of capital punishment, there is no such benefit to balance things out. All you have is innocent lives being lost so that ghouls can gloat over the death of those they despise. No contest. If you are talking to me, then it matters what I think. It is pointless for you to say "But what about the lives lost in scenario X?" when I do not favour scenario X. Here you present me with a false dichotomy. You present the choice as though the only alternatives are an unreconstructed prison system, exactly as it is today (something that I have already told you I oppose) or the death penalty.Prison does have a role to play. Some people are simply a danger to others and society must protect itself from such individuals. Some sort of imprisonment is the least worst option. But the status quo is not the only option.Oh, and rates of recidivism are hardly relevant. It's not like the kind of offenders we're discussing are likely to ever be released in most jurisdictions. None. That's why I'm against it. With no clear benefit to the death penalty, I'm against that too.There's no point in making comparisons to other things that I already oppose. That would never have happened in my country. Shooting at people because they flee or fail to obey commands is not something I favour.There's no point in making comparisons to other things that I already oppose. But you keep pointing out the flaws in systems that I have already told you I oppose.I am using the same rationale throughout; minimising innocent lives being lost whilst retaining systems that might cause loss of innocent lives only where there is a clear and pressing benefit to society or where it is unavoidable. By not routinely arming cops, by not allowing citizens to own handguns and by not having capital punishment, we minimise the loss of innocent lives. Introduce the death penalty and you push up the number of innocents killed, but you do so for no clear benefit. Then you are lying to yourself. Go ahead if it makes you feel better, just don't expect me to treat it as if it were a rational argument. I'm afraid that those are mutually exclusive. The imprisoned murderer is still available as in subject for study. The dead one ain't, unless you have a ouija board. Sure. I saw Hicks do that one in person though. He did it better. I understand that. I just don't understand you have such faith in the trial process, which you know is deeply flawed by incompetence and corruption. I would not trust that system with my life. It seems odd to me that you would trust it with yours. That sounds like a much better conversation for us as a society to be having. It raises the bar for human rights and human dignity. Isn't that a better idea than the death penalty, which lowers the value of human life? Thank God, I couldn't sleep for worrying.I'm still right though; you're only in favour of the death penalty because when you think about it, you imagine it is going to happen to someone else, not you. I'm sure that the victims of wrongful executions all felt the same... until it did happen to them.Mutate and Survive

Not true. Rick Perry recently boasted of his shameful record of state sanctioned homicide and the crowd whooped and hollered like they were on AMerican Idol.Gloating over the revenge is the only argument in favour of the death penalty. You're talking to me. You're not talking to someone who supports the things you keep dragging into the conversation. It's a waste of time. But you can't use that to call me inconsistent if I don't support it in the first place. It's getting tedious. You keep pointing to other bad things and saying look at this, this is bad. Well yeah. But that has nothing to do with whether the death penalty is bad or not. Do you see the words "prison system" in the thread title? We're not talking about the merits of the prison system, we're talking about capital punishment. This is ludicrous. If you feel that prisons and armed police hold no social benefit you should oppose them. Without a clear social benefit to the death penalty, I will continue to oppose that. You certainly have not articulated any benefit, other than it makes you feel better. A defeatist argument. If everyone thought that way, society would never advance. About minimising the loss of innocent lives? Well, you said that you did... No, that's completely illogical. That would only be true if they were all of equal value, which they are not. You're not talking to people, you're talking to me. If you want to illustrate what you see as an inconsistency in my argument, you need to address my argument, not that of someone else nor the argument you wish I were making. It is tiresome reading your objections to arguments that I did not make. You are lying to yourself because even though he was an evil man, John Wayne Gacy was still a member of the species Homo sapiens. This is an obvious fact. To describe him as anything other than human is to engage in a comforting fantasy. Dehumanising the person you intend to kill is an extremely common way of avoiding feelings of guilt over that death. It has been used by everyone from the serial killers you despise to genocidal regimes. You are doing it now. You are pretending that those you want to kill are less than human. I can well imagine how this might help you avoid a normal emotional response to that, but it's still a fantasy. I know perfectly well how it works. The fact remains that a person who is killed is no longer able to contribute anything back to the society that they wronged. Only the living can do that. And, just to remind you once more, I'm not one of them.But yes, I did acknowledge the difference. It's just that with all the documented examples of juries, lawyers and judges being corrupt or incompetent, I feel disinclined to place my life in their hands. Even after an appeals process, mistakes (and fit-ups and cover-ups) still happen. The Birmingham Six had their first appeal quashed, even though it blatantly obvious that they had been framed. they would likely have been executed at that point under the US system. Instead they walked free. that could not have happened if they had been killed.I too would trust a judicial system more than an assassin. I just wouldn't trust it with my life or yours. that's too much power for a state to have. It's too easy to abuse, too easy to turn into a weapon against the poor , against ethnic minorities, against anyone who is despised by those in power, which means most of us. We live in societies where poor people are treated like shit on a daily basis, but you think that's all going to disappear when they get convicted of a capital rime? Fat chance. And I thought that human rights were universal. What the hell is the point in having rights if they can be taken away just because of your personal convictions? I'm not asking you to flee sorry for them. It is entirely appropriate to feel antipathy toward them. But that doesn't give you the right to kill them.Mutate and Survive

But doesn't it make you want to deny him that particular propaganda tool? We both know that politicians use executions as campaign tools, usually hard-Right nuts like Perry... doesn't that make you want to oppose the death penalty, just to fuck with them? C'mon, you know it makes sense.Seriously though, this strikes me as a pretty good argument against the death penalty. You may trust your life to the state, but can you really trust it to a goon like Perry? We both know that some politicians have sent men to their deaths for political reasons;

quote:

---

Lethal Elections: Gubernatorial Politics and the Timing of Executions

​

Jeffrey D. Kubik

​

Syracuse University - Department of Economics

​

John R. Moran

​

Penn State University

​

September 2001

​

Abstract:
We document the existence of a gubernatorial election cycle in state executions, suggesting that election year political considerations play a role in determining the timing of executions. Our analysis indicates that states are approximately 25 percent more likely to conduct executions in gubernatorial election years than in other years. We also find that elections have a larger effect on the probability that an African American defendant will be executed in a given year than on the probability that a white defendant will be executed, and that the overall effect of elections is largest in the South and Midwest. These findings raise concerns that state executions may fail to meet the constitutional requirements stipulated by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia for the administration of state death penalty laws.

---

To me, this seems like a pretty major flaw. I don't think that anyone should have to die so that some asshole politician can get re-elected. But the use of the death penalty doesn't do anything to address the wider problems of the prison system. It doesn't do anything to stop cops shooting people. Nor does abolishing the death penalty have any bearing on these problems.These are separate issues. We both agree that they are problems, but they have no direct bearing upon capital punishment. They're for different discussions. Not true. I was talking about the execution of toppled dictators, not arbitrary assassinations. I was talking about examples like Saddam or Milosevic. In such cases the removal of the former dictator ends their pernicious influence and thus provides a clear social benefit, by drawing a permanent line under their regime. I would, for example be reluctantly in favour of executing Assad, were he toppled. I would not be in favour of a western power assassinating Assad whilst he is still in office; the benefit is far less clear cut, mostly due to the dangerous precedent it would set.These are separate issues. Yes, of course, but it has limited relevance to a discussion of the merits of capital punishment.We agree that the prison system as it currently exists is broken. The problem is that capital punishment has not fixed it. Unless you are arguing that executions will help fix the prison system (or stop cops shooting people) then these issues are not a valid part of any argument for capital punishment. They are arguments for fixing the prisons or changing the way police use guns. None of it makes a case for killing helpless prisoners. That's just semantics. Meeting a social necessity is the same as providing a social benefit.Execution is not a social necessity. This is quite clear given the fact that my country has yet to fall into the sea. Clearly we've found a way to make do without this particular barbaric punishment.Capital punishment provides no social benefit beyond satisfying the public desire for revenge. It meets no social necessity whatsoever. This entire discussion is subjective! But if you want objectivity, there can be no more objective difference than that between a living man wrongfully imprisoned and a dead one wrongfully executed. One of them will objectively benefit far more from his exoneration than the other. That last bit is meaningless. Insofar as a convicted prisoner has a "social role", it is taking place inside a prison. Besides, how someone acts does not decide whether they are human or not, that's just hyperbole. It may decide whether they are humane or not, but it has nothing to do with their humanity. You do though. We have the option of not killing them, but you want to go ahead and kill them anyway. I get that you're not chomping at the bit out of blood lust, but the fact remains; you could choose to spare these people, but instead you choose to kill them. That is the outcome that you want. But they could still contribute beyond that. They might choose to make redress, to try and balance the scales a little. It's not up to us to deny them that choice. But similarly to what I have said before, that is an argument for more widespread and better state-funded legal representation. It isn't an argument for state homicide.My problem here is that in allowing the state to kill its citizens, we hand a potentially oppressive state the ultimate tool for eliminating dissenters. We arm oppressive regimes with the tools to commit crimes that cannot be rectified and we allow incompetent regimes to make mistakes that cannot be repaired. By comparison, if imprisonment is the maximum penalty, then innocent people can, at least in principle be released. On this at least, we are in perfect agreement.Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

A timely example of what's wrong with the death penalty.

quote:

---

Wrong man was executed in Texas, probe says

​

He was the spitting image of the killer, had the same first name and was near the scene of the crime at the fateful hour: Carlos DeLuna paid the ultimate price and was executed in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out Tuesday found.

​

Even "all the relatives of both Carloses mistook them," and DeLuna was sentenced to death and executed based only on eyewitness accounts despite a range of signs he was not a guilty man, said law professor James Liebman.

​

Liebman and five of his students at Columbia School of Law spent almost five years poring over details of a case that he says is "emblematic" of legal system failure.

​

DeLuna, 27, was put to death after "a very incomplete investigation. No question that the investigation is a failure," Liebman said.

​

The report's authors found "numerous missteps, missed clues and missed opportunities that let authorities prosecute Carlos DeLuna for the crime of murder, despite evidence not only that he did not commit the crime but that another individual, Carlos Hernandez, did," the 780-page investigation found.

​

The report, entitled "Los Tocayos Carlos: Anatomy of a Wrongful Execution," traces the facts surrounding the February 1983 murder of Wanda Lopez, a single mother who was stabbed in the gas station where she worked in a quiet corner of the Texas coastal city of Corpus Christi.

​

"Everything went wrong in this case," Liebman said.

​

That night Lopez called police for help twice to protect her from an individual with a switchblade.

​

"They could have saved her, they said 'we made this arrest immediately' to overcome the embarrassment," Liebman said.

​

Forty minutes after the crime Carlos DeLuna was arrested not far from the gas station.

​

He was identified by only one eyewitness who saw a Hispanic male running from the gas station. But DeLuna had just shaved and was wearing a white dress shirt -- unlike the killer, who an eyewitness said had a mustache and was wearing a grey flannel shirt.

​

Even though witnesses accounts were contradictory -- the killer was seen fleeing towards the north, while DeLuna was caught in the east -- DeLuna was arrested.

​

"I didn't do it, but I know who did," DeLuna said at the time, saying that he saw Carlos Hernandez entering the service station.

​

DeLuna said he ran from police because he was on parole and had been drinking.

​

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife. But in the trial, the lead prosecutor told the jury that Hernandez was nothing but a "phantom" of DeLuna's imagination.

​

DeLuna's budget attorney even said that it was probable that Carlos Hernandez never existed.

​

However in 1986 a local newspaper published a photograph of Hernandez in an article on the DeLuna case, Liebman said.

​

Following hasty trial DeLuna was executed by lethal injection in 1989.

​

Up to the day he died in prison of cirrhosis of the liver, Hernandez repeatedly admitted to murdering Wanda Lopez, Liebman said.

​

"Unfortunately, the flaws in the system that wrongfully convicted and executed DeLuna -- faulty eyewitness testimony, shoddy legal representation and prosecutorial misconduct -- continue to send innocent men to their death today," read a statement that accompanies the report.

​

Source

​

Via freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/16/his-name-was-carlos-what-more-do-you-need/

---

I find this bit especially interesting;

quote:

---

Hernandez, known for using a blade in his attacks, was later jailed for murdering a woman with the same knife.

---

So much for the death penalty protecting us.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This is a pointless thing to say. It does matter what you want. You seem to be suggesting that we just throw up our hands and despair of ever changing the status quo. That is a poor attitude in a democracy. It is an even poorer attitude in a debate. In debating which solutions we favour, we need not be restrained by what already exists. We can suggest our own solutions. Otherwise, what's the point? It solves the problem of being killed for the sake of some shithead's gubernatorial campaign. Yes, obviously. Generally speaking, lack of a statutory death penalty is rarely a problem in regimes that have been under the control of dictators.This is not a co-incidence.This lack of co-incidence seems to favour my assertion that the death penalty is a useful tool of oppression for dictators. Yes. My list is restricted to a tiny handful of dictators and yours is general enough that it might include any one of us. That is indeed the juncture at which we disagree. Your point? Then how do you define a social necessity? Clearly, it's not by actual necessity, since Europe does very well without the death penalty. So what is it? I would not say that it is a necessity, nor have I made any such claim. I have said that I feel that killing dictators brings a sufficient social benefit to merit their deaths. You are the one who is using the word "necessity" and I feel that you are mistaken in doing so.The death penalty is not necessary. this is obvious from the number of countries that don't have it. There's no point in debating at all if you're going to take this attitude. You talk as thought the death penalty were some immutable law of nature. It's not. Plenty of countries manage to struggle by without it. If American public opinion were to turn against the death penalty, it could be brought to an end. This is exactly what just happened in Connecticut. Fatalism is no argument for anything. Gah! You accept in in arguing for that outcome. I'm not trying to blame you for the contents of US statute books, I'm trying to get you to defend your position in a debate. What's on the statutes is irrelevant. You're asking why I would extend someone the courtesy of not killing them? Really? I extend them that courtesy because the right to life is the most fundamental human right and it's not up to me to take it from them. It doesn't matter what they did. Human rights aren't earned by merit.Mutate and Survive