Poll of the Day > White Supremacist SCREAMS his INNOCENCE as he was put to DEATH by Federal Law!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

The United States Federal Government has executed its FIRST inmate in nearly 2 decades just hours after the Supreme Court cleared the way to move forward with executions with a 5-4 vote.

47 y/o Daniel Lewis Lee, a WHITE SUPREMACIST in Oklahoma was the first to be sentenced to death by lethal injection who reportedly SCREAMED out loud "I DIDN'T DO IT, YOU'RE KILLING AN INNOCENT MAN" as the lethal injection was being put in him.

The self confessed white supremacist was convicted in Arkansas of the 1996 killings of gun dealer, William Mueller and his wife Nancy and 8 y/o daughter, Sarah Powell.

He was making last ditch attempts to halt the injections as he said "I've made a lot of mistakes in my life, but i'm not a murderer..You're killing an innocent man" as a tearful Lee was slowly fading from the injection

In the execution room, a US Marshall lifted a black phone to be asked if there was anything impeding the execution and when he gave the answer "no", the execution was set to proceed. Lee was in black restraints as the IV tubes were coming through a metal panel in the wall as he breathed heavily before the drug was injected and moved around claiming innocence.

This came despite OBJECTIONS from the victims' family and has carried out legal lawsuits that ended when the Supreme Court stepped in to vote on party lines of a 5-4 ruling

The last federal execution occurred in 203 and has drawn scrutiny from civil rights groups and relatives of Lee's victims who sued to try and halt it

AG William Barr said they have a duty to carry out sentences and to bring closure to victims families as the victims families strongly opposed Lee's death and demanded life in prison instead

His co-defendant and reputed ringleader, Chevie Kehoe however received a LIFE SENTENCE

According to reports, Kehoe recruited Lee in 1995 to join an Aryan brotherhood and were arrested 2 years later when they dressed in police raid clothing and carried out the attack. They overpowered the couple and interrogated the daughter on where the money and drugs were. After robbing them of 50,000 in cash, guns and ammunition, they put plastic bags over them and sealed them with duct tape and used weighted rocks to throw him over the Illinois Bayou.

Lee has maintained his innocence and said he did not carry out the murders but a jury found both guilty giving Lee the death sentence

Critics said the Trump administration, which has been pushing for executions, created an unnecessary and manufactured urgency for political gain as 2 other federal inmates are set to be executed later this week and 3rd next month

Shawn Nolan, one of the lawyers of the men facing execution said "The government has been trying to plow forward with these executions despite many unanswered questions about the legality of its new execution protocol"

This will likely add a new front to the national conversation about criminal justice reform in the 2020 election

Do you in general support the death penalty?

Lee - Sentenced to Death

https://i.imgur.com/aOD5e7C.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ixh7Vaw.jpg

Victims -

https://i.imgur.com/j9dR8aj.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/XWiqhEG.jpg

Protesters -

https://i.imgur.com/8kpihmh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/QKABukh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/xNtmDJ6.jpg

Guards of execution facility -

https://i.imgur.com/XRJA5uw.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/K2Id4NM.jpg

Next sentenced to death -

https://i.imgur.com/9CT9BjH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/K58nT1T.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0oRL63T.jpg
---

Is America the only developed nation to still have this barbaric practice?

Full Throttle posted... Only in extreme cases and when it's 100% based on facts and proof otherwise if it's not guaranteed, Life in Prison

Well, I mean, the leader of a revolutionary army or maybe a drug cartel where they could conceivably either control their empire from prison or have a high risk of their followers breaking them out maybe, but I think that's probably the only time you can really justify it as being a necessity. This asshole was just a triple-murderer.

---

I support death sentence 100% but only in situations where the subject for termination shows a lack of remorse, empathy, and poses a continued threat of danger to themselves and others despite attempts at rehabilitation.

Essentially psychopaths and sociopaths who have murdered or arranged murders/torture and circumstances than lead to death, and the criminally insane (voices telling one to kill others, physiological differences that cause violent outbursts to normal environmental stimuli, personality disorders that have lead to murder or wrongful death due to lack of feeling of responsibility when looking after the life of another)

In ALL other cases its wrong. People who kill in revenge of certain actions, fears, or needs can sadly be justified in any of our monkey brains and society as a whole in a learned institution. Only extreme cases of criminality which is usually the result of biological failures should be put down to end the persons suffering in the world and prevent the inevitable suffering they will bring to others.

It should never be used as a means of revenge against criminals as criminality is largely a subjective stance.

---

I honestly think the death sentence shouldn't be used for the opposite reason of most people. I think for a lot of people, they don't deserve a quick painless death, they should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives. Like mass murderers or serial rapists, they should suffer for as long as possible for what they've done.

I think the death penalty should only be used against like super influential criminals who have a legit chance of being able to be broken out. Which obviously is extremely rare.

Death is too good for some monsters out there.

---

No. I don't believe the government should be trusted with the power of executing people. It is costly, and is not an effective means of deterring crime.

Executions are expensive because taking a life is an irreversible action, thus requiring rigorous checks to ensure a wrongly convicted person is not executed in error.

The only argument that one can make is an appeal to emotion. The "it makes me feel good to watch someone die" point of view. And that's not based on public outcomes.

---

Well I didnt say yes because I sure as shit dont trust the system.

---

SirPikachu posted...

I honestly think the death sentence shouldn't be used for the opposite reason of most people. I think for a lot of people, they don't deserve a quick painless death, they should be made to suffer for the rest of their lives. Like mass murderers or serial rapists, they should suffer for as long as possible for what they've done.

I think the death penalty should only be used against like super influential criminals who have a legit chance of being able to be broken out. Which obviously is extremely rare.

Death is too good for some monsters out there.

This idea of finding sadomasochistic pleasure at others pain and suffering is the type of mentality that would need to be put out of its misery should it lead to crime.

I hope you are just being edgy. I mean Im sure you are.

---

bulbinking posted...

This idea of finding sadomasochistic pleasure at others pain and suffering is the type of mentality that would need to be put out of its misery should it lead to crime.

I hope you are just being edgy. I mean Im sure you are.

So you don't think someone who say, brutally raped and beat 100 women, should suffer? I didn't say I would find pleasure in it, I just think it's what they deserve.

Pedophiles/rapists/murderers/other monsters deserve to be at the very least beaten to a pulp. In some cases some people may be redeemable, but there are absolute monsters out there who destroy the lives of countless amounts of people, and those monsters deserve the worst punishment they can get.

Wouldn't you have preferred Hitler to at least have been starved and thrown in his own gas chambers instead of just ending his life with one shot?

---

None of the poll options really apply to me.
I don't support the death penalty. Even if it was a person who recorded himself nailing everyone in a preschool to the walls and setting the building ablaze while laughing maniacally, executing him is still a waste when they could instead sentence him to serve as fodder for medical experimentation.

---

My wife was very against the death penalty and did death penalty defense for years before we got married,

I on the other hand consider a long prison sentence worse than the death penalty and inhumane. I am pro-death penalty if the person is guilty of a crime that prevents it from being safe for them to ever rejoin society (with extremely solid evidence they commited it) or if the person has a prison sentence of more than 2 years and desires death instead.

I also personally think we should not have "prisons" but instead secured societies (in places like Arizona etc..where there isn't already a town etc), that people who are not safe to let out into society can live mostly normal lives, while being guarded and prevented from escaping. The REAL prisons (like what we have now) would be restricted to those prisoners who escape fro the societies as they would have proven themselves a security risk (and they would have the option of death instead of being kept in a cage).

---

If you're gunna have a death penalty, fuckin do it promptly!

Having someone serve 30 years in prison and THEN killing them is just double whammy uncool

---

I support the death penalty, but only when the convicted person's guilt is certain, and only in the case of multiple killings or a particularly brutal or heinous murder of one person (like torturing someone to death).
It pisses me off when DA's withhold or hide evidence, and that due to prosecutor immunity, they're never at risk of going to jail for such abuses.
Also, really should go without saying, but people fucking fight over it somehow... any time there's DNA evidence, it should be tested. Even for crimes that happened long ago before the technology was available, and even for cases where the person's already been executed. If innocent people were killed by the state, the public deserves to know the truth.
I think a state should be subject to having its ability to execute criminals revoked by a federal court or other such entity if they engage in reckless behavior and abuse capital punishment or try to stonewall DNA testing of capital punishment cases to cover things up.

Basically...

Someone like Nicolas Cruz or Dylann Roof (mass murderer; certain that it was them)? Kill them.

Someone like Cameron Todd Willingham (everything about his conviction was shady and the prosecution's case later debunked by experts) where there's some serious doubt about whether they're actually guilty? Don't fucking kill them!

Full Throttle posted...

The last federal execution occurred in 203

Damn, that's a long time ago, ok?

---

Aculo posted...

Damn, that's a long time ago, ok?

Could have sworn some happened more recently than 1800 years ago.

SirPikachu posted...

So you don't think someone who say, brutally raped and beat 100 women, should suffer? I didn't say I would find pleasure in it, I just think it's what they deserve.

Pedophiles/rapists/murderers/other monsters deserve to be at the very least beaten to a pulp. In some cases some people may be redeemable, but there are absolute monsters out there who destroy the lives of countless amounts of people, and those monsters deserve the worst punishment they can get.

Wouldn't you have preferred Hitler to at least have been starved and thrown in his own gas chambers instead of just ending his life with one shot?

We are all animals. We become human through our actions and character. When one acts inhuman towards another they show themselves to be rabid animals. When an animal is rabid you put it down to protect the environment and mourn the loss if life and circumstances that led to it.

---

Killer claims he is innocent holy shit!

Haven't seen this like 1000 times.

Lokarin posted...

If you're gunna have a death penalty, fuckin do it promptly!

Having someone serve 30 years in prison and THEN killing them is just double whammy uncool

You are aware right that many on death row have been found innocent? Part of that 30 years is so we can be more sure we got the right person in custody on death row. Check out the innocence project, people act like everyone on death row 100% deserves it.

https://www.innocenceproject.org/

A good sized chunk of people on death row are there because they don't have proper legal counsel and/or they get railroaded into it. Some are also stupid as shit and don't even ask for legal counsel when a officer is questioning them about a murder.

SirPikachu posted...

So you don't think someone who say, brutally raped and beat 100 women, should suffer? I didn't say I would find pleasure in it, I just think it's what they deserve.

First, if somebody raped and beat 100 women, clearly the system has failed beyond any reasonable measure. Second, the US shouldn't aspire to be some shithole nation that metes out punishment simply to make people suffer for their crimes, whether or not the punishment is "deserved"

SirPikachu posted...

Pedophiles/rapists/murderers/other monsters deserve to be at the very least beaten to a pulp. In some cases some people may be redeemable, but there are absolute monsters out there who destroy the lives of countless amounts of people, and those monsters deserve the worst punishment they can get.

Murder has the lowest recidivism rate of almost any major crime. As such, it seems like *most* of them are redeemable. In fact, most people are likely redeemable with the right processes in place. The rest you can simply keep imprisoned until comes such a time that they're no longer a danger to society.

SirPikachu posted...

Wouldn't you have preferred Hitler to at least have been starved and thrown in his own gas chambers instead of just ending his life with one shot?

No, I would have preferred Hitler be put on trial in front of the world, then either locked up for life in a secure, secret facility or -- if there was risk of a Nazi resurgence -- executed.


---

In my opinion it's more merciful to kill people than to imprison them for decades. Even if they are eventually released how are they suppose to make a life for themselves at that point?

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

In my opinion it's more merciful to kill people than to imprison them for decades. Even if they are eventually released how are they suppose to make a life for themselves at that point?

By that logic, why don't you also advocate for killing the homeless? If you know somebody is going to have a hard time making a life for themselves after prison, instead of killing them you can, idk, help them? >_> Part of the reason why our recidivism rate is such shit is because we don't invest enough resources into reintegrating ex-cons into society and that's kind of a key point to the whole reformative process.

---

Monopoman posted...

You are aware right that many on death row have been found innocent?

And?

It's one or the other, a punishment happens - ONE punishment, not 2. I'm again the double whammy

---

Lokarin posted...

And?

It's one or the other, a punishment happens - ONE punishment, not 2. I'm again the double whammy

So we kill them one day after they are found guilty and put on death row. Nevermind that maybe 20ish% end up innocent?

You realize you are then murdering people right every time the state kills an innocent man/woman it makes the state a murderer. You are advocating 0 justice bro, the Nazi's were ones to kill anyone they deemed not worthy or guilty immediately.

Monopoman posted...

So we kill them one day after they are found guilty and put on death row. Nevermind that maybe 20ish% end up innocent?

You realize you are then murdering people right every time the state kills an innocent man/woman it makes the state a murderer.

Therefor do away with the death penalty.

I'm saying it's cruel to give someone 2 punishments

edit: Did you just edit your post to Godwin's Law the argument?

---

Zeus posted...

By that logic, why don't you also advocate for killing the homeless?

Because they have the same self determination as any other free member of society. Unlike the prisoner, no one has decided they must be forced to live in those conditions.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Because they have the same self determination as any other free member of society. Unlike the prisoner, no one has decided they must be forced to live in those conditions.

Try telling a homeless person that they choose to be homeless. I'm sure that'll go over well. However, by that reasoning, you could point out that people in prison have the ability to escape... not to mention they have the ability to legally secure their release through appeal or exoneration.

---

Zeus posted...

Try telling a homeless person that they choose to be homeless. I'm sure that'll go over well. However, by that reasoning, you could point out that people in prison have the ability to escape... not to mention they have the ability to legally secure their release through appeal or exoneration.

I 100% agree with Skardavnelnate.

And there is a huge diff between being homeless and being put in prison.

I was homeless at 16 when my mother kicked me out after I graduated (on my birthday btw).

I didn't HAVE to be homeless though, I had friends etc and could have asked to live with them. I had a scholarship I could have used as well (but I thought school was a waste). I did rent a storage locker, and used that a bit like a home (storing stuff there) but I lived on rooftops for a year, and was very anti-social (I mean more then I normally am hehe). I only stopped because my uncle had a wedding that that snapped me out of my hermit stage.

Homeless people can in generally stop being homeless if they want to, but part of being homeless can be the freedom, no need to work a job, no ties to a specific place etc. It's actually the OPPOSITE of being in jail, because to some degree in order to not be homeless, you have to tie yourself down to a job etc, and are basically forced to do things. It's very hard to be truly free, and maintain a home etc in todays world (although having your own job/buisiness etc can help with that).

If your homeless, you can travel anywhere, and sleep anywhere, you can explore new places, go out into nature, and just enjoy life.

If your in jail, your caged, have no control over your own life, are forced to live with ...well criminals (mostly..there are innocent people in there), and must spend huge amounts of time with nothing to do etc.

Caging an animal or a human is horrible, and yes, to some degree I consider it worse to do so then to actually kill (either of them). While i'm not saying just kill all criminals or people who are convicted, I do suggest that the option to be put to death for anyone with more than a 2 year sentence should be given.

If we improved the jails, and had real communities (that were enclosed and guarded) for people to live mostly normal lives in (just without access to the general public) that might be different. With the current state of most prisons though......it's extremely inhumane to force people to live in there for long periods of time.

---

Zeus posted...

Is America the only developed nation to still have this barbaric practice?

No. China also still has the death penalty.

---

Zeus posted...

Is America the only developed nation to still have this barbaric practice?

In practice yes, some still have it legally in the books, but no longer actively impose it. (Countries can be insanely slow in changing out-dated laws, if they do not cause immediate problems)

---

Zeus posted...

Try telling a homeless person that they choose to be homeless.

I didn't say they choose to be. I said no one has decided for them.

---

Zeus posted...

Try telling a homeless person that they choose to be homeless.

Depending on the country, it might be a lifestyle choice for a large number of homeless.

---

What? A white supremacist? Death penalty?

Fair, next.

---