Death Penalty

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I mostly agree, but what criteria do you use to establish it really is beyond reasonable doubt.

I think the closest we can come is with cases like Gary Ridgway who knew where all the bodies were buried.

Personally, I'd rather see him suffer, but I do get the reason he got LWOP.

Can you imagine having someone you love disappear and never knowing what happened to them?

Can you imagine your twelve year old daughter being kidnapped out of her bedroom by a kinfe weilding drugged up stinking man, sexually molested and then strangled to death like Polly Klaus was?

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure that that suspicion is worth much. Before I had kids, I didn't really know what it was like to have kids. It surprised me how my reactions changed to news stories where children came to harm. Similarly I didn't really know how I would feel when my father died until it happened. One can reason about "what it must be like", but we don't really know until it happens. Same here.

Ok, I can see that, but I do know what it feels like to have a loved one disappear and never know what happened to them.

Trust me, it's one of the worst feelings in the world.

I hope this never happens to you, but you'll know what I mean if it happens to one of your children or if one of them is ever executed and you know they're innocent.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Can you imagine your twelve year old daughter being kidnapped out of her bedroom by a kinfe weilding drugged up stinking man, sexually molested and then strangled to death like Polly Klaus was?

No, I cannot, and I hope I never find out.

ETA: Would I want the killer dead? No. I'd rather have him strangled over and over for years and years or shackled to a wall naked and being allowed to whack them in the nuts with a lead pipe over and over and over...

And yes, I can be a sadistic son of a bitch in my mind when it comes to someone hurting children or animals, but I'd rather know what happened if they disappeared rather than never know, and I do have personal experience with that.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Not by me. I may disagree, but I respect the intellectual honesty of someone who states their position instead of JAQing off.

Dave

It is funny that you mention intellectual honesty. Because, what I have done here is expose the intellectual dishonesty of a number of posters. You see, they hide behind their claims that they are primarily concerned about innocents, or costs, when that is not really their true motivator. That is why they can't even endorse the singular, prompt execution of a mass-murderer.

Seems to really frustrate some, being exposed. Or maybe they are dealing with an internal conflict over their position.

I guess I was mysterious about my position, though. I support capital punishment. Hope that helps clarify matters for you, although I think most have picked up on this already.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It is funny that you mention intellectual honesty. Because, what I have done here is expose the intellectual dishonesty of a number of posters. You see, they hide behind their claims that they are primarily concerned about innocents, or costs, when that is not really their true motivator. That is why they can't even endorse the singular, prompt execution of a mass-murderer.

Seems to really frustrate some, being exposed. Or maybe they are dealing with an internal conflict over their position.

I guess I was mysterious about my position, though. I support capital punishment. Hope that helps clarify matters for you, although I think most have picked up on this already.

Heh, heh, heh, maybe in your dreams.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You see, here we are...exactly where I expected we would wind up. You mention the Gacy case as being an unfair example, but at the same time I don't hear you endorsing his execution.

No, I don't endorse or excuse any execution. It's not necessary and serves no purpose. I think it would be just fine for a Gacy to rot in prison forever. Have you read about conditions in a Supermax? It's death on the installment plan.

Originally Posted by Warp12

The whole, "the system isn't perfect, so we should limit the punishment" argument is a pretty weak one. I mean look at your words above about "50 years in a cage, or more". So, you figure that is ok for an innocent? The goal of the system should be to properly convict, not to hedge your bets when you do.

There's no point in debating ethics or morality with someone who thinks it's a fine thing for the state to kill people, but sometimes a practical argument -- and there are strong practical arguments against the death penalty -- will make a dent in open minds. Obviously not in your case.

The difference between an unjust execution and and unjust life sentence is that the defendant and his supporters can still try to prove his innocence while he's in prison and get him out. Not so if he's dead. And you don't seem to grasp that when a defendant is found guilty, the system is presumed to have convicted him "properly." Appeals are an uphill battle against the odds. And what kind of reforms do you imagine could prevent witnesses from being mistaken or lying; cops from lying, coercing suspects and concealing evidence; prosecutors lying to juries and concealing evidence; defense lawyers from being lazy or worse; and judges from exercising their prejudices? Be specific.

Originally Posted by Warp12

The link you gave doesn't touch me, at all. Most who are on death row will claim innocence. However, I have already mentioned (repeatedly) the idea of reform regarding the death penalty. Things such as further refining the cases in which it is called for, procedural review, etc...but, nobody seems to care about that. They seem to be entirely focused on abolition. And that, to me, is where it shows that it is more of an ethical matter. And that debate is endless.

The links are not about people who claim innocence. They are about people who have been proven innocent by DNA or other new evidence. One of the practical arguments against the death penalty is that the system already provides extensive, expensive, lengthy, complex appeals processes that are not available in other cases, but they still always start with the premise that the defendant is deservedly guilty.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Let me ask you this, Bob. In the case you linked, what if we have the woman beating the child to death, on camera. She then looks at the camera, smiles, and says, "I killed this kid intentionally, and I planned it for weeks". Would that be adequate for you to endorse her execution?

That's easy. Someone who would do that is clearly insane, and we don't execute, sometimes don't even prosecute, people who are insane. And you might have missed the fact that her lawyers were not allowed to introduce expert testimony about the tremendous abuse she had suffered as a child and its lifetime impact on her.

Here's a question for you: What does the death penalty accomplish? It doesn't deter anybody, because someone who commits a serious crime either expects to get away with it or doesn't consider the consequences. Does it protect the society? So does locking the defendant up for life. It's only purpose is vengeance. We need to be better than that, like most of the civilized world.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Can you imagine your twelve year old daughter being kidnapped out of her bedroom by a kinfe weilding drugged up stinking man, sexually molested and then strangled to death like Polly Klaus was?

That's why we don't allow private vengeance. Criminals are prosecuted by the state on behalf of the community. If victims could assess punishments themselves, people would get executed over parking space disputes.

And since you particularly mention Polly Klaas (note correct spelling), her murderer Richard Allen Davis was sentenced to death on Aug. 5, 1996. He's still sitting on death row. If he had been sentenced to life without parole, his case would have been closed decades ago. Ideally someone with his long criminal history should have been put away long before he murdered a little girl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Bin Laden was executed without trial. The State gave themselves power of summary execution (yeah, foreign soil and all but you get the point). Was that ok?

If that is an execution the so was the guy on the couch shot by the cops. They were there to take him alive. He made that impossible. Not at all the same thing. Really, not even close to what we are talking about.

Quote:

I think some extremities can be justified without going anywhere near The Line. Some criminals don't deserve the luxury of three hots and a cot for the balance of their days.

Great. However you sketch those out who gets to decide? Shemp or the legal system? Or do we just put it on the next ballot.

And three hits and a cot is no luxury. I’m not even sure it is better than death.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

It is funny that you mention intellectual honesty. Because, what I have done here is expose the intellectual dishonesty of a number of posters. You see, they hide behind their claims that they are primarily concerned about innocents, or costs, when that is not really their true motivator. That is why they can't even endorse the singular, prompt execution of a mass-murderer.

Seems to really frustrate some, being exposed. Or maybe they are dealing with an internal conflict over their position.

I guess I was mysterious about my position, though. I support capital punishment. Hope that helps clarify matters for you, although I think most have picked up on this already.

You still haven’t laid out why death is more punishment than life in prison. Start at the beginning and maybe you can make half the ground you think you’ve made.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

They were there to take him alive. He made that impossible. Not at all the same thing. Really, not even close to what we are talking about.

I'm not surprised that you believe this. But that is a whole thread in itself...

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I don't know about getting closure from watching someone get executed, but I believe knowing what happened to a loved one (in Gary Ridgway's case) is better than never knowing.

Personally, rather than execute him (like I stated in a later post), I'd rather have him shackled naked to a wall with the loved ones of his victims being able to whack him in the nuts with a lead pipe, and maybe that might make them feel better, but that's just me.

Your mileage may differ from mine.

ETA:

Thanks for the link Amy. I found the following of interest:

Quote:

In a number of cases, co-victims actually expressed sympathy for family members of the condemned, often empathizing with the experience of loss. “My heart really goes out to his family. I lost my daughter, and I know today is a terrible day for them as well,” stated one co-victim.

A death sentence can polarize the two families, obstructing healing for both. Prison chaplain Caroll Pickett has witnessed how capital punishment inflicts trauma on loved ones of both the condemned and the victim, as well as prison employees and others in the judicial process, stating in his autobiography, “All the death penalty does is create another set of victims.”

Of course, findings like these beg the question, are other forms of punishment more conducive to healing? A 2012 Marquette University Law School study showed improved physical and psychological health for co-victims, as well as greater satisfaction with the justice system, when life sentences were given, rather than capital punishment. The authors hypothesize that survivors “may prefer the finality of a life sentence and the obscurity into which the defendant will quickly fall, to the continued uncertainty and publicity of the death penalty.”

The whole article casts doubt on whether the death of the perp gives any comfort to victims families.

[Skeptical Greg]

Why is the comfort of the victim's family a concern with regard to taking another life?

Life is sacred, after all.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Skeptical Greg

Why is the comfort of the victim's family a concern with regard to taking another life?

Life is sacred, after all.

I don't know. Ask Warp12... umm, on the other hand, don't bother.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'm not surprised that you believe this. But that is a whole thread in itself...

Cool. Can you answer any questions in this thread? Any? No? Then **** off.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Cool. Can you answer any questions in this thread? Any? No? Then **** off.

Ha Ha Ha. Ok, that's the kind of brutal honesty I like.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And since you particularly mention Polly Klaas (note correct spelling), her murderer Richard Allen Davis was sentenced to death on Aug. 5, 1996. He's still sitting on death row. If he had been sentenced to life without parole, his case would have been closed decades ago. Ideally someone with his long criminal history should have been put away long before he murdered a little girl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis

If he had been executed promptly, the case would have been closed, too. Without any further resource burden, nor a lifelong financial investment. But that can never happen, because of so many bleeding hearts. They need a victim to support, even if it is a child murderer.

Every time an animal like this is finally executed, you will see a few weirdo's outside protesting the result. I find those people sickening.

Speaking of animals...maybe when a dog mauls and kills a child, we should not euthanize them. After all, they are probably less culpable than a guy who has 33 bodies buried under his house. We can all protest the event while shouting, "Justice for Fido!". Then we can house, feed, and provide medical care for the dog until it expires of natural causes.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Can you imagine your twelve year old daughter being kidnapped out of her bedroom by a kinfe weilding drugged up stinking man, sexually molested and then strangled to death like Polly Klaus was?

Can you imagine that happening to someone else daughter then having you own son executed in place of the real killer?

[lomiller]

The story of the wrongfully convicted is sad enough on it's own but with the death penalty there is no chance of reversing that conviction, but all investigations end so there is no chance of ever bringing the real killer to justice.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The story of the wrongfully convicted is sad enough on it's own but with the death penalty there is no chance of reversing that conviction, but all investigations end so there is no chance of ever bringing the real killer to justice.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

DNA evidence has come along quite a bit since 1969, believe it or not.

Also, I don't see how this applies to a case where someone has 33 bodies buried under their house.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by lomiller

The story of the wrongfully convicted is sad enough on it's own but with the death penalty there is no chance of reversing that conviction, but all investigations end so there is no chance of ever bringing the real killer to justice.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It doesn't matter to those who want to kill them off now, rather than let the process do its job.

They never explain exactly why they want to do this, or how it would be decided exactly, because to answer such question would prove to everyone how ridiculous their answers are and also how stupid they are.

They'd rather pretend they just owned the libs, and that's pathetic really.

ETA: giving out one or two names doesn't help or explain how this would be fair in real life. Nope, they'd rather knee jerk and not answer the REAL questions about why they want someone killed because they maybe/probably want to secretly kill people themselves--just for the fun of it and watching people (or animals) die is almost the same damn thing to them.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

DNA evidence has come along quite a bit since 1969, believe it or not.

Also, I don't see how this applies to a case where someone has 33 bodies buried under their house.

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

This commentary makes no sense.

We are comparing someone who was exonerated on DNA evidence, from a case in 1969...to Gacy, who had 33 bodies buried under his house. The proof of guilt is quite different, as is the level of crime.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

If he had been executed promptly, the case would have been closed, too. Without any further resource burden, nor a lifelong financial investment. But that can never happen, because of so many bleeding hearts. They need a victim to support, even if it is a child murderer.

Every time an animal like this is finally executed, you will see a few weirdo's outside protesting the result. I find those people sickening.

Speaking of animals...maybe when a dog mauls and kills a child, we should not euthanize them. After all, they are probably less culpable than a guy who has 33 bodies buried under his house. We can all protest the event while shouting, "Justice for Fido!". Then we can house, feed, and provide medical care for the dog until it expires of natural causes.

I don’t support child murders, I support a system that is exceptionally careful before it decides that a person in its custody must be killed. Especially since I don’t see a functional difference between life in a cage and death that is worth the effort.

Sort of how you don’t see a functional difference between a canine and a human. Actually, I knew a big dog once that made your position more tenable, but even then I decided there is a difference.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

This commentary makes no sense.

We are comparing someone who was exonerated on DNA evidence, from a case in 1969...to Gacy, who had 33 bodies buried under his house. The proof of guilt is quite different, as is the level of crime.

Gacy’s appeals were not about who killed those people. I could read them to you, but there are big words. Maybe find a summary somewhere, like a middle school library.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Gacy’s appeals were not about who killed those people. I could read them to you, but there are big words. Maybe find a summary somewhere, like a middle school library.

I was not referencing his appeals in any way. Although, none of them would be a reason to stop his execution. Which should have occurred much earlier on, imo.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Some folks here use the Tucker Carlson technique of only asking questions because to answer questions would reveal how ridiculous (and stupid) their beliefs are.

ETA: I'd rather have those on Death Row suffer and be tortured, but I'm glad I'm not in charge of the punishment phase, because I'm human and I'd probably make a lot of mistakes, but at least I'm honest about it.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I don’t support child murders, I support a system that is exceptionally careful before it decides that a person in its custody must be killed.

Great, so we are in agreement. So, based on the evidence in many cases, you should not object to certain executions. Right?

Also, please see this comment:

Originally Posted by Warp12

However, I have already mentioned (repeatedly) the idea of reform regarding the death penalty. Things such as further refining the cases in which it is called for, procedural review, etc...but, nobody seems to care about that. They seem to be entirely focused on abolition. And that, to me, is where it shows that it is more of an ethical matter. And that debate is endless.

I also want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Great, so we are in agreement. So, based on the evidence in many cases, you should not object to certain executions. Right?

Also, please see this comment:



I too, want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

"thorough and efficient" meaning you want them shot in the head right now and not later. To hell with due process.

I can see where you're coming from with Gacy, but the way you say it is muddy and disgusting because you're not answering questions or giving any kind of real detail.

It's just shoot them in the head and be done with it.

ETA: I'm wondering who exactly you would do this to right now, but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for your answer.

I'll just assume you don't have one.

ETAA: Ridgway shouldn't count because if they break his deal than every family who could find out what happened to a loved one from a serial killer would probably never, ever know what happened to theirs, and that's a purely selfish thing to advocate just so you can watch or know he died.

It would be more constructive to go out and find evidence yourself that he killed someone outside King County, but that would mean you'd have to get out of your armchair and really do something about your "supposed" ideals.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

......
I also want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers.

They don't have any good ones (or real ones) to give you. At least none that wouldn't make their answers look stupid.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Warp12

DNA evidence has come along quite a bit since 1969, believe it or not.

Wrongful convictions still happen in the age of DNA evidence, believe it or not.

Originally Posted by Warp12

Also, I don't see how this applies to a case where someone has 33 bodies buried under their house.

Cases where the person is really guilty don't change a thing, you have to prevent executing the ones wrongfully convicted first and foremost. The police, prosecutors judge and jury involved in these wrongful convictions and even the public at large were every bit as certain they have the right guy as you are that Gacy is guilty. With the death penalty there is no going back when they get it wrong, which does happen.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

Conservatism is an inherently fear driven phenomenon and uncertainty scares them. As such they can't tolerate uncertainty so they try to deny it's existence at every turn. IOW have a pathological NEED for a single correct answer, and executing someone, anyone, then forgetting about it forever whether that person was guilty or not plays into that..

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Well put Dr.

Mind you it surprises me not, when the loud voices of the ignorant, show they have the strongest convictions.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Well put Dr.
…
Mind you it surprises me not, when the loud voices of the ignorant, show they have the strongest convictions.

Odd. I wasn't even discussing Gacy's appeals, and I made this abundantly clear.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by lomiller

IOW have a pathological NEED for a single correct answer, and executing someone, anyone, then forgetting about it forever whether that person was guilty or not plays into that..

Completely incorrect, and not congruent with my multiple statements advocating for reform.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Bob001

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by lomiller

Wrongful convictions still happen in the age of DNA evidence, believe it or not.

Cases where the person is really guilty don't change a thing, you have to prevent executing the ones wrongfully convicted first and foremost. The police, prosecutors judge and jury involved in these wrongful convictions and even the public at large were every bit as certain they have the right guy as you are that Gacy is guilty. With the death penalty there is no going back when they get it wrong, which does happen.

It really is this simple. Forget the specific case of Gacy, who was 'obviously guilty' and look at the other 'obviously guilty' executions, where 'obviously guilty' turned out to be horribly wrong.

[AmyStrange]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

Giving us your ideas for reforming the system would be a good start, but you never give any.

Your response always seems to be, shoot them in the head and to hell with due process.

Personally, I'd rather see them get tortured, because killing them quickly is too damn easy, but it's a good thing I'm not in charge, because I'm human (unlike some folks), and I'd probably make a lot of mistakes.

ETA: It also seems like you just want to go back to the good old days when you could lynch blacks (or anyone for that matter) just because you didn't have to worry about a pesky little thing called due process.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

The criminal justice system serves the community. How are the people in places where the death penalty is imposed better off than the people where it is not?

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Odd. I wasn't even discussing Gacy's appeals, and I made this abundantly clear.

I’m not going to read back through but I feel certain you complained that he should have been killed much sooner. If not, my bad.