Stand up for what you believe in, Larry Flynt

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Nov 18, 2013.

  1. 63dot, Nov 18, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013

    63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #1
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/18/justice/death-row-interview-joseph-paul-franklin/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    Larry Flynt is anti-death penalty, even to the point of wanting to spare the serial killer who shot him. I have to say it takes a big person to be able to take a stand, even when it's the person who put you in a wheelchair.

    I am also anti-death penalty, but I would find it hard to go on the record to try and spare the life of the sniper who shot me and crippled me. Besides being a victim, it also makes it harder to forgive one who killed at least 22 people and had the goal of making you their biggest trophy. I would be anti-death penalty quietly to myself but it's kind of hard knowing that your voice, a celebrity's voice, has a chance of getting a stay on the execution. I assume Flynt has totally put the incident behind him and is making an anti-death penalty stance on what happens to be the person who shot him in this case. He has also stood up against the state sanctioning of killing inmates in other cases and is known for his stance.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #2
    To be fair, Flynt also says he would like a pair of pliers and a few minutes with the guy so he could put him in the same condition he's in. He's anti death penalty, but he's definitely got revenge in his heart.
     
  3. 63dot, Nov 18, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013

    63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #3
    Oh he's definitely not trying to make it rosy for the serial killer. It's just that, correctly imho, the state has no right to be into sanctioned killing/execution. I just wanted to say while he could have stayed quiet, he did have the cajones to speak up against the death penalty in this case.

    It could have easy to quietly see this killer get executed and then make statements against the death penalty in what would be less heinous cases. The man in question could very well be one of America's most successful, admitted serial killers with only one killer with more confirmed kills.
     
  4. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #4
    I'm opposed to the death penalty on principle. Experience in other countries demonstrates that lower violent crime rates can be achieved without having the death penalty than with it.

    But, Joseph Paul Franklin is the poster boy for having the death penalty. No worries about the Innocence Project. After thirty years to contemplate his crimes, no sign of redemption. Most people in prison actually do have something to live for. If there is a case to be made for the death penalty, Joseph Paul Franklin made it.
     
  5. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #5
    I am very liberal, but I believe that there are some crimes that demand the death penalty. I know there are problems with discrimination and false convictions, but there are admittedly rare instances when a case is very clear and the crime is so heinous that the perpetrator should forfeit their life.
     
  6. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    I could buy into that with the caveat that criminal is guilty without any doubt. And I am not speaking of the jury standard without reasonable doubt. Because we know that virtually all juries have prejudices and can be manipulated. DNA, visual recordings such as security cameras at a Naval Base, and mass eye witnesses such as involved in a public mass shooting might apply. Regardless, based on history, I am a skeptic of the notion of a fair trial especially when it comes to the death penalty.
     
  7. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #8
    Franklin is certainly a poster boy for that having the second most confirmed kills in American history and having killed children, too. But either a person is for the death penalty or against it.

    You can't bring back the victims by executing the killer. Also if a killer of 22 gets life in prison, believe me there's no way he's going to get out. Now had he killed one person, maybe he could get out, but the evidence, unlike other mass serial killers, is overwhelming against Franklin and there is the admission of guilt over the murders. He's not the mass murderer who owns up to murders he didn't commit to get a large body count, but somebody who was a twisted true believer who wanted to kill and knew what he was doing in his own holy war. If he was some out of control crazy person, he would have said he kille 40 people and then the facts would only show for half of that but he killed, without reasonable doubt, those 22 people making him the next worse after the guy who actually buried his victims under his house.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #9
    Which proves the necessity of a judicial system.
     
  9. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #10
    Both for and against death penalty advocates have told me that. I disagree. I'm against the death penalty, and, would certainly vote against it if given the option. But, I don't consider it on the same depraved moral plane as slavery, for example. In other words, I don't consider it a moral absolute intrinsically. I can see some arguments in favor-- I just think the arguments against are significantly greater.
     
  10. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #11
    I agree.

    The arguments for, especially in a guy like this on the same par as a Dahmer or Gacy, seem to satisfy the natural need for vengeance. It's just that the arguments against the death penalty seem fine to me, especially since there's no getting out for those serial killers. Even if such a serial killer of 29 (Gacy confirmed kills) or 22 (in Frankilin case) would not last a second alive in a free world.
     
  11. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #12
    What does society, and the perpetrator, gain spending the rest of his life in prison?

    If solitary confinement is "cruel and unusual", how come death is not?

    Execution (institutionally accepted murder) has been a part of the social setting for millennium, and we still thrived. Even the Torah, Bible, Qur'an is full of laws punishable by death (and I am sure others do to).

    So their is no true moral advantage to either decision.
    To me, execution is a non-issue.

    It making sure the use of death penalty is not abused and the criminal did an especially heinous crime.
     
  12. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #13
    While both are cruel and unusual, you can let out a person serving life in prison if he/she is found to be innocent later on. With the death penalty, it is final and if it turns out to be a mistake, you can't bring back that person. We don't need to go into whether an innocent person has been executed since that's already been established even though it's rare.

    Anyway, today there won't be an execution of Franklin and that's a good thing. He may never be a reformed guy and be the closest thing to the very face of evil that is in any single person, but a federal judge has granted a stay a few hours ago.

    http://www.kctv5.com/story/24005933/federal-judge-grants-stay-of-execution-in-missouri
     
  13. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #14
    I think the guy just got a stay of execution.
     
  14. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #15
    It doesn't really solve anything. Why take a risk on those rare circumstances just to dole out a harsher punishment? You can prevent them from killing again by putting them in prison. After that you are beyond solving a societal problem.
     
  15. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #16
    Franklin was executed at six in the morning, even with federal stay of execution from a district judge. The US Supreme Court rejected that stay.
     
  16. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #17
    Well, the guy got the attention he wanted.

    If we just let him rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life, no one would be talking about him, this thread wouldn't exist. I had no idea who this guy even was until last week even though I live 10 minutes away from the scene of the crime he was ultimately executed for.
     
  17. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #18
    I knew that somebody shot Larry Flynt and that is the reason he was in a wheelchair but the conspiracy theorists who say it was the FBI seemed to have got the better of popular culture helping cement Flynt's role as defender of free speech. Remnants of a Hoover FBI had certainly deserved the reputation for being on the short list of suspects in getting Flynt. Today, Flynt is no surprise but back in the day he was often regarded as public enemy #1 and vilified like Osama Bin Laden. But I had no idea Flynt was shot, but not killed, by the second most successful serial killer in American history. Somehow, the shooting and wheelchair became the news while Franklin disappeared into obscurity.

    Unless a person was born under a rock, they certainly know John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer who were both synonymous with the term serial killer, but Franklin was as efficient as those two but until now did not get the same attention.

    If Franklin wanted to be in the same tier was Gacy, Dahmer, and others like the Night Stalker and Son of Sam, I think he achieved that goal. While he didn't want to die, it appears he wanted worldwide attention and I think for at least now, he got just that. But I think six months from now, we will all remember Gacy and Dahmer, but forget Franklin. Franklin will again disappear into second class serial killer status along with the likes of John Allen Mohammad, or the infamous DC sniper.
     
  18. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #19
    My post agrees with your belief.

    Wrongful convictions happen by arrogant and aggressive DA who whips up support for DP for a suspect based on, in a few cases, no evidence at all.

    That is the failure of DP, it is too easy to put someone on death row. It undermines the justice system and our own sense of morality.
     
  19. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #20
    I went to law school so I could prosecute crimes and civil wrongdoings related to employment law. But within my first year realizing that you have to be as evil as the people you prosecute to get any traction, I found it wasn't for me.

    Like a toughened warrior killing his enemy who says, "See you in hell", a tough DA has the same belief. You work, you win, and you are ready to spend eternity in hell with the people you put there. I have met too many who feel this way and some are bothered by it and others have learned to not let it bother them. Frighteningly, you sometimes get one who never cared and instead of becoming a Frankin, certain circumstances led them to a life outside of crime, through college, and eventually to law school. Their DNA is the same.

    One professor who was spiritual, cared about where he was going after his deeds on earth while another professor was ready to party it up with Satan as soon as he died. The ethical professor basically said the head DA had a one policy office, and that was to win with justice and procedure taking a back seat. But as to the other professor, he knew he put away innocent people but the job became about killing 'em all (or getting the highest percentage of convictions) and letting god sort them out.

    If anybody thinks that morality or "god" will straighten out an aggressive DA, they are sorely mistaken. While they may not carry guns or wear a uniform, the aggressive DAs are like contract military and police muscle from a third world dictatorship out to kiss ass without regard to who they hurt. Our constitution allows for such aggressive prosecutors, as well as equally aggressive public defenders.
     
  20. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #21
    Sobering reality.

    And we the bystander are caught in the crossfire.

    Note: many politicians are lawyers, so I expect most if not all have the victory above all conviction (Ted Cruz?)
     
  21. Aragornii macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #22
    lol

    ----------

    We also lock kidnappers up against their will to show them that locking people up against their will is wrong. What's your point?
     
  22. jnpy!$4g3cwk, Nov 20, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013

    jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    And yet, the DA is supposed to be representing "the people". By trying to lock away every offender for as long as possible, an "aggressive" DA as described above is contributing to prison overcrowding, as well as treating everyone the same regardless of their offense- hardly justice at all. And, contributing to the delinquency of minor offenders who become hardened criminals in prison -- exactly what I, as both a citizen and a taxpayer, do not want. I want the DA to actually represent the interests of the people, and not lock away people unnecessarily and harmfully. (End of sermon).

    What percentage of DAs do you guess try to represent the people, vs the percentage who just want to "win" every time?
     
  23. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #24
    We spend more on such convicts than we do on the relatives and friends of the families, who often report psychological distress that their loved ones have been murdered while the person who did it is allowed to remain alive. I am not in favor of a 'hang-em-high' policy for every murder or violent crime, but there are instances in which we can be certain that a person would re-offend if given the opportunity and that these people will victimize other inmates and possibly prison staff while they are alive. Just because the general public doesn't have to deal with a given convict because they are behind bars does not mean that they are harmless to everybody.
     
  24. macquariumguy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Location:
    Sarasota FL
    #25
    Good riddance.
     

Share This Page