I think it should be abolished. Why? Because we have enough evidence to indicate reasonable doubt when it comes to convictions. How many innocent men have been put to death by the government due to inadequacies in our legal system? Also, it's not a deterrent as proven by the increase in the frequency of murders since the death penalty was reinstated. Finally, from a strictly conservative and religious standpoint, there is nothing Christian about revenge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Fair enough, but it is bad business to spend the money to keep alive, housed, clothed and fed a person that will never be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society.

Rather than abolishing the death penalty, I think we should look at reforming the prison system in the US to focus more on the rehabilitation side of being in prison. The current repeat offender breeding grounds we have now are why prisons are so crowded and why we lock up such a large percentage of our population.

Also, legalize it.

Keep it for the horrendous crime convictions. Sure, it's not a deterrent, but nether is life imprisonment. The case in Florida where the mother murdered her child would qualify if she was convicted. It has happened where an innocent (questionable) person has been executed, but I'm sure all of those people have arrest sheets longer then a country mile. This guy their going to fry certainly does, if this was the only felony he committed, he most likely would have got life. No, I say kill them, but if there is a shred of doubt (logical shred, factual shred), give them life. No doubt in a capitol crime give the "ole Sparky".

It isn't a deterrent here because it is laughable how long someone sits prior to being executed. Singapore has the lowest crime in the world, but the maximum someone is on death row is one year.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't a deterrent here because it is laughable
> how long someone sits prior to being executed.
> Singapore has the lowest crime in the world, but
> the maximum someone is on death row is one year.


Same as Moslem countries, they have a whole other way of operating, at least Christian countries are humain, some Moslem countries still cut off hands, dicks, and heads. Singapore are fancy on caning, like that kid they caned a couple of years back, Fahey, that might be a step in the right direction if we adopted it.

village idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't a deterrent here because it is laughable
> how long someone sits prior to being executed.
> Singapore has the lowest crime in the world, but
> the maximum someone is on death row is one year.


Singapore is a Police State. The murder rate could be higher, but you don't know because the government controls all information. There's no such thing a Soft Autocracy. You can line a boot-to-the-head in fur. It's still a boot-to-the-head.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it should be abolished. Why? Because we
> have enough evidence to indicate reasonable doubt
> when it comes to convictions. How many innocent
> men have been put to death by the government due
> to inadequacies in our legal system? Also, it's
> not a deterrent as proven by the increase in the
> frequency of murders since the death penalty was
> reinstated. Finally, from a strictly conservative
> and religious standpoint, there is nothing
> Christian about revenge.


I notice you have a real denseness of perception. The real question is how many guilty have been set free due to inadequacies in our legal system. You call it revenge, I call it justice, by your standards even life in prison would be considered revenge. You seem to advocate no punishment at all, that would eliminate a revenge factor totally.

Cindy Who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> I notice you have a real denseness of perception.
> The real question is how many guilty have been set
> free due to inadequacies in our legal system. You
> call it revenge, I call it justice, by your
> standards even life in prison would be considered
> revenge. You seem to advocate no punishment at
> all, that would eliminate a revenge factor
> totally.

Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called retribution, retaliation, vengeance or "payback" (in U.S. English).

Killing someone for killing someone else more accurately fits this description than life in prison. As for denseness, the dense one here is you. Whether or not the death penalty is justified or not, its implementation has NOTHING to do with guilty people being set free due to shortcomings in our legal system. Your clumsy ad hominem attack underscores YOUR denseness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Ah, little baby got his feelings hurt. Bullshit, incarceration for life fits the definition of revenge just as well as execution. Denial of one's freedom, ask the slaves, is in fact a more severe form of punishment, because it hits at the very core of ones sense of self and dignity.

I think it is DNA technology that is freeing innocent men that have been on death row since the pre DNA era. Definitely DNA should be a mandatory factor in evidence when it comes to capital murder convictions seeking the death penalty.

For sure it should be a required review on cases dating pre DNA era and if it is inconclusive the inmate should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Unless of course you are black then definitely for sure your guilty.

Cindy Who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, little baby got his feelings hurt. Bullshit,
> incarceration for life fits the definition of
> revenge just as well as execution. Denial of
> one's freedom, ask the slaves, is in fact a more
> severe form of punishment, because it hits at the
> very core of ones sense of self and dignity.


+1

Cindy Who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, little baby got his feelings hurt. Bullshit,
> incarceration for life fits the definition of
> revenge just as well as execution. Denial of
> one's freedom, ask the slaves, is in fact a more
> severe form of punishment, because it hits at the
> very core of ones sense of self and dignity.


My feelings weren't hurt, but apparently yours were.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it should be abolished. Why? Because we
> have enough evidence to indicate reasonable doubt
> when it comes to convictions. How many innocent
> men have been put to death by the government due
> to inadequacies in our legal system? Also, it's
> not a deterrent as proven by the increase in the
> frequency of murders since the death penalty was
> reinstated. Finally, from a strictly conservative
> and religious standpoint, there is nothing
> Christian about revenge.


It should be up to the victims family. Personally I think it would be a worse punishment to just lock them up in solitary the rest of their life and give them bread and water for 1st degree murderers, but if the family of the victim would feel better with the death penalty I am okay with it. Yes in the past Im sure some innocent people did get put to death but with the new technologies and dna evidence ect it isnt really much of a concern anymore.

Really though for all intensive purposes most states have basically eliminated it with how long it takes to put someone to death. Like Cali for example your much more likely to die on death row then because of it. The best argument to get rid of it right now would just be cost. The amount of money spent on appeals ect to put someone too death is currently more than life in prison would be for the states.

yes and no Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think it should be abolished. Why? Because we
> > have enough evidence to indicate reasonable
> doubt
> > when it comes to convictions. How many innocent
> > men have been put to death by the government
> due
> > to inadequacies in our legal system? Also, it's
> > not a deterrent as proven by the increase in
> the
> > frequency of murders since the death penalty
> was
> > reinstated. Finally, from a strictly
> conservative
> > and religious standpoint, there is nothing
> > Christian about revenge.
>
>
> It should be up to the victims family. Personally
> I think it would be a worse punishment to just
> lock them up in solitary the rest of their life
> and give them bread and water for 1st degree
> murderers, but if the family of the victim would
> feel better with the death penalty I am okay with
> it. Yes in the past Im sure some innocent people
> did get put to death but with the new technologies
> and dna evidence ect it isnt really much of a
> concern anymore.
>
> Really though for all intensive purposes most
> states have basically eliminated it with how long
> it takes to put someone to death. Like Cali for
> example your much more likely to die on death row
> then because of it. The best argument to get rid
> of it right now would just be cost. The amount of
> money spent on appeals ect to put someone too
> death is currently more than life in prison would
> be for the states.


I think family should have little say in that matter, then we are really talking about revenge instead of justice. They are too emotionally involved to make a rational fair decision, the last person I want would be a family member's input, it would be as bad as having them on the jury.

I'm not saying we should mirror Singapore, but perhaps they are on the right track. We obviously need some sort of change because it costs a ton to execute OR lock them up for life. Maybe limit the number of BS appeals they can make. Or they need something of substance to appeal

>
> I think family should have little say in that
> matter, then we are really talking about revenge
> instead of justice. They are too emotionally
> involved to make a rational fair decision, the
> last person I want would be a family member's
> input, it would be as bad as having them on the
> jury.


Not at all. if they were on the jury they would hold their fate in their hands and obviously will vote guilty. theres been cases where the family hasnt wanted the death penalty so the state didnt go for it.

there may be some revenge aspect for it but its within the confines of the law. if you dont want revenge taken on you dont kill someone in cold blood. the fact is that no punishment can undo what has happened. if the death penalty will help them sleep better at night they should have the right to ask for it, just like if they dont want it they should have the right to ask for life

Even with life imprisonment, they are going to submit appeals. That's the system.

rosse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Even with life imprisonment, they are going to
> submit appeals. That's the system.


yes but the cost is far less and they are housed in general population. they dont have to spend extra money holding them in death row which is far more costly and your appeals run out faster then for death row cases.

We talk about this shit over and over

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments:

Indeed, I already gave my position in one of the other CURRENTLY-RUNNING death penalty threads. But thank goodness we have another thread on it, the site would just fucking blow up only limited to what was there three hours ago.

Turkey had a neat way of administering the death penalty. They would have a tripod, like a giant camera tripod and suspend a rope through it's middle. The legs would be extentend far out. The guy would be palced in the middle with a rope around his neck. The pole would then be quickly pushed in by three guards at each pole, elevating the victim. Now that is Turkish efficiency at it's best.

Sounds fairly inefficient to me.

I am in favor of the death penalty in theory. (Surprised?) The way it operates in practice is atrocious. You have what are usually the worst crimes to hit the area, which means that there is pressure on everyone from the police to the prosecutor to the judge and jury to get the offender off the streets and on to his just reward as quickly as possible. This in turn leads to people up and down the line pushing the envelope a little bit. The result is that they usually do end up getting the right man, but the process is so sloppy that it almost always leaves room for doubt.

There are a few changes that could easily be made which would put an end to much of the problems with these cases, including 1. Prohibit the use of defendant's confessions, 2. Prohibit convictions based on co-defendant's testimony except where there is independent corroboration of that testimony,(Seriously, outside of criminal law can anyone think of any other situation where an obviously bad person who has every reason to lie to save his own neck would somehow be deemed to be "reliable".) 3. Limit the use of evidence seized from the defendant without a search warrant, 4. Require prosecutors to make all information obtained by the police in investigations and all prosecution witnesses available to the defense well in advance of the trial. Do this and you end up getting rid of most of the 4th and 5th amendment issues and the highly unreliable co-defendant testimony that dogs these cases. Then you can easily dispose of the inefficient counsel arguments.

Bill N- very good points there. Especially 1. and 2.

I believe point 4 is in effect, has been for the longest time. What would be the use of eliminating point 1 (defendent's confession) I would think it would mitigate the punishment to a degree, to me it shows sincerity of mind on the part of the defendent, his willingness to come clean, so to speak. Limit the use of evidence without search warrants, I think the law on the books now covers that pretty good, search and seizure rules of evidence. Time should not be a factor in a trial, I say give all the necessary time required to come to a conclusion. The Defense Attorney is there, he is well experienced in sloppy investigative techniques, OJ, the Florida mother and countless others lend credencee to that.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are a few changes that could easily be made
> which would put an end to much of the problems
> with these cases, including 1. Prohibit the use of
> defendant's confessions, 2. Prohibit convictions
> based on co-defendant's testimony except where
> there is independent corroboration of that
> testimony,(Seriously, outside of criminal law can
> anyone think of any other situation where an
> obviously bad person who has every reason to lie
> to save his own neck would somehow be deemed to be
> "reliable".) 3. Limit the use of evidence seized
> from the defendant without a search warrant, 4.
> Require prosecutors to make all information
> obtained by the police in investigations and all
> prosecution witnesses available to the defense
> well in advance of the trial. Do this and you end
> up getting rid of most of the 4th and 5th
> amendment issues and the highly unreliable
> co-defendant testimony that dogs these cases.
> Then you can easily dispose of the inefficient
> counsel arguments.


Confessions almost always lead to life instead of death penalty unless they say they want the death penalty and to get it over with. Number 2 id say yes and no. I get that they may lie to help themselves out, but if two people go there and one kills the victim the other telling on him isnt much different than someone calling the cops saying they saw a crime.

for 3, evidence illegal obtained cannot be used. just because there was no search warrent doesnt mean it was illegal obtained. for instance if you can see something in plain sight its fair game to be seized. such as if a cop sees a pound of weed on your mantel through your window he can come in and seize it and arrest you.

number 4 is also already in effect. the prosecution have to turn everything over to the defense. the only exception would be something found at the last minute or just discovered, but for a murder case a continuance would be issued to allow the defense time to prepare, or a recess would be taken so they could question a witness. the defense is never forced to just go with the flow and have evidence sprung on them with no time to examine it

i do agree that it is a joke though how the penalty is implemented. it shouldnt take 20+ years to carry out the sentence. if it is going to take that long we might as well get rid of it

Abolish it. Why? Because the state is constantly screwing things up and should have as few non-reversible actions at their disposal as possible.

I'm always amazed that so many 'small government' people are pro-death penalty. They must believe that the government can't manage to wipe its ass, and yet at the same time, that very same government is super-highly skilled at catching the murders and then killing them.

The death penalty should be replaced with life with no parole (not the, 'no parole' parole that we have now).

Free the non-violent drug users/dealers and let's put the real predators in jail.

@yes and no:

The problem with number 1 isn't the confessions with counsel present, which are usually calculated and are the ones likely to lead to life sentences. The problems are with the confession sweated out of the defendant (which will almost certainly result in endless arguments over how 'voluntary' it was, plus some troubling recent cases where they turned out to be wrong), the jailhouse snitch (questionable motives and likely to recant) and boast to drinking buddy (again questionable motives and likely to recant, plus there is always the possibility it was something the punk defendant said solely to boost his cred).

I don't understand your logic on number 2. It isn't like the nonshooter is walking into the station voluntarily and telling the entire story. Remember that the usual context of these types of cases is that the police have already taken one or both of the defendants into custody. Under these circumstances the person is likely to finger the other one is the one who feels he has the most to gain from doing so. Sometimes this turns out to be the scared accomplice who never intended for it to go this far, but sometimes it is the calculating lead actor who sees turning state's evidence as the best way for him to minimize his losses.

The problem with letting into evidence items seized from a defendant without a search warrant is that you end up with a great deal of litigation over whether it was properly admitted into evidence. First you get it in pre-trial motions. Then you get it on direct appeals, and finally you get it again when the new defense attorney argues that the old defense attorney did a bad job by not keeping it out. Search warrants form a nice bright line. With modern communications and 24 hour access to judges and magistrates they aren't that hard to get.

I am assuming on number 4 that you are judging from the movies and TV. In Virginia there is only limited discovery, and I am told prosecutors are trying to limit efforts by the state to expand them. Under Federal constitutional law I believe the prosecutors are only required to turn over evidence which clears the defendant. But how many prosecutors are really in a position to make this kind of search or to know what might help out a defendant's case. Greater access by the defendant up front means less opportunity for the defendant to complain afterward that evidence of innocence was suppressed.

Remember that the goal of this is to try to streamline the process by making the trial so free from possible problems that only the rabid anti-death penalty types will be arguing against having the death penalty imposed in a particular case. This doesn't mean that if there are problems the defendant walks. It just means the state has to settle for a life sentence.

Anyone interested in the confession issue should watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-confessions/

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @yes and no:
>
> The problem with number 1 isn't the confessions
> with counsel present, which are usually calculated
> and are the ones likely to lead to life sentences.
> The problems are with the confession sweated out
> of the defendant (which will almost certainly
> result in endless arguments over how 'voluntary'
> it was, plus some troubling recent cases where
> they turned out to be wrong), the jailhouse snitch
> (questionable motives and likely to recant) and
> boast to drinking buddy (again questionable
> motives and likely to recant, plus there is always
> the possibility it was something the punk
> defendant said solely to boost his cred).
>
> I don't understand your logic on number 2. It
> isn't like the nonshooter is walking into the
> station voluntarily and telling the entire story.
> Remember that the usual context of these types of
> cases is that the police have already taken one or
> both of the defendants into custody. Under these
> circumstances the person is likely to finger the
> other one is the one who feels he has the most to
> gain from doing so. Sometimes this turns out to
> be the scared accomplice who never intended for it
> to go this far, but sometimes it is the
> calculating lead actor who sees turning state's
> evidence as the best way for him to minimize his
> losses.
>
> The problem with letting into evidence items
> seized from a defendant without a search warrant
> is that you end up with a great deal of litigation
> over whether it was properly admitted into
> evidence. First you get it in pre-trial motions.
> Then you get it on direct appeals, and finally you
> get it again when the new defense attorney argues
> that the old defense attorney did a bad job by not
> keeping it out. Search warrants form a nice
> bright line. With modern communications and 24
> hour access to judges and magistrates they aren't
> that hard to get.
>
> I am assuming on number 4 that you are judging
> from the movies and TV. In Virginia there is only
> limited discovery, and I am told prosecutors are
> trying to limit efforts by the state to expand
> them. Under Federal constitutional law I believe
> the prosecutors are only required to turn over
> evidence which clears the defendant. But how many
> prosecutors are really in a position to make this
> kind of search or to know what might help out a
> defendant's case. Greater access by the defendant
> up front means less opportunity for the defendant
> to complain afterward that evidence of innocence
> was suppressed.
>
> Remember that the goal of this is to try to
> streamline the process by making the trial so free
> from possible problems that only the rabid
> anti-death penalty types will be arguing against
> having the death penalty imposed in a particular
> case. This doesn't mean that if there are
> problems the defendant walks. It just means the
> state has to settle for a life sentence.


For number 1 in this day an age very few juries will put a defendant to death if thats the type of confession eg the drinking buddy or jail house informant.

for number 2 theres always going to be a grey area as with any aspect of the law unless its on a clear video. i get what your saying about the one with the most to gain, sometimes the shooter may try and save himself sometimes the other may come forward. the problem with this though is that there is so much forensic evidence now that it is really hard to try and pin it on the wrong guy. if they were both taking part of it and right there when it happened, really both are guilty anyway.

ill save 3 for last just cus thats the most interesting. number 4 yes they do have to turn over anything that clears the defendant. defense also gets their crack at witnesses and can challenge any and all evidence. im not assuming this from the sensationalism of courts on tv, im in the field. i dont believe that prosecutors should have to turn over every single thing and lay out their strategy for the defense, i am confident in the fact that the defense has more than enough opportunity to challenge anything they want or to prepare.

for the most interesting number 3 i get what your saying for search warrants but they arent always practical and do take time to get. if you responded to a call its not practical to get one, if you can see the evidence its perfectly legal to act on anything in plain sight. waiting the hour or hours could allow the evidence to be disposed of. even search warrants get challenged a lot as to weather or not they exceeded the scope of the warrant for what was collected. also the problems that you mentioned arent necessarily solved by having a warrant. all the warrant really does is establish a right for the police to gather what they did. youll still have all the same chain of evidence problems ect.

i get that your point is to make it so that appeals are basically unnecessary, but at the same time you could very easily be allowing a lot of guilty people to go free by making it so hard for the prosecution to get a conviction that many guilty people will go free. i dont want to see anyone railroaded, but i am comfortable with the safeguards in place.

a lot of the problems that concern us today arent really an issue anymore with the new forensics and dna. people definitely got a bad shake in the past with corrupt cops and judges ect, but they dont last long in todays society. the hiring standards of the police weed most of them out, and as evident by the judge caught in Penn not to long ago corrupt judges get found out. between big law firms taking appeals cases pro bono, media attention, the new sciences i would say that it is rather rare to get someone who had nothing to do with the murder convicted. no matter what is done to try and streamline the trial new appeals will result out of it, whether the appeal has any merit or not the higher courts still have to make a ruling on it

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2012 07:09PM by Alias.

@yes and no: Curious where you practice, because friends who do criminal in Virginia say it is very hard to get info out of Fairfax.

Your statement "you could very easily be allowing a lot of guilty people to go free" indicates you are missing the point. We are only talking about needing a search warrant in a death penalty cases, and then only for evidence seized from the defendant. Yes that search warrant requirement might mean that in some close death penalty case the defendant walks because the state could not use some piece of evidence it could use in a non-death penalty case. However the blame for this falls on the prosecutor. If he didn't feel he had enough to get a death penalty verdict he should have gone for life in the first place.

Bill N Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @yes and no: Curious where you practice, because
> friends who do criminal in Virginia say it is very
> hard to get info out of Fairfax.
>
> Your statement "you could very easily be allowing
> a lot of guilty people to go free" indicates you
> are missing the point. We are only talking about
> needing a search warrant in a death penalty cases,
> and then only for evidence seized from the
> defendant. Yes that search warrant requirement
> might mean that in some close death penalty case
> the defendant walks because the state could not
> use some piece of evidence it could use in a
> non-death penalty case. However the blame for
> this falls on the prosecutor. If he didn't feel
> he had enough to get a death penalty verdict he
> should have gone for life in the first place.


the only time the defense would really be surprised is if their client wasnt honest. if he did it he should be looking to deal anyway. if he was involved in any way hell know what could tie him to the scene. as i stated i dont think the defense has a right to know the exact strategy of the prosecution and what they will use for evidence. their client should be the one preparing them for that not the prosecution.

thats the thing though there shouldnt be any distinction between death penalty evidence and non death penalty cases. if the jury has any doubt whatsoever they often chose life. remember you cant have split decisions and get a death penalty. there shouldnt be rules that make death penalties any different than life sentences, either your guilty or your not.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think it should be abolished.
>
> I go back and forth on this issue.
>
> > Why? Because we
> > have enough evidence to indicate reasonable
> doubt
> > when it comes to convictions.
>
> WashingTone.... this statement doesn't make
> sense.
>
> > How many innocent
> > men have been put to death by the government
> due
> > to inadequacies in our legal system?
>
> I don't know... how many?
>
> > Also, it's
> > not a deterrent as proven by the increase in
> the
> > frequency of murders since the death penalty
> was
> > reinstated.
>
> Actually, the murder rate has been declining.
>
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?0
> ,file=41051,filename=Homicide.jpg
>
> > Finally, from a strictly conservative
> > and religious standpoint, there is nothing
> > Christian about revenge.
>
> But... you're not a Christian.....


He uses it when he thinks it'll further his argument. You know the type.

We should abolish the death penalty in its current state and institute Judge Dredd type of justice.



__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

The only reason the death penalty isn't a deterrent is due to the length of time it actually takes to go from being incarcerated to being executed. Also the built in protections (good things for the most part) that make it sometimes easier to get life in prison as an alternative.

With DNA testing and such, there are some cases where the offender could be convicted and executed immediately based on the number of eye-witnesses, and other incontrovertible evidence. What is stupid is when you have gang-bangers shooting up neighborhoods indiscriminately and killing innocent bystanders that end up getting some form a term prison sentence. Those jackasses should be executed on an expedited basis when they have compelling evidence that they are the ones that pulled the trigger.

My take on the death penalty is when there is any form of doubt that the person in question was really the perpetrator (no eye witness, no DNA), then they should NOT get the death penalty. Sure, that opens up a lot more technicalities on how to escape that fate, but for cases where there is no doubt of a murder, then they should be executed. That would surely deter folks in the future. This is one place I agree with the Arab world - an eye for eye, etc - a death for a death seems reasonable. Maybe we should bring back walking the plank, except put the plank on the side of a 25 story building with a rock pit at the bottom.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only reason the death penalty isn't a
> deterrent is due to the length of time it actually
> takes to go from being incarcerated to being
> executed. Also the built in protections (good
> things for the most part) that make it sometimes
> easier to get life in prison as an alternative.
>
> With DNA testing and such, there are some cases
> where the offender could be convicted and executed
> immediately based on the number of eye-witnesses,
> and other incontrovertible evidence. What is
> stupid is when you have gang-bangers shooting up
> neighborhoods indiscriminately and killing
> innocent bystanders that end up getting some form
> a term prison sentence. Those jackasses should be
> executed on an expedited basis when they have
> compelling evidence that they are the ones that
> pulled the trigger.
>
> My take on the death penalty is when there is any
> form of doubt that the person in question was
> really the perpetrator (no eye witness, no DNA),
> then they should NOT get the death penalty. Sure,
> that opens up a lot more technicalities on how to
> escape that fate, but for cases where there is no
> doubt of a murder, then they should be executed.
> That would surely deter folks in the future. This
> is one place I agree with the Arab world - an eye
> for eye, etc - a death for a death seems
> reasonable. Maybe we should bring back walking the
> plank, except put the plank on the side of a 25
> story building with a rock pit at the bottom.

Why don't you jut admit you'd rather have a 30 minute trial before the Tribunal of Business Owners, and a quick sword to the neck from the Town Executioner/aka Feral Dogcatcher. Then install the head on a spike mounted to the "Welcome to Nirvana, Mayor RV 1996-2050" sign for the requisite 30 days.

RVTheExterminator Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you jut admit you'd rather have a 30
> minute trial before the Tribunal of Business
> Owners, and a quick sword to the neck from the
> Town Executioner/aka Feral Dogcatcher. Then
> install the head on a spike mounted to the
> "Welcome to Nirvana, Mayor RV 1996-2050" sign for
> the requisite 30 days.

How do business owners come into the conversation? You have a trial, present evidence and defense. The only way to bring a case up for the death penalty is if you have incontrovertible evidence - ie an eye-witness and or very strong DNA evidence linking the murder weapon, the victim, etc along with a solid motive or circumstance.

Don't project your twisted (eesh-ish) suppositions on what I said. Just because you live in some twisted form of reality doesn't mean everyone else does. But from your attempt to to distort what I said it is pretty obvious you have some strange impressions of the world that bear little resemblance to reality.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Man, you guys are off on a tangent, talk about messing up a brief. The question was should the Death Penalty be eliminating and everyone and his brother has to try and impress the other guy on how well he knows American jurisprudence and the Criminal Justice system. The answer is no, it should remain, the punishment should equal the crime. It is obvious by my answer that would include a Capital crime like murder in the first degree, or any such crime that puts a substantial risk on the population at large, examples would include terrorism, espionage (where Secret or Top Secret material was compromised, related to our Countries defense) and Presidenial assassination.

The murder of the Petit family in Connecticut is one reason the death penalty should be legal. It's not harsh enough in some cases. I think that they should execute some criminals slowly and painfully.

... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The murder of the Petit family in Connecticut is
> one reason the death penalty should be legal. It's
> not harsh enough in some cases. I think that they
> should execute some criminals slowly and
> painfully.


That is a smoking gun example of why thedeath penalty should remain. Anyone who followed that case and said the death penalty was "cruel and unusual" has screw loose.

I don't see how you can justify the death penalty when the legal system is as dysfunctional as it is. There is a direct correlation between how much money you have and the outcome of your trial, and that is indicative of a flawed system. You don't hear about too many rich people getting knocked off. I can't think of any right now.

You can pretty much guarantee that dude that got killed yesterday would still be alive today if he could've afforded a fancy legal team, and probably would never have received the death penalty at all. He may even have been found not guilty and be a free man right now. I'm not saying that's what should have happened, just that it is most likely what would have happened if he had resources. If you're going to kill people then you better have a system that judges everybody equally; then I might agree with it.

Against Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see how you can justify the death penalty
> when the legal system is as dysfunctional as it
> is. There is a direct correlation between how much
> money you have and the outcome of your trial, and
> that is indicative of a flawed system. You don't
> hear about too many rich people getting knocked
> off. I can't think of any right now.
>
> You can pretty much guarantee that dude that got
> killed yesterday would still be alive today if he
> could've afforded a fancy legal team, and probably
> would never have received the death penalty at
> all. He may even have been found not guilty and be
> a free man right now. I'm not saying that's what
> should have happened, just that it is most likely
> what would have happened if he had resources. If
> you're going to kill people then you better have a
> system that judges everybody equally; then I might
> agree with it.


Of course that's true, always was, always will be. Whitey Bulger has millions squirreled away, he'll get the best representation, he is alledgedly responsible for over 20 murders. He'll never, never get the gas, never happen. Money, loads of it, is the driving force in everything, Religion, Politics, Justice. You name it.

The reason Bugler won't get the death penalty is because Massachusetts doesn't do the fealty penalty. He could be his own lawyer and... He won't get it.