If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Scotsman)   One thousand executions. That's it?   (news.scotsman.com) divider line 257
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

16935 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2005 at 2:43 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



257 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-11-29 04:30:08 PM
only 1000?

so over 30 years...

how many people are in the prison system that will NOT be rehabilitated..that just rot in prison wasted our tax dollars.
We don't need these murderers, rapists and other violent criminals.

You idiots are complaining about 33 people getting killed a year? comeon now.
 
2005-11-29 04:30:42 PM
eraser8 I applaud you for your beliefs but i tire of this thread.
I'm out
 
2005-11-29 04:30:47 PM
eraser8
Neither. I'm in the "abolish death penalty" crowd.

Okay, but my way leads to less victims by recidivists.

I'm not saying don't make it tougher to hand down a death penalty, just kill those who desperately deserve it.
 
2005-11-29 04:32:44 PM
And yet Charles Manson is still alive somewhere. Interesting.

What's that? The Night Stalker too. Well then what the fark are we using it for.

/Pro death penalty for folks like these
//Anti-death Penalty for joe schmo crackhead-turned-violent
 
2005-11-29 04:32:50 PM
They should just send our death row guys to Iraq, then it would take 27 years less to kill twice the amount of people.
 
2005-11-29 04:33:19 PM
Recidivism is a terrible argument for death penalty proponents. Solitary confinement for life would also guarantee no recidivism.
 
2005-11-29 04:33:32 PM
Stinky93


No offence intended. It wasn't you specifically I was referring to. Just people in general that have never had a crime committed against them.

I know a person first-hand that is un-rehabilitatable. The crime has not been committed yet (that I know of), but this person is walking around every day with zero conscience. And there is nothing I, or any relatives, or society can do to give this person a conscience.
In my years of trying to understand, I've done a boatload of reading of all the different types of disorders. My conclusion after all these years is that a person without a conscience cannot be rehabilitated into gaining one. I wish that were not the case.


none taken. I just don't like the assumption that everyone that's against the death penalty have lead great lives, and have never been touched by crime, because that would be a huge mistake. We all deal with the crimes that affect our lives differently, vengeance is some people's ways of handling really painful events in their lives, advocating for rehabilitation is my way.
 
2005-11-29 04:34:47 PM
You want someone to carry out the executions? Line up the convicts, I'll grap a couple extra clips for my .45 (the one I have a liscence to carry and keep with me at all times). Back in grad school, part of my job was to kill off all the rats from the psychology lab once they had outlived their usefullness (about 6-7 months). Even though I had grown to like some of those rats and treated a few of them like pets, I still shoved the needle into their leg and killed them off. If I could do that to a creature that I actually liked and hadn't committed a sin or crime, I don't see a problem blowing the brains out of some scum that doesn't doesn't deserve to live. Give me permission, I'll clear out death row in a matter of minutes.

And you're a psychology guy. It figures.
 
2005-11-29 04:36:27 PM
worldbeater: Solitary confinement for life would also guarantee no recidivism.

So it's ok to kill the mind but not the body. Interesting.

Personally, I'd rather we walled off Utah and shipped them there or something.
 
2005-11-29 04:36:39 PM
kywcat writes: Secondly you would have to agree that some people will not be rehabilitated and their crimes are gruesome.

Sure. There are, of course, some people who will never find redemption. But, we don't know who they are in advance. If one believes in Christ, one must also believe in the potential for redemption in all sinners.

If you really think that Jesus would not sign a death warrant to kill someone...

Why did he not condemn the woman taken in adultery? The penalty for her crime was clearly spelled out: death by stoning. He discouraged the crowd and personally excused the woman from the prescribed punishment. The adulteress was sent on her way with her only admonition being an instruction to sin no more.

how can it be he will be giving vengance at the end?

He wants everyone to have a chance at redemption. As I asked another Farker, should Mary Magdelene have been killed before she had a chance to minister to Jesus?

One of the major points in the New Testament (which the self-identified religious "right" seem, collectively, to have missed) is that NO person is beyond salvation. Therefore, to cheat a person out of his chance for reconciliation is one of the gravest crimes authority can commit.
 
2005-11-29 04:39:32 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: my way leads to less victims by recidivists.

Your way also leads to more victims of accidental conviction.
 
2005-11-29 04:39:41 PM
godofusa.com wrote: You idiots are complaining about 33 people getting killed a year? comeon now.

Yeah, jeez, it's only death. Course, if your son was framed for murder by a police officer and executed for it, you might have a slightly different perspective.
 
2005-11-29 04:40:36 PM
For the "The Death Penalty is not a deterrent so we should get rid of it" crowd....

Laws are not specifically made to de deterrents.
Some/Most laws are written more specifically as a form of punishment.

Following the same example you have given we coud also say the following....The states that do not have the Death Penalty, that have a rising murder rate, demonstrate that life imprisonment doesnt work, therefor we should reinstate the death penalty.

Or should we just let them go because neither works?

People need to realize this is not a cause and effect scenario. Some people murder other people because they are F'd up in the head. Very simply put, these people will not ever contribute positively to society in any way, and should be killed because of that. There are certain people in this world that should not be allowed to live. If they are allowed to live all they are going to create is misery.
 
2005-11-29 04:41:48 PM
Recidivism is a terrible argument for death penalty proponents. Solitary confinement for life would also guarantee no recidivism.

Solitary confinement for thousands of death row inmates x ~50 years = millions of dollars

Lethal injection of death row inmates = tens of thousands of dollars.

Excuse me while I go the cheaper route for the taxpayer/future potential victim if ever paroled. While recidivism is low amongst murderers, many do kill again. But they weren't even given the harshest penalty allowed by whichever state the first time so why trust the system to make the correct call by the parole board?
 
2005-11-29 04:42:31 PM
It costs 30,000 and up to house each prisoner. EACH prisoner. Once you are on Death Row you have pretty much exhausted your options of ever being found "not guilty"- that said. I am over this "prisoners have rights too" crap. Execute them and be done with it.
 
2005-11-29 04:43:56 PM
Those 1,000 people killed a lot more than 1,000 people. We're better off without them.
 
2005-11-29 04:44:09 PM
de = be

Think my dyslexia is showing.............
 
2005-11-29 04:44:33 PM
Your way also leads to more victims of accidental conviction.

No, the current system does that. My way leads to less people on death row by sentencing less people to death and killing them quicker.
 
2005-11-29 04:45:57 PM
ruggerbear: What scares me is people that are willing to give these assclowns another chance. Oh, you poor thing, you were raised in poverty and had a drug addiction, so even though you killed a family of 4 while you were high, we think you can do better so we're going to give you another chance. BULLSHIA***, you blew your one and only chance, now you fry.

Nobody is advocating that a person who commits heinous crimes such as the one you mention should be let off scott free to have a second chance. You don't seriously believe that being sent to prison for life without the possibility of parole constitutes being given a "second chance," do you? Eliminating the death penalty is only a safeguard against a defendant being killed in a case of wrongful conviction. I'd rather see murderers, even the most unrepentant ones, spending the remainder of their days behind bars than have one innocent man wrongfully executed.

And if you don't think there aren't any innocent people in prison for murder, please see the documentary "Paradise Lost" to see how our justice system can fail under the weight of bigotry and vengence.

By the way, your "tax dollars" argument is the real BULLSHIA***. It is way cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life than to pay for the round after round of appeals that invariably follow a death sentence.
 
2005-11-29 04:50:20 PM
Like this shiat in the LAT today. Long article on this dirtbag facing execution, not a single idea or mention about any other 4 people he murdered.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tookie29nov29,0,2935308.story?coll=la- home-headlines

(sorry...no skilz)

Like Karla Faye Tucker, I think he's going to find redemption isn't a homework pass...........

/Harris County, Texas.....we're number 1
//The death penalty is being given less and less. Is it a moral conflict? Or because the harsh recidivists have mostly been executed? You mean the death penalty HAS become a deterrent??
 
2005-11-29 04:51:06 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: No, the current system does that.

As does yours. With the abolition of the death penalty, the chance of an innocent man being wrongly executed is zero. And that's the only reasonable, moral place for that probability to reside.

A person wrongly sentenced to life in prison may lose time that cannot be restored to him. But, at least he can be released on discovery of innocence of gross legal error. To my knowledge, the state has no way to resurrect dead convicts wrongly executed.

At the very least, I think that the state should be barred from imposing the death penalty until it can raise the dead from their graves. In principle, I think the death penalty ought to be abolished altogether -- regardless of the certainty of guilt.
 
2005-11-29 04:53:04 PM
Sloth_DC
So it's ok to kill the mind but not the body. Interesting.


I believe you may be mistaking me for someone who is against the death penalty in concept.

Snowflake Tubbybottom
Excuse me while I go the cheaper route

It costs more to sentence an inmate to death and execute him than to house an inmate for life
 
2005-11-29 04:54:08 PM
notinuse
By the way, your "tax dollars" argument is the real BULLSHIA***. It is way cheaper to keep an inmate in prison for life than to pay for the round after round of appeals that invariably follow a death sentence.

Sure, if you're talking about the system as is, but you're not. You are advocating changing the death penalty and so am I. We can kill less people, kill those left quicker, and save money all at the same time.
 
2005-11-29 04:54:46 PM
COMMUTED!

CNN "Breaking news"
 
2005-11-29 04:56:43 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom: Solitary confinement for thousands of death row inmates x ~50 years = millions of dollars

Lethal injection of death row inmates = tens of thousands of dollars.



Sorry, no. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

Because of the cost of trying a death penalty case vs. a non-death penalty case is much higher due to the standard of proof and the subsequent appeals that (by law) must follow a conviction.
 
2005-11-29 04:58:46 PM
eraser8
I think that the state should be barred from imposing the death penalty until it can raise the dead from their graves.


What would you consider an acceptable burdern of proof for death penalty cases? I think a confession on more than one occasion, verified by at least three experts to be of sound mind and not coerced, and corresponding DNA evidence would satisfy any concerns for accuracy.
 
2005-11-29 04:59:41 PM
eraser8
In principle, I think the death penalty ought to be abolished altogether -- regardless of the certainty of guilt.

And thats the fundamental difference in opinions. I believe that the state has an obligation to promote the general welfare of its citizenry. Removing those who brutally rape/murder children certainly improves the general welfare of the rest of us.

BTW since you didn't bother to ask what my reform measures would be let me give you a brief overview: Absolute certainty the accused commited the heinous crime. This is one penalty that beyond reasonable doubt should not apply.
 
2005-11-29 05:00:59 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom

Yeah, and if we eliminated all appeals, court costs would go way down. It would be stupid beyond belief, but we could do it the same as we could eliminate part of the appeals process for the death penalty.
 
2005-11-29 05:01:43 PM
He just got clemency.
 
2005-11-29 05:02:51 PM
Virginia's governor grants clemency to Robin Lovitt, the killer who was due to be the 1,000th person executed in U.S. since 1977
 
2005-11-29 05:03:12 PM
notinuse
Because of the cost of trying a death penalty case vs. a non-death penalty case is much higher due to the standard of proof and the subsequent appeals that (by law) must follow a conviction.

You are still not following me here. You want to reform the death penalty process, so do I. Where you would eliminate it I would make it tougher to enact and give them one appeal straight to the state supreme court where they can bring forth all grievances at once instead of several over decades. It will be cheaper at that point.
 
2005-11-29 05:05:26 PM
Yeah, and if we eliminated all appeals, court costs would go way down. It would be stupid beyond belief, but we could do it the same as we could eliminate part of the appeals process for the death penalty.

Theres that dishonesty rising again. I never said eliminate all appeals, just bring out all points of contention at the first appeal to the highest court.

Having endless appeals does not ensure justice but rather it does ensure abuse of thejustice system.
 
2005-11-29 05:06:41 PM
worldbeater asks: What would you consider an acceptable burdern of proof for death penalty cases?

I don't think there is one. Since the death penalty is not essential (nor even helpful) to the public safety and happiness, it ought to be done away with altogether. Capital punishment is, in my opinion, a moral abomination and a source of national shame.

I sincerely belive that most Americans supporting the death penalty do so only out of tradition and prejudice. As I wrote earlier, it is my firm belief that had the Crittenden Compromise been accpted, the United States would to this very day be full of people arguing in favor of the morals and benefits of slavery.

On a practical level, mankind is prone to error. We shouldn't, therefore, impose any penalty that cannot be rescinded.
 
2005-11-29 05:08:35 PM
For the "Death Penalty is a cheaper way of dealing with scum" crowd:

The problem is that a single capital trial with appeals is very, very expensive. The average capital trial costs 1-2 million dollars more than the average life-sentence trial. If properly managed/invested, one million dollars would easily pay for two full life sentences.
 
2005-11-29 05:08:56 PM
ruggerbear, seriously, you might think about getting that checked. It's supposed to be difficult for reasonable individuals to methodically kill animals they consider pets. GWLush had it right.

I'm Texan, anti-abortion and (generally) anti-death penalty. The possibility of mistakenly executing one innocent is not worth a small handful of dubious benefits.
 
2005-11-29 05:13:23 PM
REOIV's reasons to not support the death penalty.

1. It does not deter criminals. In many cases they know they face the death penalty and still did it anyway.

2. Its application is unequal for the same crimes. IE 2 men go on a killing spree together and rape rob and kill yet one gets life in prison the other gets the death penalty. Because there is no standard for when a DA must seek the death penalty people with much less heinous crimes can be put to death and those who committed far worse are left alive.

In addition to that the rules of application are subjective, you kill a woman you get life in prison. You kill a woman rape her corpse (necrophelia is legal in some states still) and eat part of her and you get the death penalty. Raping a corpse and eating a human don't normally get you the death penalty but when combined with a murder that wouldn't have got you the death penalty, it some how because the magical combination to you getting the death penalty.

Crimes deemed offensive to society is the same as the FCC saying Janet Jackson's nipple is obscene, its all subjective. The murder should be crime enough, not that it was more disgusting so it deserves more of a punishment.

3. It doesn't do society as a whole any good. The logic of if you kill them they pose less of a threat in case they get out is flawed. You do not punish people on what they might do, but punish them for what they have done. To kill someone because they might escape or be let loose later violates our cause and effect based legal system. Society gains the same benefit from a person killed as a person locked up for life, in both cases that person is removed from society.

4. The government of the people should not have the right to kill its own citizens. One of the principles the government was founded upon was that people have a right to life, that a GOVERNMENT cannot take away. Yes people make the argument that 'what about the victims? didn't they have a right to life?' Yes they have a right to life just like the person who killed them. The main thing at issue is the government doesn't have the rights to take away a person's life.

5. The death penalty is many times revenge based instead of a just punishment. ie 'that bastard deserves to fry for what he did.' Revenge based laws have no place in our legal system, otherwise lets got back to eye for an eye and 'you raped my kid so I get to rape your wife' law. That practice is barbaric and out dated.

6. True Christians are against it, along with most other religions. No Christian can argue for the death penalty, when Christ himself was executed on the cross. Let alone his stance on death and eye for an eye justice. Christ flat out says

"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. " -Matthew 5.38-41

There is no moral based argument that can compete with that. Every bible thumper that calls for the death penalty, is as far from Christ's message as one can be.

7. It is racially biased. Take an equal number of cases involving whites and a number of cases involving minorities, the minorities recieve the death penalty more often than the whites do. Last time I checked killing minorities was more of something Hitler would do than the USA.

8. It costs more than keeping a prisoner locked up for life, or the flipside it costs one bullet and is cheaper than keeping them locked up for life. Our basic assumption as a society is that human life is precious, one cannot use monetary reasons as a rationale for taking or not taking a person's life. Life being precious alone should be enough of an argument.

9. The message the death penalty sends is flawed. If you kill we will kill you. Its the same idea of who kills the guy that executed the killer? If killing is wrong, then no one should be allowed to kill, even if it is to protect us from the guys that pose us no threat.

So to sum my post up, there is no legal or moral justification for the death penalty. We need to get rid of it.
 
2005-11-29 05:15:11 PM
worldbeater: It costs more to sentence an inmate to death and execute him than to house an inmate for life

No, it doesn't, really. It costs more to provide the mandated legal appeals in capital cases than it costs to house an inmate for life - but the inmate in for life imprisonment can also chew up legal costs at an equivalent rate, especially if he discovers the wonderful world of jailhouse lawyering.
 
2005-11-29 05:16:14 PM
I think this number is way too low. And why do we have to use a sterile needle. Haven't you people ever heard of recycling?
 
2005-11-29 05:17:50 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom writes: I believe that the state has an obligation to promote the general welfare of its citizenry.

So do I. That's one of the principal reasons I oppose capital punishment. It is degrading to society and contributes nothing to the public safety and happiness.

Removing those who brutally rape/murder children...

Surprising as this may be, capital punishment is not the only way to remove dangerous elements from society. The civilized world long ago abolished capital punishment. As I wrote earlier, those societies have not descended into choas and epidemic criminality.

This is one penalty that beyond reasonable doubt should not apply.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty. Ever. In anything. Even our most basic natural laws maintain a level of uncertainty (infinitesimal though it might be).

The standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is synonymous with "moral certainty." There is almost no hope of achieving a legal standard more rigorous.
 
2005-11-29 06:03:02 PM
Snowflake Tubbybottom: bring out all points of contention at the first appeal to the highest court.

This assumes, wrongly, that all possible points of contention can be identified within a set amount of time. What about cases where new physical evidence comes to light years after a conviction (like the ability to identify people through DNA, which has exhonorated more than a few folks), or cases where a key witness recants his or her testimony? In your system, there would be no recourse for such circumstances after the Final Appeal.
 
2005-11-29 06:05:03 PM
This thread is a perfect example of how America has no real moral compass anymore. We hold no higher ground. We are no better morally than the Taliban or the Saudi Arabians. We are just another self absorbed civilation hungry for power and thirsty for blood.
 
2005-11-29 06:06:22 PM
Sloth_DC

The operative word is can, there. If I remember correctly, those appeals are not mandated for life sentences whereas they are for death penalty cases. Most inmates don't engage in jailhouse lawyering, so costs are in fact lower. If the trial and appeals processes were the exact same, it would cost more to house for life. As it is, from sentencing until execution, death penalty cases cost more than housing inmates for life.

REOIV
1. It does not deter criminals.

That's only one consideration among many.

2. Its application is unequal for the same crimes.

That's a problem with current implementation, not the concept.

3. It doesn't do society as a whole any good.


Even if this were true, must something be beneficial to be right?

The logic of if you kill them they pose less of a threat in case they get out is flawed.

No, it isn't flawed; they do in fact pose less of a threat. There is no flaw in logic there. You are right that we don't punish people for possible crimes; earlier I said recidivism is a terrible argument for death penalty proponents.

4. The government of the people should not have the right to kill its own citizens. One of the principles the government was founded upon was that people have a right to life, that a GOVERNMENT cannot take away.

The government was also founded on a right to liberty. I sure hope you aren't advocating letting murderers roam the streets. You commit a major crime, you lose some rights.

5. The death penalty is many times revenge based instead of a just punishment. Revenge based laws have no place in our legal system, otherwise lets got back to eye for an eye and 'you raped my kid so I get to rape your wife' law. That practice is barbaric and out dated.


Punishment is (rightfully) a part of our legal system. If this were not the case, no sentences would be handed down; all inmates would be sentenced to counselling and released on rehabilitation.

6. True Christians are against it, along with most other religions.


Well, it's a damn lucky thing that our system of laws is not based on religion, isn't it?

There is no moral based argument that can compete with that.

Immanuel Kant had an interesting bit on the criminal's right to be punished. You might want to read up on that.

7. It is racially biased.

That's a problem with the current implementation, not the concept.

Last time I checked killing minorities was more of something Hitler would do than the USA.

That is the most pointless Godwin I've ever seen.

Our basic assumption as a society is that human life is precious, one cannot use monetary reasons as a rationale for taking or not taking a person's life. Life being precious alone should be enough of an argument.

Life is only as precious as the person who possesses it. Liberty is a precious thing, but we readily take it from criminals, and rightfully so. If you commit a major crime, you lose claim to some of your rights.

9. The message the death penalty sends is flawed. If you kill we will kill you. Its the same idea of who kills the guy that executed the killer? If killing is wrong, then no one should be allowed to kill, even if it is to protect us from the guys that pose us no threat.

The first should read "If you murder, we kill you." Killing is not wrong under certain circumstances.
 
2005-11-29 06:35:54 PM
I used to support the death penalty, until so many wrongly accused people were found innocent on previoulsy untested DNA evidence. I believe this was in Illinois. Now I am against the death penalty in practice, but not in theory. Because the death penalty is an irrevocable punishment, we need irrefutable evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
2005-11-29 08:51:02 PM
I'm against it in practice, because of racial and other prosecutorial inequities, and the additional 1-2 $million expense of the average capital trial, which alone would pay for multiple life sentences over the period of a life sentence.

I'm against it in theory because I don't like the idea of any government legally having that much power over its citizens.

And I think killing is wrong. I don't want my tax dollars supporting morally wrong policies, like the institutionalization of execution and torture.

Stories like Ruben Cantu's demonstrate how horribly wrong this kind of thing can go when policies like this are institutionalized. Here's the link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3472872.html

In a nutshell, this kid was a seventeen-year old gangsta. A cop who he had crossed framed him for a murder. He was executed by the state of Texas despite the fact that the prosecution had no hard physical evidence, and that he was a minor at the time that the murder (which he didn't commit) took place. The good citizens of Texas are all collectively responsible for this kid's unjust execution.
 
2005-11-29 08:51:15 PM
20+ million abortions and counting

See, thats why I can say I'm glad to be a conservative.

While liberals fight for the life of those that have already given up on humanity. Those that take human life have nothing to fear, in fact, they can count on the chances that their life will be spared no matter how much tragedy, pain, or indignity they can inflict. They know that there are those that see value in their shared hate for humanity. Saddam can vouch for that.

Those that come into being at no choice of their own, only at the actions of others, are at the mercy of these same people. You see what side you're on? How can anyone honestly say they support that position is beyond me.

Now, if there existed liberals that were pro-euthanasia, pro-death penalty, and pro-abortion all at one time I'd believe it was a sincere movement.
 
2005-11-29 09:04:31 PM
worldbeater:

1. It does not deter criminals.

That's only one consideration among many.


So you do not disagree wit this point.

2. Its application is unequal for the same crimes.

7. It is racially biased.

That's a problem with current implementation, not the concept.


The same thing has been said about Communism and just about any practice which looks good on paper only. Newsflash: only implementations exist in the real world. Not concepts.
3. It doesn't do society as a whole any good.

Even if this were true, must something be beneficial to be right?



Yes. On some level. Otherwise, what is "right"?

5. The death penalty is many times revenge based instead of a just punishment. Revenge based laws have no place in our legal system, otherwise lets got back to eye for an eye and 'you raped my kid so I get to rape your wife' law. That practice is barbaric and out dated.

Punishment is (rightfully) a part of our legal system. If this were not the case, no sentences would be handed down; all inmates would be sentenced to counselling and released on rehabilitation.



You fail to distinguish between punishment and revenge.

9. The message the death penalty sends is flawed. If you kill we will kill you. Its the same idea of who kills the guy that executed the killer? If killing is wrong, then no one should be allowed to kill, even if it is to protect us from the guys that pose us no threat.

The first should read "If you murder, we kill you." Killing is not wrong under certain circumstances.



More like: "if you murder we will murder you". So someone who murders in revenge for someone else's death is justified? (Because that is the death penalty, once you remove the legal paraphernalia). In any case, the State assumes the right to kill a person with premeditation.
 
2005-11-29 09:21:51 PM
"Kill everyone now! Condone 1st degree murder."

-Divine in "Pink Flamingos"

Maryland may get the 1000 prize if everyone can hold on until next week, and our Governor maintains his spine.
 
2005-11-29 09:32:09 PM
Lots of people are saying that Christians are hypocrites for being against abortion but for the death penalty. Hey, just a thought but wouldn't the same apply for the liberals who are against the death penalty and for abortion?

-- Richard Zeien
 
2005-11-29 11:36:10 PM
notinuse
This assumes, wrongly, that all possible points of contention can be identified within a set amount of time. What about cases where new physical evidence comes to light years after a conviction (like the ability to identify people through DNA, which has exhonorated more than a few folks), or cases where a key witness recants his or her testimony? In your system, there would be no recourse for such circumstances after the Final Appeal.

And you assum incorrectly that a final appeal would take place shortly after the trial so not exculpatory information could be gathered. What your not taking into account is that death penalty trials take place around a year after the crime. That is plenty of time for the defense to investigate all the evidence as they have full disclosure rights to the prosecutions evidence.

We can create a statute that gives the convicted a 2-3 year automatic stay until a final appeal in front of the state supreme court. A case for DNA appeals has gone out the window now since it has been in use for some time; those convictions 10+ years ago would have had a bearing in finding exculpatory evidence.

eraser8
You can have absolute certainty as a standard, this is the part that greatly reduces the number of death row inmates. If you have video evidence or outright information of the crime directly, and only from the accused, ie location of a body and description of death you can be certain you have the right guy. This is the point where you eradicate vermin.
 
2005-11-30 01:35:53 AM
-- Richard Zeien is an idiot.
 
Displayed 50 of 257 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report