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.

(LA Times)   What does a death sentence really mean? If you're in California, it means years and years of living in better conditions than the lifers get   (latimes.com) divider line 135
    More: Interesting, California Department of Corrections, death penalty, first-degree murder, criminal justice, state prison, natural causes, superior court, beltway  
•       •       •

13109 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:46 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



135 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-12 03:24:31 AM
That's why I find "Law And Order" particularly amusing.

"Confess, and we'll take the death penalty off the table".

Sorry Lenny, but they haven't killed anyone in New York State since 1963, so I think I'll take my chances at trial.
 
2009-11-12 03:39:46 AM
California had about 15 executions between 92 & 06, with more scheduled but the lefties in the assembly changed the laws that executions could only be carried out by a medical technician legally authorized to administer IV medications then they barred them from doing so.
 
2009-11-12 04:04:57 AM
I've often heard it argued that it's actually cheaper to lock someone up 'til they rot than it is to kill them. Always thought it was because death-row guys get a bunch of appeals which tie up a lot of expensive lawyers or something... but if they're getting better treatment, too? That's gotta cost something. I don't know where the numbers really come from, though.
 
2009-11-12 04:27:11 AM
dbirchall: I've often heard it argued that it's actually cheaper to lock someone up 'til they rot than it is to kill them. Always thought it was because death-row guys get a bunch of appeals which tie up a lot of expensive lawyers or something... but if they're getting better treatment, too? That's gotta cost something. I don't know where the numbers really come from, though.

In most states, I wouldn't say they're getting better treatment. However, they're generally considered maximum security inmates. That's expensive. It generally requires far more staff to oversee or simply move one maximum security inmate than it does a minimum security inmate. That's a pretty significant part of the cost. The mandatory appeals are, of course, another significant cost.

Personally, I am a supporter of the idea of the death penalty, but I don't approve of the death sentence being handed out to most of the people who have received it--and on the other hand, I think that some people who are ineligible for the death penalty should probably receive it. And that aside, I think that the biases inherent in the sentence are a far cry from real justice. I'd rather have no death penalty at all than the death penalties we have now.

/Former death row prison guard.
 
2009-11-12 05:55:08 AM
A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.
 
2009-11-12 06:00:57 AM
Virgina erased the DC Sniper the other day. Took a few years. Cali? Will you just farking erase Manson already you chickenshiats. Just end the farking story.
 
2009-11-12 06:06:53 AM
<b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4763778&IDComment=55896906#c558 96906">borg</a>:</b> <i>California had about 15 executions between 92 & 06, with more scheduled but the lefties in the assembly changed the laws that executions could only be carried out by a medical technician legally authorized to administer IV medications then they barred them from doing so.</i>

Somebody please post the "libs libs libs" picture for this moran.
 
2009-11-12 06:16:52 AM
Let's see...10 years housing death row inmates = 28 years of housing non death row maximum security prisoners? So, is he's 40 year old, you could house him till he's 68?

It also always amazed me that when one of these guys are shot, we work like hell to save their lives and then take them and execute them. Makes no sense to me.

Perhaps we should just stop all the death penatly unless there are like fourty-eleven eye witnesses and DNA evidence before it is imposed.

At least our state treats them like the rest of the maximum security prisoners. POS like this is why I think the death penalty is necessary.

Reginald Carr, convicted of capital murder for the December 15, 2000 murders of Jason Befort, Brad Heyka, Heather Muller, and Aaron Sander and of first degree murder (non-capital) for killing Ann Walenta four days before the quadruple murder. (Sedgwick County) Jonathan Carr, convicted of the same five murders as his older brother Reginald. (Sedgwick County)

Link (Two pieces of human waste! new window)


www.wichita-massacre.com
 
2009-11-12 06:22:52 AM
commodore-64-games.com
 
2009-11-12 06:29:47 AM
Time to put in an "Express Lane".

/Give 'em a fair trial
//Followed by a first-class hangin'.
 
2009-11-12 06:35:34 AM
Mr. Lumpy

A few things.
1) The punctuation of the first sentence of your clever little image would seem to indicate that Obama is offering some gentleman more "desert inmate." Not desert, inmate, sir. Anywho, seeing as you're probably something of a knucklebreather, I'd imagine you like the idea of serving executed inmates as food, most likely to poor people.

Secondly, this nothing to do with Obama. The moratorium was imposed by the state, not the federal, government.

Third, what the hell does that image even mean? Is that, like, a scrub hat with an inverted crucifix? Are you trying to indicate that Obama is a Satanic doctor? Or is it some sort of lame attempt to peg him as a Muslim?

I do like how they threw in the "brother" part, to give it just a hint of racism.
 
2009-11-12 06:36:37 AM
I should probably have spelled "dessert" right after berating another dude's grammar.
 
2009-11-12 06:37:48 AM
I'd like to know why more death row inmates aren't being allowed to sell their organs to benefit either their own, or their victim's families. Studies have shown that a liver or a kidney in good condition can fetch thousands of dollars on e-bay, so why is it not being allowed more?
 
2009-11-12 06:38:53 AM
Yes, and Express Lane is a good idea. But, we could give them all knives and offer self service.
 
2009-11-12 06:42:40 AM
mrlumpy

0/10.

www.loonwatch.com
 
2009-11-12 06:46:07 AM
Fizics: I'd like to know why more death row inmates aren't being allowed to sell their organs to benefit either their own, or their victim's families. Studies have shown that a liver or a kidney in good condition can fetch thousands of dollars on e-bay, so why is it not being allowed more?

Kinda like "Cash for Clunkers". Think of all the nutjobs who would have loved to had John Wayne Gasey's kidney or heart.
www.freeinfosociety.com
 
2009-11-12 06:48:07 AM
Baldanders: I should probably have spelled "dessert" right after berating another dude's grammar.

Oh no, I think you got your point across quite nicely.
 
2009-11-12 06:49:53 AM
mrlumpy
Obama is our President now, and will be until January 2013 at the latest. He's also your President. He's also a Natural Born Citizen and entirely eligible for the position. How does that make you feel?

img38.imageshack.us
 
2009-11-12 06:50:55 AM
Bigdogdaddy: Kinda like "Cash for Clunkers". Think of all the nutjobs who would have loved to had John Wayne Gasey's kidney or heart.

Plus, you know what's likely to happen. Whoever takes the organ starts taking on the characteristics of the murderer...

www.skepticfriends.org
 
2009-11-12 06:57:56 AM
Girl Least Likely: Bigdogdaddy: Kinda like "Cash for Clunkers". Think of all the nutjobs who would have loved to had John Wayne Gasey's kidney or heart.

Plus, you know what's likely to happen. Whoever takes the organ starts taking on the characteristics of the murderer...


In other words, a politician or CEO of a large multi-national corporation.

Nice, we need more of those....NOT
 
2009-11-12 07:24:22 AM
fanbladesaresharp: Virgina erased the DC Sniper the other day. Took a few years. Cali? Will you just farking erase Manson already you chickenshiats. Just end the farking story.

Why?

What capitol offense is Mr Manson guilty of?
 
2009-11-12 07:27:39 AM
fanbladesaresharp: Manson


Charles Manson isn't a case of the state dragging its feet. He's never going to be executed, since his death sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 when the federal government halted all executions.
 
2009-11-12 07:34:50 AM
Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.
 
2009-11-12 07:38:01 AM
fanbladesaresharp: Virgina erased the DC Sniper the other day. Took a few years. Cali? Will you just farking erase Manson already you chickenshiats. Just end the farking story.

The D.C. sniper case was federal (nothing to do with Virginia other than the location) though, and the feds don't mess around.
Fed prisons don't even offer parole, and if you get life in a supermax, you pray every day for the sweet release of death, to escape that Orwellian nightmare.

The time line on the Ft.Hood guy will probably be about the same.
 
2009-11-12 07:38:30 AM
buddyrtr: Time to put in an "Express Lane".

/Give 'em a fair trial
//Followed by a first-class hangin'.


right on!
 
2009-11-12 07:38:38 AM
Shadow Blasko: What capitol offense is Mr Manson guilty of?

Crimes against hair fashion. Hell-OOO, have you ever heard of a brush?
 
2009-11-12 07:39:56 AM
fredklein: Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.


The stats show 100% of criminals successfully executed do not commit another crime.
 
2009-11-12 07:40:09 AM
Get rid of all of death row's electronic entertainment.

Will save the state money, and... well, there on death row. They can rent library books.

For Christ's sake, either enforce death row or don't have it at all. Stupid wishy-washy state of mine.
 
2009-11-12 07:40:34 AM
8.5 tailed fox: Shadow Blasko: What capitol offense is Mr Manson guilty of?

Crimes against hair fashion. Hell-OOO, have you ever heard of a brush?


If only you could see my hair right now.. I would be in the chair in no time
 
2009-11-12 07:40:44 AM
*they're, not there. I fail at grammar at 5 AM.
 
2009-11-12 07:41:58 AM
fredklein: Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.


Well, yes. Probably it would be. It would work even better if we televised it. Heck, why not slap them around a little, first? And instead of this pansy-ass community service hours system, why not just bring back public whippings? If the accused has children, we can make them watch. And just for the hell of it, maybe everyone naked.

The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights." I'm sure that sweeping in with a special forces team and "cleaning out those ghettos" would actually reduce crime. It's just, you know, evil.

There's a reason we implement a long, long, exhaustive appeals process: a lot of folks didn't commit the crime they're being executed for. I don't know how many, exactly, but I do know that since 1973, 135 people have been exonerated and freed from death row, including 5 people already in 2009. Without an exhaustive appeals process, every one of those men would have been put to death undeservedly.
 
2009-11-12 07:46:03 AM
Baldanders: fredklein: Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.

Well, yes. Probably it would be. It would work even better if we televised it. Heck, why not slap them around a little, first? And instead of this pansy-ass community service hours system, why not just bring back public whippings? If the accused has children, we can make them watch. And just for the hell of it, maybe everyone naked.

The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights." I'm sure that sweeping in with a special forces team and "cleaning out those ghettos" would actually reduce crime. It's just, you know, evil.

There's a reason we implement a long, long, exhaustive appeals process: a lot of folks didn't commit the crime they're being executed for. I don't know how many, exactly, but I do know that since 1973, 135 people have been exonerated and freed from death row, including 5 people already in 2009. Without an exhaustive appeals process, every one of those men would have been put to death undeservedly.


135 people? Really? Thats all ?

More innocent people than that will die on the roadways of Ohio this month.

Then again. I'm an ACLU member.

/Free the West Memphis 3!
//And figure out what I am talking about for bonus points
 
2009-11-12 07:50:42 AM
irreverence: mrlumpy

0/10.


i was going to give him 8/10 for his total bugfark-crazy unhingedness.

but back to the topic:

so... let's look at what capital punishment is not:

• it is not cheaper than life in prison w/o parole
• it is not a deterrent
• it is not reversible in the case of exculpatory evidence (e.g. DNA)
• it is not meted out only in cases in which the defendant's guilt is proved with 100% certitude

that means it's there for one reason and one reason only: revenge. and that is uncivilized.
 
2009-11-12 07:51:42 AM
Shadow Blasko: Baldanders: fredklein: Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.

Well, yes. Probably it would be. It would work even better if we televised it. Heck, why not slap them around a little, first? And instead of this pansy-ass community service hours system, why not just bring back public whippings? If the accused has children, we can make them watch. And just for the hell of it, maybe everyone naked.

The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights." I'm sure that sweeping in with a special forces team and "cleaning out those ghettos" would actually reduce crime. It's just, you know, evil.

There's a reason we implement a long, long, exhaustive appeals process: a lot of folks didn't commit the crime they're being executed for. I don't know how many, exactly, but I do know that since 1973, 135 people have been exonerated and freed from death row, including 5 people already in 2009. Without an exhaustive appeals process, every one of those men would have been put to death undeservedly.

135 people? Really? Thats all ?

More innocent people than that will die on the roadways of Ohio this month.

Then again. I'm an ACLU member.

/Free the West Memphis 3!
//And figure out what I am talking about for bonus points


According to these guys, yes, that's the number. (new window)

The big difference, from my perspective, is that those people on your Ohio roadways aren't being intentionally murdered by the state.

On an unrelated note...is that a raccoon on your shoulder in that picture?
 
2009-11-12 07:52:58 AM
Baldanders: Shadow Blasko: Baldanders: fredklein: Indolent: A penalty that is not enforced? Yeah. That will make criminals stop and think of the consequences of their actions.

Exactly why the Death Penalty isn't a real deterrent- it's so rarely enforced. If everyone convicted of murder was taken out behind the courthouse and shot immediately, It'd be a much better deterrent.

Well, yes. Probably it would be. It would work even better if we televised it. Heck, why not slap them around a little, first? And instead of this pansy-ass community service hours system, why not just bring back public whippings? If the accused has children, we can make them watch. And just for the hell of it, maybe everyone naked.

The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights." I'm sure that sweeping in with a special forces team and "cleaning out those ghettos" would actually reduce crime. It's just, you know, evil.

There's a reason we implement a long, long, exhaustive appeals process: a lot of folks didn't commit the crime they're being executed for. I don't know how many, exactly, but I do know that since 1973, 135 people have been exonerated and freed from death row, including 5 people already in 2009. Without an exhaustive appeals process, every one of those men would have been put to death undeservedly.

135 people? Really? Thats all ?

More innocent people than that will die on the roadways of Ohio this month.

Then again. I'm an ACLU member.

/Free the West Memphis 3!
//And figure out what I am talking about for bonus points

According to these guys, yes, that's the number. (new window)

The big difference, from my perspective, is that those people on your Ohio roadways aren't being intentionally murdered by the state.

On an unrelated note...is that a raccoon on your shoulder in that picture?


Yes.

Well, one has a squirrel, one has 4 raccoons.

/Wildlife Rehabbers Assistant
 
2009-11-12 07:57:08 AM
Received seven consequtive life sentences which means they'l be eligible for parole in seven years.
 
2009-11-12 07:57:19 AM
Baldanders: On an unrelated note...is that a raccoon on your shoulder in that picture?

I didn't look but I'm sure that question is ALWAYS related.
 
2009-11-12 07:59:00 AM
Thats an 827: Received seven consequtive life sentences which means they'l be eligible for parole in seven years.

Those aren't even words.

/still drinking at 8:00 in the morning
 
2009-11-12 08:00:47 AM
Baldanders: The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights.

And what of murdering another human being? Doesn't that show a disregard for human rights? If someone doesn't want to live by the rules of society- if they really want the rules to not apply to them- then I say Let the rules not apply to them. It's their choice.

/It's called the Golden Rule- treat others the way you want to be treated.
 
2009-11-12 08:01:54 AM
oops. I deleted the 4 raccoon pic.

Better than three wolves! (new window)
 
2009-11-12 08:02:40 AM
fredklein: /It's called the Golden Rule- treat others the way you want to be treated.

So how should the government treat people? How does it want people to treat it, or its subjects?
 
2009-11-12 08:02:59 AM
Once arrested, the person and their lawyers should have one year to gather up any evidence and prepare for their case.

Once the case has been decided, they should have one month to appeal if found guilty.

After that time, the sentence should be carried out.

/that'd fix this 'problem'
//if you're innocent and can't prove it in a year nowadays, you're SOL.
 
2009-11-12 08:06:47 AM
fredklein: Baldanders: The fact is, "it would be a better deterrent" isn't really a good argument unless you can couple it with "and it doesn't violate human rights.

And what of murdering another human being? Doesn't that show a disregard for human rights? If someone doesn't want to live by the rules of society- if they really want the rules to not apply to them- then I say Let the rules not apply to them. It's their choice.

/It's called the Golden Rule- treat others the way you want to be treated.


You know what, you're totally right. So let's gang-rape and castrate the child molesters and torture the murderers to death. Hell, we can get corporate logos branded onto their skin live on TV in order to pay restitution to the victim's families. And then we can sell their organs, regardless of their religious values. Speaking of religion, you know what we should do with terrorists? Slather those bastards in pig fat and set them alight.

The whole point of the American justice system is to get us away from that barbaric attitude. There must be limitations, there must be rules.
 
2009-11-12 08:07:51 AM
Baldanders: There's a reason we implement a long, long, exhaustive appeals process: a lot of folks didn't commit the crime they're being executed for. I don't know how many, exactly, but I do know that since 1973, 135 people have been exonerated and freed from death row, including 5 people already in 2009. Without an exhaustive appeals process, every one of those men would have been put to death undeservedly.

Many of those cases were originally tried when there was no DNA testing, and it was said testing that proved the guy innocent. Since we have and use DNA testing in all modern cases, that excuse no longer applies.

Also, in the rare case where in innocent person is put to death wrongly, all we have to do is find out who screwed up. For an innocent man to be put to death, someone must have screwed up. Maybe a lab tech did a test wrong, or the prosecutor withheld evidence. Heck, maybe a cops framed the guy. Whatever. Find that person and charge them with murder and execute them, too. It won't bring the innocent man back, but it'll sure make people involved in the next case more cautious, and therefore, the System more accurate and innocent deaths even more rare.
 
2009-11-12 08:17:18 AM
fredklein: Also, in the rare case where in innocent person is put to death wrongly, all we have to do is find out who screwed up. For an innocent man to be put to death, someone must have screwed up. Maybe a lab tech did a test wrong, or the prosecutor withheld evidence. Heck, maybe a cops framed the guy. Whatever. Find that person and charge them with murder and execute them, too. It won't bring the innocent man back, but it'll sure make people involved in the next case more cautious, and therefore, the System more accurate and innocent deaths even more rare.

Hmm. Okay, so we execute a lab tech for making a mistake, thus bumping what would, at worst, be manslaughter into a capital crime. And yes, executing prosecutors who screw up makes a lot of sense, because surely then they wouldn't be absolutely terrified of convicting anyone accidentally, thus making them a lot more likely to go soft on...everyone.

And I'd rather ten murderers go free than one innocent man be put to death. That's just me.

You do make a valid point about the DNA thing. Except for this list of everyone exonerated this decade:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases-2004-present

You will notice that the letters 'DNA" do not appear in conjunction in several of those accounts.
 
2009-11-12 08:21:17 AM
UnspokenVoice 2009-11-12 07:59:00 AM
Thats an 827: Received seven consequtive life sentences which means they'l be eligible for parole in seven years.

Those aren't even words.

/still drinking at 8:00 in the morning
===
Yep.
 
2009-11-12 08:25:49 AM
dbirchall: fredklein: /It's called the Golden Rule- treat others the way you want to be treated.

So how should the government treat people? How does it want people to treat it, or its subjects?


There is no "government", per se. That is, there is no single entity that can 'want' to be treated a certain way. Society in general often does things to individuals that individuals cannot do to each other. For instance, can I claim you broke a rule of mine, chain you up, and throw you in a cage? Of course not. But cops, as representatives of Society, do it all the time.
 
2009-11-12 08:26:15 AM
FlashHarry: so... let's look at what capital punishment is not:

• it is not cheaper than life in prison w/o parole
• it is not a deterrent
• it is not reversible in the case of exculpatory evidence (e.g. DNA)
• it is not meted out only in cases in which the defendant's guilt is proved with 100% certitude

that means it's there for one reason and one reason only: revenge. and that is uncivilized.


I know you are right, and there exist evidence to strongly support each claim, some of them really unchallenged by the evidence. However, I think most people are okay with the notion of societal revenge. I am not, but I know I am in the minority. Few would actually witness an execution in public more than once. Thankfully, I know of no one would actually mete the sentence out personally. However, most pro-death penalty folks seem fine with revenge and permanence as a rationale to support it.
 
2009-11-12 08:32:52 AM
Thats an 827: UnspokenVoice 2009-11-12 07:59:00 AM
Thats an 827: Received seven consequtive life sentences which means they'l be eligible for parole in seven years.

Those aren't even words.

/still drinking at 8:00 in the morning
===
Yep.


As long as I'm not alone it isn't a problem. *nods* I love being retired. I spend a lot of time with Captain Morgan and Coke.
 
2009-11-12 08:33:34 AM
Baldanders: You know what, you're totally right. So let's gang-rape and castrate the child molesters and torture the murderers to death. Hell, we can get corporate logos branded onto their skin live on TV in order to pay restitution to the victim's families. And then we can sell their organs, regardless of their religious values. Speaking of religion, you know what we should do with terrorists? Slather those bastards in pig fat and set them alight.

Nice strawman. When did I ever advocate torture?

The whole point of the American justice system is to get us away from that barbaric attitude.

Some people might find locking people up in cagescells to be "barbaric". Should we then let criminals go completely free?

There must be limitations, there must be rules.

Sure. And I think one of those rules should be 'You commit murder, you are put to death'.
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report