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.

(TampaBay.com (St. Petersburg Tim)   Judge tells jurors after every break not to research the death-penalty defendant. Juror's all like "Hey, let's look this guy up on Google"   (tampabay.com) divider line 86
    More: Florida, Google, death penalty, murder trial, Singh, leniency  
•       •       •

10590 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Oct 2012 at 3:26 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-12 08:23:09 AM  

fluffy2097: Saruman_W: I wish the Death Penalty were a lot more swift. None of this waiting 20 years crap. WTF are they waiting for? They've been found guilty, so carry out their damn sentences and put a bullet in their brains!

Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.


Those are quite rare and mostly due to the convictions that were made when DNA technology was still in it's infancy. It's still to stop waiting for a "miracle" to happen when it is likely that it never will. They've been tried, evidence brought against them and judged by their peers. It's time to face the consequences.

Besides, even then plenty of murderers get off scott free because they managed to hide alot of the important evidence or their lawyers were much better at gaming the system. And once acquitted they will NEVER be retried. And this doesn't bother you as much potential innocents being put to death?
 
2012-10-12 08:35:15 AM  

fluffy2097: Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.


How many death row inmates have been acquitted and how many are on death row as we debate?
 
2012-10-12 08:37:10 AM  
Boojum2k

>>> ReverendJasen: Personally, if on jury selection, I'd lie.

I'd snark, but really? You'd lie under oath?

To apply jury nullification..... why not?
 
2012-10-12 08:40:19 AM  
Why exactly the prohibition on looking things up on the internet? Yes, there's a lot of dubious bullshiat online, but one of the things jurors are expected to do is sift through what's credible and what's not. Further, the defence sometimes gets to weasel agreements out of the prosecution not to even mention particularly damning facts (even verifiably true ones) in the trial.

I've only sat on a jury once in my life, for shoplifting. I had to go online to find out that the perp had previous convictions, the prosecution certainly never mentioned it. And yes, this was verifiable fact, with more than two local media outlets reporting convictions from the previous year. So I voted guilty, and a worthless thug got to spend a few months out of circulation.
 
2012-10-12 08:41:25 AM  

Beowoolfie: namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.


You apparently don't know the definition of "illegal." Being removed from a jury doesn't mean you've broken a law. I repeat: there are NO laws, either local, state or federal requiring any juror in any case to vote guilty under any circumstances.
 
2012-10-12 08:57:37 AM  

DrPainMD: Beowoolfie: namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.

You apparently don't know the definition of "illegal." Being removed from a jury doesn't mean you've broken a law. I repeat: there are NO laws, either local, state or federal requiring any juror in any case to vote guilty under any circumstances.


While this may be true, if you're voting not guilty when the defendant clearly is guilty just because you disagree with the punishment, you may be a dick. Especially in the case of first degree murder. In that instance you're likely saying, "I'd rather see someone who committed a murder, in cold blood, go free because I'm an asshat".
 
2012-10-12 08:57:57 AM  

BoxOfBees: Are people so stupid that they can't read something on the internet and still come to a just conclusion? Hell, whatever is on the net is probably better info than one would hear in a trial anyway. It's almost like the point of a trial is to hear emotional arguments based on a doubly sanitized set of half truths. What ever happened to a jury of peers sitting down with all the available information and coming to a rational determination about crime and punishment? Have we just given up on this? Vote Libertarian for freedom and sensible juries.


I served on a murder trial and I'm glad that before hand I knew nothing about the case. it was an amazing experience. Trial lasted a week and the end we agreed on murder 2 charges. We spend a day and half deliberating on the verdict. what was interesting was how varied the opinion was on what happen in the courtroom.
 
2012-10-12 08:59:42 AM  

Saruman_W: Besides, even then plenty of murderers get off scott free because they managed to hide alot of the important evidence or their lawyers were much better at gaming the system. And once acquitted they will NEVER be retried. And this doesn't bother you as much potential innocents being put to death?


I'd rather a million murderers go free then one innocent person be put to death.

That innocent person could be me!
 
2012-10-12 09:03:45 AM  

fluffy2097: Saruman_W: Besides, even then plenty of murderers get off scott free because they managed to hide alot of the important evidence or their lawyers were much better at gaming the system. And once acquitted they will NEVER be retried. And this doesn't bother you as much potential innocents being put to death?

I'd rather a million murderers go free then one innocent person be put to death.

That innocent person could be me!


If so, you'd then happily be responsible for a large number of additional murderers - making you, by default, an accomplice in many murders. For example, if the recidivism rate for these murderers was 1% then you'd be an accomplice in 10,000 murders yourself.

This makes you a douche.
 
2012-10-12 09:05:07 AM  
I don't get this idea that someone being obstinate results in a defendant going free. A decision of 11-1 just results in a hung jury, which is a mistrial, which just leads to a retrial. If you want to nullify a verdict, you've got to convince eleven other people to not apply the law; if even one holds out, all you did is provoke another trial.
 
2012-10-12 09:08:32 AM  

ronaprhys: I like to stick gerbils up my ass


/yawn
 
2012-10-12 09:10:42 AM  

ronaprhys: DrPainMD: Beowoolfie: namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.

You apparently don't know the definition of "illegal." Being removed from a jury doesn't mean you've broken a law. I repeat: there are NO laws, either local, state or federal requiring any juror in any case to vote guilty under any circumstances.

While this may be true, if you're voting not guilty when the defendant clearly is guilty just because you disagree with the punishment, you may be a dick. Especially in the case of first degree murder. In that instance you're likely saying, "I'd rather see someone who committed a murder, in cold blood, go free because I'm an asshat".


On the other hand, better a hundred guilty people walk free than one innocent person be imprisoned.
 
2012-10-12 09:19:45 AM  

King Something: On the other hand, better a hundred guilty people walk free than one innocent person be imprisoned.


Not necessarily true. It depends on the crimes committed. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but I'm also not naive enough to think that we're perfect.
 
2012-10-12 09:23:06 AM  
Wow. Sounds like a real smart guy. I love the part where he thinks a "sorry" note will smooth things over.
 
2012-10-12 09:47:22 AM  
I, too, would absolutely lie under oath if that preserved my ability to enforce some measure of my will upon the world. I don't want unnecessary suffering. I don't oppose the death penalty in principle, but our legal system has shown a marked tendency to be completely wrong, prosecutors and police in this country have been shown to fabricate damning evidence and suppress exculpatory evidence. I'm not saying it happens all the time, but I wouldn't vote to execute any person I wouldn't shoot myself.
I feel justified in pushing my will on our government because I have no desire to harm people, I'm not predisposed to irrational beliefs, and I am not a paid agent of some other agency. Since I know that I have no motive not to be fair, I'm gonna try to be as fair as I can, since I'm not a prosecutor or defense attorney with a career to worry about, I'm not a judge with aspirations of running for political office and therefore don't have to worry about the unpopularity of doing what is right for people. And my definition of doing what's right doesn't include enforcing an artificial moral code on others apart from keeping them from harming one another.
 
2012-10-12 09:49:05 AM  

Boojum2k: namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: fusillade762: Reached later in the day, Singh said he hardly remembers the judge's written order. "I remember a piece of paper," he said. "I didn't read the whole thing."

When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it.

Truer words were never spoken. You don't fark with judges, they have absolute power in their little fiefdoms and they absolutely LOVE using it. Worse than cops.

On the other hand, it does sound like this is a HANGE'EM HIGH judge.
He is DETERMINED to get this guy put to death.
Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have gotten him sentenced to life with no parole??

Wrong answer. The crime this man is accused of is eligible for the death penalty, which is a legal sentence in Florida. If you cannot vote to apply it, you cannot serve as a juror on such a case.


Abortion is a legal practice in the United States of America, if you cannot uphold and support its legality you should not be elected President of the United States.

Man this is fun!
 
2012-10-12 09:53:33 AM  
You must sequester yourself!
 
2012-10-12 10:01:57 AM  

ReverendJasen: Boojum2k:
Good point. I wouldnt try to get out of jury duty in the first place, and would consider the death penalty if the evidence warrants, but it would have to be a high level of confidence in that evidence. I'd also be fine with eliminating the death penalty, by law.

I'm only conditionally pro-death penalty myself. Conditions being incontrovertible proof. Perhaps video, and the murder weapon with the defendant's fingerprints. I'm pretty leary of eye-witness accounts even.


You should be more afraid of eye-witness accounts. They're farking useless.

National Geographic did a good show on it during their "Brain Games" series.

Seriously, I saw a case where a guy got assaulted at a gas station while pumping gas. Victim pulls a gun and shoots his attacker once. Attacker goes down and dies.

The handful of "eye witnesses" were all over the place. All witnesses said they heard two or more shots. IIRC, more than one said the victim was the attacker. Surveillance camera footage saved the guy's ass. Not one of the witnesses was even close.

It's like, "Oh sure, it was dark, I was 100 feet away, and was actually paying attention to my sandwich but I totally know that that guy did it even though I only saw him for 2 seconds."

Witnesses are awful. Absolutely awful.

More on topic, I'm pro-death penalty but only in extreme cases. Some people just need killing. Knew a guy that prosecuted a case where a guy had murdered two people rather violently. Evidence was 100% solid, the guy had a violent past already, so they went for the death penalty. One juror, who claimed she could vote for death, suddenly decided that "God had sent her to save this man." so she voted for life. Of course, the convicted murderer's life was totally saved by this action and then went on to brutally murder a fellow inmate. I guess God wanted that other inmate to die more.
 
2012-10-12 10:02:27 AM  

Boojum2k: You can lie when asked if you would consider the death penalty.


*shrug* No need to lie. "Yes, I'd consider it." I'd consider it unethical, expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, prone to irreversible error, and something I'd be very reluctant to have on my conscience. But I'd consider it.
 
2012-10-12 10:19:26 AM  

MooseUpNorth: Boojum2k: You can lie when asked if you would consider the death penalty.

*shrug* No need to lie. "Yes, I'd consider it." I'd consider it unethical, expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, prone to irreversible error, and something I'd be very reluctant to have on my conscience. But I'd consider it.


lying to get on a jury is in my opinion one of the lowest acts a person can do as citizen of the U.S.
 
2012-10-12 10:26:56 AM  

Waldo Pepper: lying to get on a jury is in my opinion one of the lowest acts a person can do as citizen of the U.S.


If you're smart enough to lie to get onto a jury, you probably have more sense then 99.9999999999999999% of jurors.
 
2012-10-12 10:30:14 AM  

fusillade762: Reached later in the day, Singh said he hardly remembers the judge's written order. "I remember a piece of paper," he said. "I didn't read the whole thing."

When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it.


Juror: "TL;DR"
 
2012-10-12 10:30:28 AM  

mister aj: Why exactly the prohibition on looking things up on the internet? Yes, there's a lot of dubious bullshiat online, but one of the things jurors are expected to do is sift through what's credible and what's not. Further, the defence sometimes gets to weasel agreements out of the prosecution not to even mention particularly damning facts (even verifiably true ones) in the trial.

I've only sat on a jury once in my life, for shoplifting. I had to go online to find out that the perp had previous convictions, the prosecution certainly never mentioned it. And yes, this was verifiable fact, with more than two local media outlets reporting convictions from the previous year. So I voted guilty, and a worthless thug got to spend a few months out of circulation.


While we speak in terms of the jury as the one who decides "guilt" or "innocence", it is actually not the real purpose of having a jury. Guilt v. innocence (and liable v. not liable in a civil matter) have to be determined by applying facts to the law. Long before the jury ever gets ahold of a case, the judge (after hearing lawyers argue about it) has come to a decision about what the law requires given a certain set of facts. We use juries to make a finding as to the facts. In order to accomplish this, we present bits of evidence and ask the jury to make determinations based on a very specific set of instructions. There are some bits of evidence that a jury should not hear because they were either obtained illegally, or are irrelevant to the application of the law in that particular case. While its nice to think that 12 (or 6) smart people could set the irrelevant stuff aside in their minds before rendering a decision, we can't take the chance that it does not unfairly prejudice the process.

In your case, you may take issue with not being able to know about prior convictions, but the law has long determined it isn't fair to a defendant that said fact should be used against him.

/that's why we have a star chamber...oh crap..I wasn't supposed to let that out.
 
2012-10-12 10:59:46 AM  

ronaprhys: fluffy2097: Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.

How many death row inmates have been acquitted and how many are on death row as we debate?


As of October 4th, 2012, DNA evidence cleared a 300th person, and 18th death row inmate: David Thibodeau of Louisiana.

In the 37 states which have active death penalties, or who have repealed it but not made that repeal retroactive (NM, CT), there were 3,170 death row inmates in the U.S. as of April 1, 2012 (according to the Death Penalty Information Center).

If the purpose for your question was to imply that the number of death row inmates freed on DNA evidence was miniscule in relation to the number of inmates *on* death row and therefore not worth bothering with, let me ask you a small question in return:

What if that innocent person condemned to death by a flawed trial and/or legal system were you, your brother or sister, your father, or your best friend?
 
2012-10-12 11:06:01 AM  

FOGwNH: ronaprhys: fluffy2097: Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.

How many death row inmates have been acquitted and how many are on death row as we debate?

As of October 4th, 2012, DNA evidence cleared a 300th person, and 18th death row inmate: David Thibodeau of Louisiana.

In the 37 states which have active death penalties, or who have repealed it but not made that repeal retroactive (NM, CT), there were 3,170 death row inmates in the U.S. as of April 1, 2012 (according to the Death Penalty Information Center).

If the purpose for your question was to imply that the number of death row inmates freed on DNA evidence was miniscule in relation to the number of inmates *on* death row and therefore not worth bothering with, let me ask you a small question in return:

What if that innocent person condemned to death by a flawed trial and/or legal system were you, your brother or sister, your father, or your best friend?


So, less than 0.57% of those on death row seem to have been cleared due to DNA evidence.

As for your attempt to personalize it, too goddamned bad. That's the same exact argument as "think of the children".
 
2012-10-12 11:14:15 AM  

namatad: Benevolent Misanthrope: fusillade762: Reached later in the day, Singh said he hardly remembers the judge's written order. "I remember a piece of paper," he said. "I didn't read the whole thing."

When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it.

Truer words were never spoken. You don't fark with judges, they have absolute power in their little fiefdoms and they absolutely LOVE using it. Worse than cops.

On the other hand, it does sound like this is a HANGE'EM HIGH judge.
He is DETERMINED to get this guy put to death.
Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have gotten him sentenced to life with no parole??


I used to work in the courts of the 13th Judicial Circuit (Tampa, Hillsborough County), including that of Judge Fuentes. He's a damned good judge, AND he's neither a "Hang 'em high" judge, nor "determined to get this guy put to death." Judge Fuentes simply believes in following the laws of the State of Florida, which require that someone accused of a crime be tried for that crime (or the crime be otherwise resolved, e.g., through plea negotiations) and, if found guilty, sentenced to a legal sentence. His determination to get a jury empaneled and a trial completed correctly and according to the law is based on his wanting to follow the laws of the state, and to avoid the massive loss of skimpy court resources caused by a mistrial that could be avoided. You would be surprised at the costs incurred by the court system (prosecution, defense {if done by the Public Defender's Office}, court personnel - at least two bailiffs, a court reporter, at least one clerk, and the judge him/herself - expert witnesses, deputies transporting the defendant to and from court every day) in producing even a one-HOUR trial. Now multiply that by 40 hours per week for four weeks for the month that this trial was projected to take...

As for the other comment above ("When a JUDGE gives you something you farking read it."), it is - well, should be - absolutely true. The comment that follows it - "You don't fark with judges, they have absolute power in their little fiefdoms and they absolutely LOVE using it." - is absolute bullshiat. *Some* judges love using that power; others - the vast majority - use it only when idiots make it necessary.
 
2012-10-12 11:23:45 AM  

FOGwNH: *Some* judges love using that power; others - the vast majority - use it only when idiots make it necessary.


Judges that abuse their power also get removed from the bench. They are not unaccountable for their actions.
 
2012-10-12 11:53:07 AM  
Waldo Pepper: lying to get on a jury is in my opinion one of the lowest acts a person can do as citizen of the U.S.

Goodness gracious, are you ever naive. I am not sure how the jury system works elsewhere, but this is the way it works in Florida. They put you in a room with 200 other people. You stay in that room all week until you are chosen for a jury. Getting on a jury gets you out of the room. So when they call you up as a potential juror, you really want to get chosen, unless you are a deadbeat slacker or bored retiree. And the way that you get chosen is to be bland and noncommittal to every single question they ask. Remember, they don't want anyone smart on the jury--they want people who will swallow their carefully concocted scenarios. Any little bit of extra information that you supply them with lessens your chance of being chosen for the jury and increases your chance of being (ugh) sent back to the room.

fluffy2097: Judges that abuse their power also get removed from the bench. They are not unaccountable for their actions.
How nice it must be to live in a state where that statement is actually true. But the judge in this story is from Florida; the state board of ethics there seemingly exists to protect corrupt attorneys and judges. The judge would not only have to do something illegal and outrageous for them to take action--it would also have to make it to the media before they acted on it.
 
2012-10-12 01:22:41 PM  

Beowoolfie: namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.


except that all jury deliberations are private. And a juror, deciding to work toward nullification doesnt need to actually play that hand out loud. He could honestly play the "I dont believe this or that" evidence and work to convince others.

Alas, the average juror is like the tard in the article. Too dumb to read or understand the basic instructions from the judge. What part of DO NOT GOOGLE was unclear??
LOLOLOLOL
 
2012-10-12 02:29:20 PM  
Perhaps the judge is so adamant because this is a death penalty case and he really doesn't want the verdict overturned on appeal because of one dumbass juror.
 
2012-10-12 02:44:48 PM  

Waldo Pepper: lying to get on a jury is in my opinion one of the lowest acts a person can do as citizen of the U.S.


Didn't say I definitely would nullify on a capital case. I said I'd consider it. The bar, however, for my agreeing to the death penalty is necessarily set very high, and nullification remains an option if I feel justice isn't being served and/or I think there's misconduct happening.

/ I'm Canadian. No death penalty here.
// I have been on a jury. We don't get asked questions about our politics, and we can't reveal anything of what happens in deliberations.
/// A judge serves the law. The jury serves justice.
 
2012-10-12 05:29:44 PM  

varmitydog: I am not sure how the jury system works elsewhere, but this is the way it works in Florida. They put you in a room with 200 other people. You stay in that room all week until you are chosen for a jury. Getting on a jury gets you out of the room. So when they call you up as a potential juror, you really want to get chosen, unless you are a deadbeat slacker or bored retiree.


That sounds like a crappy system... Here in Massachusetts, it's just one day of sitting around with a bunch of others waiting to possibly be picked; at the end of the day, if you're not picked, your service is done and you can't be called up again for 3 (I think) more years, just as if you had been chosen for a jury... So, here, most people don't want to get picked, and try very hard to get out of being picked... Myself, I've never actually tried to get out of being picked, but I somehow end up never getting picked, anyway... One of the lawyers always boots me for some undisclosed reason...
 
2012-10-12 05:55:21 PM  
Why don't they just start hiring exclusively Amish jurors.
 
2012-10-12 08:28:02 PM  

ronaprhys: DrPainMD: Beowoolfie: namatad: Jury Nullification is legal in the US. Period.

Since there are numerous states where, if a juror doesn't agree to follow the letter of the law he can be legally removed from a jury, I'm afraid that period was just some blood leaking from your vagina.

Now if you claimed it was constitutional, I'd agree with you. But constitutional is not the same as legal. Not by a long shot.

You apparently don't know the definition of "illegal." Being removed from a jury doesn't mean you've broken a law. I repeat: there are NO laws, either local, state or federal requiring any juror in any case to vote guilty under any circumstances.

While this may be true, if you're voting not guilty when the defendant clearly is guilty just because you disagree with the punishment, you may be a dick. Especially in the case of first degree murder. In that instance you're likely saying, "I'd rather see someone who committed a murder, in cold blood, go free because I'm an asshat".


If you vote the way you are told to vote, instead of the way you choose to vote, you don't deserve to be on a jury. You're just a droid who doesn't even deserve to be called human.
 
2012-10-12 08:46:37 PM  

BronyMedic: nyrB: Personally, I find the whole idea of a jury system rather ludicrous. The whole idea is to find 12 people so ignorant that they don't know anything about the case they're going to listen to, because if they knew anything they'd have "preconceived notions" and are therefore ineligible. And what they get to listen to is basically "spin" by two opposing factions that are well-versed in spin. And without any opportunity for the jurors to do any sort of independent research to verify the claims of the two factions, it often comes down to a contest of who can spin the best.


Really? Independant investigation?

So you would rather go from a system that brings in a jury with as little bias as possible and presents a case with testimony from experts in their fields which are vetted by judicial system, and allow some Juror who's life experience may be flipping burgers for 20 years to conduct their own "independent investigation", which they are not qualified in the least to do?

You're expecting a juror to be an expert in tool markings, in forensic laboratory analysis, blood spatter, crime scene reconstruction, and any other numerous sciences?

Yeah. Forgive me if I don't share your enthusiasm for letting 12 random people conduct pseudoscientific inquiries. Maybe we should have seances too, just to see what the dead guy saw? Or perhaps they can learn from the University of Google. After all, their ignorance is just as good as expert knowledge, apparently.

There's a reason we have reasonable doubt. And there's also a reason why 12 Angry Men is fiction.


I'm not expecting jurors to be experts at all. But when there's no way to independently verify anything said by the lawyers, it becomes a case of who can spin their case the best. That's not a search for the truth. And is certainly no system by which we should be doling out "justice".

As for what I'd "rather" have, well for a start I'd rather have a system whereby cases are determined by people that know what they're doing as opposed to 12 random people chosen primarily for their ignorance.
 
2012-10-15 07:48:37 AM  

ronaprhys: FOGwNH: ronaprhys: fluffy2097: Because flawed DNA evidence has acquitted thousands of criminals, and many death row inmates.

How many death row inmates have been acquitted and how many are on death row as we debate?

As of October 4th, 2012, DNA evidence cleared a 300th person, and 18th death row inmate: David Thibodeau of Louisiana.

In the 37 states which have active death penalties, or who have repealed it but not made that repeal retroactive (NM, CT), there were 3,170 death row inmates in the U.S. as of April 1, 2012 (according to the Death Penalty Information Center).

If the purpose for your question was to imply that the number of death row inmates freed on DNA evidence was miniscule in relation to the number of inmates *on* death row and therefore not worth bothering with, let me ask you a small question in return:

What if that innocent person condemned to death by a flawed trial and/or legal system were you, your brother or sister, your father, or your best friend?

So, less than 0.57% of those on death row seem to have been cleared due to DNA evidence.

As for your attempt to personalize it, too goddamned bad. That's the same exact argument as "think of the children".


It's ending the life of someone. There is no "oops, our bad." if something went wrong. I'd rather make damn sure we've got all our ducks in a row, make sure the person truly did commit the crime, and make sure that the death penalty is necessary before it's even done.
When it comes to the death penalty, I'm quite opposed to it, but even I realize that sometimes it's more humane to use it on cases where the person has no chance of recovery and is too dangerous to even have in prison. It's a pretty big moral dilemma. However, in cases where it's not clear and the person isn't posing a threat in prison, I'd prefer not ending someone's life, even if they took others lives. Probably cowardice, but that's just how I see it.
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report