Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2007, 05:06:32 PM
-
Too bad for Megan Kanka's parents. :-\
New Jersey Assembly Approves Legislation to Make it First State to Ban Death Penalty in 42 Years
Thursday, December 13, 2007
TRENTON, N.J. — The New Jersey Assembly approved legislation Thursday to abolish the state's death penalty, making Gov. Jon S. Corzine's signature the only step left before the state becomes the first in four decades to ban executions.
Assembly members voted 44-36 to replace the death sentence with life in prison without parole. The state Senate approved the bill Monday.
Corzine, a Democrat, has said he will sign the bill within a week.
The measure would spare eight men on the state's death row, including the sex offender whose crimes sparked Megan's Law.
A special state commission found in January that the death penalty was a more expensive sentence than life in prison, hasn't deterred murder and risks killing an innocent person.
"It's time New Jersey got out of the execution business," Democratic Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo said. "Capital punishment is costly, discriminatory, immoral and barbaric. We're a better state than one that puts people to death."
Among the death row inmates who would be spared is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender convicted of murdering 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. That case sparked a Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
Senate Republicans had sought to retain the death penalty for those who murder law enforcement officials, rape and murder children, and terrorists, but the Senate rejected the idea.
Democrats control the state Legislature.
The nation has executed 1,099 people since the U.S. Supreme Court reauthorized the death penalty in 1976. In 1999, 98 people were executed, the most since 1976; last year 53 people were executed, the lowest since 1996.
Iowa and West Virginia halted executions in 1965. Other states have considered abolishing the death penalty recently, but none has advanced as far as New Jersey. According to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center, 37 states have the death penalty.
Bills to abolish the death penalty were recently approved by a Colorado House committee, the Montana Senate and the New Mexico House. But none of those bills has advanced.
The nation's last execution was Sept. 25 in Texas. Since then, executions have been delayed pending a U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether execution through lethal injection violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316760,00.html
-
With new DNA testing we should keep this around.
Too many frivolous appeals tie up the legal system before they can be executed. We live in a era where science can exonerate or convict so keep it around. Figures this liberal idiotic state would be the first to do this. Maybe the rich corrupt governor should look at Camden (most violent city in the nation) and Trenton to see what shit heads need to be executed in his state.
Once the people convicted in eras without science are dead we will have a much better system without as many appeals. As for the pussies that can't execute the murderer, import people with training who will. Hell, I'm sure there are many in Texas who will volunteer.
-
Thou Shalt Not Kill
-
Thou Shalt Not Kill
Whoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed.
-
Looks like I need to brush up on my biblical knowledge. 8)
-
Whoever sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed.
That was not Jesus' message, obviously.
BTW, I don't see how this banning has any effect on victim's parents?
-
With new DNA testing we should keep this around.
Too many frivolous appeals tie up the legal system before they can be executed. We live in a era where science can exonerate or convict so keep it around. Figures this liberal idiotic state would be the first to do this. Maybe the rich corrupt governor should look at Camden (most violent city in the nation) and Trenton to see what shit heads need to be executed in his state.
Once the people convicted in eras without science are dead we will have a much better system without as many appeals. As for the pussies that can't execute the murderer, import people with training who will. Hell, I'm sure there are many in Texas who will volunteer.
Cap, I understand where you're coming from, but it has been shown time & time again that DNA evidence is not perfect. It's only as good as the lab processing it, the technician(s) administering or interpreting the evidence, not to mention the individuals supplying the evidence. Lab's are contaminated, technicians corruptible, as are the ones supplying the evidence. I've heard of cops admitting to planting DNA evidence to build strong cases, and many times, technicians have been pressured into delivering results that the evidence just does not suppport. Once you take a life, you cannot give it back. I've met people who have spent many years on death row, ...only to be saved when their state repealed the death sentence. Many years later, they end up being vindicated. Can those years behind bars be given back? No, ...but at least they now have a chance at life.
We've recently seen 2 such cases of vindication many years after the fact in the last year, and crimes they were initially charged with & convicted of, involved the brutal murders of children. They were innocent, but in your scenario, they would've been victimized and heinously murdered as well, ...only it would've been done by the state.
-
You cannot have death penalty unless you have a bulletproof legal process.
And that is impossible today.
There is always a slim margin for error.
There may be a day when the legal system is perfect, and there are no errors made, and then we should definitely have a proper discussion regarding the ethics of a death sentance.
But since we cannot guarantee the legal procedure, the death penalty has to be put on hold.
-
Thou Shalt Not Kill
It's "Thou Sahlt Not Murder", which indicates the unjust taking of a life.
Shame on Jersey for their decision.
-
Wisconsin doesn't have the death penalty and we do okay.
The death penalty is too costly, wasteful, and unreliable as means of meting out justice.
Granted, it does cut down on recidivism.
I stand with the school of thought that doesn't want the State to have the power to kill its own citizens.
I believe that for many reasons: poor economics, awful judicial expediency, not effective as a deterremt, the possibility of rehabilitation, and more.
And what if my wife were raped and killed by some piece of shit? I would likely want to murder him with my bare hands. But that's an obvious personal reaction and not an exercise of codified State power. I think for instances like that, the rock pile should be brought back.
Consign the bastard to the fate we all face everyday: pointless work with no end and no possibility of enjoying the rewards of his labor.
If it's good enough for the working class, it'll suit a prisoner.
-
That was not Jesus' message, obviously.
BTW, I don't see how this banning has any effect on victim's parents?
Meagan Kanka was murdered in 1994. Her parents have been waiting for 13 years for this guy to be executed. I think that is an emotional rollercoaster for her parents. Plus he deserves to die.
-
It's "Thou Sahlt Not Murder", which indicates the unjust taking of a life.
Shame on Jersey for their decision.
I agree with both points.
-
That was not Jesus' message, obviously.
BTW, I don't see how this banning has any effect on victim's parents?
Do unto others....
I think people who MURDER should die and hold myself to the same standard.
The death penalty is costly because of APPEALS not the execution itself.
Jag-I know what you mean but 20+ years of appeals are absurd and as the times progress with DNA the tests get better. The old timers will filter out of the system and things will change. We are talking about murder and treason which aren't the highest crime rates in our society so I would think within 10 years with current and improved DNA tests we can get it right. What happens now is that the legal system is so tied up with frivolous torts and appeals (aimed at delaying death sentence altogether) that the truly innocent sit in jail and the guilty are spared. Screw that. I'd trade one asshole with two strikes possibly being innocent for murder rather than let all the murderers sit and stew in jail, being heroes to the other douchebags.
-
liberals hate the death penalty. their reason is because its wrong to take someones life. meanwhile they're all pro choice :-\
-
liberals hate the death penalty. their reason is because its wrong to take someones life. meanwhile they're all pro choice :-\
Exactly. Kill the innocent but let the guilty live??
-
Do unto others....
I think people who MURDER should die and hold myself to the same standard.
The death penalty is costly because of APPEALS not the execution itself.
Jag-I know what you mean but 20+ years of appeals are absurd and as the times progress with DNA the tests get better. The old timers will filter out of the system and things will change. We are talking about murder and treason which aren't the highest crime rates in our society so I would think within 10 years with current and improved DNA tests we can get it right. What happens now is that the legal system is so tied up with frivolous torts and appeals (aimed at delaying death sentence altogether) that the truly innocent sit in jail and the guilty are spared. Screw that. I'd trade one asshole with two strikes possibly being innocent for murder rather than let all the murderers sit and stew in jail, being heroes to the other douchebags.
Thankfully you don't get to decide. :)
-
Do unto others....
I think people who MURDER should die and hold myself to the same standard.
The death penalty is costly because of APPEALS not the execution itself.
1.- I disagree with you mate. Murders and Sexual abusers should be beaten for like 1 or 2 months, everyday. After that, let them heal, educate them, show them what they did was wrong, let them find the light, the hope for a new life, to start all over, and after they succeed it, kill them.
2.- In china, when the government execute people, they send the bill for the cost of the soldier used, the bullet and some other costs, to the family of the bastard. THATS WHAT I CALL DEMOCRACY.
-
Thankfully you don't get to decide. :)
Thankfully you don't live hear to add to these liberal idiots. Seriously, I'd sacrifice a two time loser who has been a burden on this society and could go to jail for life with a third strike rather than feed some shit head for 50 years. What do they learn? What do they accomplish? What purpose do they serve as a convicted murderer? I laugh at all the liberals who KILL babies, spit on soldiers calling them baby killers (moreso in Vietnam) but cry and picket when some asshole kills an entire family (look up Kevin Cooper). DNA is good enough to exonerate but not to convict? Give me a break.
"Quit saying that cocksucking criminals are victims instead of the worthless parasites they are."-Dark Blue
Post edit: Benz- Sexual abusers, well, castration sounds good.
I'm all for a firing squad. A bullet less than one dollar, a few marksmen and one douchebag.
-
I'm glad. It's time to join the civilized world. The Death Penalty hasn't even been proven to be a factor in overall deterrance. I do not believe that Man has a universal right to condemn anyone to death when one man has another completely in his power(Prison). Life in prison serves as the proper punishment and for the most part serves what it is supposed to do....deterrance, rehabilitation(many try, but mostly fail), punishment, and isolation from society. In the US, however, prisons and jails are literally used as human warehouses, locking up anyone for the pettiest of offenses, all for political pandering and corporate greasing. But that's another subject for another day.
What does the Death Penalty serve? How is it beneficial to society as a whole? It isn't like it is a necessity to make room in prisons or even for monetary purposes...not that those two choices are any good at all in determining if one is to be put to death. Cost efficiency of the death penalty versus life in prison should not be subject to determine if one gets put to death, as I believe there is no monetary value on man. So now let us look on to the immediate victim's families. Does killing the offender heal, or help to heal, the families? Does keeping the offender away for the rest of his life, isolated and locked up give most or all victim's families' a feeling of "justice not being served?" I've never been in that situation, but am understanding and amendable to the victim's families feelings and what they want, even if what is wanted is the offender's death.
I've always asked Pro-Death penalty advocates this hypothetical question: You have 100 people on death row, all to be executed on the same day. YOU are to throw the switch(or use the needle, etc...) on all 100 of them that day. These people include murderers, sex offenders, serial killers, you name it......the most despised, evil, and depraved in society. However, one of them is completely innocent of any crime for which he was convicted. He's legally guilty, but factually innocent. Could you still throw the switch knowing that one innocent man was going to die? Innocent people have died in the past, and will probably continue to do so in the future. Wouldn't an alternative be to instead keep them away for the rest of their lives, with just the chance that perhaps that innocent man may one day leave his cell? If he doesn't, at least he still has his life, even if confined.
I was a State of Florida CO for just over 3 years at a medium-security facility. I'm not one of these "heal murderers then set them back in society, or Free Mumia-Abu Jamal" types, but I don't advocate beating people or putting them to death. I think a lot of these pro-Death advocates are predominantly people who've never had someone close to them be truly victimized, but seek some way of deterrance and retribution to these sick, sick crimes(sex offenders seem to register the most emotional output with people nowadays). If someone DID have a victim close to them, I sincerely apologize if I sound unapologetic and unkind. However, I maintain that such feelings should not dictate loss of life, nor should the politicians that make such decisions pander to them.
Sorry for being long-winded.
-
JBGRAY-a story for you if I may. A Los Angeles judge, a liberal Democrat, believed in healing prisoners and not sending anybody for long sentences and felt that harsh punishments served a purpose. Then, one night his house was broken into and his wife was brutally raped and beaten while he sat watching, tied up also beaten. From that point on he was one of the harshest sentencing judges in the city and county. I bet if anyone on this board had a family member/wife/etc killed they would want revenge. If we are going to pay for murdering assholes to live a full life then we need to stop abortion ASAP and allot funds for those kids to live for 50 years. I wonder if NJ will abolish abortion. ::) ::) Oh, but a woman's right to choose ... :'( . It's a sad world we live in. If you murder you deserve to die. In cases of clear cut murder who honestly thinks there can be foul play? I still want to know how people think DNA can exonerate a man but nor convict.
-
Thankfully you don't live hear to add to these liberal idiots. Seriously, I'd sacrifice a two time loser who has been a burden on this society and could go to jail for life with a third strike rather than feed some shit head for 50 years. What do they learn? What do they accomplish? What purpose do they serve as a convicted murderer? I laugh at all the liberals who KILL babies, spit on soldiers calling them baby killers (moreso in Vietnam) but cry and picket when some asshole kills an entire family (look up Kevin Cooper). DNA is good enough to exonerate but not to convict? Give me a break.
"Quit saying that cocksucking criminals are victims instead of the worthless parasites they are."-Dark Blue
Benz-you don't heal a murderer and send them back into society. We need to line them up and hang them publicly like in the old days. That would send a message. Nowadays we just put them to sleep. You are naive if you think these idiots can change. Sexual abusers, well, castration sounds good.
I'm all for a firing squad. A bullet less than one dollar, a few marksmen and one douchebag.
Did i say that bro? I said heal him, then kill him haha
-
Did i say that bro? I said heal him, then kill him haha
Haha. I misread it. My bad. ;)
-
JBGRAY-a story for you if I may. A Los Angeles judge, a liberal Democrat, believed in healing prisoners and not sending anybody for long sentences and felt that harsh punishments served a purpose. Then, one night his house was broken into and his wife was brutally raped and beaten while he sat watching, tied up also beaten. From that point on he was one of the harshest sentencing judges in the city and county. I bet if anyone on this board had a family member/wife/etc killed they would want revenge. If we are going to pay for murdering assholes to live a full life then we need to stop abortion ASAP and allot funds for those kids to live for 50 years. I wonder if NJ will abolish abortion. ::) ::) Oh, but a woman's right to choose ... :'( . It's a sad world we live in. If you murder you deserve to die. In cases of clear cut murder who honestly thinks there can be foul play? I still want to know how people think DNA can exonerate a man but nor convict.
We all have our differences, and I respect yours. I don't believe in healing hardened convicts. I simply believe that they should just be locked up for the remainder of their lives, denied freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. You're also correct in stating that I would indeed want revenge if any of my family or people close to me were murdered. I would personally want my revenge in blood, with me to mete it out. However, me in that state shouldn't be making that decision, nor should any politician pandering to me. In all honesty, such as a recent cop-killer down here in Dade, he died when he brandished a firearm towards the cops who came to arrest him. Good riddance, IMO.
We need to stop acting on emotion and instead look on what is causing the crime here in the US, political correctness be damned. Harsher sentences are not helping, nor is the death penalty. Judges and politicians "cracking down" are simply pandering to the ever-growing private correctional industries and pandering to the people in their jurisdictions by being "tough on crime." You mention paying these assholes to live their lives. Well, we're not paying very much. Go down to any one of our fine Florida correctional instutions and have yourself a fine inmate meal. We're penny-pinching down here. Besides, I'm sure there are quite a number more things you are discontent with that our local, state, and federal governments fund. I can tell you one of the big reasons for the overcriminalization of America, but that's for another subject :)
I don't think abortion and the death penalty should go hand in hand. They are vastly seperate issues. Abortion alone is a topic that can stretch endlessly. Yes, killing is at the core of the issue, but war is as well. Or how about self-defense? What are your feelings on Dr. Kevorkian? Difference between you and I, however, is that I do not approve of Man dealing out death when that kind of power is completely in his hands over another. By that way of thinking, I am pro-life, as you seem to be.
To my knowledge, DNA has "helped immensely" to convict as well as exonerate. As to what the rate actually is, I am not sure. But I do know there are far, far more convictions than exonerations.
-
JBGray-I respect your position and explanation. I think a lot of things need to change in the criminal justice system, but only for better punishment and good use of funds. I'm all for the harshest punishments and I don't think that anything should really slide but we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. My point about exoneration vs conviction was more a point to Jag saying that DNA was good to exonerate but that it is misused and not adequate to convict. I have a problem with that.
-
Thankfully you don't live hear to add to these liberal idiots. Seriously, I'd sacrifice a two time loser who has been a burden on this society and could go to jail for life with a third strike rather than feed some shit head for 50 years. What do they learn? What do they accomplish? What purpose do they serve as a convicted murderer?
Well since you ask, I can think of one convicted man who accomplished quite a bit. Managed to bring about a truce that so many were unable to effect for years. Managed to get through to youngsters to get many to get out of gang life, or to not even go down that route to begin with. Even managed to earn himself a nobel peace prize nomination. At that point in his life, he was far more valueable to society alive than dead, ...but his good works were not to be continued by him.
DNA is good enough to exonerate but not to convict? Give me a break.
{blink}{blink} Gladly, what would you like me to break first... your arms or your legs? :D
"Quit saying that cocksucking criminals are victims instead of the worthless parasites they are."-Dark Blue
Post edit: Benz- Sexual abusers, well, castration sounds good.
I'm all for a firing squad. A bullet less than one dollar, a few marksmen and one douchebag.
No one is saying cocksucking criminals are victims instead of worthless parasites,
...but even modern medicine is finding parasites are very valueable in effecting healing. :D
...until YOU become the douchebag. Don't think it possible? That's naive.
-
Jag-Tookie Williams was a fucking murderer who got what he deserved. He was such a repentant person that he died because he never admitted his guilt and apologized. What a real braniac. ::)
You joke like do because you have no answer to that point. Why can DNA exonerate an innocent person but not convict. I bet you didn't Google that murderer I mentioned did you?
Murderers are worthless and have no value for innocents, kind of like Dems that butcher babies.
If I murdered anybody the way Tookie, Kevin Cooper or Jeff Dahmer did I would hope that people would call for my execution and I would deserve it. Hmmm.
-
Jag-Tookie Williams was a fucking murderer who got what he deserved. He was such a repentant person that he died because he never admitted his guilt and apologized. What a real braniac. ::)
I made no comment about Tookie Williams being deserving or not of the death penalty.
I simply stated at that point in his life, he was more valueable to society alive than dead.
You joke like do because you have no answer to that point. Why can DNA exonerate an innocent person but not convict. I bet you didn't Google that murderer I mentioned did you?
Murderers are worthless and have no value for innocents, kind of like Dems that butcher babies.
If I murdered anybody the way Tookie, Kevin Cooper or Jeff Dahmer did I would hope that people would call for my execution and I would deserve it. Hmmm.
No, it's simply the way I cope when dealing with people who I consider to be getting a little hot under the collar, and I don't know if I have the desire, inclination, or even patience to attempt communication with someone so overwhelmingly ruled by their emotions and their bloodthirsty desire for vengence. DNA evidence in and of itself is not fool-proof.
Let me give you a scenario Cap... someone is raped, and identifies you as the rapist. You swear you are innocent. Rape kit comes up missing. So no DNA to test. Evidence circumstantial at best, ...but the jury is so horrified at the brutality of the crime, they want blood. The Superbowl is about to take place, and a quick verdict means they'll be home in front of the big screen, with a beer in one hand, and cheezy nachos in the other. They can't be bothered to to really think it through. They want beer, cheezy nachos, and to drool over the sexy GoDaddy girl. Your verdict comes in guilty. You all for the death penalty then?
Scenario 2:
You and your girlfriend have a big fight in public. Later that night in private, you make up. You have make up sex. You leave your DNA inside her. You go home. Scumbag breaks in, ...brutally rapes her using a condon, then kills her. You are #1 suspect. DNA testing comes back, ...it's your DNA all right. Conviction on trial. You all for the death penalty then?
How about if you freely gave samples of your blood at the police station (afterall, you're innocent and have nothing to fear)... and the technician who draws your blood swears out an affadavit he drew so much. Then instead of immediately walking across the hall and checking the blood into custody, the 25 yr veteran detective decides it would not be safe locked up at Parker Center, but rather be muuuuuch safer if he took it home with him for the weekend, ...brings it over to your house just as crime scene techs are wrapping up, ...then all of a sudden forensics are finding new droplets of your blood all over the place, collected and tagged out of order from everything else so meticulously done., ...then amounts of blood go missing from the original sample, but the original technician who drew the blood refuses to change his original sworn testimony under oath, but is willing to change his testimony, provided he is not required to take an oath. And of course your forensics guy is busted lying on the stand? Would you say that any blood match was solid enough evidence worthy of convicting you?
How about a lab technician pressured to provide guilty results or else? Don't think it happens?
How about if you happened to land a psychopathically ambitious DA like the case of the Duke LaCross players? Don't think you could be falsely accused, ...then railroaded? You all for the quick rush to judgement & speedily carried out execution then?
Or what if you happened to be a law abiding, honest to goodness real life American hero who discovered high crimes, & treason against the American people, ...but isn't of a medal and a ticker-tape parade, you got a criminal record and a 90 yr jail sentence. Which would you prefer, the bullet, or the 90 yr sentence knowing there's a good chance you could be getting out because the SOBs that put you there had to high-tail it to a non-extraditing South American country real fast?
Are you beginning to understand now?
-
Okay Jag, you failed to answer anything I really said so I assume you know little although it seems you dislike some people at the LAPD. Hide behind age and claim that I know nothing. It cracks me up every time.
BTW, you don't get death row for rape although I am happy rapists get beaten and killed in jail.
We are also assuming there is a jury trial like we see on television in many of these cases. Rape cases are many times handled by a judge, I have seen footage of the cases. But playing by your "JAG" (tv show) logic in either scenario I would volunteer DNA in both cases and the second would be a non-issue considering they would consider my relationship and the fact that she would be reporting someone other than me. Scenario one is tricky but without a rape kit there is no evidence. You assume that people would convict and that I wouldn't have an alibi, like being at work or the gym, which can be proven. Hey, if your buddy OJ can get off so can I. Any other brain busters? Even if I had to go to appeal, I wouldn't be on death row, ever.
The Duke boys were exonerated because another Black Welfare mom wanted a handout and DA wanted to be in office. Justice prevailed.
The last scenario needs more detail to even warrant a response.
-
JBGRAY-a story for you if I may. A Los Angeles judge, a liberal Democrat, believed in healing prisoners and not sending anybody for long sentences and felt that harsh punishments served a purpose. Then, one night his house was broken into and his wife was brutally raped and beaten while he sat watching, tied up also beaten. From that point on he was one of the harshest sentencing judges in the city and county. I bet if anyone on this board had a family member/wife/etc killed they would want revenge. If we are going to pay for murdering assholes to live a full life then we need to stop abortion ASAP and allot funds for those kids to live for 50 years. I wonder if NJ will abolish abortion. ::) ::) Oh, but a woman's right to choose ... :'( . It's a sad world we live in. If you murder you deserve to die. In cases of clear cut murder who honestly thinks there can be foul play? I still want to know how people think DNA can exonerate a man but nor convict.
Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.
But we live in a modern, civilized society.
And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.
The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.
That is not sound macro economics, obviously.
It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.
Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.
But nothing else.
Doesn't make sense.
That is the economical aspect of the matter.
Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?
Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.
Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.
One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.
But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.
It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.
-
Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.
But we live in a modern, civilized society.
And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.
The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.
That is not sound macro economics, obviously.
It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.
Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.
But nothing else.
Doesn't make sense.
That is the economical aspect of the matter.
Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?
Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.
Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.
One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.
But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.
It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27, Jesus speaking...boy was a Jesus a moody character...so much for forgiveness. ::)
-
You cannot have death penalty unless you have a bulletproof legal process.
And that is impossible today.
There is always a slim margin for error.
There may be a day when the legal system is perfect, and there are no errors made, and then we should definitely have a proper discussion regarding the ethics of a death sentence.
But since we cannot guarantee the legal procedure, the death penalty has to be put on hold.
While it is great to think about a legal system where there are no errors. A legal system where there is no possibility of error. It occurred to me that by definition that could only happen in a police state. Where everyone's life is known in perfect detail by the authorities. Not saying I want rampant criminality, its just that there are sometimes unforeseen consequences of things you wish for.
-
Yes, a victim or the relatives of a victim have every right to wish for revenge.
But we live in a modern, civilized society.
And it is not efficient, not economic, not productive, to put away potential tax payers, potential workers, potential production units.
The cost for the society for each and every meth abuser is in the $millions before they die.
That is not sound macro economics, obviously.
It is not sound macro economics to put hundreds of criminals in limited areas, with little supervision or organized activity.
Prisons today are like Universities in criminality, when you get out, you got an MBA in crime.
But nothing else.
Doesn't make sense.
That is the economical aspect of the matter.
Then there is the legal safety aspect of the matter: Why can't we have death penalty?
Because we don't have a fail proof legal system.
Again, let me reiterate: It is the right of every person to wish revenge. But it is the responsibility of the society to support the victim, not to help out in some sort of vendetta.
One more thing: It's one thing when Atheists, Muslims or Jews argue the death penalty.
But I cannot understand Christians who support the death penalty. How can they justify that? Just blatantly disregard "Cast the first stone" "Turn the other cheek" and numerous other quotes from Jesus.
It's so totally against the Christian message of forgiveness, that I have to question whether these people are actually Christians.
I don't think the death penalty, or punishment in general, is about revenge. It's about accountability, justice, safety, and deterrence.
There is nothing anti-Christian about the death penalty. What you're essentially advocating is anarchy. If we, as Christians, are required to "turn the other cheek," then no person is punished. We might as well close down our prisons. The Bible doesn't require any such thing. It doesn't condemn punishment, including the death penalty. To the contrary, it advocates accountability.
As a Christian, I am not conflicted in the slightest about the justice system, including the death penalty.
-
The last scenario needs more detail to even warrant a response.
That's why I consider it pointless to argue with you.
What more detail do you need?
The guy is innocent and was railroaded because of corruption in high places? That's simple enough.
...or is it that you don't believe such egregious abuses of power & authority take place?
-
That's why I consider it pointless to argue with you.
What more detail do you need?
The guy is innocent and was railroaded because of corruption in high places? That's simple enough.
...or is it that you don't believe such egregious abuses of power & authority take place?
Discovering high treason by whom? You need to present more of a scenario to warrant a response. If it was against the President or anyone high up I'd likely keep my mouth shut because I'm not naive.
You don't argue with me (yes you do) because you assume I know nothing and then when I answer your posts you don't like what you hear, call me a baby, meltdown, or dismiss me based on age. It's amusing especially since your responses show you to be more childish than I. If your classless meltdown against Berserker is the mark of age and maturity then I'll forever remain a Lost Boy. Good thing you aren't in law or debate.
BTW, I believe power abuses are a reality but you can't post two sentences that were not well thought out or explicit and expect a good answer but I feel my follow up is enough for this discussion.
-
Discovering high treason by whom? You need to present more of a scenario to warrant a response. If it was against the President or anyone high up I'd likely keep my mouth shut because I'm not naive.
You don't argue with me (yes you do) because you assume I know nothing and then when I answer your posts you don't like what you hear, call me a baby, meltdown, or dismiss me based on age. It's amusing especially since your responses show you to be more childish than I. If your classless meltdown against Berserker is the mark of age and maturity then I'll forever remain a Lost Boy. Good thing you aren't in law or debate.
BTW, I believe power abuses are a reality but you can't post two sentences that were not well thought out or explicit and expect a good answer but I feel my follow up is enough for this discussion.
Touche! I will grant you your last statement was very well put. {LOL}
But since you acknowledge power abuses are a reality, ...it stands to reason that capital punishment should be abolished.
-
Touche! I will grant you your last statement was very well put. {LOL}
But since you acknowledge power abuses are a reality, ...it stands to reason that capital punishment should be abolished.
By that logic, which others have stated as well, no punishment should be dealt because anyone can be framed and remain in jail unjustly.
-
By that logic, which others have stated as well, no punishment should be dealt because anyone can be framed and remain in jail unjustly.
There's a big difference between remaining in jail unjustly, and being dead.
Granted no innocent person should ever have to go to jail, but at least in jail, s/he stands somewhat of a chance to regain their life. Execution doesn't allow for that.
-
There's a big difference between remaining in jail unjustly, and being dead.
Granted no innocent person should ever have to go to jail, but at least in jail, s/he stands somewhat of a chance to regain their life. Execution doesn't allow for that.
Duly noted. My point is that unless one commits treason or murder they have a good chance of getting out of jail, with other crimes like kidnapping being another example of a possible life sentence. In these cases where the only other alternative is life in prison, what life is there to regain. In the case of corruption, which we both agree happens, if the corruption is deep and strong what chance does the accused stand at gaining parole or even winning an appeal?
What always strikes me as amazing is barring cases involving actual detection, why not execute those involving clear cut murder. A police officer is shot by a suspect or husband walks in on wife being murdered. Assuming the suspect is not killed and there is no question on the killer, why not execute them? If we shall not execute innocent men and women can we justify killing innocent babies?
-
Duly noted. My point is that unless one commits treason or murder they have a good chance of getting out of jail, with other crimes like kidnapping being another example of a possible life sentence. In these cases where the only other alternative is life in prison, what life is there to regain. In the case of corruption, which we both agree happens, if the corruption is deep and strong what chance does the accused stand at gaining parole or even winning an appeal?
What always strikes me as amazing is barring cases involving actual detection, why not execute those involving clear cut murder. A police officer is shot by a suspect or husband walks in on wife being murdered. Assuming the suspect is not killed and there is no question on the killer, why not execute them? If we shall not execute innocent men and women can we justify killing innocent babies?
1st trimester abortions do not kill innocent babies. They dispose of unwanted organized clumps of parasitic cells.
-
1st trimester abortions do not kill innocent babies. They dispose of unwanted organized clumps of parasitic cells.
That's exactly what the death penalty does.
-
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine Signs State Death Penalty Ban
Monday, December 17, 2007
WASHINGTON — Gov. Jon S. Corzine signed a law on Monday making New Jersey the first state in four decades to abolish the death penalty.
The bill, approved last week by the state's Assembly and Senate, replaces the death sentence with life in prison without parole.
The measure spares eight men on the state's death row. On Sunday, Corzine signed orders commuting the sentences of those eight to life in prison without parole.
Among the eight spared is Jesse Timmendequas, a sex offender who murdered 7-year-old Megan Kanka in 1994. The case inspired Megan's Law, which requires law enforcement agencies to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their communities.
Although New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 — six years after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to resume executions — it hasn't executed anyone since 1963.
A special state commission found in January that the death penalty was a more expensive sentence than life in prison, hasn't deterred murder, and risks killing an innocent person.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317123,00.html
-
Way to go. A bunch of liberals feeling sorry for the shit of society. The same hypocritical bunch who allow children to be killed. Big surprise this state of idiots was the first to do this.
Like I've said. Maybe this practice would deter people if the shit bags didn't know that they could have 20-30 years of appeals and avoid the death penalty all together.
-
i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.
most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.
-
i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.
most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.
Exactly, and nobody can explain to me why that scum bag doesn't deserve to die. Everyone needs to do some research on cases with obvious guilt and explain why there needs to be 30 years of debate over the same pieces of evidence. Countless appeals of ruling on appeals. Enough is enough. The evidence isn't going to change so accept your fate. We're not talking about decent men and women, but rather the shit stain on the white undies that is society. They are useless. These are not cases of self defense but murder. If you have an alibi for the time in question and the evidence is inconclusive you shouldn't have a problem with the system.
Cut out frivolous appeals, which cost too much money and burden the legal system for decades. Do not allow plea bargains or any chance for appeal or reduced sentence.
-
i dont know about other states. but in NY it's up to the prosecuter to decide which penalty they go for. if they have evidence such as a video tape, and every piece of evidence you need for a slam dunk conviction, they go for capitol punishment.. if they dont have much they'll go for 1st degree, or manslaughter or something else.
most of the time, when they have that much evidence they let the defense settle. so instead of going to trial, they take 30 years, over getting the death penalty. thats the way it works here. the death penalty is just a tool they use, more for the courts then for any other reason.
kh - New York doesn't have the death penalty.
-
kh - New York doesn't have the death penalty.
lol, i havnt been in a court room in awhie. forgot they got rid of it a couple years ago.. but im not sure if its official. there might be an appeal going on, but im too lazy to look it up
-
I made no comment about Tookie Williams being deserving or not of the death penalty.
I simply stated at that point in his life, he was more valueable to society alive than dead.
Sure he was ...
(http://americandinosaur.mu.nu/archives/0_22_112705_tookie.jpg)
epic gangster looking
-
Sure he was ...
(http://americandinosaur.mu.nu/archives/0_22_112705_tookie.jpg)
epic gangster looking
On more gear than Arnold at one time and could not even admit his guilt. Seriously, for someone who was given a Nobel Prize and hailed as intelligent, this idiot couldn't even do the one thing to keep himself alive. He tried to become a martyr but it's just another dead gang banger.
-
On more gear than Arnold at one time and could not even admit his guilt. Seriously, for someone who was given a Nobel Prize and hailed as intelligent, this idiot couldn't even do the one thing to keep himself alive. He tried to become a martyr but it's just another dead gang banger.
Glad he's dead. Took a while, but justice was served.
-
I don't think the death penalty, or punishment in general, is about revenge. It's about accountability, justice, safety, and deterrence.
There is nothing anti-Christian about the death penalty. What you're essentially advocating is anarchy. If we, as Christians, are required to "turn the other cheek," then no person is punished. We might as well close down our prisons. The Bible doesn't require any such thing. It doesn't condemn punishment, including the death penalty. To the contrary, it advocates accountability.
As a Christian, I am not conflicted in the slightest about the justice system, including the death penalty.
Yes, Anarchy (at least Anarchy as most people defines it, not the political definition: see Bakunin, Kropotkin) is what would happen.
If someone committed an act of sin against you, then you would turn the other cheek, or offer him/her your cloak as well.
Not ask for vengeance, or "justice".
Just forgive and move on.
The argument could be made that a lot of people would abuse this, but a Christian cannot worry about that, he/she has to live according to the Faith, the Righteous way, and hope that it will save more souls (those who abuse the "system" will eventually be convinced that they are wrong, and repent).
Eg, monks refusing to use violence to defend themselves when doing missionary work in hostile countries, and getting slain, accepting that faith.
-
jersey hadn't executed anyone in 44 years...timendequas would have been on death row forever...good for the state...they finally see the silliness of a death penalty that didn't work...it didn't discourage crime nor was it ever efficient in meeting out punishment..plus it made killers martyrs---lock them up, throw away the key and forget about them...you see how fast hollywood bigwigs leave town when someone gets life instead of death.
-
jersey hadn't executed anyone in 44 years...timendequas would have been on death row forever...good for the state...they finally see the silliness of a death penalty that didn't work...it didn't discourage crime nor was it ever efficient in meeting out punishment..plus it made killers martyrs---lock them up, throw away the key and forget about them...you see how fast hollywood bigwigs leave town when someone gets life instead of death.
Yeah, kind of hard to deter crime when they know they will likely not be executed what with all the years of appeals. LIfe imprisonment deters crime more than death? Murderers are kings in jail. I'd rather see a man pissing himself about to die than living "on top" in jail, running his gang or crew inside.
-
On more gear than Arnold at one time and could not even admit his guilt. Seriously, for someone who was given a Nobel Prize and hailed as intelligent, this idiot couldn't even do the one thing to keep himself alive. He tried to become a martyr but it's just another dead gang banger.
I totally agree, this is a usual behaviour among CRIMINALS (no guys they are not humans, they are CRIMINALS), they rape, kill people, ruin people's life and when they have to face the strong hand of LAW, oh man, they quickly FIND THE WORD OF GOD, THE PEACE THAT WAS TAKEN BY AN ALCOHOLIC FATHER THAT USED TO BEAT & RAPE THEM WHEN THEY WERE KIDS, and all of that usual BULLSH1T which is a pussy way to say "I FEAR DEATH".
My country used to have death penalty too, until democracy arrived and now we see on tv EVERY FUCK1NG DAY victims of rape, robbery, and more, performed by people who has been jailed up to 3 times for the same crimes.
You guys dont want that in your country for sure, hence support death penalty, its the only cure for this CANCER.
-
nope..life in jail doesn't deter crime...that wasn't my point..it's obvious punishment that is meted out is just that, punishment and not an opportunity for rehabilitation or deterrent to future would-be criminals.
Just because someone gets to spend life in prison doesn't mean he becomes a jail house don...
What's more of a punishment? being put on death row and made a celebrity for the anti-death penalty crusaders or getting thrown in jail, to live a tedious, structured, freedom-less existence for the next 50-60 years? the death penalty is inherently an unfair punishment...who is to say that one murder outweighs another murder where one murderer gets the needle and another gets to spend his life in jail? why is killing a cop a sure ticket to the needle while killing a homeless man results in 30 years in prison?
-
I totally agree, this is a usual behaviour among CRIMINALS (no guys they are not humans, they are CRIMINALS), they rape, kill people, ruin people's life and when they have to face the strong hand of LAW, oh man, they quickly FIND THE WORD OF GOD, THE PEACE THAT WAS TAKEN BY AN ALCOHOLIC FATHER THAT USED TO BEAT & RAPE THEM WHEN THEY WERE KIDS, and all of that usual BULLSH1T which is a pussy way to say "I FEAR DEATH".
My country used to have death penalty too, until democracy arrived and now we see on tv EVERY FUCK1NG DAY victims of rape, robbery, and more, performed by people who has been jailed up to 3 times for the same crimes.
You guys dont want that in your country for sure, hence support death penalty, its the only cure for this CANCER.
I'm not sure the death penalty is a cure for anything...it's be around for years and violent crime has risen...not dropped.
-
nope..life in jail doesn't deter crime...that wasn't my point..it's obvious punishment that is meted out is just that, punishment and not an opportunity for rehabilitation or deterrent to future would-be criminals.
Just because someone gets to spend life in prison doesn't mean he becomes a jail house don...
What's more of a punishment? being put on death row and made a celebrity for the anti-death penalty crusaders or getting thrown in jail, to live a tedious, structured, freedom-less existence for the next 50-60 years? the death penalty is inherently an unfair punishment...who is to say that one murder outweighs another murder where one murderer gets the needle and another gets to spend his life in jail? why is killing a cop a sure ticket to the needle while killing a homeless man results in 30 years in prison?
What murderers are celebrities except for guys like Peterson. I bet you couldn't name 10 or even 5 off the top of your head. Death penalty is fair, especially with DNA. They should all die if they murder. I guarantee that if people stuck by DNA evidence, we had less years of appeals, mandatory execution and ACTUALLY used the system with all this BS then it would deter crime. Criminals laugh at the system. They know they have 3 strikes and can escape their death sentence because of liberal idiots who feel bad for them. You can't deter people with a system you do not use.
-
tookie became one..mumia is still one...peterson...ira einhorn became one in france when he was captured and faced a death sentence in pennsylvania...which forced pennsyvania to promise france that he would not face death if france extradited him back to the US....if any of these guys had been given life---what does DNA have to do with the fairness of the death penalty---
-
Hardly. Most prisons, if not all, have aggressive programs to stamp out gang behavior inside via transfer programs, confinement, identification, and rehabilitation. It isn't like OZ, Prison Break, or some other glorified prison movie. Where I worked, I've seen Mexican Mafia, Crips, Bloods, the Haitian Zoe Pounds, Aryan Brotherhood(not a true gang in these parts, as the numbers of whites are rather small and they naturally form together), and a lot of others. They mainly hung out with one another for the company, with perhaps some small-time planning for the Outside. Very rarely, and never from when I've been there, have their been "contracted" hits or planned riots. Snitches are usually targeted before anything, and everyone from all sides would be out to get them. I've had to do a lot of transports to move "snitches" to a different facility or put in protective management. The term Human Warehousing is on the money. We placed inmates categoriacally whether it be sex, possible gang affiliation, location to closest family, custody level, etc....
You need to realize our current prison system is broken. We have over 2.2 million people in jails/prisons. That is Human Warehousing for profit. Private companies, the big ones being Wackenhut and CCA, are getting big business from building prisons and receiving government contracts to run them. In the past, counties and towns would normally shun the building of a new correctional institution as there was the thought that it would be a blight on the area. Now, they clamor for them to be built. Contracts, staff, and inmate families end up moving close-by and ultimately spend more money in that area. Small, petty offenses, such as possession of marijuana, DUI/DWI, civil infractions, Tax offenses, etc...are enough to put someone in jail. There are too many people in jail/prison for non-violent offenses, and that is unacceptable. In addition, it is almost impossible to obtain a job after serving one's time due to their record, and people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.
I like to think of the solution, not the problem. For non-violent offenses, there needs to be a different and creative punishment catered to the individual. It is unfair and absolutely stupid to convict, say, a millionaire and a minimum-wager to the same sentence if both committed something like tax fraud. Something unique needs to be constructed for both. In this case, the judge should force a recompensation program in addition with classes and/or community service. The EOE that employers go by should be spread to those with criminal records, particularily to those with non-violent ones. For those with drug-related charges such as simple possession should instead go into a rehabilitation program. However, I do concede that the criminal justice system is not the end all of itself, as there are societal and cultural problems that lie at the core, but I think a reformation of the system would be a step in the right direction.
-
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27, Jesus speaking...boy was a Jesus a moody character...so much for forgiveness. ::)
That's not Jesus speaking, but a king in a story that Jesus was telling. Read the whole thing and stop posting verses out of context and twisting the message.
For an atheist, you sure spend a lot of time and energy whining and complaining about someone who allegedly doesn't exist. ;D
-
Hardly. Most prisons, if not all, have aggressive programs to stamp out gang behavior inside via transfer programs, confinement, identification, and rehabilitation. It isn't like OZ, Prison Break, or some other glorified prison movie. Where I worked, I've seen Mexican Mafia, Crips, Bloods, the Haitian Zoe Pounds, Aryan Brotherhood(not a true gang in these parts, as the numbers of whites are rather small and they naturally form together), and a lot of others. They mainly hung out with one another for the company, with perhaps some small-time planning for the Outside. Very rarely, and never from when I've been there, have their been "contracted" hits or planned riots. Snitches are usually targeted before anything, and everyone from all sides would be out to get them. I've had to do a lot of transports to move "snitches" to a different facility or put in protective management. The term Human Warehousing is on the money. We placed inmates categoriacally whether it be sex, possible gang affiliation, location to closest family, custody level, etc....
You need to realize our current prison system is broken. We have over 2.2 million people in jails/prisons. That is Human Warehousing for profit. Private companies, the big ones being Wackenhut and CCA, are getting big business from building prisons and receiving government contracts to run them. In the past, counties and towns would normally shun the building of a new correctional institution as there was the thought that it would be a blight on the area. Now, they clamor for them to be built. Contracts, staff, and inmate families end up moving close-by and ultimately spend more money in that area. Small, petty offenses, such as possession of marijuana, DUI/DWI, civil infractions, Tax offenses, etc...are enough to put someone in jail. There are too many people in jail/prison for non-violent offenses, and that is unacceptable. In addition, it is almost impossible to obtain a job after serving one's time due to their record, and people wonder why recidivism rates are so high.
I like to think of the solution, not the problem. For non-violent offenses, there needs to be a different and creative punishment catered to the individual. It is unfair and absolutely stupid to convict, say, a millionaire and a minimum-wager to the same sentence if both committed something like tax fraud. Something unique needs to be constructed for both. In this case, the judge should force a recompensation program in addition with classes and/or community service. The EOE that employers go by should be spread to those with criminal records, particularily to those with non-violent ones. For those with drug-related charges such as simple possession should instead go into a rehabilitation program. However, I do concede that the criminal justice system is not the end all of itself, as there are societal and cultural problems that lie at the core, but I think a reformation of the system would be a step in the right direction.
There are some good ideas here but the costs would also be high to enact a new system like this. It takes money and qualified people to run this. As far as drug charges, even DUI cases get some time in jail. Let the pot heads stew a for a month in jail before rehab. Other drug possessions need jail time. If you have coke, meth, heroin, etc you need to be locked up for awhile before you get any treatment. You're also assuming that forced treatment works. AA and NA work because they are voluntary. Look at stars who are forced into rehab; they bounce back time and time again.
As far as teh death penalty, nobody outside of the black community gives a shit about Tookie and the other cases like Peterson are a big deal because they involve pregnant mothers and the media makes them big deals, otherwise people wouldn't care. DNA makes any form of punishment as fair as humanly possible because it is based on science. If punishing with death based on DNA is not fair then how are people happy with it in other cases? Jag rants about how DNA is misused to convict but can't tell me how it is infallible when exonerating people. Can anyone explain this? I doubt they can. As DNA advances and the "old" cases move out of the system, what is the problem with DNA proving guilt?
-
There are some good ideas here but the costs would also be high to enact a new system like this. It takes money and qualified people to run this. As far as drug charges, even DUI cases get some time in jail. Let the pot heads stew a for a month in jail before rehab. Other drug possessions need jail time. If you have coke, meth, heroin, etc you need to be locked up for awhile before you get any treatment. You're also assuming that forced treatment works. AA and NA work because they are voluntary. Look at stars who are forced into rehab; they bounce back time and time again.
As far as teh death penalty, nobody outside of the black community gives a shit about Tookie and the other cases like Peterson are a big deal because they involve pregnant mothers and the media makes them big deals, otherwise people wouldn't care. DNA makes any form of punishment as fair as humanly possible because it is based on science. If punishing with death based on DNA is not fair then how are people happy with it in other cases? Jag rants about how DNA is misused to convict but can't tell me how it is infallible when exonerating people. Can anyone explain this? I doubt they can. As DNA advances and the "old" cases move out of the system, what is the problem with DNA proving guilt?
the problem is that you don't always have dna of the perpetrator at the crime scene? and if hte black community consisted of hollywood types like ed asner, mike farrell and cnn camera crews then i guess you are right--You forgot Mumia-Abu Jamal..who has had streets named after him in France..and has the same hollywood types defending him--
-
the problem is that you don't always have dna of the perpetrator at the crime scene? and if hte black community consisted of hollywood types like ed asner, mike farrell and cnn camera crews then i guess you are right--You forgot Mumia-Abu Jamal..who has had streets named after him in France..and has the same hollywood types defending him--
True but many of these overturned cases come from DNA evidence from a time when we didn't have the tests. In cases without DNA, there are other ways to prove guilt but Jag and others claim that it's all race and power bias so we should not try and fix any problems and just scrap the system, which is wrong.
As for the gentleman you named, I have heard nothing major here but I assure you that Tookie does not have the same reputation here among the general populace.
-
True but many of these overturned cases come from DNA evidence from a time when we didn't have the tests. In cases without DNA, there are other ways to prove guilt but Jag and others claim that it's all race and power bias so we should not try and fix any problems and just scrap the system, which is wrong.
As for the gentleman you named, I have heard nothing major here but I assure you that Tookie does not have the same reputation here among the general populace.
Cap, please don't try to express my position in matters because it is clear to me you do not understand them.
-
Cap, please don't try to express my position in matters because it is clear to me you do not understand them.
You said early on in this debate that you felt DNA was flawed in convicting people and that power corruption was a problem as well but that DNA testing was exonerating more and more people. Aside from insults what else did/do you have to say?
-
If it's overwhelming evidence i say kill em if it's Murder 1.
If it's not overwhelming evidence, i say life in prison.
And let's stop spinning crap. DNA is not 100% But 99% is good enough for me if there is other strong evidence of guilt.
-
You said early on in this debate that you felt DNA was flawed in convicting people and that power corruption was a problem as well but that DNA testing was exonerating more and more people. Aside from insults what else did/do you have to say?
What I said was that it was possible to frame someone by using samples of their DNA.
Getting someone's DNA isn't difficult, we leave traces of it everywhere we go.
In addition, there are some forensic labs that are cesspools of contamination.
So-called "evidence" is only as good as the person collecting it, the lab and technicians processing it, and the integrity maintained throughout the entire process.
-
Luke 19:27, Jesus speaking...boy was a Jesus a moody character...so much for forgiveness. ::)
That's not Jesus speaking, but a king in a story that Jesus was telling. Read the whole thing and stop posting verses out of context and twisting the message.
For an atheist, you sure spend a lot of time and energy whining and complaining about someone who allegedly doesn't exist. ;D
lol. Ding! True. :)
-
What I said was that it was possible to frame someone by using samples of their DNA.
Getting someone's DNA isn't difficult, we leave traces of it everywhere we go.
In addition, there are some forensic labs that are cesspools of contamination.
So-called "evidence" is only as good as the person collecting it, the lab and technicians processing it, and the integrity maintained throughout the entire process.
So....corruption. Yep, I covered that.
Humans are inherently fallible. If you have a problem with people being framed then perhaps we should not have any punishment. I could collect a sample of your DNA (hair possibly), go rob a bank with a mask, leave the DNA evidence where it could easily be found and frame you. That's only robbery.
I could also take have unprotected sex with you, take GHB and claim I was raped. Drugs in my system and your DNA. That's only rape.
Where does it end? IF this is such a problem then how can we ever prosecute?
Ozmo has a good idea but DNA can prove guilt, especially with its progression over the years. We claim this is a problem with the US system but is DNA collection any better in Europe, Canada, Asia?
-
If it's overwhelming evidence i say kill em if it's Murder 1.
If it's not overwhelming evidence, i say life in prison.
And let's stop spinning crap. DNA is not 100% But 99% is good enough for me if there is other strong evidence of guilt.
I'd say "overwhelming evidence" is pretty much the standard. I don't see any difference between that and "beyond a reasonable doubt."
-
I'd say "overwhelming evidence" is pretty much the standard. I don't see any difference between that and "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I think sometimes there is, otherwise we wouldn't see some death row guys found innocent. So it really depends on what "Beyond reasonable Doubt" means.
-
I think sometimes there is, otherwise we wouldn't see some death row guys found innocent. So it really depends on what "Beyond reasonable Doubt" means.
I think it essentially means no doubt. This may sound circular, but if you have a doubt that's unreasonable, then you really have no doubt.
-
I think it essentially means no doubt. This may sound circular, but if you have a doubt that's unreasonable, then you really have no doubt.
yeah that does sound weird.
Point being however, some people are on death row who have been convicted and sent there on lesser evidence than should be. That's my point. We should make those guys lifers. But the guy that killed someone and was caught immediately at the scene with weapon in hand and DNA matched and witnesses confirmed who saw the whole things, well that seems pretty certain.
-
yeah that does sound weird.
Point being however, some people are on death row who have been convicted and sent there on lesser evidence than should be. That's my point. We should make those guys lifers. But the guy that killed someone and was caught immediately at the scene with weapon in hand and DNA matched and witnesses confirmed who saw the whole things, well that seems pretty certain.
I don't think any innocent person should spend a day in prison. If there is enough evidence to convict a person of first degree murder, then there should be enough evidence to execute them.
-
So....corruption. Yep, I covered that.
Humans are inherently fallible. If you have a problem with people being framed then perhaps we should not have any punishment. I could collect a sample of your DNA (hair possibly), go rob a bank with a mask, leave the DNA evidence where it could easily be found and frame you. That's only robbery.
I could also take have unprotected sex with you, take GHB and claim I was raped. Drugs in my system and your DNA. That's only rape.
Holy Cow, ...now I see how stupid our hypothetical scenarios can become when we make them up on the fly? {lol}
Where does it end? IF this is such a problem then how can we ever prosecute?
Ozmo has a good idea but DNA can prove guilt, especially with its progression over the years. We claim this is a problem with the US system but is DNA collection any better in Europe, Canada, Asia?
No one is saying DNA evidence is exclusively a problem in the US, however, Canada does not have the death penalty.
When you actually know someone who was wrongfully convicted of multiple homicide, received a death sentence, was eventually exonerated, and whose life was only saved due to an end to the death penalty, you have a different perspective on the death penalty
To me, state sanctioned murder has no place in a civilized society.
-
I don't think any innocent person should spend a day in prison. If there is enough evidence to convict a person of first degree murder, then there should be enough evidence to execute them.
In a perfect world yes, but it's not. And we've seen convictions overturned because other evidence has come to light and tragically some of these people were innocent and were executed.
that's why, the Death penalty should abolished AND kept. Abolished for the ones without overwhelming evidence and Kept for the ones with.
What you just said there is good in principle but not working in practice.
-
yeah that does sound weird.
Point being however, some people are on death row who have been convicted and sent there on lesser evidence than should be. That's my point. We should make those guys lifers. But the guy that killed someone and was caught immediately at the scene with weapon in hand and DNA matched and witnesses confirmed who saw the whole things, well that seems pretty certain.
Precisely. It is this capricious standard that must also be guarded against, ...and regardless of our opinions about people's guilt or innocence, we must demand that certain standards in place (whether imperfect or not) be adhered to, otherwise society is placed in far greater danger.
We just saw a whole whack of infant bodies exhumed, and new autopsies performed as a result of mistakes made by the same forensic pathologist that sent innocent people to jail. Had there been a death penalty, these people surely would have fried.
-
In a perfect world yes, but it's not. And we've seen convictions overturned because other evidence has come to light and tragically some of these people were innocent and were executed.
that's why, the Death penalty should abolished AND kept. Abolished for the ones without overwhelming evidence and Kept for the ones with.
What you just said there is good in principle but not working in practice.
I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed. Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption?
Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty? I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase? Not sure.
I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
I do agree that the system isn't perfect.
-
I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed. Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption?
Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty? I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase? Not sure.
I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
I do agree that the system isn't perfect.
I'm basing my assertion on things I've read and seen over the years. But here's a link:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423 (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423)
A man sentenced to death as a teenager was freed Monday by DNA evidence, and said he had been certain from the beginning that he would be vindicated. For more than seven years, Ryan Matthews has said he had nothing to do with the 1997 robbery and murder of a grocer. He said he knew that someday he would be freed.
Jurors were told that no physical evidence linked Matthews to the holdup and murder of Tommy Vanhoose. But two witnesses identified him as the gunman, and a co-defendant, Travis Hayes, told police that he drove the getaway car after Matthews, then 17, shot Vanhoose. Ultimately, DNA found in a ski mask that was tossed from the getaway car was found to match that of Rondell Love, who is serving time for an unrelated killing. In addition, Matthews' lawyers said, other inmates have told investigators that Love bragged about killing Vanhoose.
Another one:
Charges were dropped this week against a Louisiana man who spent nearly five years on death row for a crime he did not commit, making him the 115th former death row inmate in the United States to be freed due to actual innocence.
Ryan Matthews is the 7th former death row inmate in Louisiana to be cleared of murder. He is also the state's third African American juvenile proven to be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death.
115th? 1 is too much for me BB.
How many have we executed that were innocent if 115 have already been found?
-
I'm basing my assertion on things I've read and seen over the years. But here's a link:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423 (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2004/08/10/928/05423)
Another one:
115th? 1 is too much for me BB.
What that says is innocent people were wrongfully convicted and placed on death row. Doesn't say an innocent person was executed.
It would be an absolute tragedy if an innocent person was executed. I'm unaware of that happening.
Have you seen The Life of David Gale? Decent movie. Deals with this issue. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/
-
I'm not aware of any innocent person being executed. Are you thinking of a specific case or making an assumption?
Saccho & Venzetti (political pressure) - the lindbergh baby was high profile.
The Rosenbergs (deliberate misconduct) - the justice dept knew they were innocent, but went ahead and not only charged them, but sought the death penalty, and allowed it to be carried out.
Isn't there already a heightened standard for the death penalty? I think there is something called "lingering doubt" or something like that, that comes into play during the penalty phase? Not sure.
higher standards are irrelevant when they are capriciously applied
I understand what you're saying, but I really don't see much of a difference between overwhelming evidence and "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
they're made even more irrelevant when they are indiscernible by a jury with the power of life & death in their hands
I do agree that the system isn't perfect.
...but you have no problem taking a man's life using such an imperfect system? ???
Have you seen "The Life of David Gale"?
-
Have you seen The Life of David Gale? Decent movie. Deals with this issue. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/
:-[ Ooops. Took a phone call while typing my response and hadn't seen this comment, but since you've seen it, how can you be all for the death penalty? Truly, how can you not see where & how innocent people can be executed?
-
Holy Cow, ...now I see how stupid our hypothetical scenarios can become when we make them up on the fly? {lol}
No one is saying DNA evidence is exclusively a problem in the US, however, Canada does not have the death penalty.
When you actually know someone who was wrongfully convicted of multiple homicide, received a death sentence, was eventually exonerated, and whose life was only saved due to an end to the death penalty, you have a different perspective on the death penalty
To me, state sanctioned murder has no place in a civilized society. So you are against the death penalty?
Jag, you might as well come out and call me stupid because I know you want to. My hyperbolic examples proved the point that your idea about overwhelming occurrences of corruption are stupid. They do happen but not to the extent you claim and not to normal people, and if you look past you hatred of me you could see that those examples can happen and the second is actually a "type" of scenario that women have done to men many times in rape cases.
If it is easy for police to plant evidence to to convict a murderer or otherwise, as you assert, or for a lab to do the same why would it be so far fetched for a "perp" to do the same.
If I see person X kill person Y and I apprehend X, why should he/she be allowed to live? Shouldn't the animals in a civilized society be killed? What about the sick people who rape and then kill their victims (women and children)? What value do they have? What purpose do they serve? I love reading liberals here and abroad back abortion, call US soldiers baby killers and want to save the shit of society. How dumb are these people?
Ozmo, you are right. Innocents should not die but we cannot scrap a utilitarian system because if we tried make every case perfect then we would spend too much money and cases would never process. DNA is freeing people who were convicted at a time without it and some within. Times will progress and DNA will go a long way. We all bitch about CCtv and spying but the Brits can build some good cases with it. Not to mention if you aren't guilty and have an alibi for when you allegedly killed a person. These things add up to make the system work; the system that failed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman by letting OJ escape death.
-
Jag, you might as well come out and call me stupid because I know you want to.
No that wasn't what I was doing. I was calling your example stupid, and in the process acknowledging how ridiculously sounding some of my hypotheticals were.
My hyperbolic examples proved the point that your idea about overwhelming occurrences of corruption are stupid.
I make no statement that all examples of death row inmates are there due to overwhelming corruption. I'm simply stating that in addition to corruption, ...mistakes can be made. Mistakes of incompetence, neglect, or simply overwhelmingly superficial appearance of guilt.
They do happen but not to the extent you claim and not to normal people, and if you look past you hatred of me you could see that those examples can happen and the second is actually a "type" of scenario that women have done to men many times in rape cases.
This makes no sense to me so I will address each discrepancy separately.
1st. Since you acknowledge they do happen, how can you so cavalierly defend the death penalty?
2nd. I have no 'hatred' of you. Anything I may or may not feel for you are irrelevent to my position in this. The issue is not Cap 86. The issue is the death penalty.
3rd. David Milgarde was an ordinary normal person, as were Saccho & Venzetti, the Rosenbergs, and countless others whose names we do not know.
4th. The idea of us having any kind of sex, protected or otherwise is so far a stretch of the imagination it is too ridiculous for words. I'd never consent to such a thing, ...and you'd probably not even be able to ...ahem ...rise to the occasion.
5th. I'm beginning to think it is your inability to look past your hatred of me that is prompting much of your responses, ...or maybe you're just not communicating your position clearly enough. I've been there, it's straight in our minds, but putting it into type doesn't quite communicate it.
If it is easy for police to plant evidence to to convict a murderer or otherwise, as you assert, or for a lab to do the same why would it be so far fetched for a "perp" to do the same.
My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty', and in the case of the Rosenbergs, someone they considered to be merely pawns they intended to use as leverage. I also did not claim it was far-fetched for a 'perp' to plant evidence in an attempt to frame another.
If I see person X kill person Y and I apprehend X, why should he/she be allowed to live? Shouldn't the animals in a civilized society be killed?
:o Dude you don't know what you're saying. The last thing you want is PETA on your ass.
What about the sick people who rape and then kill their victims (women and children)? What value do they have? What purpose do they serve?
My point is unless you are the victim (and occassionally that isn't even definitive enough) we don't know that someone accused of a crime, yet maintains their innocence, is actually guilty of the crime or not. We can only turn to the evidence to form our opinions. But opinions are not fact. The execution of a death sentence is FINAL (pun intended). Your arguments appear to me to state that everyone convicted of a crime is infact guilty of having actually committed the crime. We both know that is not always the case.
I love reading liberals here and abroad back abortion, call US soldiers baby killers and want to save the shit of society. How dumb are these people?
Ozmo, you are right. Innocents should not die but we cannot scrap a utilitarian system because if we tried make every case perfect then we would spend too much money and cases would never process. DNA is freeing people who were convicted at a time without it and some within. Times will progress and DNA will go a long way. We all bitch about CCtv and spying but the Brits can build some good cases with it. Not to mention if you aren't guilty and have an alibi for when you allegedly killed a person. These things add up to make the system work; the system that failed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman by letting OJ escape death.
The system didn't fail, ...the police who failed to maintain a proper chain of custody of their evidence, and a DA who knowingly put shit before a jury. Do you know they tried their case 6 times before mock jurys and lost every time? Why would it have been any different on the day?
-
No that wasn't what I was doing. I was calling your example stupid, and in the process acknowledging how ridiculously sounding some of my hypotheticals were.
I make no statement that all examples of death row inmates are there due to overwhelming corruption. I'm simply stating that in addition to corruption, ...mistakes can be made. Mistakes of incompetence, neglect, or simply overwhelmingly superficial appearance of guilt. This happens in every type of crime, hence my examples. Should we scrap the whole system because of it?
This makes no sense to me so I will address each discrepancy separately.
1st. Since you acknowledge they do happen, how can you so cavalierly defend the death penalty? Because when actually used and not just seen as a "Maybe" it can work but that's not the system we have.
2nd. I have no 'hatred' of you. Anything I may or may not feel for you are irrelevent to my position in this. The issue is not Cap 86. The issue is the death penalty. Then keep your posts strictly on what I write, don't mention me and I will do the same.
3rd. David Milgarde was an ordinary normal person, as were Saccho & Venzetti, the Rosenbergs, and countless others whose names we do not know. High profile cases involving treason are different than murder 1.
4th. The idea of us having any kind of sex, protected or otherwise is so far a stretch of the imagination it is too ridiculous for words. I'd never consent to such a thing, ...and you'd probably not even be able to ...ahem ...rise to the occasion. And I thought this was personal. ::)
5th. I'm beginning to think it is your inability to look past your hatred of me that is prompting much of your responses, ...or maybe you're just not communicating your position clearly enough. I've been there, it's straight in our minds, but putting it into type doesn't quite communicate it. See above. I know what I have said and written and due to the fact that you can even respond I gather you get my points but simply disagree.
My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty', and in the case of the Rosenbergs, someone they considered to be merely pawns they intended to use as leverage. I also did not claim it was far-fetched for a 'perp' to plant evidence in an attempt to frame another.
:o Dude you don't know what you're saying. The last thing you want is PETA on your ass. No, I'm talking about the animals like Tookie Williams.
My point is unless you are the victim (and occassionally that isn't even definitive enough) we don't know that someone accused of a crime, yet maintains their innocence, is actually guilty of the crime or not. We can only turn to the evidence to form our opinions. But opinions are not fact. The execution of a death sentence is FINAL (pun intended). Your arguments appear to me to state that everyone convicted of a crime is infact guilty of having actually committed the crime. We both know that is not always the case. No but we all act like there are a majority of cases involving massive amounts of DNA evidence when I would imagine there are many robber turned murder or crimes of passion where the guilty party is clearly known but still not executed.
The system didn't fail, ...the police who failed to maintain a proper chain of custody of their evidence, and a DA who knowingly put shit before a jury. Do you know they tried their case 6 times before mock jurys and lost every time? Why would it have been any different on the day? Those people should be fired then.
-
What that says is innocent people were wrongfully convicted and placed on death row. Doesn't say an innocent person was executed.
It would be an absolute tragedy if an innocent person was executed. I'm unaware of that happening.
Have you seen The Life of David Gale? Decent movie. Deals with this issue. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289992/
It only stands to reason that before wide spread DNA testing that innocent people were executed. That's the point, as you said the system isn't perfect. And these examples are ones the4y did find.
try this:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm (http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm)
Aside from that BB, very few people are actively investigating a person's innocent after thier execution.
What's the point you know? So you are probably not going to find out about it. But hte Graham case shows there isn't a standard for capital punishments convictions as you eluded to.
-
Damn I hate sloppy formatting and quotation marks! >:(
This happens in every type of crime, hence my examples. Should we scrap the whole system because of it?
no, ...but we should certainly stop the death penalty. In addition to being open to unalterable or unrecompensable error, ...it is a drain on the system.
Because when actually used and not just seen as a "Maybe" it can work but that's not the system we have.
But this is about the system currently in place
Then keep your posts strictly on what I write, don't mention me and I will do the same.
:o When have I done otherwise? It's you who keeps mentioning me constantly.
If I didn't know better, ...I might think you were a fan. :D
High profile cases involving treason are different than murder 1.
David Milgarde was convicted of raping and murdering a woman. Saccho & Venzetti were about the kidnap and murder of an infant. Whether the Rosenberg trial involved treason is irrelevant. They were ordinary normal people who should not have gotten knowingly railroaded by the government.
And I thought this was personal.
Oh man, I can see we have a real miscommunication problem here. nothing personal about that comment.
It was not an aspersion cast upon your masculinity, ...but rather a joke in reference to your feelings about me.
I know what I have said and written and due to the fact that you can even respond I gather you get my points but simply disagree.
Some of your points I get, ...but simply disagree. Others are somewhat contradictory and appear to be argumentative simply for the sake of being so. Now as I re-read that, I can see where my own posts would give that appearance, but as Jake pointed out the other day, I'm extremely anal. I believe in the specificity of language for a reason, and the use of vague words or innappropriate words has a tendency to throw off the meaning imparted to a sentence. There is power in connotation, and if someone is not purposely attempting to spin or be deceiptful, they should take great care in the specificity of the vocabulary they choose to employ. see immediate example below
My assertion was that it is posible for police to plant evidence to convict a 'person they believe to be guilty'.
Someone is not guilty until proven to be so, ...and the attempt to ensure conviction of someone believed to be guilty is heinously unnacceptable. Belief is not proof, and for a society to turn a blind eye because they may also share that belief is a real slippery slope to be climbing.
No, I'm talking about the animals like Tookie Williams.
I know you were. I was simply being facetious. But the Tookie Williams case is a perfect example.
He was a man who was not only convicted based upon circumstantial evidence, but he was given the death penalty for it. Whether or not you think the guy is innocent or guilty, an animal or a human being, or even whther or not you believe in the death penalty itself, you have to at least demand that in carrying out such a FINAL solution, that legislative standards required for a capital case be in place.
And the absolute BS of knowingly breaking the law, then enacting retroactive legistion is such an insult to the intelligence of the citizenry, it makes such a mockery of the constitution, and everyone in the republic, ...if you can still call it that.
No but we all act like there are a majority of cases involving massive amounts of DNA evidence when I would imagine there are many robber turned murder or crimes of passion where the guilty party is clearly known but still not executed.
I won't deny that there are guilty people (both in the letter of the law, as well as the spirit of the law) that are not executed, ...but again, it goes back to my original position that a civilized society has no business in state sanctioned murder even for guilty people. The chances of convicting and executing an innocent person (no matter how remote) makes it even more of an imperative that such a barbaric practice be done away with.
Look at certain regimes overseas. They are barbaric backwards states inhabited by barbaric backward people. Guess what, 50 years ago, their citizens were not so backward. A barbaric state breeds barbaric people.
Those people should be fired then.
Oh Puleaze! That wouldn't be America! They got an outpouring of sympathy, multiple book deals, and in the case of one prosecutor, if my info is correct, ...another kick at the can 13 years later! ;D
Anyways... gotta run. Got some truckers to organize for a conference call.
-
Cap,
What would you think of a case where an individual was caught coming from Afghanistan in possession of poppy seed heads in his luggage, and 0.6 grams of hashish in his pants?
In a "zero tolerance for drugs" state, should such an individual pay the stiffest penalty allowed by law?
-
It only stands to reason that before wide spread DNA testing that innocent people were executed. That's the point, as you said the system isn't perfect. And these examples are ones the4y did find.
try this:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm (http://www.truthinjustice.org/irreversible.htm)
Aside from that BB, very few people are actively investigating a person's innocent after thier execution.
What's the point you know? So you are probably not going to find out about it. But hte Graham case shows there isn't a standard for capital punishments convictions as you eluded to.
So you are indeed making an assumption. I concede that with the number of people who have been taken off death row, that it's possible an innocent has been executed. But all we have is speculation.
And I don't think Graham is a good case for anti-death penalty proponents to hang their hat on. The guy was a scourge on society: "he pleaded guilty to a week-long rampage of 10 robberies around the same time but said he was innocent of the murder." http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_5_98/ai_63537150
It's possible Graham was innocent. I doubt it. Check out this discussion by one of his crime victims:
KING: All right, Charles, you stay with us, because we'll be going back to you.
Let's go to Houston now and talk with David Spiers, who was robbed and shot by Graham in May of 1981. Mr. Spiers is a supporter of the death penalty and a supporter of the death penalty for Gary Graham.
Was this -- was your occurrence with him after or before the alleged murder?
DAVID SPIERS, VICTIM: Hello?
KING: Yes, David.
SPIERS: Yes. Mine was on May 16, it was a Saturday, And I was...
KING: And the murder occurred when?
SPIERS: I don't know the exact date right now.
KING: Was it after your occurrence?
SPIERS: I think it was after.
KING: All right. And what happened to you?
SPIERS: When I was on the freeway, he pulled out a sawed-off -- my car broke down on Interstate 10, and Gary Graham came over to help me, he pulled over, and said he was going take me to service station to get some help. I jumped in the back seat of his car. As we were driving down the freeway, I noticed we had passed my exit sign, and all of a sudden he pulled out a 12-gauge shotgun and put it to my chest.
At that time, he said he was going go ahead and kill me, because he had already killed three or four other people, and he also told me that he was going to go back and kill my fiancee and her parents afterwards. At that time, he pulled the hammer back of the shotgun and blew my leg in half. I grabbed shotgun away. I fired at him, I fired at him. The windshield went out. The car started spinning. We were fighting. I had the butt of the shotgun. I was hitting him back and forth.
Larry, it was probably one of the most violent things a human being can go through. Cars were hitting us. It was raining very, very hard. It was 10:00 on Saturday night. All of a sudden, another car hit us. My leg was severed. I grabbed my ankle, threw myself out of the car. It broke my leg, my other leg. I pulled myself to the side of the road. I was lifelined to one of the local hospitals here, and I spent three months in the hospital. And I went in a weighing about 205 pounds, Larry, and when I came out, I was weighing about 135.
KING: Did he rob you, David?
SPIERS: Yes. He did rob me, and he -- you know, the funny thing about this was I was an eyewitness to my own murder. But I fought back, and I fought for my life, and the thing about this is that when I spent three months in the hospital, I almost died. I got my last rites. After that, I didn't walk for two years. I still don't walk properly today. I've lost a lot of movement, a lot of function in my leg.
But the scary thing was one reason I did fight for my life is because he did tell me that he murdered two or three people, and I was just going to be another one. But what really scared me was that he told me he is going to go back and murder my fiancee and her parents so they could go with me.
KING: Sure. Did you -- you of course did not testify in his murder trial, as one had nothing to do with the other, correct?
SPIERS: Unfortunately, Larry, I did not, because I was in critical shape. But my violent crime was part of the punishment phase.
KING: It was part of the -- in other words, you were able to testify when they were deciding on life or death.
SPIERS: No. I was not in there, but they took all the 22 crimes that he did, or the 21 plus the murder of Bobby Lambert, and they put it all in one, and that was in the punishment phase. You know, when I was in the hospital, the police brought in stack of photographs, and I picked out three separate photographs of him. I had a visual eye-to- eye contact with him. And when I see him on TV today, 19 years later, and I look at his eyes, I see violence, and I know that he tried to murder me.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0006/22/lkl.00.html
-
So you are indeed making an assumption. I concede that with the number of people who have been taken off death row, that it's possible an innocent has been executed. But all we have is speculation.
BB, based on the "standard of convictions that become Capital Punishments" that you eluded to the fact that many of these people who were on death row turn out to be innocent shows it's flawed. We are putting people on death row without evidence that is beyond the shadow of a doubt you said it was.
That needs to change, IMO.
And I don't think Graham is a good case for anti-death penalty proponents to hang their hat on. The guy was a scourge on society: "he pleaded guilty to a week-long rampage of 10 robberies around the same time but said he was innocent of the murder."
Killing someone and robbing from other poeple are 2 different things.
Just becuase this guy had a track record of robbing doesn't make him guilty.
Now for the transcript you pasted.
This is exactly what i am talking about.
Graham was convicted largely on the testimony of a person who saw the murderer 40 feet away trough a dirty windshield without physical evidence.
And it seems you've already made up your mind he's guilty based on information unrelated to the murder charge.
This is beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Had this man been convicted on evidence that included, DNA, procession of the murder weapon, he being placed at the time and location of the crime etc... I'd say hang the bastard.
But that's not the case here.
This is how innocent people get executed.
This is why the system is flawed.
This is why the system needs to change.
-
BB, based on the "standard of convictions that become Capital Punishments" that you eluded to the fact that many of these people who were on death row turn out to be innocent shows it's flawed. We are putting people on death row without evidence that is beyond the shadow of a doubt you said it was.
That needs to change, IMO.
Killing someone and robbing from other poeple are 2 different things.
Just becuase this guy had a track record of robbing doesn't make him guilty.
Now for the transcript you pasted.
This is exactly what i am talking about.
Graham was convicted largely on the testimony of a person who saw the murderer 40 feet away trough a dirty windshield without physical evidence.
And it seems you've already made up your mind he's guilty based on information unrelated to the murder charge.
This is beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Had this man been convicted on evidence that included, DNA, procession of the murder weapon, he being placed at the time and location of the crime etc... I'd say hang the bastard.
But that's not the case here.
This is how innocent people get executed.
This is why the system is flawed.
This is why the system needs to change.
Ozmo I don't think it's accurate to say "many" people on death row have been innocent. As of year end 2006, there 3228 people on death row. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm. Not counting the moratorium, there has to have been many thousands of other people on death row in the past 50 years or so. So 114 (?) isn't really a big number.
Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt." Really just seems like semantics to me. People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence.
I am not losing any sleep over Graham. He got what he deserved. Robbed ten people in one week? Tried to murder another? I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor.
I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was.
I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him.
I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure. I agree with that. But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.
-
Ozmo I don't think it's accurate to say "many" people on death row have been innocent. As of year end 2006, there 3228 people on death row. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/cp.htm. Not counting the moratorium, there has to have been many thousands of other people on death row in the past 50 years or so. So 114 (?) isn't really a big number.
Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt." Really just seems like semantics to me. People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence.
I am not losing any sleep over Graham. He got what he deserved. Robbed ten people in one week? Tried to murder another? I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor.
I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was.
I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him.
I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure. I agree with that. But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.
114 to me is too many. It's an unacceptable rate of potential mistakes. Besides, How many years do these people spend in prison for something they didn't do?
Regarding the legal standard, I've said there really isn't a difference between "overwhelming evidence" and "beyond a resonable doubt." Really just seems like semantics to me. People need to be convinced that a person committed a crime (any crime) before convicting and handing down a sentence.
There's a huge difference. A jury doesn't determine the truth. In every case of the 114, the jury wrongly convicted those people based on incomplete evidence that someone decided was "overwhelming evidence" or "beyond a resonable doubt." It's FLAWED. I believe it would be better not to put some people to death and have them spend their lives in prison rather than have to go through a costly appeal process on death row and find out they were innocent and risk executing an innocent men which, before DNA, certainly happened. And then when we do execute someone, it's beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I am not losing any sleep over Graham. He got what he deserved. Robbed ten people in one week? Tried to murder another? I don't know if any of that evidence was used at his trial, but talk about a bad actor.
I know it's not appropriate to convict a person based on their prior misconduct, but hard to ignore what a predator this guy was.
I agree, but not appropriate none the less and not just, fair, right, objective etc...
I haven't read enough about his case to know about all of the evidence used to convict him.
I hear what you're saying about the need to be careful; to be sure. I agree with that. But I think there are plenty of safeguards in place for people facing the death penalty.
I think there should be more safe guards, I wonder what constitutes a death penalty conviction? I'm sure there are many murderers with life sentences who deserve to die who were convicted with an air tight level of evidence.
-
114 to me is too many. It's an unacceptable rate of potential mistakes. Besides, How many years do these people spend in prison for something they didn't do?
There's a huge difference. A jury doesn't determine the truth. In every case of the 114, the jury wrongly convicted those people based on incomplete evidence that someone decided was "overwhelming evidence" or "beyond a resonable doubt." It's FLAWED. I believe it would be better not to put some people to death and have them spend their lives in prison rather than have to go through a costly appeal process on death row and find out they were innocent and risk executing an innocent men which, before DNA, certainly happened. And then when we do execute someone, it's beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I agree, but not appropriate none the less and not just, fair, right, objective etc...
I think there should be more safe guards, I wonder what constitutes a death penalty conviction? I'm sure there are many murderers with life sentences who deserve to die who were convicted with an air tight level of evidence.
It's never acceptable for an innocent person to spend a single night in prison. But it happens. The system isn't perfect. I don't think there is an acceptable number of mistakes, because a person can never recoup lost time in prison. We will never be able to eliminate mistakes in the criminal justice system, particularly when money--or the lack thereof--plays such a huge role. But we don't stop prosecuting and punishing people because mistakes will be made. Mistakes are part of the system and of life in general.
I just watched an interview by Larry King of a death row inmate. You might find this interesting. It supports much of what you've been saying. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/19/lkl.01.html