Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very, very few pro lifers are against the death penalty though. I think Harrier is the first pro lifer that is also against the death penalty.
Aside from the bolded states, the vast majority of these states are anti abortion, but pro death penalty; they still have a capital punishment option anyway.
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas California Colorado Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia Washington
Wyoming
How can a state be anti-abortion when Roe v Wade is the law of the land?
Well, Harrier disagrees on the constitutionality, but you do have a point about the liberals.
The judge was appointed by President George W. Bush.
You may disagree but it's already decided case law. What can be unconstitutional is different applications of the death penalty such as was ruled in this case.
I agree with the judge with regards to the application of the penalty in this case and the States liberal loonytoons administration of it.
You may disagree but it's already decided case law. What can be unconstitutional is different applications of the death penalty such as was ruled in this case.
I agree with the judge with regards to the application of the penalty in this case and the States liberal loonytoons administration of it.
Well, that is what Gregg v. Georgia was meant to address and this judge thinks that California's post Gregg protocol doesn't work.
Trying to "get it right" could take forever, and we already have the largest death row in the republic.
Why not stop trying to defend our broken system and just commute the sentences to what they already are de facto - life in prison?
Well, that is what Gregg v. Georgia was meant to address and this judge thinks that California's post Gregg protocol doesn't work.
Trying to "get it right" could take forever, and we already have the largest death row in the republic.
Why not stop trying to defend our broken system and just commute the sentences to what they already are de facto - life in prison?
I support the death penalty, but after reading your post above I might agree with your thought process. California is overrun with liberals and there is no way an execution will ever happen in this state again. It is pointless to have these people sit on death row going though the appeals process when we all know it is an exercise in futility.
Meh, that is expensive, because of Gregg v. Georgia.
Mandatory appeals are not going away anytime soon.
As for proving innocence - the Innocence Project needs to be better funded and staffed IHO (in Harrier's opinion).
Sure it's expensive the way the *******s run it. Doesn't have to be though as with all prison incarceration.
I'd rather spend my tax dollars on the Innocence project than on illegal aliens that's for sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's still morning here in California and I'm not caffeinated enough.
