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.
There is a line of thought that people on a jury are willing to condemn someone to death because they know there is plenty of time to catch their mistake if such were to happen.
But what might happen if from trial to needle was a quick process? Would the common person on a jury be so willing then to say yes to death?
Add to that the alarming number of wrong convictions that are later proven by exculpatory evidence that was either not available at the time of the trial, withheld by the prosecution, or DNA evidence that was obtained and saved if the crime was committed before we had the technology to match it to suspects, and it makes me glad these cases take time to resolve. Whether life in prison is a worse punishment (it would be for me) is another issue. But rushing to perform a death penalty is ill-advised.
Where does one even get an IQ exam these days? Are these still a thing? My kids are 5 and 7 and as far as I know they've never had an IQ test. I'm 43 and i'm not even sure if I've had one.
Seems like intelligence is measured by grades these days.
All that aside it's kind of astonishing to me that someone with a low IQ who is nearly 'mentally retarded' would be able to get a gun, then go party afterwards and brag about it. Most mentally challenged people I've known have been very sweet and kind. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life?
When I hear the word disabled I have to say that I think of someone who is in a wheelchair, blind, deaf or something along those lines. I guess I dont think of a disabled person as being someone who lacked intelligence but was able to acquire a gun, shoot someone and go to parties with friends and brag about it. The guy was dumb, not disabled.
It always makes me wonder why people sit so long on death row...26 years? Why bother executing someone for something they did when they were 18? If someone is going to be executed it should happen within a few a years
Agreed. Also, I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for cases where it is blatantly obvious that the person committed murder such as if there is video footage of the person killing someone. The person should get one appeal and then get the needle within one year of being found guilty. People should not be sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense that some people get 5 life sentences for killing multiple people or 20 years for one murder and this guy gets the death penalty for killing someone 26 yrs ago. It just seems so inconsistent
Agreed. Also, I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for cases where it is blatantly obvious that the person committed murder such as if there is video footage of the person killing someone. The person should get one appeal and then get the needle within one year of being found guilty. People should not be sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence.
Video evidence required to get the death penalty - that is a really high bar and even then the arguments are that wasn't me and the like. Also other evidence such as DNA can be much more precise than video. There are many cases where circumstantial evidence is as strong as direct evidence of the crime. If someone sees a guy standing over someone with bloody knife in their hands but did not see the actual stabbing is that any less proof of guilt, that is technically circumstantial evidence because no one witnessed the actual stabbing.
The US is inconsistent in death penalty as a whole with many states not imposing those sentences and some few having most of the cases and executions. I agree that the appeals for those convicted though go on way too long.
We could do it like some countries - there are places where trial, conviction, appeal and execution are measured in weeks and for crime that are much less than murder.
There are some places that you can get the death penalty for non-violent offences, some of which are not even a crime in the US such as adultery, blasphemy, converting religions & homosexuality. There are other places that crimes such as corruption, fraud, perjury and theft can be have death penalty imposed, sometimes in a matter of weeks.
Shocked? Not me. I remember in 1992 when Bill Clinton, in the midst of a Presidential campaign and not wanting to be tarred as a weenie liberal and wanting to change the subject from the Gennifer Flowers scandal, flew home to Arkansas to sign the death warrant of a "disabled" murderer (who also happened to be black).
In the Clinton case though, the guy only became "disabled" after a suicide attempt that occurred after his two murders.
I don't know if there is a political angle for this 70 IQ guy in Alabama to be executed, but they say he read at a first grade level. Even a first grader knows murder is wrong, and everyone with a 70 IQ does not go around killing people.
Sometimes I am shocked when people don't get the death penalty or receive clemency when they clearly deserve the death penalty.
Right, young kids know that murder is wrong. We're talking almost 40 years ago when the killer was in first grade that more was expected of young kids. We were way more responsible then kids that age today.
I'm also shocked when some do not get the death penalty when they should. Look at my friends bio daughter who was killed by her adoptive father Dennis Bowman. He was picked up in 2020, nabbed by forensic genealogy like the golden state killer. He brutally raped and murdered a woman in military housing back in 1980. Even with DNA, he will finish out his life in prison. At his age, 60's, he could do 20 something years but probably not. Every photo I see of him since he was arrested, he is clearly not looking healthy.
When he murdered the woman in 1980, he was actually on trial on Michigan for trying to rape a woman on his way to pick Aundria up from school. He was in the Navy, went to Virginia for 2 weeks, I guess he figured he'd commit one last rape and murder before prison.
After he got out, he tried to break into a coworkers house but he got off. This was 10 years after he killed Aundria. A few months after he killed Aundria, he tried to rape a 5 year old girl. He got spooked when he heard a noise. The poor girl ran naked out of the woods. I believe he's confessed to that too. His trial is the beginning of February, so we'll see what more comes out next week.
So how does he not get the death penalty when clearly he's been convicted by DNA. IMO, if there is proof, then off they go by whatever method. Never to be a burden to tax payers because they murdered someone. It should be the same in every state but it is not, so that's why some do not get put to death for murdering someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msRB311
Where does one even get an IQ exam these days? Are these still a thing? My kids are 5 and 7 and as far as I know they've never had an IQ test. I'm 43 and i'm not even sure if I've had one.
Seems like intelligence is measured by grades these days.
All that aside it's kind of astonishing to me that someone with a low IQ who is nearly 'mentally retarded' would be able to get a gun, then go party afterwards and brag about it. Most mentally challenged people I've known have been very sweet and kind. Perhaps I've led a sheltered life?
When I hear the word disabled I have to say that I think of someone who is in a wheelchair, blind, deaf or something along those lines. I guess I dont think of a disabled person as being someone who lacked intelligence but was able to acquire a gun, shoot someone and go to parties with friends and brag about it. The guy was dumb, not disabled.
I've known people who may not be "book smart" to pass an IQ test but they are smart in other ways, such as how to get that gun. I'm sure they'd figure out the best way to kill someone over time so that it looks like a natural death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern man
I suspect, Willie Johnson, when he was hit in the neck with the shotgun blast, didn’t care that Mr Reeves had a low or high IQ.
They overwhelmingly commit most of the violent crimes per capita, so they aren't overrepresented.
Overwhelmingly? Proof?
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.
