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.
More freedom and liberty minded people who love the thought of it yet are unable to execute it. no pun intended.
No one has the right to take anothers life except in the act of self defense. You do not own that persons life. It is not yours to do as you please with it.
It has nothing to do with "what if it was you wife who was tortured and so on". We are a nation of laws not a nation of men. Just as the government forcibly taking someones money is immoral, the taking of someones life, except in self preservation, is immoral also.
More freedom and liberty minded people who love the thought of it yet are unable to execute it. no pun intended.
No one has the right to take anothers life except in the act of self defense. You do not own that persons life. It is not yours to do as you please with it.
It has nothing to do with "what if it was you wife who was tortured and so on". We are a nation of laws not a nation of men. Just as the government forcibly taking someones money is immoral, the taking of someones life, except in self preservation, is immoral also.
We are a nation of laws; exactly. Guess what? The law says the death penalty. So fry the waste of oxygen already. He and others, have no place in society.
If found guilty, why shouldn't this person get the chair? If not the chair, then lethal injection or something.
As an ultra-conservative, you will not find someone who approves of the death penalty more than I.
However, the death penalty currently suffers from systemic flaws that are grotesque and I cannot support its application. A real president, a real man, a real humanitarian person would order a moratorium on the death penalty until the flaws and corrupt practices are eliminated and procedural changes are put into place. Those changes include:
1) County prosecutors are paid more than county public defenders. That bars any opportunity for a fair trial until the pay is equalized.
2) Matching cost resources. The State has unlimited financial resources and power to prosecute, while public defenders have severely limited financial resources to mount a proper defense. For example, the State can send 100 police to canvas an entire neighborhood while a public defender cannot.
3) Financial reimbursement. When the State prosecutes and fails on a death penalty case, the State should reimburse the Defendant for the cost of defense for those who do not qualify for public defender assistance. Basically, loser pays, which is the same system that exists in civil court actions.
4) Elimination of Qualified Immunity for police and prosecutors when their actions are abusive, or criminal in nature.
5) After Qualified Immunity is stripped, severe fines and prison sentences for police and prosecutors who engage in misconduct. Such examples of misconduct are tainting evidence, manufacturing evidence, coercing prosecution witnesses, coaching prosecution witnesses, withholding exculpatory evidence (ie evidence that proves the Defendant is not guilty), violating civil rights and other actions. Minimum fine should be $100,000, 5 year mandatory prison sentence and for lesser offenses, disbarment as an attorney and de-certification for police.
6) Eliminating prosecutorial discretion. The death penalty must be consistently applied and mandatory for certain offenses such as kidnap-murder, rape-murder, robbery-murder and premeditated murder. Allowing prosecutors to slam the death penalty on some defendants, but not on other defendants is inherently unfair.
7) Eliminate the jury death penalty phases at trials. Juries have no business deciding who should or shouldn't receive the death penalty. The application of the death penalty in those trials often depends on who wines the most or sobs the most or who comes across as the most something or other. A crime either inherently merits the death penalty or it does not. The fact the Defendant's 3rd Grade teacher Mrs. Withers thought the Defendant was a "good kid" is not relevant just as the parents or the spouse of the victim showing pictures of a Sunday picnic to the jury is not relevant.
8) Create a Death Penalty Appeals Court that hears nothing but death penalty cases. All cases are automatically appealed. The court determines if prosecutorial or police misconduct occurred, civil rights were violated or a conviction was warranted. The court can affirm the death penalty, declare a mistrial in the case of misconduct, over-turn the conviction if based solely on circumstantial evidence (jurors aren't exactly intelligent), or delay the application of the death penalty if sufficient evidence is provided that exculpatory evidence may exist (eg there's a known witness that no one can identify or locate).
9) Automatic gag order for police, prosecutors and the media, with severe fines and mandatory prison sentences for criminal investigations that might ultimately lead to the death penalty. The goal here is to prevent the police and prosecutors from trying the case via the media in order to get an easier conviction.
Some of you might laugh at this, but we'll see how hard you're laughing when the police pick you up for a murder you never committed and you're sitting in the police station demanding to see an attorney and 18 hours later you're still in the interrogation room being interrogated and you haven't eaten anything and the police won't let you use the restroom to relieve yourself, and the prosecutor is withholding exculpatory evidence because it's election time and he wants to look good and get re-elected and you're convicted in the media before the trial even begins and then half the jurors are idiots who can't even spell DNA and then you're on death row.
We are a nation of laws; exactly. Guess what? The law says the death penalty. So fry the waste of oxygen already. He and others, have no place in society.
As an ultra-conservative, you will not find someone who approves of the death penalty more than I.
However, the death penalty currently suffers from systemic flaws that are grotesque and I cannot support its application. A real president, a real man, a real humanitarian person would order a moratorium on the death penalty until the flaws and corrupt practices are eliminated and procedural changes are put into place. Those changes include:
1) County prosecutors are paid more than county public defenders. That bars any opportunity for a fair trial until the pay is equalized.
2) Matching cost resources. The State has unlimited financial resources and power to prosecute, while public defenders have severely limited financial resources to mount a proper defense. For example, the State can send 100 police to canvas an entire neighborhood while a public defender cannot.
3) Financial reimbursement. When the State prosecutes and fails on a death penalty case, the State should reimburse the Defendant for the cost of defense for those who do not qualify for public defender assistance. Basically, loser pays, which is the same system that exists in civil court actions.
4) Elimination of Qualified Immunity for police and prosecutors when their actions are abusive, or criminal in nature.
5) After Qualified Immunity is stripped, severe fines and prison sentences for police and prosecutors who engage in misconduct. Such examples of misconduct are tainting evidence, manufacturing evidence, coercing prosecution witnesses, coaching prosecution witnesses, withholding exculpatory evidence (ie evidence that proves the Defendant is not guilty), violating civil rights and other actions. Minimum fine should be $100,000, 5 year mandatory prison sentence and for lesser offenses, disbarment as an attorney and de-certification for police.
6) Eliminating prosecutorial discretion. The death penalty must be consistently applied and mandatory for certain offenses such as kidnap-murder, rape-murder, robbery-murder and premeditated murder. Allowing prosecutors to slam the death penalty on some defendants, but not on other defendants is inherently unfair.
7) Eliminate the jury death penalty phases at trials. Juries have no business deciding who should or shouldn't receive the death penalty. The application of the death penalty in those trials often depends on who wines the most or sobs the most or who comes across as the most something or other. A crime either inherently merits the death penalty or it does not. The fact the Defendant's 3rd Grade teacher Mrs. Withers thought the Defendant was a "good kid" is not relevant just as the parents or the spouse of the victim showing pictures of a Sunday picnic to the jury is not relevant.
8) Create a Death Penalty Appeals Court that hears nothing but death penalty cases. All cases are automatically appealed. The court determines if prosecutorial or police misconduct occurred, civil rights were violated or a conviction was warranted. The court can affirm the death penalty, declare a mistrial in the case of misconduct, over-turn the conviction if based solely on circumstantial evidence (jurors aren't exactly intelligent), or delay the application of the death penalty if sufficient evidence is provided that exculpatory evidence may exist (eg there's a known witness that no one can identify or locate).
9) Automatic gag order for police, prosecutors and the media, with severe fines and mandatory prison sentences for criminal investigations that might ultimately lead to the death penalty. The goal here is to prevent the police and prosecutors from trying the case via the media in order to get an easier conviction.
Some of you might laugh at this, but we'll see how hard you're laughing when the police pick you up for a murder you never committed and you're sitting in the police station demanding to see an attorney and 18 hours later you're still in the interrogation room being interrogated and you haven't eaten anything and the police won't let you use the restroom to relieve yourself, and the prosecutor is withholding exculpatory evidence because it's election time and he wants to look good and get re-elected and you're convicted in the media before the trial even begins and then half the jurors are idiots who can't even spell DNA and then you're on death row.
Good post. Thanks for your thoughts.
I have known quite a few district attorneys. I used to be 'for' the death penalty until I realized that even if a DA discovered evidence that would cast doubt on the defendent's guilt (I mean, after sentencing, etc) said DA would rather sit on the evidence rather than admit he or she was wrong.
One reason: I've never met a DA who did not think he or she would be a great Governor, and to rise to that elevated office they must be 'tough on crime'. Hence, they can never admit to a mistake in prosecuting the wrong person.
I realize a bit of a generalization. However, as Churchill said:
The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end there it is.
We may disagree on economic issues but I completely support your suggestions concerning this aspect of criminal law. Before anyone is executed there must be absolute proof that the individual is responsible as charged. Prosecutorial conspiracy to convict on fraudulent evidence is just another more elaborate form of premeditated murder.
I don't have the right to take anyone's life for any reason.
Who am I to make that decision?
An eye for an eye.
If nothing else, do you want to pay for this piece of trash to live out his life in prison where he can still enjoy some aspects of life while the little boy never got the chance?
More freedom and liberty minded people who love the thought of it yet are unable to execute it. no pun intended.
No one has the right to take anothers life except in the act of self defense. You do not own that persons life. It is not yours to do as you please with it.
It has nothing to do with "what if it was you wife who was tortured and so on". We are a nation of laws not a nation of men. Just as the government forcibly taking someones money is immoral, the taking of someones life, except in self preservation, is immoral also.
So you're saying we have the right to condemn someone to life in prison until their last breath but we can't just speed up the process with a hot shot?
What about the rights of the victim whom the murderer? Did they have the right to take their life? An eye for an eye.
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.
