Is the death penalty expiring?

bravo said:
I just posted a short list....very short...
of 7 killers that were responsible for at least 235 murders, mostly that number is higher.....
There is no good reason .....absolutely no reason to continue to keep these killers alive at taxpayer expense....and their never was a good reason....

235+ people are dead while these guys listen to Christmas music at our expense today....at least the ones that are still with us....
Click to expand...

Is it your position that because some people convicted of capital crimes were guity, all people convicted of capital crimes should be executed, just in case?

What about those mistakenly convicted?

"With the rise of DNA evidence, we now know that people are falsely convicted of crimes, including capital crimes, all too often. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 138 people have been released from death row since 1973 with evidence of innocence."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18ltDeceU
 
Lengthy appeals protect, imperfectly, from killing the innocent (of the crime, not of life). Streamlining only ensures that we will kill those who are not guilty of the crime in the attempt to save cash, thus leaving killers free and killing the innocent appears to be your only solution to the cost issue. It is also nearly impossible to reopen a case that has a conviction and a death sentence has been performed. "Justice was served" the courts say, while a killer roams free and the innocent die more...

I prefer just letting them rot slowly while getting forced to perform sexual acts on gang leaders while in prison to a quick death that often kills the wrong person and ensures that no justice is ever done.

If it were up to me, people convicted of such crimes would have an 8X4 cell with a bed and the religious book of their choice with no contact to the outside world except through their lawyer.
 
Damocles said:
What makes sense to me is that the powers that we limited government to does not include subsequent killings that would be relatively cheap. They get special cells, treatment, a nice long life while they get constant appeals and extensions. They usually die of old age before they are executed and all of those things make them cost more.

The net result is the same, it was just cheaper for the taxpayer and the guy didn't get to escape that crappy life of forced buttsecks by an easy and kind death.

Put them in prison and don't let them out until they are cremated or embalmed.
Click to expand...
Then...

Don't provide special cells
Don't provide special treatment
Don't allow constant appeals and extensions.

Problem solved....

And either way, they die of old age, which makes the cost the same...
 
Damocles said:
Lengthy appeals protect, imperfectly, from killing the innocent (of the crime, not of life). Streamlining only ensures that we will kill those who are not guilty of the crime in the attempt to save cash, thus leaving killers free and killing the innocent appears to be your only solution to the cost issue.

I prefer just letting them rot slowly while getting forced to perform sexual acts on gang leaders while in prison to a quick death that often kills the wrong person and ensures that no justice is ever done.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the homosexual rape fantasies, yet the murder rate is declining along with the execution rate....

"One other factor may do more than any of the rest to explain the declining hold of capital punishment on the American justice system: The steep decline in violent crime. Preliminary statistics from the FBI indicate that the murder rate for the first half of 2010 once again fell sharply, dropping by more than 7%."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2039273,00.html#ixzz18lurTiAN
 
Mojo said:
Is it your position that because some people convicted of capital crimes were guity, all people convicted of capital crimes should be executed, just in case?

What about those mistakenly convicted?

"With the rise of DNA evidence, we now know that people are falsely convicted of crimes, including capital crimes, all too often. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 138 people have been released from death row since 1973 with evidence of innocence."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18ltDeceU
Click to expand...
Not at all....if our methods are imperfect then we must work on our methods....
Harsh penalties for DA's and police that lie and manufacture and hide evidence would go a long way...

A panel of 10, 12, 15 judges to consider and reconsider the evidence presented and penalties imposed are just....

Their are many murderers sitting is prison where their guilt is not in doubt in anyway....
Where doubt exists at all, then the sentence of death is not just.
 
bravo said:
Not at all....if our methods are imperfect then we must work on our methods....
Harsh penalties for DA's and police that lie and manufacture and hide evidence would go a long way...

A panel of 10, 12, 15 judges to consider and reconsider the evidence presented and penalties imposed are just....

Their are many murderers sitting is prison where their guilt is not in doubt in anyway....
Where doubt exists at all, then the sentence of death is not just.
Click to expand...

That's the gist of my position. Unfortunately, some people are willing to toss aside the due process rights of anyone convicted of a capital crime.

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off a firestorm last summer when he wrote a dissent — joined by Justice Clarence Thomas — that the highest court in the land is not necessarily concerned with whether a person facing execution had actually committed the crime. The court "has never held," Justice Scalia wrote, "that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a ... court that he is 'actually innocent.'" Scalia was taking issue with the court's ruling that a lower court give Georgia death-row inmate Troy Davis a new hearing.

This idea that the Constitution allows innocent people to be put to death should be abhorrent to anyone who cares about justice."



http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18lvoP2kN
 
Mojo said:
That's the gist of my position. Unfortunately, some people are willing to toss aside the due process rights of anyone convicted of a capital crime.

Your attitudes remind me of zero tolerance in schools about nail files and OTC cold medicine...or TSA bullshit at our airports.....there is simply no reasoned thought or common sense used in problem solving....its the shotgun approach of the liberal left to every perceived problem....
AND NO ONE IS SUGGESTING we toss aside the due process rights of anyone.

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set off a firestorm last summer when he wrote a dissent — joined by Justice Clarence Thomas — that the highest court in the land is not necessarily concerned with whether a person facing execution had actually committed the crime.

And he is correct....the Supreme Court is to rule on the Constitutionality of Laws....it is not a trial court.


The court "has never held," Justice Scalia wrote, "that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a ... court that he is 'actually innocent.'"
I don't understand this sentence....it doesn't make sense.

Scalia was taking issue with the court's ruling that a lower court give Georgia death-row inmate Troy Davis a new hearing.
I'm not familiar with Troy Davis case...
This idea that the Constitution allows innocent people to be put to death should be abhorrent to anyone who cares about justice."

The constitution DOES NOT allow the innocent to be put to death...only those duly found guilty in a court of law.

Then work to change the Constitution if that is your bailiwick...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18lvoP2kN
Click to expand...
.
 
Last edited:
My name is John Coffey, like the drink but spelled different.

He used their love against them, and its like this all over the world.

That mouse is fucking old.
 
bravo said:
.
Click to expand...

So your position is that the innocence or guilt of those condemned to die is irrelevant?

"As Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, Justice Scalia seemed to be saying that if a man was convicted of murdering his wife and then showed up in court with the wife, who was still alive, seeking a new trial, it should not matter. As long as the man's conviction was procedurally proper, Justice Scalia apparently believes, he should still be executed."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18m5NIBfc
 
Mojo said:
So your position is that the innocence or guilt of those condemned to die is irrelevant?

"As Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz pointed out, Justice Scalia seemed to be saying that if a man was convicted of murdering his wife and then showed up in court with the wife, who was still alive, seeking a new trial, it should not matter. As long as the man's conviction was procedurally proper, Justice Scalia apparently believes, he should still be executed."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1991827,00.html#ixzz18m5NIBfc
Click to expand...

No sonny, that is not my position and nothing I said could even be mistaken as that being my position...except in maybe your defective imagination....

And Justice Scalia?

That ridiculous conclusion is nonsense.....either bullshit from you or its bullshit from Dershowitz....but nevertheless, its bullshit....and only a pinhead would give it any consideration as to being the truth.

The SC should not and will not rule any anything the Constitutionality of an issue....it is for the lower courts to determine guilt and innocence of specific crime....and if problems with justice occur their they must be addressed there by state officials...
 
Last edited:
bravo said:
No sonny, that is not my position and nothing I said could even be mistaken as that being my position...except in maybe your defective imagination....

And Justice Scalia?

That ridiculous conclusion is nonsense.....either bullshit from you or its bullshit from Dershowitz....but nevertheless, its bullshit....and only a pinhead would give it any consideration as to being the truth.
Click to expand...

So should all persons convicted of capital crimes be executed forthwith, or not?

Mr. Dershowitz is a "pinhead"?

Do you know who he is?

http://www.alandershowitz.com/

Perhaps you'd care to explain how your credentials make your view the correct one in the case above.

I'm beginning to understand why and how you find yourself in the minority. I am grateful for that fact.
 
bravo said:
Then...

Don't provide special cells
Don't provide special treatment
Don't allow constant appeals and extensions.

Problem solved....

And either way, they die of old age, which makes the cost the same...
Click to expand...
Again, the limits we put on the power of government ensure that the rights we have are not infringed by the same. Therefore, we will continue to allow all of those things. You must work within the framework of those limits.

Would you rather live in genpop getting raped by gang leaders who are in a continuous power struggle and owning your beeyotch a$$ helps them on the way, or would you rather go to sleep quietly? Which would you want the rest of your life to look like?

I'll bet that living the rest of your life in what most of us would consider a personal hell is a better punishment than a long life of "watching tv" as you say waiting to see if you'll get that next appeal.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the limits we put on the power of government ensure that the rights we have are not infringed by the same. Therefore, we will continue to allow all of those things. You must work within the framework of those limits.

Would you rather live in genpop getting raped by gang leaders who are in a continuous power struggle and owning your beeyotch a$$ helps them on the way, or would you rather go to sleep quietly? Which would you want the rest of your life to look like?

I'll bet that living the rest of your life in what most of us would consider a personal hell is a better punishment than a long life of "watching tv" as you say waiting to see if you'll get that next appeal.
Click to expand...


This fascination you apparently have with jailhouse rape revenge fantasies is unbecoming, and a trifle disturbing.

I'm still waiting for that experienced jurist "Bravo" to explain how he'd prevent appeals by those convicted of crimes, which he advocates, along with imposing conditions of imprisonment which could be construed as detrimental.
 
bravo said:
Dahmer confessed to 15 murders and got life....
Murderer Charlie Manson, enjoying life right where he wants to be, in prison, cared for by taxpayers.
Serial killer, David Berkowitz, got life....
Gary Ridgway, murdered 71 women....life
Donald Harvey, murdered 87.....life
Juan Corona, murdered 25....life
Charles Cullen, murdered 18,,,,,life
I could go on and on....

The list seems endless, and all these scumbags watched TV, ate all they wanted, and got free medical care.....as long as they live.....

What a great country.....
Click to expand...

Watching TV?
Eating?!
FREE medical care (I'd just like to note here that denying medical care is considered a violation of the Geneva convention)?

And actually most of them are in solitary, which is essentially torture.

Some prisons have televisions, but it's shared publically among many prisoners, it's not like it's in every individual cell. It's more of a tool to keep order than anything else. And obviously you can't watch it in solitary.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the limits we put on the power of government ensure that the rights we have are not infringed by the same. Therefore, we will continue to allow all of those things. You must work within the framework of those limits.

Would you rather live in genpop getting raped by gang leaders who are in a continuous power struggle and owning your beeyotch a$$ helps them on the way, or would you rather go to sleep quietly? Which would you want the rest of your life to look like?

I'll bet that living the rest of your life in what most of us would consider a personal hell is a better punishment than a long life of "watching tv" as you say waiting to see if you'll get that next appeal.
Click to expand...

So if you are so sadistic that death isn't good enough to satisfy you, why don't you support drawing and quartering? Why do you seek to find a way to torture people that's not as queezy? I prefer people with the integrity to at least be honestly evil.
 
CERVIXCRUSHER9000 said:
So if you are so sadistic that death isn't good enough to satisfy you, why don't you support drawing and quartering? Why do you seek to find a way to torture people that's not as queezy? I prefer people with the integrity to at least be honestly evil.
Click to expand...

Then there are those jailhouse rape fantasies he mentions, more than once.
 
Mojo said:
It's trending that way.

"Executions declined in all four regions of the U.S. in 2010 and dropped by more than half over the past decade...according to a national poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, only 33 percent of Americans said they support the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for murder..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/death-penalty-tanks-in-po_n_799754.html
Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. If you just ask plainly if they support the death penalty, you get 2/3 supporting (which is actually down from around 80% in the 80's and 90's, but the numbers seem to be stuck there). Just more evidence of how schizophrenic the American public is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top