He will be placed in a protective situation. I say put him in general population and let it be known what he did and to how many. While some of those he'd be around may be hard core criminals, many of them have daughters in the age range of those he molested and abused.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Should this warrent the death penalty?
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
He will be placed in a protective situation. I say put him in general population and let it be known what he did and to how many. While some of those he'd be around may be hard core criminals, many of them have daughters in the age range of those he molested and abused.
This is why we need another SC, just to hear death penalty appeals.
It's the SC backlog that tends to make this so lengthy; because it has to go through all the lower courts, over and over, before it reaches their agenda time frame.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation stated, “It is a very strange argument to say that a murderer can delay justice with protracted appeals for decades and then turn around and claim his own delay as a reason to escape his deserved punishment altogether".
Although that was tried in the case of Manuel Valle in 2011 it failed. He was convicted of killing a police officer in 1978 yet his execution didn't take place until 2011, 33 years later. His attorney appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay just hours before his execution. While the stay was refused, it sadly had one dissent from Stephen Breyer who claimed that being on death row for that long amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. What makes that dissent bullshit is that it was the criminal and his attorney that filed appeal after appeal after appeal . . . after appeal causing the lengthy death row time. If anyone treated Valle in a cruel and unusual manner it was himself and/or his attorney.
As far as what you suggest about another court hearing nothing but death penalty appeals, it could easily be done by an act of Congress based on Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
WinterBorn
Verified User
We'll start with what YOU call the guesstimate. The numbers of taxpayers would continue to invalid numbers you provided. The only thing you may have come close on, and it depends, is the per year costs.
Your viewpoint on the death penalty is just one of the leftwing viewpoints you support.
25 years would probably be the longest time he will be in prison. He is 54 years old. That would put him at 79. Pretty old in prison.
The number of tax payers? And what numbers do you contend are wrong? And what would the right number be?
I have not expressed my viewpoint on the death penalty. I have only commented on this particular case.
Being pro 2nd amendment, pro tax reform, pro balanced budget, in favor of smaller/less intrusive gov't, and in support of the rights of the individual over the rights of the masses are the cornerstones of classic conservatism. This nonsense brought up by social conservatives is just liberalism with a different slant.
25 years would probably be the longest time he will be in prison. He is 54 years old. That would put him at 79. Pretty old in prison.
The number of tax payers? And what numbers do you contend are wrong? And what would the right number be?
I have not expressed my viewpoint on the death penalty. I have only commented on this particular case.
Being pro 2nd amendment, pro tax reform, pro balanced budget, in favor of smaller/less intrusive gov't, and in support of the rights of the individual over the rights of the masses are the cornerstones of classic conservatism. This nonsense brought up by social conservatives is just liberalism with a different slant.
Again, you're guessing and unless your God, it's a guess.
You did express your opinion on the death penalty. You said, that the extra time and appeals help make sure we don't execute the wrong person. When you made that statement you couldn't have been responding about this case because this case doesn't involve the death penalty.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
He will be placed in a protective situation. I say put him in general population and let it be known what he did and to how many. While some of those he'd be around may be hard core criminals, many of them have daughters in the age range of those he molested and abused.
Or even just the guy who's wife cancelled his last visit with his daughter, for what ever reason.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation stated, “It is a very strange argument to say that a murderer can delay justice with protracted appeals for decades and then turn around and claim his own delay as a reason to escape his deserved punishment altogether".
Although that was tried in the case of Manuel Valle in 2011 it failed. He was convicted of killing a police officer in 1978 yet his execution didn't take place until 2011, 33 years later. His attorney appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay just hours before his execution. While the stay was refused, it sadly had one dissent from Stephen Breyer who claimed that being on death row for that long amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. What makes that dissent bullshit is that it was the criminal and his attorney that filed appeal after appeal after appeal . . . after appeal causing the lengthy death row time. If anyone treated Valle in a cruel and unusual manner it was himself and/or his attorney.
As far as what you suggest about another court hearing nothing but death penalty appeals, it could easily be done by an act of Congress based on Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Since it's possibly "cruel and unusual punishment" to make them wait so long for the execution to be carried out, then shouldn't we make it more expedient.
Or even just the guy who's wife cancelled his last visit with his daughter, for what ever reason.
There are hundreds of possibilities.
Since it's possibly "cruel and unusual punishment" to make them wait so long for the execution to be carried out, then shouldn't we make it more expedient.
I agree.
The State isn't the one making them wait that long, therefore, cruel and unusual doesn't apply. Those filing the appeals are making it that long.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Again, you're guessing and unless your God, it's a guess.
You did express your opinion on the death penalty. You said, that the extra time and appeals help make sure we don't execute the wrong person. When you made that statement you couldn't have been responding about this case because this case doesn't involve the death penalty.
Yes, I am guessing. That goes without saying. After all, he could be killed or commit suicide his first day in prison.
Oh, so making sure we don't execute an innocent man or making sure the trial and sentencing follow the law is a liberal thing? lol
Yes, I am guessing. That goes without saying. After all, he could be killed or commit suicide his first day in prison.
Oh, so making sure we don't execute an innocent man or making sure the trial and sentencing follow the law is a liberal thing? lol
Based on what you admit to doing, the number can't be accurate, by default. Since you don't know what it is, it's nothing but a pure guess.
So, you're OK with letting someone go that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty because when reading their Miranda rights the police officer mispronounced a word? It's a Liberal thing to use that to lessen a sentence. They didn't receive the death penalty based on anything but what they DID and whether not some minute technical aspect was exactly followed to the tee doesn't mean they suddenly didn't do what they were convicted of doing.
Appeals, for the most part, aren't used to determine guilt or innocence. They focus on the types of things I used as an example.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Based on what you admit to doing, the number can't be accurate, by default. Since you don't know what it is, it's nothing but a pure guess.
So, you're OK with letting someone go that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty because when reading their Miranda rights the police officer mispronounced a word? It's a Liberal thing to use that to lessen a sentence. They didn't receive the death penalty based on anything but what they DID and whether not some minute technical aspect was exactly followed to the tee doesn't mean they suddenly didn't do what they were convicted of doing.
Appeals, for the most part, aren't used to determine guilt or innocence. They focus on the types of things I used as an example.
YOur complaint about the expense of keeping him in prison is a guess as well. If he dies in the first week it is cheaper than keeping him on death row, even if it is only for a few weeks.
Please point out where I said anything about releasing someone because of a technicality. Especially when the person has been found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. But people have spent years in prison after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, only to be proven to be innocent later.
Also, I know a number of people who oppose the death penalty for religious reasons. And they are definitely conservative. Using your assumptions about me, on a single issue, to judge me liberal or conservative is ridiculous. But feel free to call me liberal if you want. Your opinion does not change the facts of who I am and what I believe.
YOur complaint about the expense of keeping him in prison is a guess as well. If he dies in the first week it is cheaper than keeping him on death row, even if it is only for a few weeks.
Please point out where I said anything about releasing someone because of a technicality. Especially when the person has been found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. But people have spent years in prison after being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, only to be proven to be innocent later.
Also, I know a number of people who oppose the death penalty for religious reasons. And they are definitely conservative. Using your assumptions about me, on a single issue, to judge me liberal or conservative is ridiculous. But feel free to call me liberal if you want. Your opinion does not change the facts of who I am and what I believe.
Are you saying taxpayers don't foot the bill for prisoner regardless of what the actual number is? Unless that funding is being done by another entity, it's a fact that taxpayers foot the bill.
You're the one that believes extra time should occur. I pointed out that the extra time isn't dealing with guilt/innocence but with technicalities. I'm opposed to executing an innocent person. However, when there is absolutely no doubt the person is guilty, the extra time still exists. Is that OK with you?
Then be proud to be a Liberal.
I know people that oppose the death penalty for religious reasons. Every one of them considers themselves a Liberal.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Are you saying taxpayers don't foot the bill for prisoner regardless of what the actual number is? Unless that funding is being done by another entity, it's a fact that taxpayers foot the bill.
You're the one that believes extra time should occur. I pointed out that the extra time isn't dealing with guilt/innocence but with technicalities. I'm opposed to executing an innocent person. However, when there is absolutely no doubt the person is guilty, the extra time still exists. Is that OK with you?
Then be proud to be a Liberal.
I know people that oppose the death penalty for religious reasons. Every one of them considers themselves a Liberal.
Whatever. As I said, if you want to label me a liberal, feel free. As I am active in supporting the 2nd amendment, continuing to contact legislatures to press for major tax reforms and fiscal responsibility by our gov't, others label me a rightwingers. Those labels have no meaning for me.
As for the rest of this thread, the OP was a question that involved our opinion. I gave mine. Don't like my answer? To bad. Not a thing you can do about it, is there?
Whatever. As I said, if you want to label me a liberal, feel free. As I am active in supporting the 2nd amendment, continuing to contact legislatures to press for major tax reforms and fiscal responsibility by our gov't, others label me a rightwingers. Those labels have no meaning for me.
As for the rest of this thread, the OP was a question that involved our opinion. I gave mine. Don't like my answer? To bad. Not a thing you can do about it, is there?
I don't have to label you as one. Your viewpoints on several issues do that for me.
Why would I need to do something about a statement that is so invalid it refutes itself? That's a waste of time but thanks for making it easy, dumbass.
WinterBorn
Verified User
I don't have to label you as one. Your viewpoints on several issues do that for me.
Why would I need to do something about a statement that is so invalid it refutes itself? That's a waste of time but thanks for making it easy, dumbass.
Several issues? So, besides the issue of executing people quickly, what other issues do you think show I am a liberal?
Several issues? So, besides the issue of executing people quickly, what other issues do you think show I am a liberal?
Although, by your own admission, you were guessing as to the number of years someone would spend in prison when calculating your costs to the taxpayer, that's a separate matter. That you did the calculations saying it only costs a certain amount is a very Liberal approach. You tried to justify keeping them in prison instead of executing those that should be executed because the costs was so little. That's a Liberal approach. In fact, Liberals use that same approach and method of justification when it comes to other things like social welfare. Can't count the number of times one of you has said something to the effect of 'social welfare costs each taxpayer so little that you hardly know the difference'.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Although, by your own admission, you were guessing as to the number of years someone would spend in prison when calculating your costs to the taxpayer, that's a separate matter. That you did the calculations saying it only costs a certain amount is a very Liberal approach. You tried to justify keeping them in prison instead of executing those that should be executed because the costs was so little. That's a Liberal approach. In fact, Liberals use that same approach and method of justification when it comes to other things like social welfare. Can't count the number of times one of you has said something to the effect of 'social welfare costs each taxpayer so little that you hardly know the difference'.
Well, if you can't count the amount of times other people have said something, then you need to find an example of me saying it before you try and pin that one on me.
I did a cost analysis. Sounds like a logical and conservative idea.
But if you think someone should be executed as a cost saving measure, you are not a conservative at all.
WinterBorn
Verified User
Tell you what, since the entire thread is a hypothetical situation, send me the hypothetical bill for his stay in prison. I'll hypothetically pay it.
Well, if you can't count the amount of times other people have said something, then you need to find an example of me saying it before you try and pin that one on me.
I did a cost analysis. Sounds like a logical and conservative idea.
But if you think someone should be executed as a cost saving measure, you are not a conservative at all.
You didn't do a cost analysis. To analyze, the numbers have to be more than a guess and by your own admission, you guessed.
If you think the reason it takes decades to carry out an execution is because guilt/innocence is in question, you're an idiot. It's also another example of why you're a Liberal. The execution should be carried out because that's the sentence. If it saves money rather than housing a guilty person, that's an extra.
Tell you what, since the entire thread is a hypothetical situation, send me the hypothetical bill for his stay in prison. I'll hypothetically pay it.
Nothing like trying to be a smartass when it's been proven you're a dumbass.