I think so, there will never be a perfect system. But if we are going to get serious, if the prosecution team, in a death penalty case, is caught lying, hiding evidence, non disclosure, etc, then they get the needle also. Like string tie Bob Macy and his partner Joyce Gilcrest. We need to quite fuc*ing around, Bidens gift to America was 1.3 mil "newcomers" most of which are criminals. The prison and jails are full, we get to support all that. Executions need to be put on fastrack, 20 years on death row is bullsh*t. I don't understand why people are so hesitant to execute somebody that would kill them for fun.
- Joined
- May 14, 2020
- Messages
- 8,257
- Reaction score
- 26,196
Most people are talking about protecting the accused in this discussion...and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm all for due process. But I'm also all for protecting victims more than criminals.
No... It's not right that an innocent person can get caught up in a system that might, on a very rare occasion, put them to death. No matter how you slice it, it's not right.
But it's the system we have and there has to be a balance between seeing that justice is done for the victim and society without denying protections to the accused.
There are many, many safeguards in place in an attempt to see this doesn't happen. Is it perfect? No...unfortunately, it can't be perfect. Just like the system oftentimes doesn't protect the victim like it should. And that's a tragedy that occurs far, far more often than a wrongly accused and convicted person being put to death. Far too many victims aren't afforded the luxury of a legal system looking out for them like it does the accused...because they're already dead.
No... It's not right that an innocent person can get caught up in a system that might, on a very rare occasion, put them to death. No matter how you slice it, it's not right.
But it's the system we have and there has to be a balance between seeing that justice is done for the victim and society without denying protections to the accused.
There are many, many safeguards in place in an attempt to see this doesn't happen. Is it perfect? No...unfortunately, it can't be perfect. Just like the system oftentimes doesn't protect the victim like it should. And that's a tragedy that occurs far, far more often than a wrongly accused and convicted person being put to death. Far too many victims aren't afforded the luxury of a legal system looking out for them like it does the accused...because they're already dead.
At one time they were all alleged of the crime but then proven. Nothing is certain but if a guy takes advantage of a small child, that would be certain in my book. I don't think that I would be too coherent on a jury if a child was raped, it'd bring me to tears. That's one thing I can't stand child abuse.
And illegal drug dealers, put a stop to some of the drug problem!
No.
And the Founders thought it better that 10 (IIRC) guilty persons be released than one innocent person be convicted. IMO that's the way it ought to be. But isn't.
And unregistered gun dealers, to put a stop to gun violence.
I strongly disagree with your first sentence. Strongly agree with the rest of your post. Make it apparent that procecutorial malfeasance will be punished. And eliminate qualified immunity. Entirely.
We pretty much proved that prohibition didn't work a century ago. They should be either butting out entirely, which is my actual preference, or licensing, regulating, and taxing all drugs like they do with alcohol and tobacco. Used to be I could go to the drug store and buy strichnine*. Nanny-state comes along and forbids any such thing now. Whole lot of people need to go back and read the Constitution.
*works great to kill skunks that raid henhouses. Has also been used (by others) as an aphrodisiac.
Similar threads
