I don't have time right now to look up links to all the instances lately, but you really should give Texas Monthly's piece Innocence Lost a read. It is long but pretty amazing. The testimony of a "co-consipitor" and failures around condemned the guy to death.
Why the distinction between murder trials? If it can be proven that murderer A deserves the death penalty, but it can't be proven that murderer B deserves it, then shouldn't murderer B go free? Enough solid evidence to convict, but not execute? Something's off, there.
Who decides what constitutes heinous nature? There's too much willy-nilly ambivalence there.
Doc, there is an element of fallibility in the justice system. The death penalty will never be cheap, and it will never be quick. Nor should it be. If we as a society are going to engage in killing humans, cheap and easy shouldn't be the descriptors for it. I'd argue that an argument for vigilante justice is more level-headed than this 30 day and a .22 stuff. Why? Because the justice system should be held to a higher standard. Capital punishment is us, collectively as a society, systematically taking a human life. Should be some element of professionalism and dignity in it, no matter how small. Your 30 days for appeal .22 spiel is crap and you know it. You're far too smart to pull off acting dumb, doc.
And you really think the death penalty (compared to life in prison) is a deterrent to those who commit the most heinous of crimes? Honestly, not being a smartass. I don't see it being a deterrent.
My own real life experience in this subject is very limited (thankfully), and amounts to me sitting on the jury of a first degree murder trial (no capital punishment option), and at a later date talking with several jurors that sat on a death penalty case (after the fact). The first made me lose a great of deal faith in the court system, the latter showed that at least everyone I talked to was greatly affected by being on a capital punishment jury. Even the ones that went into it thinking otherwise. None of them ever wanted to do it again, and not because of the fact that jury duty sucks. I can, and have sat on a murder trial and looked at it objectively, but I honestly don't think I could sit on a capital punishment trial and vote objectively.
Finally, I look like a dumbass on OSA a lot (hey, I do learn things here), but you ain't making me look like one in this thread. But keep at it if you must.
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
You think I'm trying to play dumb?
Nope, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm pretty dumb and never claimed otherwise. Just an average guy, nothing more or less. Arguing for a more streamlined and efficient implementation of the death penalty doesn't mean making it easier to achieve or taking it lightly. It just means if you're going to do it, then DO it and don't pussyfoot around it for 15 years.
That's my "dumb guy" stance.
Nope, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm pretty dumb and never claimed otherwise. Just an average guy, nothing more or less. Arguing for a more streamlined and efficient implementation of the death penalty doesn't mean making it easier to achieve or taking it lightly. It just means if you're going to do it, then DO it and don't pussyfoot around it for 15 years.
That's my "dumb guy" stance.
My views on the matter are as follows: 1. Some people need/deserve to die for their crimes. 2. The criminal should have to die the way they killed/ruined the victim's life. (I know it will never happen due to bleeding hearts.) 3. George Carlin Method. For further reference on the George Carlin Method here is a link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmJ2snsLxWw
Just for the record, I'm not some bleeding heart. Frankly I'm a cold hearted person and usually don't feel anything for dead people unless I knew them personally. I could give a fawk if a murderer dies. And it's more not trusitng my fellow citizens, our court system, and our governement to deal out death than it is me feeling sorry for some tool that found Jesus in prison.
My stance is more based on a spin of "it's better 10 guilty man go free than one innocent man be convicted." Well, it's better 9,999 murders and one innocent man sit in prison than 9,999 murderers and 1 innocent man be executed.
Look at the West Memphis Three deal that happened last week. Damien Echols was sentenced to death and now he's free. That was a particularly gruesome, offense and heinous crime against children. It occurred in 1993 and this happened last week. Sometimes the more heinous the crime, the less the chance of a fair trial.
I'd also throw out that a capital punishment jury is likely not to be as diverse as a non-capital punishment jury. Why? Because they don't select anyone with qualms about the death penalty. That narrows your group down a bunch. There's no mixture, and they are all likely to think in a similar way, have the same politics, same viewpoints. Just something I think about. The murder trial I was on, we were all idiots, but we were diverse idiots. The capital trial running at the same time would, and did kick some of them out.
I don't want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with reformed murders, I just think a little restraint should be shown when killing people. A little more than 30 days and .22, at the least.
It's not so much "bleeding hearts" as it is the 8th Amendment.
I have no problem with use of defensive lethal force during a violent crime - NONE WHATSOEVER. I do have a problem with purely democratic VOTE of 12 strangers on who gets to die and who gets to live, after hearing a story told by a well paid bullshitter (my apologies to all the lawyers present).
I believe crimes should not go unpunished - I just don't think we, as a society, should have the power to vote what behavior deserves death. Values change, people change, science changes, culture changes.
I believe crimes should not go unpunished - I just don't think we, as a society, should have the power to vote what behavior deserves death. Values change, people change, science changes, culture changes.
wow maybe i shouldnt start threads anymore..i made 2 this morning and they are going insane....im just tired of all kinds of money being spent on people that get to sit in a cell and do nothing all day and get food. I watch alot of the shows locked up and blah blah blah and you know i have noticed time and time again that the people that have a life sentences, they dont care about anyone or anything they just get more dangerous. So i am only saying no more life sentences just get rid of them. This does mean a few things in order to do this. The system would have to step up to the next level and charge people with the right evidence among other things. I dont want to see someone walk just because they don't have all the evidence but give them a year sentence and at the end have a full trial and if convicted the next day off to the deep blue depths.
Similar threads
