Death Penalty

[skygirl1 1]

I also believe I read somewhere that at one point certain tribes in Africa would take the newborn baby girls and tie them to a tree to be eaten alive due to the fact they needed more male tribesman?
That is a pretty awful death penalty don't ya think

" Mean people SUCK!"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What if we later determine they were innocent after years of time went by? You don't seem to want to address that.

BTW, many murderers are nerds, I've seen several convicted.

As for the island thing, they made of movie about that concept; Papillon. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070511/

Quote

I have defended that with what I can with the DNA process that was enabled 15 years ago...it is up to the convicted to appeal and prove their case.

Many cases have no DNA, so what then? Just fry em cause it's easier? Answer this: IS IT MORE EGREGIOUS TO FREE A GUILTY PERSON OR EXECUTE AN INNOCENT ONE? Also, a convict doesn't have to prove their innocence, they can establish:

- Incompetent counsel

- Procedural violations

- Jury instructions

- and a myriad of other elements not relating to the crime.

Quote

That is why the death row inmates sit so long.

Here I thought it was to not do something that is irreversable.

Quote

I again repeat I was not talking about basic once in a life time murderers....I was talking about MASS MURDERERS..SERIAL KILLERS...CHILD RAPISTS-KILLERS- SERIAL RAPISTS...

No doubt there are some rotten SOB's that deserve more than simple execution, but in order to have that process, we must also be willing to execute the occassional innocent; are you willing to do that?

Quote

as far as the movie? Never saw it...graduated with my bachlor in 1995

Yea, I knew u were a youngen Shit, I was a child when that came out, it was a huge movie.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I also believe I read somewhere that at one point certain tribes in Africa would take the newborn baby girls and tie them to a tree to be eaten alive due to the fact they needed more male tribesman?
That is a pretty awful death penalty don't ya think

Wait, that isn't punishment, that's a different subject. Many cultures have killed infant girls as they were a liability. Remember the times they were in, if they hadn't done that they would have gone extinct as that tribe far sooner. Not a justification for it, just a natural rendering. Coyotes will eat their young if there isn't enough food around too, primative humans were pretty barbaric.

[skygirl1 1]

I cannot stand up for what the laws were before DNA, and yes, obviously there are death row inmates that are proving there innocence as we speak. There are general pop inmates that are innocent also! It is up to the inmate to appeal their conviction. The state is not going to do that for them. That IS why there are so many appeals granted at this point in time.
At this point of this thread we are not talking about the initial conviction, we ( you and I) have been discussing appeals.
I feel the way I do about the death penalty..nothing can change that. Obviously innocent people have died in our prison system...just as the victems whom were brutally murdered, raped, and pushing up daises right now.

" Mean people SUCK!"

[billvon 2,400]

>Obviously innocent people have died in our prison system...just as the
>victems whom were brutally murdered, raped, and pushing up daises right
>now.

Agreed. The big question is - do you support that?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

... Obviously innocent people have died in our prison system...just as the victims whom were brutally murdered, raped, and pushing up daises right now.

So you support the death penalty for those who brutaly murder and rape.

Do you also support it for the prosecutors, cops and "expert" witnesses who wrongfully convict and execute the innocent?

If the "system" brutally murders the innocent, shouldn't those in charge of it be held accountable?

They certainly aren't now.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skygirl1 1]

totally agree

" Mean people SUCK!"

[skygirl1 1]

I do not understand why it is so hard to comprehend what I am putting on the platter I DO support the death penalty.......I UNDERSTAND innocent people are in prison and were put to death...I guess to answer your question to the point, I do support it if innocent people die, AGAIN, our government and criminal justice system is not fail proof and I personally cannot change that.
I am native american and do not believe in a CHRISTIAN GOD, but to anyone that does..EYE FOR AN EYE ring a bell

" Mean people SUCK!"

[billvon 2,400]

>AGAIN, our government and criminal justice system is not fail proof and
>I personally cannot change that.

Well, actually you can. You can help improve the criminal justice system by serving on juries, so that criminal cases are not decided by "the people too dumb to get out of jury duty."

You can also change the effect of those errors by voting for or against people who support the death penalty.

So you do have some say in whether people are executed for crimes they did not commit.

[skygirl1 1]

True, and thank you for bringing that up. We all can do something. I guess after walking tiers for 8 years and dealing with the EXACT people we are debating on this thread, I got sick of big brother. Guess it's time I get more active

" Mean people SUCK!"

[andyvaughn 0]

It was Ghandi who said "If everyone takes an eye for an eye, the whole world will be blind"...and if we are going to take the Bible literally, then there are crimes for which I should have been put to death - the Bible prescribes death as punishment for contempt of parents, trespass upon sacred ground, sacrifice to foreign gods, profaning the sabbath, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, .... there's more...but you get my point. At the very least, I've held my parents in contempt - so I'm quite delighted we aren't interpreting the Bible in exact and holding these as executable sins.

And sick of big brother -how do you marry the opinion that the government should have the ultimate right to take the lives of it's citizens - EVEN when the government is wrong and the citizens they execute/imprison are sometimes innocent, and then take the stand that the government is "big brother" - let's look at the company we keep, China, Iran, Vietnam and ourselves are the worlds top executors - that doesn't even need elaborated upon....do you want MORE or LESS government power?

[skygirl1 1]

As stated before, I am native american. I belive it was other people starting to quote the bible!

" Mean people SUCK!"

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I cannot stand up for what the laws were before DNA, and yes, obviously there are death row inmates that are proving there innocence as we speak. There are general pop inmates that are innocent also! It is up to the inmate to appeal their conviction. The state is not going to do that for them. That IS why there are so many appeals granted at this point in time.

Well, there are so many appeals, esp Habeus Corpus as they are limitless. The reason is that people want out and it gives them hope, usually false hope. But in AZ in DP cases, they are guaranteed an automatic appeal track to the state supreme ct for review, doesn't mean they will get heard.

Quote

At this point of this thread we are not talking about the initial conviction, we ( you and I) have been discussing appeals.
I feel the way I do about the death penalty..nothing can change that. Obviously innocent people have died in our prison system...just as the victems whom were brutally murdered, raped, and pushing up daises right now.

I see you combine the innocent people executed and the innocent people murdered by SOB's. Let's compare the murderers, shall we?

Dahmer, Bundy, Gacey and THE STATE FOR WHICH YOU CONDONE. I'm ok with you sticking to your guns, just realize that your position leads to wrongful deaths.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

totally agree

Oh, go to prison for murder, so you don't think the same standard should apply to the state-sanctioned murderer? You're kinda slipping here; do you see it?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I UNDERSTAND innocent people are in prison and were put to death...I am ok with that

Fixed it for ya.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It was Ghandi who said "If everyone takes an eye for an eye, the whole world will be blind"...and if we are going to take the Bible literally, then there are crimes for which I should have been put to death - the Bible prescribes death as punishment for contempt of parents, trespass upon sacred ground, sacrifice to foreign gods, profaning the sabbath, adultery, homosexuality, prostitution, bestiality, .... there's more...but you get my point. At the very least, I've held my parents in contempt - so I'm quite delighted we aren't interpreting the Bible in exact and holding these as executable sins.

And sick of big brother -how do you marry the opinion that the government should have the ultimate right to take the lives of it's citizens - EVEN when the government is wrong and the citizens they execute/imprison are sometimes innocent, and then take the stand that the government is "big brother" - let's look at the company we keep, China, Iran, Vietnam and ourselves are the worlds top executors - that doesn't even need elaborated upon....do you want MORE or LESS government power?

If ya talk about company of countrie sthat executed kids as we did not so long ago:

China
Democratic Republic of Congo
Iran
Nigeria
Pakistan
Saudi Arabia
United States
Yemen

As of 2004 whne we shortly after abolished that.

[andyvaughn 0]

When you say "we" executed (as in past tense) children, do you mean Zimbabwe? As far as I know the USA will still execute a person who committed a crime as a minor, though they are obviously usually no longer a minor when the death penalty is carried through. To the best of my knowledge the last person executed who committed their crime as a minor was in 2003 here in the USA. That's a whole other argument - I don't understand how we can hold someone responsible for their actions to the point of executing them, when that same person would not have the right to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, live alone, rent a car, etc, etc. It's a huge double standard - you're resonsible here, but not there....
That being said, I still believe strongly in holding offenders responsible, regardless of their age. I don't know about other countries, but the most violent of crimes here tend to be committed by young men. But I have seen cases - not just in theory but in reality, where those young men "outgrew" their violence.One of my friends that I mentioned earlier was a very violent young man, who committed a gang related murder when he was a juvenile. He was in CYA (california youth authority) until he was 24 - he was/is one of the incredible stories of redemption - he is off of drugs, of service to his community in a way that he is particularly powerful, he works with at risk youth - they understand him, they speak the same language. Those kids aren't going to trust a middle aged white lady - I haven't come from where they come from. But I've watched him in action - and those kids trust him, if he reaches just one person, helps one kid get on the right path....then his life isn't in vain - but this man of whom I speak would have never gone down for the death penalty anyways. He killed another gang member, violent warfare on the streets that the cops and DA have just come to expect - I suspect if he had killed someone of prominence, and someone not of his race, he would either be at the very least a lifer himself....
Just in case there is any confusion, I still am very skeptical about the possibility of reforming some of these people, I've known many people who ARE reformed - yet there are many men, and women, who truly deserve to live a life behind bars - and never walk amongst us again. I for one wouldn't be asking a parole board to please give Richard Ramirez a chance to reform himself. Some evil belongs tucked away from us - we as free people ALSO deserve to feel safe.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But that is what it says in the scriptures.

Show me one from the new covenant.

Matt 5:17-18: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Is he telling the truth?

I think that boy had lobster or shrimp........ Where the hell are the rocks.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

When you say "we" executed (as in past tense) children, do you mean Zimbabwe?

Look at my profile, it's just for fun.

Quote

As far as I know the USA will still execute a person who committed a crime as a minor, though they are obviously usually no longer a minor when the death penalty is carried through. To the best of my knowledge the last person executed who committed their crime as a minor was in 2003 here in the USA.

I guess 2003 was the last because kiddy DP was repealed via the SCOTUS shortly after that. It was 16 and 17 YO's only, no younger. At that time of repeal, we had executed 19 of the prevuous 38 known kiddy executions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

Since 1642 (in the 13 colonies, the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and the current United States) an estimated 364 juvenile offenders have been put to death by states and the federal government. The earliest known execution of a prisoner for crimes committed as a juvenile was Thomas Graunger in 1642. Twenty-two of the executions occurred after 1976, in seven states. Due to the slow process of appeals, it was highly unusual for a condemned person to be under 18 at the time of execution. The youngest person to be executed in the 20th century was George Stinney, electrocuted in South Carolina at the age of 14, June 16, 1944. The last execution of a juvenile may have been Leonard Shockley, who died in the Maryland gas chamber April 10, 1959, at the age of 17. No one has been under age 19 at time of execution since at least 1964.[80][81] Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, 22 people have been executed for crimes committed under the age of 18. 21 were 17 at the time of the crime. The last person to be executed for a crime committed as a juvenile was Scott Hain April 3, 2003 in Oklahoma.[82]

Before 2005, of the 38 U.S. states that allow capital punishment:

19 states and the federal government had set a minimum age of 18,
Five states had set a minimum age of 17, and
14 states had explicitly set a minimum age of 16, or were subject to the Supreme Court's imposition of that minimum.
16 was held to be the minimum permissible age in the 1988 Supreme Court of the United States decision of Thompson v. Oklahoma. The Supreme Court, considering the case Roper v. Simmons, in March 2005, found execution of juvenile offenders unconstitutional by a 5–4 margin, effectively raising the minimum permissible age to 18. State laws have not been updated to conform with this decision. Under the US system, unconstitutional laws do not need to be repealed, but are instead held to be unenforceable. (See also List of juvenile offenders executed in the United States)


2005 it was repealed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._Simmons

Quote

That's a whole other argument - I don't understand how we can hold someone responsible for their actions to the point of executing them, when that same person would not have the right to vote, purchase tobacco or alcohol, live alone, rent a car, etc, etc. It's a huge double standard - you're resonsible here, but not there....

Agreed, don;t forget serving and dying in the military.

Quote

That being said, I still believe strongly in holding offenders responsible, regardless of their age. I don't know about other countries, but the most violent of crimes here tend to be committed by young men. But I have seen cases - not just in theory but in reality, where those young men "outgrew" their violence.One of my friends that I mentioned earlier was a very violent young man, who committed a gang related murder when he was a juvenile. He was in CYA (california youth authority) until he was 24 - he was/is one of the incredible stories of redemption - he is off of drugs, of service to his community in a way that he is particularly powerful, he works with at risk youth - they understand him, they speak the same language. Those kids aren't going to trust a middle aged white lady - I haven't come from where they come from. But I've watched him in action - and those kids trust him, if he reaches just one person, helps one kid get on the right path....then his life isn't in vain - but this man of whom I speak would have never gone down for the death penalty anyways. He killed another gang member, violent warfare on the streets that the cops and DA have just come to expect - I suspect if he had killed someone of prominence, and someone not of his race, he would either be at the very least a lifer himself....
Just in case there is any confusion, I still am very skeptical about the possibility of reforming some of these people, I've known many people who ARE reformed - yet there are many men, and women, who truly deserve to live a life behind bars - and never walk amongst us again. I for one wouldn't be asking a parole board to please give Richard Ramirez a chance to reform himself. Some evil belongs tucked away from us - we as free people ALSO deserve to feel safe.

Yea, the ole balance thing. I think the DP is a waste all the way around, life w/o parole is fine and no irreversable error can occur.

[Channman 2]

> 2. It doesn't serve it's intended purpose.

My belief is that the death penalty serves as the ultimate punishment for a individual that commits murder. When the death penalty is carried out the offender to my knowledge is not a repeat offender.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> 2. It doesn't serve it's intended purpose.

My belief is that the death penalty serves as the ultimate punishment for a individual that commits murder. When the death penalty is carried out the offender to my knowledge is not a repeat offender.

And if they are incarcerrated for life the same occurrs other than jailhouse killings.

BTW, don't confuse your little ditty with deterrence, for that must have the element of choice.

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You show me. After all it was YOU who said...

Quote

I am in favor of the death penalty based on Scriptural justification

So show me. If you can't show me in the New Testament then I can only take it that you are refering to the Old Testament in which it says that Adulters and homosexuals should be stoned to death. So show me or reveal your hypocracy.

I apologize, I took advantage of you because I know you lack education and understanding of the Scriptures.

It does not exist in the new covenant.

The new covenant instructs us to follow the law of the land regarding the death penalty. Read Romans 13.

So you are in favour of stoning adulterers to death, whipping unmarried women seen in public with men, life imprisonment for insulting the King of Thailand... you basically have no criticism of any law in any country.

Dude, Stop being such an ASS, and get back to the original subject. I will now return to my self imposed banning.

[Casurf1978 0]

I said no for several reasons. Main one being is that our justice system relies on human beings and that being said mistakes will be made and have been made. It's well documented that innocent people have been put to death. How can anyone be pro DP when innocent people have been executed?

Supreme Court Justice Stevens said it best:

"I think this country would be much better off if we did not have capital punishment.... We cannot ignore the fact that in recent years a disturbing number of inmates on death row have been exonerated."

I also believe the DP is about revenge, not justice.

[normiss 622]

Agreed fully.

I'm also bothered that the prosecution will typically back a defendant into a corner (whether truly guilty or not) and they end up taking a plea agreement.
In Florida, when a plea agreement is entered into, the defendant is required to sign AWAY all rights to DNA challenges.
This is a huge problem with defendants that do not receive a proper counsel. Meaning most people charged with serious criminal offenses.
Most of us could not afford to defend ourselves.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

Most of us could not afford to defend ourselves

Good point. Most of us couldn't afford decent counsel. Ginsberg said it best when she pointed that people that are well represented do not get the DP. If OJ didn't have his Dream Team he would probably be on death row right now.