Life in Prison or Execution?

[Gamecock]

Youre just throwing out terms and words that mean nothing.

We support due process. Due process would be where the perp's attorney files an appeal claiming that there was an irregularity in the trial. Or two or three irregularities.

Cajunlawyer tells us the appeals claim everything was wrong with the trial, like the judge parts his hair on the wrong side, just in case it is it becomes law some years out.

I should think that appeals that don't claim a few specific trial errors, but rather a hundred, should be taken as evidence that the defense really doesn't have anything.

Claiming 5 trial errors is due process; claiming 100 trial errors is gaming the system at taxpayers - and victims' families - expense.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

If you are prepared to kill to save your life what is different from the death penalty?

I have been in a situation where I was prepared to shoot to kill someone, I am not sure that I would have as much problem with killing someone for heinous crimes as some of the posters imply. As others have said, it may not fix the problem but it darned sure prevents a repeat problem.

I'd rather kill an innocent person and pay the price morally than let a guilty one go free.

Immediacy of the threat. I'll leave the last sentence of your post alone.

 

[Imissedagain]

Thats the only way someone gets convicted. So it doesnt always work especially with poor representation.

I know death is more expensive than gen pop. But i cant find any numbers on solitary vs death.

You missed my point about doubt. As in caught in the act, the body in his refrigerator, etc etc etc. Does that clear it up?

Many of us would have no problem executing him. Gun, sword, arrow the list goes on.
No fuss and there's no way that's expensive?
One to the gut to get their attention and one to the head. Grind him up and the fish have chum.
Case closed.

 

[ClayCow]

If you are prepared to kill to save your life what is different from the death penalty?

I have been in a situation where I was prepared to shoot to kill someone, I am not sure that I would have as much problem with killing someone for heinous crimes as some of the posters imply. As others have said, it may not fix the problem but it darned sure prevents a repeat problem.

I'd rather kill an innocent person and pay the price morally than let a guilty one go free.

Yup. Some people are fine with that and thats a conundrum many face. Id rather let an innocent live.

 

[ClayCow]

We support due process. Due process would be where the perp's attorney files an appeal claiming that there was an irregularity in the trial. Or two or three irregularities.

Cajunlawyer tells us the appeals claim everything was wrong with the trial, like the judge parts his hair on the wrong side, just in case it is it becomes law some years out.

I should think that appeals that don't claim a few specific trial errors, but rather a hundred, should be taken as evidence that the defense really doesn't have anything.

Claiming 5 trial errors is due process; claiming 100 trial errors is gaming the system at taxpayers - and victims' families - expense.

Again. No offense here but all youre doing is complaining and pointing out problems. Its a fact that we have a problem, but you havent provided any feasible realistic solutions other than complaining about a system you dont understand.

 

[ClayCow]

You missed my point about doubt. As in caught in the act, the body in his refrigerator, etc etc etc. Does that clear it up?

Many of us would have no problem executing him. Gun, sword, arrow the list goes on.
No fuss and there's no way that's expensive?
One to the gut to get their attention and one to the head. Grind him up and the fish have chum.
Case closed.

No. You go down a slippery slope as to what doubt is and who draws it. What is the line drawn in the sand? Every case is different. Any person who is convicted has convinced the jury that they are guily beyond reasonable doubt.

People have been caught under highly suspicious circumstances but have been innocent. You can never truly have no doubt without a video recording.

 

[Old TexMex]

It's not an unreasonable question. The answer is simple, immediacy. I would only ever use my gun to stop an immediate threat to me or my family. My goal is not to kill, but to stop the threat. If the attacker dies, so be it. However, that is not my goal.

Once again, this is based on perception.

It's o.k. to "stop the threat" with deadly force without a trial, but it is wrong to "stop the threat" with deadly force after a fair trial?

I disagree wholeheartedly, without malice, and pray you never suffer the actions of a released murderer who kills again.

 

[Old TexMex]

A case in point:
Bennie Ray Dupnik Jr., Infamous 1970s Port Aransas Murderer, Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide | Houston Press

The parole board, (kind hearted moralists) voted to release 7-0. They didn't perceive an immediate threat to themselves or their family, so someone elses died. Great work.

 

[Gamecock]

Again. No offense here but all youre doing is complaining and pointing out problems. Its a fact that we have a problem, but you havent provided any feasible realistic solutions other than complaining about a system you dont understand.

The solutions obviously aren't going to come from people who understand the system.

 

[ClayCow]

So at the rate of 8% wrongful incarceration. Are you fine with 8 innocent people dying for every 100 people executed? Is this the price of safety and security youre willing to accept even if one of those 8 is an immediate family member?

Its a philosophical question.

 

[ClayCow]

The solutions obviously aren't going to come from people who understand the system.

Actually politicans who most often are JD are the ones who would make those changes. So yes it would come from those who know.

 

[bigride]

A case in point:
Bennie Ray Dupnik Jr., Infamous 1970s Port Aransas Murderer, Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide | Houston Press

The parole board, (kind hearted moralists) voted to release 7-0. They didn't perceive an immediate threat to themselves or their family, so someone elses died. Great work.

Nobody in this discussion is advocating the release of murderers. Having questions about the efficacy and application of the death penalty is hardly a mandate for releasing murderers.

I think most here would say that "life without parole" should mean exactly that. You die in prison and never even have an opportunity to meet a parole board...ever.

If people want the death penalty...fine. But let's do better about killing the ones who are guilty and not killing the innocent. And let's quit being so sporadic in its application. Conversely, let's actually make a life sentence what it is supposed to be...a permanent solution.

 

[MOONDAWG]

The dead victim did not get a choice...

 

[Imissedagain]

Beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond the shadow of a doubt is not the same as absolutely no doubt at all.
May you and yours always stay safe. Not everyone has been that fortunate.

 

[Old TexMex]

Nobody in this discussion is advocating the release of murderers. Having questions about the efficacy and application of the death penalty is hardly a mandate for releasing murderers.

I think most here would say that "life without parole" should mean exactly that. You die in prison and never even have an opportunity to meet a parole board...ever.

If people want the death penalty...fine. But let's do better about killing the ones who are guilty and not killing the innocent. And let's quit being so sporadic in its application. Conversely, let's actually make a life sentence what it is supposed to be...a permanent solution.

Nobody advocates the escape of murderers either, but it happens...

It may be theoretical to some, but not me. Until life without parole actually means something, y'all are just blowin smoke.

(edit: as far as I can see, those who support incarceration are, effectively, advocating for the release of murderers, since many are released after conviction. That is reality. Cold and cruel. I speak for nobody but myself.)

 

[ClayCow]

Nobody advocates the escape of murderers either, but it happens...

It may be theoretical to some, but not me. Until life without parole actually means something, y'all are just blowin smoke.

(edit: as far as I can see, those who support incarceration are, effectively, advocating for the release of murderers, since many are released after conviction. That is reality. Cold and cruel. I speak for nobody but myself.)

Yes and those who support the death penalty are effectively advocating for the death of innocent people using your logic. Lets not group people into categories they dont belong in.

Beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond the shadow of a doubt is not the same as absolutely no doubt at all.
May you and yours always stay safe. Not everyone has been that fortunate.

Yes. Try to come up with an objective measure on that which can be applied to the gamut of cases, all different.

 

[Johnmuratore]

Caj
I've thought about this for days. I can't get past the fact that he committed these atrocities on a 6 yr old. Innocents like her look to adults for protection and compassion. They trust without thought.
I have no emotional or intellectual opinion on the death penalty per se, but it does exist and so do people who have committed unthinkable acts.

 

[Old TexMex]

Yes and those who support the death penalty are effectively advocating for the death of innocent people using your logic. Lets not group people into categories they dont belong in.

Yes. Try to come up with an objective measure on that which can be applied to the gamut of cases, all different.

"Let's" ?
How about speaking for yourself. I have.
You can take it personally if you want, but you don't really have a dog in the fight. Theory and ideals are handy, but real experience, in my opinion, trumps it.

Go free an innocent person if that's how you think the system works. I'd love to hear your story after you do, because I have done that very thing, more than once. Jails in Mexico have a few waiting for help.

I'm not talking about executing innocent people. I'm talking about murderers. Confessed, convicted murderers.

Thank you for your efforts in freeing the innocent.

 

[Black_Sheep]

I believe execution would be a more humane punishment than life without parole. I also believe there is no redemption for anyone that murders a defenseless child. Therefore, I voted "kill him" in the poll...

 

[Rastoff]

I'd rather kill an innocent person and pay the price morally than let a guilty one go free.

This thinking is seriously flawed. Here's why...

A guy, wearing a blue coat, kills a clerk at the convenient store just around the corner from your house. He takes off running down the street. You just happen to be out for an after dinner stroll. It's a bit nippy so you put on your blue coat. A jogger runs past you. You think, "Hey, that's a nice jacket he has on."

30 seconds later a gang of guys grab you and head toward the nearest tree, rope in hand. Even though you protest your innocence, they string you up. In their mind they are justified because a guy with a blue jacket just killed the clerk. You have a blue jacket so, it must be you even though you're innocent.

Obviously this is a ridiculous story and anyone could blow holes in it. However, here is the point of the story. You said, "I'd rather kill an innocent person and pay the price morally than let a guilty one go free." The flaw is that once you've hung or imprisoned an innocent person, YOU STOP LOOKING FOR THE BAD GUY and he gets away with it!!! So, the bad guy gets away A LOT when you have this thinking.