EBSB52 0 #126 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteOk, I'm realizing I've been had here .... You learned it in High School? I've been had - you're screwing with me you are not the only one that went to college. But I learned this in High School. Ya, and I have a simple BS in Justice, which is really nothing, hence it's called an, "undergraduate degree." But please don't refer to a high school diploma as something in which to reference great legal knowledge. the extent of high school teachings in regard to law/politics is maybe the structure of Congress, formation of Bills, and the 3 branches of government. BTW, I'm not saying I'm right because I have a simple BS, I'm saying I've supported my position because the evidence that has been presented by me has not been successfully refuted, hell, has it even been addressed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #127 December 11, 2004 QuoteIt's a Canadian website. Tell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters? I didn't post it in the context of it being of Canadian origin. I like the, "Texecutioner" thingy! Tell me what it maters where it comes from? Is it less sifnificant if it's from other than the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #128 December 11, 2004 Quote2. Cost 2 to 3 times more, or more tna life w/o parole Apologies if this has already been adadressed, but have any of you anti-death penalty crowd ever wondered why death row inmates cost more than the general population? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrunkMonkey 0 #129 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's a Canadian website. Tell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters? I didn't post it in the context of it being of Canadian origin. I like the, "Texecutioner" thingy! Tell me what it maters where it comes from? Is it less significant if it's from other than the US? Yes. An American's opinion about America's internal policies is relevant. A foreigner's is not relevant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #130 December 11, 2004 QuoteYou have probably never had any experience with trial or appellate courts. Um, as a matter of fact I have. Won some. Lost some. Never lost a trial. Appellate courts? One case. I've got experience. Preparing for and going to court is my profession. Quote’t think for a minute the justices are painstakingly mulling over these cases, in fact, they hear only a minute percentage of cases and even if they do hear them they have no responsibility to act any given way. Don’t act as if these appeals get the attention they should have. The Supreme Court hears only a minor percentages of cases. Each one it agrees to hear get a great deal of attention. Furthermore, they have a responsibility to act a certain way - to review the legal procedures and processes used on either an "abuse of discretion" or "de novo" standard. However, before a case can get to the Supreme Court it must show it has jurisdiction. The USC has orginial jurisdiction of controversies between states, i.e., if Massachusetts wants to sue New Hampshire for undercutting it in taxes. 28 USC 1251. The USC can also hear a case during or after an appeal in the federal courts. 28 USC 1254. Or, it can hear a case after "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had..." 28 USC 1257 (the so-called "1257 bridge") Notice that if you are convicted of a DUI, you cannot appeal to the US Supreme Court until you have made it through the first state appeals court, then the highest state court. Or, by a federal trial court to a federal appeals court. Simply put, you have, at a bare ass minimum, one court AFTER the trial court BEFORE you even can ask the Supremes to hear your case. If you're in a state court, you've got 2 courts that hear your appeal before you can even ask the Supreme Court for help. So, before it even gets to asking the Supreme Court, it's been appealed THOROUGHLY at LEAST once. So, it's shown that these cases are reviewed OUTSIDE the counties. Of course, they do not disturb findings of fact. If there was an error, they reverse the error and send it back tot he trial court for re-examination under their guidance. The SUpremes aren't the only appeals court. QuoteWas it heard by the US Sup Ct? It doesn’t have to be you know No shit. The USC has lots of reasons for not hearing cases. Let's say you want the Supreme Court to rule on whether a Maine Court can order you to pay child support when you've never been there. The Court will tell you to take a hike since they already decided that issue in Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 US 84. Don't waste their time. The appeals courts are there for a reason. QuoteThe understanding of appeals by laypersons is a giant misunderstanding; virtually all appeals get summarily pitched. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an appeal to the US Sup Ct. I don't mean to sound insulting by this, but that quote shows you to be a layperson with a misunderstanding of the appeals process. All appeals get heard by appeals courts, so long as you demonstrate jurisdiction and justiciability. Also, a writ of habeus corpus can be heard by any appeals court. In limited instances a trial court can hear one. How do I know this? Well, it's my job, and I've also done one. In a criminal case, they are done to attack a sentence. SeeRule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (used to challenge a sentence), or see 28 USC 2255 (used to challenge thevalidity of a conviction). Hell, my wife just attending a writ hearing on Wednesday in a small annex courtroom in Fresno. state courts have their own rules. And habeus corpus is after all other procedural remedies are exhausted - FYI. A writ of Certiorari is an appeal to the US SUpreme Court. They can reject it. You need to understand the process, man. You're WAY off with how this stuff works. QuoteHas Bush ever once overturned a death sentence or commuted anyone’s sentence? He can't overturn a sentence. Only courts can do that. Has he comuted? Yep. June 27, 1998 he commuted confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas's death sentence to life in prison (to match with the other 5 life sentences he had for other murders). See your argument come crashing before you? Bush wouldn't do that, would he? QuoteState what anyone has done to investigate these cases other than lip service. For the love of God, they've been through round after round of appeals! Of course, I see your logic. Why don't you go to law school, be a lawyer, and take on the cases of these sad, timid and loving souls who never hurt a fly. Did you see my example about the people who tried to help a so-called innocent man by forking over the dough for a DNA test when that proved he did it? You're a victim of comfort, dude. It's easier to bitch about Bush killing people than it is to hop off your high horse, get yourself educated and qualified, and help these people out. IT so happens that my wife was in a hearing that secured the release of a woman after 20 years in prison on a writ of habeus corpus with a case of battered woman's syndrome. Sentence reduced, credited with 28 years served, and she'll be back with her family by Wednesday. This was an issue deeply personal to both of us in a way you cannot imagine. Legitimate conviction (she did kill the child-molesting bastard). The charge was lowered, she's fulfilled the maximum sentence. People like me do something about injustice we see, and don't just bitch about it. So, tell me, what the hell have YOU done to help these convicts, hmm?? Complain about a "scumbag who loves to kill people" or are you gonna put your money where your mouth is, bub? How about not surfing internet sites and spewing hatred about a guy doing his job and do some investigation yourself? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #131 December 11, 2004 QuoteFine, I'll be specific. Being alive in a cage is better than death. Especially if you're innocent and have a hope of reversal. For the person in the cage maybe, maybe not. I'd go stark raving mad in that situation. But it doesn't matter, I'm not in the cage.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #132 December 11, 2004 QuoteIt's not called capital deterrence. It's called capital punishment. Does punishment deter conduct? Yes, it does. I found out as a kid that if I stole something, I got whupped. The whuppin' was punishment for stealing something. Every time I stole something, I got whupped. You steal, you get whupped. Crime - punishment. It also has a deterrent effect, when I got to thinking, "If I steal again, I'm gonna get whupped. I don't wanna get whupped, so I better not steal." This is a desirable side effect of punishment - the deterrent factor. But, make no mistake, the primary purpose is punishment. The rest of the world views it with disgust? It puts us in some pretty shady company? Yeah, I guess so. Point being? Thank you.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #133 December 11, 2004 QuoteTell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters? Normaly I'd say "exactly", but after seeing Remi's wife, I'm starting to think there might be some cute chicks up that way......might want to *pretend* to listen.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #134 December 11, 2004 QuoteSame applies, although I don't want to be narrow-minded about it and refer to only one person. 1. So are you saying because there are bastards that need to die, and there are, that we should kill innocent people too? It must have hurt your virgin eyes to read me call a murderer a bastard. I'm so sorry, I hope it doesn't forever scar you. Let's see, you advocate killing people for revenge, yet you are offended when I call a murderer that you would condemn, a bastard. Okee-dokee. Once again you put words into my mouth. Show me where I EVER said "revenge" was the reason to put someone to death. You can't. The reason is the fact they'll never do it again. Simple. (Probably not simple enough for you....) FYI: bas·tard A child born out of wedlock. I have no idea if this is true. Or were you simply using it as an inflamitory term to furthur your non-existant point. Quote2.If so, you sound like McVeigh when he referred to collateral damage in regard to the innocent people he killed when he killed whatever agents he was after. REACTION..... What's the matter, can't answer this one????? Yepper. Again. How did I get compared to McVeigh? Oh that's right, you needed something sensationalistic to try to bait me with. When you have nothing to say, dazzle them with bullshit, huh? QuoteI spoke only of killing Faye. An INDIVIDUAL! I did not call them a "bastard", something I have no knowlage of. Nothing about mass killing of innocents which is something you added to the convesation. No, I was simply comparing your logic to that of McVeigh's in regard to his stance on killing a bunch of innocent people to get to the ones he wanted to. It's very comparable, unless a person is so brilliant to think that no innocent people ever get executed. You compared MY logic? No you invented a counter argument you wished to argue against. Each of the executed individuals who have been discussed in this thread was proven GUILTY in a US judicial system. How does that make them innocent? Show me where I spoke about it being acceptable to kill innocents? Oh yeah, you can't. QuoteYou have some phobia of people speaking for you or being compared to other people. And that's bad? How about I just tell everyone you like to blow goats? Would you sit still for that? QuoteWell, you are just like the group of people here that have an opinion, but are unable to defend it. I love the former; abhor the latter. Look in the mirror. QuoteI understand that you're not super concerned about proper quoting, but in order to keep your point in context, you should quote the entire sentence, mabe paragraph. Then if you wish, extract your partial sentence and place, "..." on either end as appropriate. I have no idea of the context from which this came. But as a stand-alone statement, there are such things as inherent an inalienable. Post the rest and teh context. You said:QuoteWomen hadn't yet even earned (EDIT: a right that should have been inherent and inalienable; they fought for it rather than earned it) the right to vote, I extracted "right that should have been inherent and inalienable" and pointed out that there is no such thing as a right that is inherent and inalienable. If you doubt me go sit in the middle of South Central LA, or perhaps Brooklin wearing a sign with a racial slur on it. Lemme know how your right to free speach holds out after an hour. "Rights" are only exercised by those who defend them. QuoteAnd you have yet to address the substantive issues of killing innocent people, but as all the other people just like you, and that you are just like, it is virtually impossible to admit the obvious and still remain human. I do not advocate the killing of innocent people. FYI:hu·man A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. Perhapse you meant: hu·mane Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion: a humane judge. Remember, you're one of the people that wants to lock a person in a cage forever.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #135 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's a Canadian website. Tell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters? I didn't post it in the context of it being of Canadian origin. I like the, "Texecutioner" thingy! Tell me what it maters where it comes from? Is it less significant if it's from other than the US? Yes. An American's opinion about America's internal policies is relevant. A foreigner's is not relevant. Why is America's opinion about pre-war Iraq's internal policies relevant enough to justify a US invasion, then. Why can the US go to war on the basis of Iraq's internal policies, but a Canadian can't express an opinion about US policies?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #136 December 11, 2004 QuoteIt's called capital punishment Look up the definition of punishment. Punishment is issued to act as a deterrence. That is the reason behind punishment. If the punishment is not a deterrent, it is also not punishment. Deterrence in not a side effect, it is the main effect. QuoteThe rest of the world views it with disgust? It puts us in some pretty shady company? Yeah, I guess so. Point being? Because you so desperatly want the rest of the world to see you as the good guys. It is funny to watch Americans on this website grandstand about how they don't give a fuck about what foreigners think about their country, that they'll do whatever the fuck they want...and then in the next breath they wonder why people would hate them. If you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #137 December 11, 2004 Quote Quote2. Cost 2 to 3 times more, or more tna life w/o parole Apologies if this has already been adadressed, but have any of you anti-death penalty crowd ever wondered why death row inmates cost more than the general population? - Jim Because of their cable tv, sauna, and..... joking, because of the high cost of the trial, defense, appeals, max security prison, etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #138 December 11, 2004 Quote Quote2. Cost 2 to 3 times more, or more tna life w/o parole Apologies if this has already been adadressed, but have any of you anti-death penalty crowd ever wondered why death row inmates cost more than the general population? - Jim Why bother with a trial at all when summary execution is SO much cheaper? If you want cheap you won't get fair. If you want fair, it won't be cheap. Is it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Is there REALLY nothing better to do with the money?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #139 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt's called capital punishment Look up the definition of punishment. Punishment is issued to act as a deterrence. That is the reason behind punishment. If the punishment is not a deterrent, it is also not punishment. Deterrence in not a side effect, it is the main effect. You ought to look it up...... pun·ish·ment n. 1) a) The act or an instance of punishing. b) The condition of being punished. 2) A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: “The severity of the punishment must... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated” (Simone Weil). Quote Because you so desperatly want the rest of the world to see you as the good guys. It is funny to watch Americans on this website grandstand about how they don't give a fuck about what foreigners think about their country, that they'll do whatever the fuck they want...and then in the next breath they wonder why people would hate them. Are we done talking about the death penalty? I personaly don't care how YOU view America. QuoteIf you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. A dead person will not kill again.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #140 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's a Canadian website. Tell me again why Americans should give a fuck, flying or otherwise, about what Canadians think of our internal matters? I didn't post it in the context of it being of Canadian origin. I like the, "Texecutioner" thingy! Tell me what it maters where it comes from? Is it less significant if it's from other than the US? Yes. An American's opinion about America's internal policies is relevant. A foreigner's is not relevant. Ya, we're an island - we need no one else. That's how Germany, Italy, and Japan probably thought back then.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #141 December 11, 2004 QuoteWhy bother with a trial at all when summary execution is SO much cheaper? If you want cheap you won't get fair. If you want fair, it won't be cheap. Is it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #142 December 11, 2004 QuoteBut please don't refer to a high school diploma as something in which to reference great legal knowledge. The legal process is something any high school grad should know about. But you claim to know more than a lawyer in this, so I don't expect you to listen to me. QuoteI don't mean to sound insulting by this, but that quote shows you to be a layperson with a misunderstanding of the appeals process. All appeals get heard by appeals courts, so long as you demonstrate jurisdiction and justiciability. QuoteI'm saying I've supported my position because the evidence that has been presented by me has not been successfully refuted, hell, has it even been addressed? No, when presented evidence you discounted it based on age. Your critical thinking skills need work."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #143 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy bother with a trial at all when summary execution is SO much cheaper? If you want cheap you won't get fair. If you want fair, it won't be cheap. Is it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. Where is the proof that capital punishment is a deterrent? On average, states with capital punishment have over 50% higher murder rates than states without.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #144 December 11, 2004 QuoteWhere is the proof that capital punishment is a deterrent? I'm not arguing that. QuoteIs it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #145 December 11, 2004 QuoteDon't think for a minute the justices are painstakingly mulling over these cases, in fact, they hear only a minute percentage of cases and even if they do hear them they have no responsibility to act any given way. Don't act as if these appeals get the attention they should have.Quote Bullshit. There are law clerks mulling over every single one of these appeals. They take them very seriously, do the research, and the judge oversees every thing they do, including reviewing the law presented to them by both the parties and their law clerks. QuoteTried by some lowly US attorney. There is no such thing as a lowly US attorney. PD perhaps. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #146 December 11, 2004 QuoteIf you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. Not punishment? Then what is it? A fucking reward? A pat on the back? A "Cheers, ole chum?" Jeez, I had no idea that anyone could take the thought of killing someone so lightly. Killing a person as a sentence for a crime is not punishment? Are you outta your mind?? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,146 #147 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhere is the proof that capital punishment is a deterrent? I'm not arguing that. QuoteIs it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. Murder rates often increase following an execution. It's called the "brutality effect" by criminologists. On balance, executions do not decrease the number of murders.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Jib 0 #148 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. Not punishment? Then what is it? A fucking reward? A pat on the back? A "Cheers, ole chum?" Jeez, I had no idea that anyone could take the thought of killing someone so lightly. Killing a person as a sentence for a crime is not punishment? Are you outta your mind?? No, he just doesn't believe that people care if they die. At the same time, these same people are going to appeal to the Supreme Court. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #149 December 11, 2004 The Supreme Court hears only a minor percentages of cases. Each one it agrees to hear get a great deal of attention. Furthermore, they have a responsibility to act a certain way - to review the legal procedures and processes used on either an "abuse of discretion" or "de novo" standard. So you're agreeing with me then. And who holds them to standard? The judicial review board on standards and conduct. Ya, we've had lower court judges here do lots of crap and are still on the bench. Unless you commit a crime, it's an appointment for life, and that's a trial court judge I'm talking about. As for the US Sup Ct, the friken clerk writes most of the decision and you know it. BS the guys here, but not me. However, before a case can get to the Supreme Court it must show it has jurisdiction. The USC has orginial jurisdiction of controversies between states, i.e., if Massachusetts wants to sue New Hampshire for undercutting it in taxes. 28 USC 1251. Ok, but this thread is about criminal prosecutions of individuals. Notice that if you are convicted of a DUI, you cannot appeal to the US Supreme Court until you have made it through the first state appeals court, then the highest state court. Or, by a federal trial court to a federal appeals court. I understand, trial court, State Court of Appeals, State Supreme Court (NY and maybe another calls it different). Then on to the federal district and circuit courts. However, America, being the stronghold for equal justice and fairness, the prosecution can go to the top after the state appeals are exhausted so they can essentially grab the top of the bat out of turn. Simply put, you have, at a bare ass minimum, one court AFTER the trial court BEFORE you even can ask the Supremes to hear your case. If you're in a state court, you've got 2 courts that hear your appeal before you can even ask the Supreme Court for help. So, before it even gets to asking the Supreme Court, it's been appealed THOROUGHLY at LEAST once. Please, save your, "thoroughly" for the naïve. They do what they want, how they want, they are their own police. So, it's shown that these cases are reviewed OUTSIDE the counties. Of course, they do not disturb findings of fact. If there was an error, they reverse the error and send it back tot he trial court for re-examination under their guidance. Right, so what you said, but didn't say to the uninformed is that if and only if there is an error in law, the case may be remanded. If you want to call that thorough, then you are certain that you and your friends will receive a real fair shake at the trial level. What's next, no prosecutorial or judicial misconduct? The SUpremes aren't the only appeals court. You don't say. No shit. The USC has lots of reasons for not hearing cases. Let's say you want the Supreme Court to rule on whether a Maine Court can order you to pay child support when you've never been there. The Court will tell you to take a hike since they already decided that issue in Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 US 84. Don't waste their time. You know as well as I do that they look for certain types of cases as the session begins. There are certain cases like the 2000 election debacle that get thrust upon them, but they generally have the right to certify a case with the prescribed process that I don't need to explain to you. I wrote: "The understanding of appeals by laypersons is a giant misunderstanding; virtually all appeals get summarily pitched. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an appeal to the US Sup Ct." I don't mean to sound insulting by this, but that quote shows you to be a layperson with a misunderstanding of the appeals process. All appeals get heard by appeals courts, so long as you demonstrate jurisdiction and justiciability. I didn't say that all appeals that get filed get heard, or that any appeals that are heard are heard by other than appellate courts, I merely stated that most filed appeals get pitched and not heard. If you want to live in this fantasyland and think that all filed appeals are given careful consideration as to the content and legal merit, then hand the dooby. Furthermore, in your attempt at not sounding insulting, you forgot the exception to the appeal rule. You say that, "All appeals get heard by appeals courts" when you obviously forgot about lower court appeals; they get heard by the trial courts first. At least that's Arizona's protocol. The Superior Court plays the role of the Appellate Court; superior Court judges play justice and make the rulings. Also, a writ of habeus corpus can be heard by any appeals court. In limited instances a trial court can hear one. How do I know this? Well, it's my job, and I've also done one. In a criminal case, they are done to attack a sentence. SeeRule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (used to challenge a sentence), or see 28 USC 2255 (used to challenge thevalidity of a conviction). Hell, my wife just attending a writ hearing on Wednesday in a small annex courtroom in Fresno. state courts have their own rules. True, but generally Habeas filings are often done by prisoners on handwritten papers, especially in the context of this thread. Habeas Corpus just means, "you have the body - (bring forward the body)" as you obviously know. Sounds like you do federal stuff, is that so? And habeus corpus is after all other procedural remedies are exhausted - FYI. Ya I know. A writ of Certiorari is an appeal to the US SUpreme Court. They can reject it. And usually do so in a summary fashion. You need to understand the process, man. You're WAY off with how this stuff works. Wrong. I've supported my own and even found an exception that you didn't know or forgot. You probably do federal stuff or trial court stuff and don't screw with lower courts much so you didn't know/forgot. He can't overturn a sentence. Only courts can do that. True, poor choice of words, but he can pardon, commute, etc, which has the same effect of a court's overturning. Has he comuted? Yep. June 27, 1998 he commuted confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas's death sentence to life in prison (to match with the other 5 life sentences he had for other murders). See your argument come crashing before you? Bush wouldn't do that, would he? OMG, he did. 1 out of 150 some; well, he is a compassionate conservative. OK, so if he did 1, which I was unaware of, then what about the other 154 or so; he signed them into oblivion w/o a concern. You can make this an argument of semantics, but the truth is he has set records for careless signings of death warrants. For the love of God, they've been through round after round of appeals! Of course, I see your logic. Why don't you go to law school, be a lawyer, and take on the cases of these sad, timid and loving souls who never hurt a fly. Did you see my example about the people who tried to help a so-called innocent man by forking over the dough for a DNA test when that proved he did it? I wanted to, got a BS in Justice, didn't LSAT well enough, but there were plenty of people with lesser GPA's/LSAT's that were accepted into law school. Damned Repugnicans and their Affirmative Action. As for the LSAT itself, it doesn't measure the kind of lawyer a person would make, it measures how well that person takes the LSAT, period. That's the understanding of the LSAT and anyone in the profession knows it. You're a victim of comfort, dude. It's easier to bitch about Bush killing people than it is to hop off your high horse, get yourself educated and qualified, and help these people out. And you're a victim of chronic head up you ass-itis. Read above J.O., I spent 6 years round the year in school and worked full-time to get into law school to become, as you have in your profile, a, "shyster." Now I'm going into nursing classes so I can help people instead of fuck them. I'd say 10-20% of attorneys help people and the rest fuck them. Right now I'm suing 3 attorneys, I real estate broker, and a couple other people for robbing house. The pigs were remotely involved and their own refused to take a police report, but I have a mountain of evidence. The lawyers are involved because they owned the LLC that bought the house, now they have amnesia so an ethics complaint is forthcoming, not to mention the fact that they are in court record for being sued as, "shysters." Net result: I will now help people instead of fuck them. IT so happens that my wife was in a hearing that secured the release of a woman after 20 years in prison on a writ of habeus corpus with a case of battered woman's syndrome. Sentence reduced, credited with 28 years served, and she'll be back with her family by Wednesday. This was an issue deeply personal to both of us in a way you cannot imagine. I'm surprised you agree with a person getting out after a murder. You seem little bipolar; first you're all about fryin em, then you want to exonerate. But ya, I wanted to find a case like that and save someone from this toilet called, "America." God knows there are plenty of people wrongly incarcerated out there. Who knows, my LSAT's fall off in 3 years, maybe I'll work at RN nursing while I attend law school if I can bring up my score. I'm 42 now, so that'll make me 50 when I finally get through it, so I doubt I will do it now. Legitimate conviction (she did kill the child-molesting bastard). The charge was lowered, she's fulfilled the maximum sentence. 28 years for what could be considered a 2nd degree murder; that's probably fair. People like me do something about injustice we see, and don't just bitch about it. So, tell me, what the hell have YOU done to help these convicts, hmm?? Complain about a "scumbag who loves to kill people" or are you gonna put your money where your mouth is, bub? Again, I tried, bub. Also, jackoff, if you read these posts at all, you would see that I say that most of these convicted killers need to die, it just isn't worth the revenge factor we receive from that to justify the killing of the occasional innocent person, but apparently you don't feel that way; you must think it's ok to kill innocent people. With that, your argument for cap pun to protect innocent people is contradictory and circular. How about not surfing internet sites and spewing hatred about a guy doing his job and do some investigation yourself? How about learning a little about me before making idiotic assumptions, counselor? And we wonder why people are wrongly convicted - guys like you making bold assertions without knowing what the fuck you're talking about. After all this, I'm thinking you're a prosecutor; if not, then what? Disclaimer: you threw barbs at me; I threw some at you - just a lawyer to a lawyer want(ed) to be having fun dialogue, nothing to see here - move along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #150 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy bother with a trial at all when summary execution is SO much cheaper? If you want cheap you won't get fair. If you want fair, it won't be cheap. Is it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. Care to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next Page 6 of 8 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
lawrocket 3 #146 December 11, 2004 QuoteIf you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. Not punishment? Then what is it? A fucking reward? A pat on the back? A "Cheers, ole chum?" Jeez, I had no idea that anyone could take the thought of killing someone so lightly. Killing a person as a sentence for a crime is not punishment? Are you outta your mind?? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #147 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhere is the proof that capital punishment is a deterrent? I'm not arguing that. QuoteIs it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. Murder rates often increase following an execution. It's called the "brutality effect" by criminologists. On balance, executions do not decrease the number of murders.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #148 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf you truly think that punishment without deterrence is still punishment, I suggest you start handing out lollypops to every murderer. Not punishment? Then what is it? A fucking reward? A pat on the back? A "Cheers, ole chum?" Jeez, I had no idea that anyone could take the thought of killing someone so lightly. Killing a person as a sentence for a crime is not punishment? Are you outta your mind?? No, he just doesn't believe that people care if they die. At the same time, these same people are going to appeal to the Supreme Court. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #149 December 11, 2004 The Supreme Court hears only a minor percentages of cases. Each one it agrees to hear get a great deal of attention. Furthermore, they have a responsibility to act a certain way - to review the legal procedures and processes used on either an "abuse of discretion" or "de novo" standard. So you're agreeing with me then. And who holds them to standard? The judicial review board on standards and conduct. Ya, we've had lower court judges here do lots of crap and are still on the bench. Unless you commit a crime, it's an appointment for life, and that's a trial court judge I'm talking about. As for the US Sup Ct, the friken clerk writes most of the decision and you know it. BS the guys here, but not me. However, before a case can get to the Supreme Court it must show it has jurisdiction. The USC has orginial jurisdiction of controversies between states, i.e., if Massachusetts wants to sue New Hampshire for undercutting it in taxes. 28 USC 1251. Ok, but this thread is about criminal prosecutions of individuals. Notice that if you are convicted of a DUI, you cannot appeal to the US Supreme Court until you have made it through the first state appeals court, then the highest state court. Or, by a federal trial court to a federal appeals court. I understand, trial court, State Court of Appeals, State Supreme Court (NY and maybe another calls it different). Then on to the federal district and circuit courts. However, America, being the stronghold for equal justice and fairness, the prosecution can go to the top after the state appeals are exhausted so they can essentially grab the top of the bat out of turn. Simply put, you have, at a bare ass minimum, one court AFTER the trial court BEFORE you even can ask the Supremes to hear your case. If you're in a state court, you've got 2 courts that hear your appeal before you can even ask the Supreme Court for help. So, before it even gets to asking the Supreme Court, it's been appealed THOROUGHLY at LEAST once. Please, save your, "thoroughly" for the naïve. They do what they want, how they want, they are their own police. So, it's shown that these cases are reviewed OUTSIDE the counties. Of course, they do not disturb findings of fact. If there was an error, they reverse the error and send it back tot he trial court for re-examination under their guidance. Right, so what you said, but didn't say to the uninformed is that if and only if there is an error in law, the case may be remanded. If you want to call that thorough, then you are certain that you and your friends will receive a real fair shake at the trial level. What's next, no prosecutorial or judicial misconduct? The SUpremes aren't the only appeals court. You don't say. No shit. The USC has lots of reasons for not hearing cases. Let's say you want the Supreme Court to rule on whether a Maine Court can order you to pay child support when you've never been there. The Court will tell you to take a hike since they already decided that issue in Kulko v. Superior Court (1978) 436 US 84. Don't waste their time. You know as well as I do that they look for certain types of cases as the session begins. There are certain cases like the 2000 election debacle that get thrust upon them, but they generally have the right to certify a case with the prescribed process that I don't need to explain to you. I wrote: "The understanding of appeals by laypersons is a giant misunderstanding; virtually all appeals get summarily pitched. A Writ of Habeas Corpus is an appeal to the US Sup Ct." I don't mean to sound insulting by this, but that quote shows you to be a layperson with a misunderstanding of the appeals process. All appeals get heard by appeals courts, so long as you demonstrate jurisdiction and justiciability. I didn't say that all appeals that get filed get heard, or that any appeals that are heard are heard by other than appellate courts, I merely stated that most filed appeals get pitched and not heard. If you want to live in this fantasyland and think that all filed appeals are given careful consideration as to the content and legal merit, then hand the dooby. Furthermore, in your attempt at not sounding insulting, you forgot the exception to the appeal rule. You say that, "All appeals get heard by appeals courts" when you obviously forgot about lower court appeals; they get heard by the trial courts first. At least that's Arizona's protocol. The Superior Court plays the role of the Appellate Court; superior Court judges play justice and make the rulings. Also, a writ of habeus corpus can be heard by any appeals court. In limited instances a trial court can hear one. How do I know this? Well, it's my job, and I've also done one. In a criminal case, they are done to attack a sentence. SeeRule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (used to challenge a sentence), or see 28 USC 2255 (used to challenge thevalidity of a conviction). Hell, my wife just attending a writ hearing on Wednesday in a small annex courtroom in Fresno. state courts have their own rules. True, but generally Habeas filings are often done by prisoners on handwritten papers, especially in the context of this thread. Habeas Corpus just means, "you have the body - (bring forward the body)" as you obviously know. Sounds like you do federal stuff, is that so? And habeus corpus is after all other procedural remedies are exhausted - FYI. Ya I know. A writ of Certiorari is an appeal to the US SUpreme Court. They can reject it. And usually do so in a summary fashion. You need to understand the process, man. You're WAY off with how this stuff works. Wrong. I've supported my own and even found an exception that you didn't know or forgot. You probably do federal stuff or trial court stuff and don't screw with lower courts much so you didn't know/forgot. He can't overturn a sentence. Only courts can do that. True, poor choice of words, but he can pardon, commute, etc, which has the same effect of a court's overturning. Has he comuted? Yep. June 27, 1998 he commuted confessed serial killer Henry Lee Lucas's death sentence to life in prison (to match with the other 5 life sentences he had for other murders). See your argument come crashing before you? Bush wouldn't do that, would he? OMG, he did. 1 out of 150 some; well, he is a compassionate conservative. OK, so if he did 1, which I was unaware of, then what about the other 154 or so; he signed them into oblivion w/o a concern. You can make this an argument of semantics, but the truth is he has set records for careless signings of death warrants. For the love of God, they've been through round after round of appeals! Of course, I see your logic. Why don't you go to law school, be a lawyer, and take on the cases of these sad, timid and loving souls who never hurt a fly. Did you see my example about the people who tried to help a so-called innocent man by forking over the dough for a DNA test when that proved he did it? I wanted to, got a BS in Justice, didn't LSAT well enough, but there were plenty of people with lesser GPA's/LSAT's that were accepted into law school. Damned Repugnicans and their Affirmative Action. As for the LSAT itself, it doesn't measure the kind of lawyer a person would make, it measures how well that person takes the LSAT, period. That's the understanding of the LSAT and anyone in the profession knows it. You're a victim of comfort, dude. It's easier to bitch about Bush killing people than it is to hop off your high horse, get yourself educated and qualified, and help these people out. And you're a victim of chronic head up you ass-itis. Read above J.O., I spent 6 years round the year in school and worked full-time to get into law school to become, as you have in your profile, a, "shyster." Now I'm going into nursing classes so I can help people instead of fuck them. I'd say 10-20% of attorneys help people and the rest fuck them. Right now I'm suing 3 attorneys, I real estate broker, and a couple other people for robbing house. The pigs were remotely involved and their own refused to take a police report, but I have a mountain of evidence. The lawyers are involved because they owned the LLC that bought the house, now they have amnesia so an ethics complaint is forthcoming, not to mention the fact that they are in court record for being sued as, "shysters." Net result: I will now help people instead of fuck them. IT so happens that my wife was in a hearing that secured the release of a woman after 20 years in prison on a writ of habeus corpus with a case of battered woman's syndrome. Sentence reduced, credited with 28 years served, and she'll be back with her family by Wednesday. This was an issue deeply personal to both of us in a way you cannot imagine. I'm surprised you agree with a person getting out after a murder. You seem little bipolar; first you're all about fryin em, then you want to exonerate. But ya, I wanted to find a case like that and save someone from this toilet called, "America." God knows there are plenty of people wrongly incarcerated out there. Who knows, my LSAT's fall off in 3 years, maybe I'll work at RN nursing while I attend law school if I can bring up my score. I'm 42 now, so that'll make me 50 when I finally get through it, so I doubt I will do it now. Legitimate conviction (she did kill the child-molesting bastard). The charge was lowered, she's fulfilled the maximum sentence. 28 years for what could be considered a 2nd degree murder; that's probably fair. People like me do something about injustice we see, and don't just bitch about it. So, tell me, what the hell have YOU done to help these convicts, hmm?? Complain about a "scumbag who loves to kill people" or are you gonna put your money where your mouth is, bub? Again, I tried, bub. Also, jackoff, if you read these posts at all, you would see that I say that most of these convicted killers need to die, it just isn't worth the revenge factor we receive from that to justify the killing of the occasional innocent person, but apparently you don't feel that way; you must think it's ok to kill innocent people. With that, your argument for cap pun to protect innocent people is contradictory and circular. How about not surfing internet sites and spewing hatred about a guy doing his job and do some investigation yourself? How about learning a little about me before making idiotic assumptions, counselor? And we wonder why people are wrongly convicted - guys like you making bold assertions without knowing what the fuck you're talking about. After all this, I'm thinking you're a prosecutor; if not, then what? Disclaimer: you threw barbs at me; I threw some at you - just a lawyer to a lawyer want(ed) to be having fun dialogue, nothing to see here - move along. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #150 December 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhy bother with a trial at all when summary execution is SO much cheaper? If you want cheap you won't get fair. If you want fair, it won't be cheap. Is it REALLY worth an extra $2.6M to execute one criminal in FL, instead of locking him up for life. Answer: Yes, it is proven that they will not kill again. Care to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
