Channman 2
Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 3
QuoteTexas [is] ... way too slow in executing the Guilty.
...and, as DNA testing is beginning to show, Texas & Florida are way too fast in executing the not guilty. The imprisoned can some day be freed; the executed cannot be re-animated.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>but I suspect most people upon seeing their son murdered right before
>their eyes might kill all parties to the crime rather than just the trigger man.
I agree. But that applies to the father of the lookout as well as the father of the customer.
But in any case, if you shot a man out of anger rather than self-defense, I'd expect the case to go to court, where you would be charged with manslaughter at most. If it were the case you described, I would hope you'd get off with a very light sentence (and loss of your right to carry a gun.)
>their eyes might kill all parties to the crime rather than just the trigger man.
I agree. But that applies to the father of the lookout as well as the father of the customer.
But in any case, if you shot a man out of anger rather than self-defense, I'd expect the case to go to court, where you would be charged with manslaughter at most. If it were the case you described, I would hope you'd get off with a very light sentence (and loss of your right to carry a gun.)
SkyDekker 1,465
The linked story shows how easy it is to get wrongfully convicted.
In this case a pediatric pathologist appears to have made quite a few mistakes, resulting in innocent parents being sent to jail for killing their children.
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=6f76f2ef-bde0-4abb-8618-64fbbdf62c60&k=82354
In this case a pediatric pathologist appears to have made quite a few mistakes, resulting in innocent parents being sent to jail for killing their children.
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=6f76f2ef-bde0-4abb-8618-64fbbdf62c60&k=82354
Richards 0
QuoteI agree. But that applies to the father of the lookout as well as the father of the customer.
If he was there at the time and in the heat of the moment (provided he was not there as an accomplice) then yes I could also sympathise with him killing after watching the father of the first victim kill his son in cold blood. It is just human reaction.
QuoteBut in any case, if you shot a man out of anger rather than self-defense, I'd expect the case to go to court, where you would be charged with manslaughter at most. If it were the case you described, I would hope you'd get off with a very light sentence (and loss of your right to carry a gun.)
I agree with the principle of restraint but I am not sure the reactions of a man who just watched his son murdered, are reflective of his level of self control or ability to own a gun. Yes there is risk that if he is allowed to keep his guns after this and if another one of his sons is murdered before his very eyes he might go on a killing rage agin, but that is no more likely for him than for anyone else
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
drdive 0
<<
FOr those of you who don't know, a death that occurs in the commission of certain types of felonies automatically makes the person who commited the felony lliable for murder 1 and open to the death penalty.
Example. Some dude decide to hold up a liquor store. One guy on lookout, one in the getaway car, one the stick-up man and another to raid the cash register. During the robbery, a citizen intervenes, spooks the stick-up man, and the stick-up man kills him.
Under the felony murder rule, that's murder 1 and the shooter can possibly (maybe even "probably") get the death penalty. But there's more.
All the accomplices get in on felony-murder under accomplice liability. The getaway driver may also get the death penalty.
To me, there is something wrong with this. Something correct, too, but a little bit of overkilll, pun intended. Personally, I think that the felony-murder rule should make the possibility of life in prison, but not the death penalty.>>>>
Fuckem. Put them all to death. Save society lots of trouble.
Just my redneck opinion.
And by the way, I despise most lawyers. (Although I jump with one - she's cool)
FOr those of you who don't know, a death that occurs in the commission of certain types of felonies automatically makes the person who commited the felony lliable for murder 1 and open to the death penalty.
Example. Some dude decide to hold up a liquor store. One guy on lookout, one in the getaway car, one the stick-up man and another to raid the cash register. During the robbery, a citizen intervenes, spooks the stick-up man, and the stick-up man kills him.
Under the felony murder rule, that's murder 1 and the shooter can possibly (maybe even "probably") get the death penalty. But there's more.
All the accomplices get in on felony-murder under accomplice liability. The getaway driver may also get the death penalty.
To me, there is something wrong with this. Something correct, too, but a little bit of overkilll, pun intended. Personally, I think that the felony-murder rule should make the possibility of life in prison, but not the death penalty.>>>>
Fuckem. Put them all to death. Save society lots of trouble.
Just my redneck opinion.
And by the way, I despise most lawyers. (Although I jump with one - she's cool)
"We saved your gear. Now you can sell it when you get out of the hospital and upsize!!" "K-Dub"
"
"
Amazon 7
QuoteInterestingly, those who commit murder have a very low recidivism rate. So, a guy kills someone, gets 25 to life, serves 30, gets out, likely not to murder again....But, child molesters, very high recidivism rate. Molest a kid, get 7 years, out on parole in 3. Off to molest again. The system is wacked! I don't know what the solution is, or where to begin.
We can put the murderers on the next island next to the molestors island... that way they wont kill the molestors in prison... the Aluetians have to be good for SOMETHING... I think they would make great prisons.
Personally I have changed my opinion of the death penalty over my lifetime. I do not think ANY human has the right to decide on which day another human being gets to die... and I do not want the stigma of being responsible for state sponsored murder on my conscience.
I also wonder how soooo many good Christians can be SOOOO vociferous in their support of the death penalty... when right there in the Bible... it says JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED...
tbrown 26
I'm not morally opposed to the concept of the death penalty. There are some people who by their actions have put themselves beyond the reach of human decency and have forfeit their right to live.
But the world will have to be a much more perfect place before I can support the right of the state to decide whose life should be taken. That's what I can't understand about people who support the death penalty. Most of them won't even trust the government to deliver the mail, but they'd let that same government hand down and execute life and death rulings ? Makes no sense to me, none at all.
Consider that the first thing the nations of Eastern Europe did when they broke free of Soviet rule was to abolish their death penalties. Countries like Poland, the former Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary knew too well how the death penalty was abused by corrupt and dictatorial rulers.
Consider also that most European countries have not only abolished capital punsihment, but life sentences as well. A typical stretch for murder in Europe is no more than 20 - 30 years. I'm not saying that's the course for us to follow, but in fact we do release plenty of murderers after similar lengths of time and they have shown themselves to be the least likely group of criminals to re-offend. So while I'm not endorsing it, I wouldn't reject it out of hand either, it's worthy of more debate.
DNA and medical evidence are no magic wand to protect the innocent either. Some DNA crime labs have been run so badly they've been shut down by court orders. And sadly, there are doctors and technicians who are little more than paid perjurers, who will repeat any testimony they're given by corrupt prosecutors. And those same prosecutors have often fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the re-examination of DNA evidence in old cases where strong doubts exist as to a person's guilt. Even when the DNA evidence has shown clearly that the convicted person could not have committed a crime, prosecutors issue cute statements like, "this still doesn't prove his innocence". Which of course it does prove, but what else would you expect from government officials trying to protect their sorry asses.
And finally, the death penalty presents too much of an opportunity for politicians to wave the bloody shirt at election time. That's simply disgusting, that anyone would waste a vote on any candidate who runs around promising to kill more people. Robespierre kept coming back and telling the French people he just needed to kill a few thousand more "traitors" and things could go back to normal. the French finally decided to make things normal by whacking his head instead and making an end of it.
As long as the average citizen cannot afford the kind of lawyers OJ, Robert Blake, or Phil Spector can hire, I don't see how the death penalty can be fairly applied to anyone.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
But the world will have to be a much more perfect place before I can support the right of the state to decide whose life should be taken. That's what I can't understand about people who support the death penalty. Most of them won't even trust the government to deliver the mail, but they'd let that same government hand down and execute life and death rulings ? Makes no sense to me, none at all.
Consider that the first thing the nations of Eastern Europe did when they broke free of Soviet rule was to abolish their death penalties. Countries like Poland, the former Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Hungary knew too well how the death penalty was abused by corrupt and dictatorial rulers.
Consider also that most European countries have not only abolished capital punsihment, but life sentences as well. A typical stretch for murder in Europe is no more than 20 - 30 years. I'm not saying that's the course for us to follow, but in fact we do release plenty of murderers after similar lengths of time and they have shown themselves to be the least likely group of criminals to re-offend. So while I'm not endorsing it, I wouldn't reject it out of hand either, it's worthy of more debate.
DNA and medical evidence are no magic wand to protect the innocent either. Some DNA crime labs have been run so badly they've been shut down by court orders. And sadly, there are doctors and technicians who are little more than paid perjurers, who will repeat any testimony they're given by corrupt prosecutors. And those same prosecutors have often fought tooth and nail to PREVENT the re-examination of DNA evidence in old cases where strong doubts exist as to a person's guilt. Even when the DNA evidence has shown clearly that the convicted person could not have committed a crime, prosecutors issue cute statements like, "this still doesn't prove his innocence". Which of course it does prove, but what else would you expect from government officials trying to protect their sorry asses.
And finally, the death penalty presents too much of an opportunity for politicians to wave the bloody shirt at election time. That's simply disgusting, that anyone would waste a vote on any candidate who runs around promising to kill more people. Robespierre kept coming back and telling the French people he just needed to kill a few thousand more "traitors" and things could go back to normal. the French finally decided to make things normal by whacking his head instead and making an end of it.
As long as the average citizen cannot afford the kind of lawyers OJ, Robert Blake, or Phil Spector can hire, I don't see how the death penalty can be fairly applied to anyone.
Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !
> Legal fees - Depends. How much you got?
With all the unknowns we have decided not to shop there that day.
I'm a firm believer in Capital Punishment, and living in Texas, a state that is the most strict and with a greater resolve to follow through I sometimes thing we are way to slow in executing the Guilty.
Now I know there are those who think there is a posibility that we could execute an innocent victim. I think if we have Video and Eyewittnesses to prove beyond any doubt their guilt they should be on a fast pace to receive the Happy Juice. That should trim down our death row roster and provide additional space for the next group coming in. The remainder can have the countless appeals before taking the same walk if still found guilty.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites