TX to execute man they know wasn't the killer

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Drunk drivers who accidentally cause a fatal crash?

Not a Violent Crime.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Would it matter to you if this was Gang Member with a lengthy history of Violent Crime?

Not really. I think determinations of guilt and sentencing should be impartial and based solely on the crimes committed, without regard to who committed them.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Drunk drivers who accidentally cause a fatal crash?

Not a Violent Crime.

Vehicular manslaughter isn't a violent crime?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I agree the death penalty should only be for that you are 100% sure they commited the crime.

.

So now you're saying that the punishment should depend on the quality of the evidence rather than the crime committed. Curious position to take.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Not really. I think determinations of guilt and sentencing should be impartial and based solely on the crimes committed, without regard to who committed them.

And I think the persons history is completely relevant. A Situation like this one, If were a First offence I would be much more likely to be lenient.

However if the guilty party had a history of such behavior, It makes a huge difference.

I do think most people deserve a second chance.. I do not think they are entitled to a 5th, 6th or 7th Chance.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

Drunk drivers who accidentally cause a fatal crash?

Not a Violent Crime.

It's a crime and someone dies because of it. Drunk drivers know that they are risking killing people when they get behind the wheel. In fact I can think of few things less violent than getting hit by 2 tons of metal at 60 mph.

So essentially you've got two situations - the first where someone knows he is putting lives at risk but does not actually intend to kill anyone and the death does not come by his own actions - and the second where someone knows he is putting lives at risk but does not actually intend to kill anyone and the death does come through his own actions.

Of the two you think only the first is worthy of the death penalty. Why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

So now you're saying that the punishment should depend on the quality of the evidence rather than the crime committed.

What I am saying is that there are Levels.

Civil Cases - Preponderance of Evidence.
Criminal Cases - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
I think Capitol cases should be Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. yes.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Drunk drivers who accidentally cause a fatal crash?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not a Violent Crime.

You might think differently if you are ever struck by one of these idiots going 100 MPH and they total you and your car.

It is EXTREME violence with a deadly weapon... how many foot pounds of energy does a bullet hit you with.. as opposed to a car or truck traveling at 100 MPH.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Of the two you think only the first is worthy of the death penalty. Why?

Intent.

One you are committing a Violent Crime and someone gets Killed.
The other you are Committing a Crime (Non-Violent) and someone is killed.

An argument can be made that both were accidents, But sticking a gun in someone’s face and threatening to kill them.. and doing just that is very different than an Accident that you had no intention of hurting someone.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

So now you're saying that the punishment should depend on the quality of the evidence rather than the crime committed.

What I am saying is that there are Levels.

Civil Cases - Preponderance of Evidence.
Criminal Cases - Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
I think Capitol cases should be Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt. yes.

I think that would lead to unintended consequences -if the severity of the sentence depends on the (apparent) quality of the evidence instead of the heinousness of the crime you could get some very undesirable outcomes.

And then there are cases where the evidence is faked (happened in Houston crime lab, for example) or police torture confessions out of suspects (happened in Chicago). So what a jury sees as beyond all doubt may, in fact, be quite unreliable.

Edited to add - the reliability of eyewitness identifications is also pretty pathetic, especially in the traditional police line-up.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Intent.

In both cases there is no intent to kill, only knowledge that death might result from their actions.

Quote

But sticking a gun in someone’s face and threatening to kill them.. and doing just that is very different than an Accident that you had no intention of hurting someone.

But that's not what we are talking about.

In both cases the accused was just driving a car. For the first driver it was his companion that killed someone, for the second he caused the death all by himself.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

As usual a voice of reason gets drowned out by the squawking, so it should be repeated:

Quote

The basic disagreement is with the death penalty for being an accessory to murder, and not being an instrument of murder.

Not with his guilt. He's no innocent baby.

[Thanatos340 1]

We could go back and forth forever.. If you cant see the difference between Armed Robbery (An Intentional VIOLENT Criminal Act) and DUI (Non-Violent Unintentional) Accident.. Then there is nothing either of us can say that will make any sense at all to the other.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Not a Violent Crime.

You might think differently if you are ever struck by one of these idiots going 100 MPH and they total you and your car.

It is EXTREME violence with a deadly weapon... how many foot pounds of energy does a bullet hit you with.. as opposed to a car or truck traveling at 100 MPH.

Or at the very least we can say that they have made a conscious choice to engage in behaviour that they new could result in death or dismemberment for some unlucky person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Based on that, impaired drivers should face severe consequences.

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.

[Richards 0]

Quote

OK you have convinced me.. what other catagories of crime shall we now have the death penalty for...

I think DRUG dealers should all be executed

Lets add in peadophiles and sex criminals for sure....then they can never rape or molest again...

I really hate thieves... I think ALL of them should be put to death immediately.

Car thieves.. yeah... I hate car thieves... my first car was stolen... that really sucked... it was a 1963 Impala SS with a 409.... that certainly deserves the death penalty..I wish they would have stolen the 1959 Triumph TR-3 I replaced it with.. Wisconsin in the winter with an English sportscar was cruel and unusual punishment for a 16 year old. and the fuckers that stole my vette... PUBLIC BEHEADING would not be good enough for them to die so quickly.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmmm. I missed out on some good stuff this week.

Question: "Should the guy be in jail?"
If your answer is yes, the the question is "why?" Because he was involved in a murder? If so, then why shouldn't he be executed?

Plenty of examples of people being sent down the river exist when they didn't actually kill anyone. Charles Manson never killed anyone. People who hire hit men don't do it - the hit man does. And yet they are found liable for murder.

The trigger-man should NOT be the only person punished for this stuff. Everyone involved in it should be.

---

I draw the line at executing him. My belief is that execution should be for the worst of the worst. Death penalty for felony murder should be abolished. A mere accomplice like this guy - if there is a scintilla of creedence to his story - shold result in no death penalty.

But don't hit us with this "He never killed anybody" shit. That is entriely disingenuous. What' the difference between a hit man and the client? Both are cold-blooded killers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

We could go back and forth forever.. If you cant see the difference between Armed Robbery (An Intentional VIOLENT Criminal Act) and DUI (Non-Violent Unintentional) Accident.. Then there is nothing either of us can say that will make any sense at all to the other.

But armed robbery is not a capitol offence, and the man in question did not kill anyone. While a DUI on its own is not classified as a lesser crime than armed robbery, our hypothetical bloke did actually kill someone.

You're the one who wants to expand the scope of the death penalty, so I'm just wondering if you can actually justify why someone who didn't kill anyone while committing a crime is more deserving of the death penalty than someone who did kill a person as a result of committing (taken in isolation) a less serious crime.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Richards 0]

Quote

But armed robbery is not a capitol offence, and the man in question did not kill anyone. While a DUI on its own is not classified as a lesser crime than armed robbery, our hypothetical bloke did actually kill someone.

You're the one who wants to expand the scope of the death penalty, so I'm just wondering if you can actually justify why someone who didn't kill anyone while committing a crime is more deserving of the death penalty than someone who did kill a person as a result of committing (taken in isolation) a less serious crime.

[jakee 1,563]

OK, murder is a possibility, but the guy didn't murder anyone. He was not responsible for anyone's death.

If we sentance people on what was possible, why not charge all armed robbers with murder whether someone died or not?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, murder is a possibility, but the guy didn't murder anyone. He was not responsible for anyone's death.

If we sentance people on what was possible, why not charge all armed robbers with murder whether someone died or not?

That would be like charging impaired drivers with manslaughter even if no-one was hit.

I am not arguing from a strictly legal point of view. It just seems to me that if every party to a crime is held equally responsible, then violent criminals will have a much harder time getting people to be their back-up. It will also shift the burden on all participants to ensure that no-one crosses the line. Let me give you two possible scenarios.

1: Say I am a crazy violent thug who everyone expects will eventually end up in jail for murder (with some people it's not a matter of if but when) and you are just a mild thug. If I ask you to come along and back me up on a crime and you know that you wil be held fully accountable for anything I do, you might not support me (you might not even support anyone in a robbery), and you will stick to petty crime or robbery with people who you are reasonably certain are all bark. I on the other hand, will be less likely to commit the robbery because now I have no-one to back me up (most thugs like the odds stacked in their favour).

2. You and one other person come with me to rob a guy (mostly with threats, intimidation and some mild roughing up).Suddenly I go crazy and for no reason other than to show how bad I am, I punch the victim out and start kicking him visciously in the head while he is unconscious. A few more kcks from me, and both you and your buddy are going down for murder; are you going to stand there and let me finish? This policy can save some lives, and if that means that some lesser participants in crime get sentences that are disproportionate to their level of participation then so be it. It is worth it if it saves some innocent citizens.

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.

[jakee 1,563]

That is some interesting thinking.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[virgin-burner 1]

a civilised country should not have the death penalty. specically when it claims to be so god-damn christian. murder, in any case, is inhumane..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

a civilised country should not have the death penalty.............

There's your answer.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

a civilised country should not have the death penalty. specically when it claims to be so god-damn christian. murder, in any case, is inhumane..

That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver.

Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well.

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.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

a civilised country should not have the death penalty. specically when it claims to be so god-damn christian. murder, in any case, is inhumane..

That is a fair opinion, and if you are against the death penalty not only for the driver but also the shooter then fine. Whatever punishment we do give to the shooter however, should also go to the driver.

Murdering someone while committing a robbery should carry an automatic life sentence without the possibility for parole. This should apply to the driver as well.

I'm against the death penalty in all situations, and the time I've spent working for the prosecution and defense in criminal cases has only strengthened my position, for the following reasons.

1. Its irreversible. What if there's new evidence or technology that can exonerate?
2. Prosecutorial misconduct. Look at the Duke rape case...
3. Incompetent defense attorneys. They've slept through death penalty trials.
4. Eyewitness unreliability. What you think you saw isn't always what you really saw.
5. Juries aren't always right... look at how many cases are overturned on appeal.

I support killing if it's necessary for removal of the threat in self-defense situations. Not in cases of state-sanctioned homicide. Lock him up and if there is new evidence, we can always let him out.