EBSB52

Do you really think anything is here to stay? This, "black and white" mentality works until someone adjusts things, then it becomes a requirement to make other absolute statements. Most of the industrialized world has done away with cap pun, we will too one day. Those who are not sheep to their political party and think on their own can easily see those reasons. So then you're a liberal? Or are you a Repub that's a sheep to your party? See, it works all ways.

Hahahaaha, ya, sad but true! Hopefully we will rewrite that in future years one way or the other. BTW, I haven't heard that. :)

Then why do they bitch when they think they are being treated differently? they were threated differently (worse) before the advent of the hyphen, so get your chronology straight. Shouldn't you be asking: Why did our forefathers buy people? Why did our forefathers kill the American Indians and steal their country? Why did America lock up good Americans simply because they had roots in Japan, but were good citizens otherwise? Why did America have on the books, laws that allowed for the deportation of women who marry non-white males? HUH, why not ask those questions? I know, racism is still alive and well and if someone wants to recognize their culture, they're being stupid.

Thats critical thinking...Ignore anything that proves you wrong. You sure you are in school? The reference is moot to me because it was an opinion statement from Teddy Roosevelt in 1915. Women couldn;t even vote yet, or have basic human/civil rights, so are you going to tell me we should cite ethics of our leaders from that era?

I know I've clipped your comment, but I felt compelled to answer the question that came up repeatedly on the subject of capital punishment and if it deters criminals from heinous acts. Have you ever heard of Simon Wiesenthal? He was a Nazi hunter who worked from a tiny one-man office in Vienna. He devoted himself from 1945 on exclusively to the task of finding and bringing to justice those guilty, who had survived the war and escaped into the world. He was asked why he did this (read his story of what happened to him and his family during the war). Wiesenthal said that his conscience forced him to bring the guilty ones to trial. And if they were convicted, then what? Punish them, of course. But why? To rehabilitate them? That very idea is absurd. To incapacitate them? But, by then, they didn't represent any present danger. To deter others from doing what they did? That is a hope too extravagant to be indulged. The answer, to me and, I suspect, everyone else who agrees that they should be punished, is clear. "To pay them back". And to be executed was the only way they could be paid back... ltdiver Fortunately there have never been any other tyranical, maniacal, leaders of coutries since then, so it must have deterred them.... oh wait, yes there has - deterrence is an excuse for revenge.

I'd be interested to look at other variables in those states and know what (if any) the other differences are. My guess at the NRA thing is that its a cause and effect relationship. I have a carry pistol license and have had tons of cops tell me they would rather look up a citizen and find them a licensed weapons holder any day of the week than not regesitered cuz they know they are honest. My sarcastic guess is that they would rather be put down than spend life in prison - lol Perhaps, but you can't make that call for them. . I have a carry pistol license and have had tons of cops tell me they would rather look up a citizen and find them a licensed weapons holder any day of the week than not regesitered cuz they know they are honest. Well, hmmmm. OK. I'm pro-gun like anyone, own several, but I don't get that logic from the cops. Many people simply don't own guns; are they dishonest?

I don't need to know you to understand your slant; do you think anyone here is unsure as to your slant? As for you calling me assinine, now you're getting pissed that I make a statement on it. Oh well. I do know the answers to your questions, as many people do. I don't have them down to the dollar, but that isn't neccessary. DZ profit, court cost... w/e. From a bugetary standpoint to comparison is there and legitimate. I don't care, toss it if you're going to get hung up on it to distract the attention. Your question/dillema was essentially that: how does it cost more to execute a person rather than to incarcerate them for life? the costs go like this in these general areas: 1. Trial costs. 2. Prison costs increased via supermax security 3. Appellate costs Ok, what you are contesting is that is costs more for more court personel when there are more cases, and mor are of the capital variety. The US Constitution guarantees we have speedy trials, so we cannot just backlog them for 4 or 5 years, hence more defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, courts, etc are required; is that straightforward enough for you to understand? Prison costs are more because death row inmates are house by themselves and in higher securoty prisons. Appellate costs are obvious. Get it? Where do you want to shave costs? You want to make more errors? I'm not being confrontational about it, but when we continually throw basic concepts at you and you continue to pick away and build strawmen, then it get's a little old. MORE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR DP CASES = MORE COSTS; there is a direct proportion. What might be a little frustrating is that you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, in a different way. And no, we don't have exact figures. The only way to cut the costs would be to reduce Constitutional protections. Part of what you're saying is that there has to be a certian amount of staff at the court even if there were hypotheticaly no cases at all, but that isn't the case and CP cases are choking the system.

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or ..... If you're going to go to prison for a very long time, why not roll the dice? By that I am comparing someone looking at life in prison in a state without the death penalty to a state with the death penalty. Sure, I agree. I would rather be dead than spend even 5 years in the can at my age. But that is me. That still does not address the issue tho.

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/criminal/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CR1992-000212 That's Ray Krones criminal case, if anyone cares.

Define innocent? You mean someone that has been covicted by the US judicial system including a jurry of 12 of their peers? Oh yeah, they're REAL innocent then. How about this guy - spent 10 years in prison, 2 of which were on death row. He was convicted by 2 different juries of 12, years apart. See, the juries are made up of people like you that believe everything they read that is conservative in nature, which is why he could be put in front of 50 juries with 50 convictions. He was a pro-deather like you, but not now. You'll see Ray on taht makeover show this fall. http://www.ccadp.org/raykrone.htm He was the 100th innocent man freed via DNA, so you can pick any one of these if you want examples. Now, back to the question: "Care to address the possibility that an innocent person might get killed by the state? No, didn't think so." BTW, it's usually a state judicail system, not US unless you're talking federal, which is very obscure. To take that further, it's a county courthouse that convicts and sentences, the state mulls it over and rarely overturns or remands. http://www.justicedenied.org/volume2issue8.htm This is a scary case: UPDATE on Mumia Abu-Jamal "The trial judge, Albert Sabo, who died May 8, 2002, was a lifetime member of the policemen's union, which has mounted a nationwide campaign for Abu-Jamal's execution. Sabo was almost universally regarded as biased against defendants. A court official has sworn in an affidavit that Sabo said of Abu-Jamal, "I'm going to help them fry the nigger." Even before Abu-Jamal's 1982 trial, Sabo had sentenced more convicts to death than any other judge in America. At the trial and also in the several appeal hearings over which Sabo presided, Sabo almost without exception granted every objection of the prosecution and denied each of the defense. He excluded Abu-Jamal from the trial courtroom for a time and was described by at least one conservative journalist as blatantly antagonistic to the defense. At one hearing he imprisoned one of Abu-Jamal's lawyers for attempting to raise an objection. Not long after presiding over Abu-Jamal's proceedings in the mid-1990s, Sabo was removed from the bench by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, apparently on account of his having intimidated lawyers in numerous cases." That is a very notorious case, nationally.

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. No, when presented evidence you discounted it based on age. Your critical thinking skills need work. Are you serious? Evidence wasn't presented, just an opinion statement by a former president in 1915. Don't make yourself out to be misleading - you know that no evidence was submitted.

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.

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.

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....

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...

Uh, I don't understand your position here. Are you saying the cost of trials will deter potential criminals, or..... if they have crappy counsel they will not commit crime for fear of a slamdunk loss at trial, or .....

Your example of a DZ doesn't work here since the objective of the court process isn't to make money. Instead, lacking the appropriate staff (which I'm sure is almost always the case with DAs offices) lengthens the wait for trials to see a courtroom. Oh it does too. Geeeez, drop the partiality! It's not verbatum, but it exemplifies the cost projections. Furthermore, the court is on a budget and towns are incorporated. STOP the avoidance. It's obvious you have an agenda to promote CP, so just show it instead of acting as if you're impartial and learning. Contrary to what you might think, I'm not trying to argue that it's cheaper to kill them... because I don't know if it is. I just want to find out how the math works (and it seems there's more than a few ways) when people tell me that killing someone costs X million more than life sentences. Yawn.... Phree made a good illustration that lengthy trials, like death penalty cases (but certainly not ONLY death cases), place a time and resource burden on the DA and legal system that will eventually require them to hire more staff to maintain that "pesky" expedient trial thing. But even then, it is impossible to get exact numbers of exactly how that increases costs to taxpayers. I see how some people account for it, but I can see that others could easily argue that their methodology doesn't 100% stack up as well. Phreezone made many good points. Also, there isn't the need for exacting numbers here, just a trend for more lawyers, more prosecutors, more judges, more investigators, more courts, etc..... This isn't rocket science, the murder rate is increasing and the need for more prisons, more courts, more of everything is proportionately climbing too. One form of relief is that when welfare is moe abundant and/or the economy is doing better, it seems as if the crime reate drops all around.

Slightly simplistic, I would suggest you look at the other factors as well. Right, but these guys apparently have enough 'street smarts' to realize the trap they enter if they say we should eliminate the appeal process.

Ah, the old booksmarts vs streetsmarts. I know which I would (and do) have. You can do all the college papers you want in your establishment of "higher" education. In the end you can't re-write math. Your way doesn't add up nor make sense. Nice try. Have anything else? Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense either, but it happens to be right. At one time it was just the province of academics, but now you can buy quantum devices at your local Best Buy (in fact, you are looking at one as you read this) You keep dismissing other's evidence but offer nothing of your own except comments on their type of "smarts". When people have zero to intellectually add, they refer to 'street smarts.' That's like saying you're running on fumes as your gas gauge drops below, "E." These guys can't/won't touch any empirical evidence, just GW-based emotion.

Ah, the old booksmarts vs streetsmarts. I know which I would (and do) have. You can do all the college papers you want in your establishment of "higher" education. In the end you can't re-write math. Your way doesn't add up nor make sense. Nice try. Have anything else? I've posted tons of stuff that the DP proponents avoid. Tell me when you are willing to answer them.

Yep, me too. And we're here arguing with people that might have finished high school, but regardless, the proponents of the DP simply aren't answering the questions posted because they realize they can't answer them and make a strong case for CP.

Everyone sit down..... ready for a shocker...... Tuna is wrong still, er, uh, I mean again http://www.peaceb2you.org/death_cost_penalty.htm Enforcing the death penalty costs Florida $51 million a year above and beyond what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole, according to estimates by the Palm Beach Post. Based on the 44 executions Florida has carried out since 1976, that amounts to a cost of $24 million for each execution.

Really comprehensive and well put. The costs are so cummulative and inclusive in so many areas. Then don't forget that when cases get so big taht 1 courthouse can't handle them, another courthouse get's built, new judges hired (appointed by gov in AZ).

And as far as increasing the goals for more death penalty cases (not that I think that's a great idea), wouldn't that simply lengthen the time it took to get people to trial up until a point where the HAD to hire more DAs? If it weren't for that pesky, "Speedy Trail" clause. I see you're trying to argue that cap cases don't increase the cost, and I appreciate you at least addressing the issues, but can't you see that more projected work means an increase in staff? It's not logical to say that those court workers would have to be there anyway, as if the requirement wasn't there, they wouldn't be there - nor would the cost.

Well put