|
Post by wrench on Jan 14, 2009 10:03:28 GMT -6
DPIC will do whatever it can to increase the number of states that seemed to be "killing the death penalty." What about in the past 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? That was my summation of their data - and folks can get mad at DPIC all they want - some things are twisting figures - but it is definitely true that 36 states haven't had an execution in two years. Sure, we could look at 10 years - 5 years, 20 years, whatever - but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely. and who's twisting the figures beej? you're presenting an extreme positition in just about every arguement.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 14, 2009 10:30:18 GMT -6
You didn't answer the question. My original statement was " but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "DP state" loosely." Average state has a couple hundred murders a year - even on the low end, relatively peaceful states like Nebraska have 50 or so murders. That means over the course of a ten year period, the "potential" pool is 500 or so on the low end of Nebraska - but a few to many thousand for most states. Dance around the "worst of the worst" argument all you like - a murder is a murder, so even picking out the worst, you should be able to find quite a few bad ones our of the 500 to a few thousand. So, if in the course of TWO YEARS, you don't have any of these bad ones coming up for execution - well, in my opinion (and I must be clear that the "rule" that you speak of was my person opinion) - then the state is the anti's favorite kind of state - a big talker with really no walk. You keep forgetting the big flaw in your argument: the murderers. You quote the total number then say that is the potential pool of death row inmates. The reality is most will not be caught, of those that are caught many will not meet the definition of aggravated murder and for many of those that do the case is so weak that the DA will prefer to simply deal the killer down to some sort of life sentence. It gets whittled down further because many jurors won't vote for death under ANY circumstance. Take a look at the outcome of the Aryan Brotherhood trials in 2005. Then there are states like California where many will be sentenced to death and public opinion backs there execution but anti death penalty legislators have written the statute in such a way that most will die of old age before they are executed. These ARE pro states, but an over reaching Supreme Court and liberal legislators seem determined to undermine it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 14, 2009 10:41:52 GMT -6
My original statement was " but I think it is pretty clear that if a state hasn't had an execution in over two years - well, use the term "P state" loosely." Average state has a couple hundred murders a year - even on the low end, relatively peaceful states like Nebraska have 50 or so murders. That means over the course of a ten year period, the "potential" pool is 500 or so on the low end of Nebraska - but a few to many thousand for most states. Dance around the "worst of the worst" argument all you like - a murder is a murder, so even picking out the worst, you should be able to find quite a few bad ones our of the 500 to a few thousand. So, if in the course of TWO YEARS, you don't have any of these bad ones coming up for execution - well, in my opinion (and I must be clear that the "rule" that you speak of was my person opinion) - then the state is the anti's favorite kind of state - a big talker with really no walk. You keep forgetting the big flaw in your argument: the murderers. You quote the total number then say that is the potential pool of death row inmates. The reality is most will not be caught, of those that are caught many will not meet the definition of aggravated murder and for many of those that do the case is so weak that the DA will prefer to simply deal the killer down to some sort of life sentence. That actually strengthens Brennan's argument. From what I've been reading, he is saying the pro-DP states aren't committed to the death penalty. The statistics bear that out. It gets whittled down further because many jurors won't vote for death under ANY circumstance. Further buttressing his argument. Then there are states like California where many will be sentenced to death and public opinion backs there execution but anti death penalty legislators have written the statute in such a way that most will die of old age before they are executed. That is not the case. There is nothing in California's murder law that is slowing down the pace of executions. There is simply a shortage of death penalty-qualified appellate lawyers for the hundreds of DR inmates, so the state supreme court can't reduce the backlog. Then again, there is no mandate from the public that such lawyers be found, or drafted from the existing appellate bar. These ARE pro states, but an over reaching Supreme Court and liberal legislators seem determined to undermine it. The state supreme court upholds almost all sentences in California. It's the 9th Circuit that does most of the reversals.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 14, 2009 11:40:25 GMT -6
Yes, but Virginia went with the South while Kentucky went with the North. That to me is the best determination of North, South and West. I'm a Buckeye by birth and I can tell you Kentuckians consider themselves southerners. Also, Kentucky is south of the Mason-Dixon line. Yup, drive over the bridge and you can practically hear the banjos.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 14, 2009 11:40:48 GMT -6
That is not the case. There is nothing in California's murder law that is slowing down the pace of executions. There is simply a shortage of death penalty-qualified appellate lawyers for the hundreds of DR inmates, so the state supreme court can't reduce the backlog. And the fact that all state level appeals are handled by the State Supreme Court and not the state appeals courts? It's a matter that should have been rectified by the legislature, most people aren't aware of the problem. I was talking about SCOTUS, changing the law every few years and commuting hundreds of death sentences without much constitutional basis(Lockett, Woodson, Roper, Coker).
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 14, 2009 12:20:37 GMT -6
And the fact that all state level appeals are handled by the State Supreme Court and not the state appeals courts? DR cases are appealed directly to the state supreme court. They won't hear an appeal unless the appellant has representation. That's where the backlog is, from what I read. It's a matter that should have been rectified by the legislature, most people aren't aware of the problem. I'm not sure what changes the legislature can force on the judicial branch here. I have suggested that attorneys be drafted to take DR cases since the state is bursting at the seams with lawyers. I've personally read hundreds of these appeals. They aren't that complicated. I was talking about SCOTUS, changing the law every few years and commuting hundreds of death sentences without much constitutional basis (Lockett, Woodson, Roper, Coker). We could repeal the 8th Amendment to the federal constitution. I never liked it anyway. Would you be in favor? We could have streamlined federal DR appeals back in 2005, when two bills were introduced in Congress to do that. Nothing happened. Where the hell were the "pros"? The Woodson decision is particularly noxious. I agree with you there. I don't know if Beej is gloating over the low execution rate or not, but I think he has a good point. The death penalty is dying a slow death but no one wants to actually speed up executions. It's like the public only wants to sentence some murderers to death. Whether or not they actually die by their hands doesn't seem to be important. We're going to end up like Japan, when we should be like China.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 15, 2009 12:42:40 GMT -6
And the fact that all state level appeals are handled by the State Supreme Court and not the state appeals courts? DR cases are appealed directly to the state supreme court. They won't hear an appeal unless the appellant has representation. That's where the backlog is, from what I read. I'm not sure what changes the legislature can force on the judicial branch here. I have suggested that attorneys be drafted to take DR cases since the state is bursting at the seams with lawyers. I've personally read hundreds of these appeals. They aren't that complicated. I was talking about SCOTUS, changing the law every few years and commuting hundreds of death sentences without much constitutional basis (Lockett, Woodson, Roper, Coker). We could repeal the 8th Amendment to the federal constitution. I never liked it anyway. Would you be in favor? We could have streamlined federal DR appeals back in 2005, when two bills were introduced in Congress to do that. Nothing happened. Where the hell were the "pros"? The Woodson decision is particularly noxious. I agree with you there. I don't know if Beej is gloating over the low execution rate or not, but I think he has a good point. The death penalty is dying a slow death but no one wants to actually speed up executions. It's like the public only wants to sentence some murderers to death. Whether or not they actually die by their hands doesn't seem to be important. We're going to end up like Japan, when we should be like China. Joe hit on pretty much everything, and better than I could have. A few other points in regards to JDP's comment on the death penalty dying a slow death. It's rather interesting - public opinion still is in favor of the DP - but on a couple of fronts, the DP has majorly slowed down: 1) Handing out of death sentences. I have no idea if less are being pursued, or if juries are more reluctant to hand them out. So either the DA's are crunched on budgets or just don't want to pursue, or juries are getting skeptical (despite public opinion) 2) More guys aren't making it from sentencing until death sentence. The long span in between is letting more folks die naturally (I think it is the leading cause of death on CA death row). 3) More states seem reluctant to pull the trigger and finish the deal. Is it the courts, is it a lack of follow through, is it the anti lawyers doing a good job these days? Not sure, but it seems like there might be the case that states feel good about handing out the sentences, and don't then actually see them to completion - like their job is done at sentencing. Long time ago, I said the DP could go three ways - it could either continue on, it could die a court death and stop all of the sudden, or it could just fade away from apathy. Right now, #3 is looking good - it will take a long time, but it already is a Texas law that a few states join in from time to time on.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 15, 2009 13:32:22 GMT -6
Long time ago, I said the DP could go three ways - it could either continue on, it could die a court death and stop all of the sudden, or it could just fade away from apathy. Wow, this is profound. Do you have ESP or superior powers of deduction, Beej?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2009 15:41:59 GMT -6
Joe hit on pretty much everything, and better than I could have. A few other points in regards to JDP's comment on the death penalty dying a slow death. It's rather interesting - public opinion still is in favor of the DP - but on a couple of fronts, the DP has majorly slowed down: 1) Handing out of death sentences. I have no idea if less are being pursued, or if juries are more reluctant to hand them out. So either the DA's are crunched on budgets or just don't want to pursue, or juries are getting skeptical (despite public opinion) 2) More guys aren't making it from sentencing until death sentence. The long span in between is letting more folks die naturally (I think it is the leading cause of death on CA death row). 3) More states seem reluctant to pull the trigger and finish the deal. Is it the courts, is it a lack of follow through, is it the anti lawyers doing a good job these days? Not sure, but it seems like there might be the case that states feel good about handing out the sentences, and don't then actually see them to completion - like their job is done at sentencing. Long time ago, I said the DP could go three ways - it could either continue on, it could die a court death and stop all of the sudden, or it could just fade away from apathy. Right now, #3 is looking good - it will take a long time, but it already is a Texas law that a few states join in from time to time on. If pros defended and prosecuted the death penalty with 10 percent of the vigor abortion rights advocates defend and promote abortion, murderers would be dropping like flies in this country. Unlike people who favor abortion, "pros" aren't eager to be identified by name as wanting to kill people who have murdered. Such advocacy is just not fashionable. Court justices don't get away with abortion restrictions. The feminazis make sure judicial nominees are pro-abortion before they're appointed. They file lawsuits against their opponents every chance they get. Not so the "pros." I advocate the death penalty everywhere I go. I have yet to see a similar display anywhere in a state that sentences more people to death than any other state. I just do not understand the apathy.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 15, 2009 18:09:39 GMT -6
DR cases are appealed directly to the state supreme court. They won't hear an appeal unless the appellant has representation. That's where the backlog is, from what I read. Yes but the burden on the California Supreme Court certainly contributes. It seems relatively simple to provide more money to hire attorneys. No, the 8th amendment is an actual part of the constitution. Matters of proportionality, consensus and arbitrariness are not. I never said politicians had the courage to embrace a controversial subject. It looks like supporting a death penalty without executions (or at least very few of them) helps them look tough on crime but avoids the controversy of executions. That's the only explanation I can find for the statutes in Connecticut, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Some states are doing that (Texas, Virginia, Florida and Ohio) but you're absolutely right about every other state. Slow neglect seems to be the best way to kill the death penalty as well as torture families and waste money. Fair enough, I often wonder where the outrage in Pennsylvania is after 30 years, 300 death sentences and not one non-volunteer execution. Amazingly, Japan is doing better than the US. They managed 15 executions in 2008 to our 37. Taking population and homicide rate into account they're beating us.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 15, 2009 18:23:49 GMT -6
Long time ago, I said the DP could go three ways - it could either continue on, it could die a court death and stop all of the sudden, or it could just fade away from apathy. Wow, this is profound. Do you have ESP or superior powers of deduction, Beej? Thanks for the insight into the debate.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2009 18:47:29 GMT -6
It seems relatively simple to provide more money to hire attorneys. It's not a question of money. It's a question of actually finding lawyers that want to defend condemned murderers. If you're an attorney and opposed to capital punishment, as most attorneys are, the easiest way to save the lives of the condemned, in California, is to refuse to represent them. the 8th amendment is an actual part of the constitution. So was Prohibition (and slavery). Matters of proportionality, consensus and arbitrariness are not. Those are covered by other amendments. Seriously, the Eighth Amendment is outdated. It's time to get rid of it. I never said politicians had the courage to embrace a controversial subject. It looks like supporting a death penalty without executions (or at least very few of them) helps them look tough on crime but avoids the controversy of executions. That's the only explanation I can find for the statutes in Connecticut, in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. That's true even in Texas, Mst3k Some states are doing that (Texas, Virginia, Florida and Ohio) but you're absolutely right about every other state. Slow neglect seems to be the best way to kill the death penalty as well as torture families and waste money. Texas has nothing to be proud of. They are still only sentencing less than one percent of their convicted murderers to death. That's only one percent more than Sweden. Fair enough, I often wonder where the outrage in Pennsylvania is after 30 years, 300 death sentences and not one non-volunteer execution. It's being reserved for abortion rights, or abridgements thereof. Amazingly, Japan is doing better than the US. They managed 15 executions in 2008 to our 37. Taking population and homicide rate into account they're beating us. Sorry, but that's like comparing retards at the Special Olympics. The Chinese execute thousands a year. My hat's off to them, not to Japan.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 15, 2009 18:54:51 GMT -6
That's true even in Texas, Mst3k Oh, B.S., Texas executes a higher percentage of its murderers now than it did in the early 60's. From 1960-1964 (5 years) there were 3,887 murders here. During those same years, there were 29 executions. From 2002-2006 (5 years) there were 6,879 murders in Texas, and 123 executions. So while the number of murders didn't quite double, the number of executions quadrupled. And btw, the murder rate in Texas in the early 60's ranged from 7.6 to 8.6. From 2002-2006, the murder rate in Texas ranged from 5.9 to 6.4. www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htmwww.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/prefurman/electrocutions.htmwww.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htm
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2009 19:25:45 GMT -6
From 2002-2006 (5 years) there were 6,879 murders in Texas, and 123 executions. 123 divided by 6,879 is 0.017880506 I stand corrected. Texas executes a whopping 1.7 percent of its murderers. The other 98.3 percent have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 15, 2009 19:32:50 GMT -6
From 2002-2006 (5 years) there were 6,879 murders in Texas, and 123 executions. 123 divided by 6,879 is 0.017880506 I stand corrected. Texas executes a whopping 1.7 percent of its murderers. The other 98.3 percent have nothing to worry about. Twist, bob, & weave, & change the subject all you want, Joseph. The fact is politicians in Texas are doing a better job of preserving the DP these days than our politicians did in the early 60's. Your response to mst3k4evur above was simply a misstatement of the facts. You make misstatements such as this with great regularity, and reading your posts gets tiresome because of it. ONE MORE TIME, when has the U.S., or any one state, ever executed all murderers? I've asked you to back up your opinion with facts many, many times, but you never do, probably because you can't. Did Texas execute a higher percentage of murderers in the 40's, 50's, or 60's than we do now? The 1820's? When? If you don't know this for a fact, why do you insist on repeating it over and over, ad nauseum? "Even Texas....." my butt. You want to talk about Texas, fine, but get your facts straight first. And furthermore, what does any of this have to do with what will happen if the DP is abolished? You think more murderers will be sentenced to LWOP? Or less? I think less. For the hundredth time, I think without the DP on the books, we'll eventually see only the "worst of the worst" getting LWOP. What do you think?
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 15, 2009 20:08:47 GMT -6
That's true even in Texas, Mst3k Oh, B.S., Texas executes a higher percentage of its murderers now than it did in the early 60's. From 1960-1964 (5 years) there were 3,887 murders here. During those same years, there were 29 executions. From 2002-2006 (5 years) there were 6,879 murders in Texas, and 123 executions. So while the number of murders didn't quite double, the number of executions quadrupled. And btw, the murder rate in Texas in the early 60's ranged from 7.6 to 8.6. From 2002-2006, the murder rate in Texas ranged from 5.9 to 6.4. www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htmwww.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/prefurman/electrocutions.htmwww.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/annual.htmExcellent point, Oklahoma has stepped up too. Oklahoma carried out an amazing 64 executions from 2000 to 2006 when the population was about 3.5 million with a total of 949 murders and only six 6 executions from 1960 to 1966 when the population was around 2.4 million with a total of 697 murders. www.disastercenter.com/crime/okcrimn.htmEDIT: Looks like Delaware (No executions 1947-1991) and Virginia (7 executions 1960-66) are in the same boat. users.bestweb.net/~rg/execution/
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 15, 2009 20:10:20 GMT -6
From 2002-2006 (5 years) there were 6,879 murders in Texas, and 123 executions. 123 divided by 6,879 is 0.017880506 I stand corrected. Texas executes a whopping 1.7 percent of its murderers. The other 98.3 percent have nothing to worry about. You're assuming every murderer get's caught or that they are all murderers. Something tells me they include manslaughter.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 15, 2009 20:36:54 GMT -6
You're assuming every murderer get's caught or that they are all murderers. Something tells me they include manslaughter. I'm assuming that of those convicted of murder that the numbers are correct.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 15, 2009 20:42:04 GMT -6
You're assuming every murderer get's caught or that they are all murderers. Something tells me they include manslaughter. I'm assuming that of those convicted of murder that the numbers are correct. Yes but once you exclude the unsolved crimes and non-murder homicides the percentage has to be higher than 1.7%.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 15, 2009 21:06:11 GMT -6
Loving this as an anti - one pro is arguing that Texas is doing a pretty sucky job at executing murderers, and two pros are hammering him that yes, the 1.7% is too low - it's probalby a little bit higher and that state is doing an EXCELLENT job.
Good stuff folks, good stuff.
Seems like the DP itself might be down to its final appeals - start mixing the chemicals folks!
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 15, 2009 21:29:06 GMT -6
Loving this as an anti - one pro is arguing that Texas is doing a pretty sucky job at executing murderers, and two pros are hammering him that yes, the 1.7% is too low - it's probalby a little bit higher and that state is doing an EXCELLENT job. Good stuff folks, good stuff. Seems like the DP itself might be down to its final appeals - start mixing the chemicals folks! Do you take your cue from Joseph when it comes to twisting words? If you wish to debate me, fine, but please don't intentionally twist my words. I said Texas is doing a better job now than it did in the early 60's, and that's all I said. Joseph stated that politicians in Texas are no longer interested in preserving the DP. That was a misstatment of fact, as we execute a higher percentage of murderers now than we did 50 years ago. Legislation has been passed to speed up the appellate process up in Texas, as a matter of fact. Look up Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (appellate reform passed in 1995 that put an end to endless state habeas appeals).
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 15, 2009 21:36:08 GMT -6
Loving this as an anti - one pro is arguing that Texas is doing a pretty sucky job at executing murderers, and two pros are hammering him that yes, the 1.7% is too low - it's probalby a little bit higher and that state is doing an EXCELLENT job. Good stuff folks, good stuff. Seems like the DP itself might be down to its final appeals - start mixing the chemicals folks! Do you take your cue from Joseph when it comes to twisting words? If you wish to debate me, fine, but please don't intentionally twist my words. I said Texas is doing a better job now than it did in the early 60's, and that's all I said. Joseph stated that politicians in Texas are no longer interested in preserving the DP. That was a misstatment of fact, as we execute a higher percentage of murderers now than we did 50 years ago. Legislation has been passed to speed up the appellate process up in Texas, as a matter of fact. Look up Article 11.071 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (appellate reform passed in 1995 that put an end to endless state habeas appeals). Come on - you could tell your excitement from the tone of your voice! Let's face it - to get elected in Texas you have to like things like the DP, football, and bad education. Maybe the numbers show that more murderers, percentage wise, are getting killed these days. Do they care more? I suppose. But with just a few percent of folks being executed, do they care enough?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 15, 2009 21:45:27 GMT -6
Maybe the numbers show that more murderers, percentage wise, are getting killed these days. No maybe to it. Bothers you, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jan 15, 2009 21:53:20 GMT -6
Kentucky sided with the North during the civil war, so did Maryland and Delaware. DPIC lists them all as southern for some reason. BTW so did Missouri. Maryland was a divided state. There were riots in Baltimore, but in the end, Maryland stayed with the Union.. I didn't know that DPIC lists them as a southern state.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Jan 15, 2009 21:59:48 GMT -6
36-14=22, still too many. You can tick a few off that would have executed inmates had they not been hamstrung with lethal injection appeals. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, California, Maryland and Delaware stopped because of lethal injection moratoriums. Nebraska would have executed a double-murderer in 2007 but was stopped by an electrocution lawsuit. Actually, I think you can cross Maryland of the DP list entirely. First, there is a decided anti in power in OMalley. Secondly, the gov created a slanted panel to "study" the dp. Finally, its been ages since Maryland has actually used its chamber. So, even though a poll found that 53% favor (against 41% opposed), I expect the General Assembly to repeal the DP laws. Very sad
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 15, 2009 22:00:47 GMT -6
Maybe the numbers show that more murderers, percentage wise, are getting killed these days. No maybe to it. Bothers you, doesn't it? I don't shed a tear for any murderer - if anything, I think the DP lets them off to easily. I mean, pretend you're a crazy piece of humanity that has such arrogance and disregard for life that you've killed another person. You're going to die in prison, either at the hands of the state, or in a cell in the control of the state. Would you rather spend 40 or so years before dying a lonely, quiet death in a cell when nobody cares - a byline on page 15 of the C section of the paper - or go out in style - front page news, your crime relived - DP advocates talking about you. A regular circus. Now, the easy answer is that obviously they don't want to die at all, as evidenced that they keep fighting - but you can't discount the fact that these folks have the thought they are going to get off, and based on some of the appeals that have stuck (like the recent case in Texas), you can't blame them really. No, I hate murderers - their crime is the worst out there and their punishment must be harsh - the worst we can come up with in society. I'm just not a believer that the DP is something we should be doing.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Jan 16, 2009 9:15:42 GMT -6
But to use 2008 stats is misleading in and of itself. The Supreme Court imposed a moratorium on executions. Let's see how 2009 goes. Not that it matters. Fluctuations in death sentences and executions are no different from fluctuations in movie theater revenue, car buying and people going to the hospital. Each year has to be examined on its own. Regardless, for the 37 murderers that were executed in 2008 the fact that the numbers of executions were lower meant nothing. Love, RED Some 2008 final numbers (from year end report by Death Penalty Info Center) 2008 - 37 1998 - 68 Ten year high - 1999, 98 Ten year low - 2008, 37 New death sentences 2008 - 111 1999 - 284 Executions by region in 2008 South - 95% Midwest - 5% 2008 Executions in all states but Texas - 19 2007 Executions in all states but Texas - 16 States with an execution in 2008 - 9 States without an execution in the last two years - 36
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 16, 2009 13:56:33 GMT -6
You can tick a few off that would have executed inmates had they not been hamstrung with lethal injection appeals. Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, California, Maryland and Delaware stopped because of lethal injection moratoriums. Nebraska would have executed a double-murderer in 2007 but was stopped by an electrocution lawsuit. Actually, I think you can cross Maryland of the DP list entirely. First, there is a decided anti in power in OMalley. Secondly, the gov created a slanted panel to "study" the dp. Finally, its been ages since Maryland has actually used its chamber. So, even though a poll found that 53% favor (against 41% opposed), I expect the General Assembly to repeal the DP laws. Very sad I'm not that worried. O'Malley tried to repeal the DP in 2007 and 2008 and failed both times. I imagine the legislature has not significantly since early 2008 when the last vote was taken and everyone following the commission knew it was slanted against the DP. Frankly, I'm looking forward to what O'Malley will do when the abolition bill fails and people demand he live up to his promise to execute the three who have exhausted their appeals. Abolition bills fail everywhere there has been an execution in the last 30 years, even Connecticut.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 17, 2009 9:35:59 GMT -6
But to use 2008 stats is misleading in and of itself. The Supreme Court imposed a moratorium on executions. Let's see how 2009 goes. Not that it matters. Fluctuations in death sentences and executions are no different from fluctuations in movie theater revenue, car buying and people going to the hospital. Each year has to be examined on its own. Regardless, for the 37 murderers that were executed in 2008 the fact that the numbers of executions were lower meant nothing. Love, RED Some 2008 final numbers (from year end report by Death Penalty Info Center) 2008 - 37 1998 - 68 Ten year high - 1999, 98 Ten year low - 2008, 37 New death sentences 2008 - 111 1999 - 284 Executions by region in 2008 South - 95% Midwest - 5% 2008 Executions in all states but Texas - 19 2007 Executions in all states but Texas - 16 States with an execution in 2008 - 9 States without an execution in the last two years - 36 I'm sorry - should I have lied? Like, "there was actually 73, though about half of them were imaginary in the great state of never-never land." You do have a point, there would have been more without the courts - which is unlike every other year in which the number of executions mostly has to do with court rulings.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Jan 17, 2009 10:32:57 GMT -6
Huh? What a bizarre post. Still, let me break down my original response so that you can (perhaps) understand it. In a year where the United States Supreme Court put on hold ALL executions, i.e., NO state could execute while the hold was in effect, even when given the green light by all other courts, to use the number of executions to prove ANY point is misleading. I am assuming that even a 10 year old child that is not mildly retarded can understand the concept. A no from the Supreme Court means no. The moment the Supremes resolved the LI issue executions immediately resumed. I mean, you do have access to the Internet, right? ;D Love, RED But to use 2008 stats is misleading in and of itself. The Supreme Court imposed a moratorium on executions. Let's see how 2009 goes. Not that it matters. Fluctuations in death sentences and executions are no different from fluctuations in movie theater revenue, car buying and people going to the hospital. Each year has to be examined on its own. Regardless, for the 37 murderers that were executed in 2008 the fact that the numbers of executions were lower meant nothing. Love, RED I'm sorry - should I have lied? Like, "there was actually 73, though about half of them were imaginary in the great state of never-never land." You do have a point, there would have been more without the courts - which is unlike every other year in which the number of executions mostly has to do with court rulings.
|
|