|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 31, 2014 17:43:48 GMT -6
Back to the topic, Will, on Nitrogen Asphyxiation it seems not matter on painless and merciful we try to make an execution for some of the most horrendous murderers it seems as if someone anti-death penalty group finds something cruel about it. On a personal note I have no problem with it. No matter what method is used they will be against it. The condemned could be sentenced to get repeated blowjobs until they are dead, and the anti-camp would still call it cruel, inhumane, ect. Sucking the life out of the pos would be inhumane, for the poor persons who have the job.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 31, 2014 17:46:21 GMT -6
You can't blame the desuetude of the death penalty in the United States on the antis. They have never succeeded in having capital punishment declared unconstitutional per se by the United States Supreme Court.
Indeed, the U.S. supremes haven't even weighed in on which execution protocol they prefer, because they don't care.
The problem started when the so-called "supporters" of capital punishment decided on their own to deviate from tried, true and constitutional execution protocols in favor of experimental protocols they believed were more "humane."
If you're trying to make an execution "humane," by definition you're trying to make it less cruel, in which case you've already conceded half the argument against the death penalty to the Thurgood Marshall- and William Brennan-types.
All you need to completely lose the argument in favor of capital punishment, then, is to admit that your execution method is unusual.
I don't know if letting the state's village idiots perform lethal injections counts as unusual, but it sure is stupid.
Let's ship members of our death row community to the Chinese. They seem to know how to execute people. We seem to have forgotten how, or why.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 31, 2014 18:16:26 GMT -6
You can't blame the desuetude of the death penalty in the United States on the antis. They have never succeeded in having capital punishment declared unconstitutional per se by the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, the U.S. supremes haven't even weighed in on which execution protocol they prefer, because they don't care. The problem started when the so-called "supporters" of capital punishment decided on their own to deviate from tried, true and constitutional execution protocols in favor of experimental protocols they believed were more "humane." If you're trying to make an execution "humane," by definition you're trying to make it less cruel, in which case you've already conceded half the argument against the death penalty to the Thurgood Marshall- and William Brennan-types. All you need to completely lose the argument in favor of capital punishment, then, is to admit that your execution method is unusual. I don't know if letting the state's village idiots perform lethal injections counts as unusual, but it sure is stupid. Let's ship members of our death row community to the Chinese. They seem to know how to execute people. We seem to have forgotten how, or why. Thats what happens when we tried to appease idiots, made idiots of ourselves. Never again become complacent lesson learned I hope.
|
|
|
Post by charon on Jan 31, 2014 22:34:26 GMT -6
Back to the topic, Will, on Nitrogen Asphyxiation it seems not matter on painless and merciful we try to make an execution for some of the most horrendous murderers it seems as if someone anti-death penalty group finds something cruel about it. On a personal note I have no problem with it. No matter what method is used they will be against it. The condemned could be sentenced to get repeated blowjobs until they are dead, and the anti-camp would still call it cruel, inhumane, ect.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Feb 1, 2014 8:08:37 GMT -6
So, I go away for about two years and come back to have a look and see what progress there has been here.
Not much.... Antis are still being called "scumbags" simply for having a different view on the dp to pros.
Europeans are still feeling superior to the citizens of the US.
Californian is still calling antis all sorts of names.
There's one new thing I just learned now, though... the thing about the Muslims. And I'm quite worried. I'm very happy that a US citizen was able to warn me of the dangers I face here in Europe. in fact, I'm going to have to come to an end with this post because there's a Muslim coming through my window trying to invade my family, right at this moment.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 1, 2014 8:58:06 GMT -6
At least your fair on prejudice/judgement.... " Join my " I hate everyone" .. Group. Hi Mel, been awhile.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on May 29, 2014 10:08:00 GMT -6
4: Yes, the victims are dead - but that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to speak up on their behalf. Unless you know that those who died supported the death penalty /quote] Fug, told Greggsmon this...
To add to this: fug, You do not even live in the U.S , yet your speaking on behalf of murderers all the time here to boot.
Awwww 8-)right out of you know who's post...but fug? Your recent Thread" posted by you. Asking....
" If the victim was agains't the DP would you still support it?
Then go read what Cali said, on your recent" thread... about society.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 29, 2014 18:27:07 GMT -6
MY TWO CENTS:
My understanding is that Europe got rid of the death penalty after WWII because they thought would make them look better in the worlds eye. Next, when Europe did have the penalty there was not the safeguards that we have in place. In Italy you can be tried again after being acquitted because the state found new evidence, ergo the Knox trial. In the US the criminal has the upper hand. The criminal has the right to challenge the accuser and all evidence against them. The criminal is presumed to be innocent and the burden of proof rests solely on the state. If someone is acquitted of the crime in the US they can't be retried because we have "Double Jeopardy." After acquittal the defendant can openly confess to the crime and nothing can happen to them criminally. There are some instances in very very rare circumstances where an acquittal can be overturned by a higher court and sent back to trial. Usually this only occurs if there is blatant evidence of trial tampering with witnesses, evidence or jury members. In some cases if there is impropriety between the courts and the defendant, i.e a judge or jury member is related to the defendant in some way. In these cases there has to be solid proof beyond doubt, and most appellate courts will side on the error of caution.
The criminal when found guilty beyond reasonable doubt goes through the sentencing phase, which is very scrutinizing. It looks at aggravated circumstances over mitigating ones. The majority the condemned are not appealing whether they are guilty or not. Most are appealing trial procedure, primarily the sentencing phase. The number one argument is always their lawyer forgot to present some magical evidence that would sway the jurors opinions that would let their scumbag clients stay alive in prison. The next argument is the "tard card," "my client who calculated out the perefct murder was too stupid to know what he was doing." Then there is the my client is insane either when the crime happened or now that hes been in prison for thirty years. Of course lately its none of the above, its my client might feel a little pain and it might be cruel.
We do reform. But the answer is not to end the death penalty. The answer is appeals reform. We need to stop letting the condemned have appeal after appeal. We need to make it where they get a reasonable amount of time for their case to be reviewed by their legal council. They need to come up with all the possible arguments at once and present them at the same time. Then once it is denied. They of course have one shot for a SCOTUS attempt. AFter that its finished. Its off to the chamber and get rid of the SOB. I don't care how we do it, electrocution, firing squad, the rope, or put bag over their heads and let them suffocate to the death. The point is it needs to be done! The Death Penalty is the vaccine to the vile in a society and it needs to be quick to work.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on May 29, 2014 18:48:28 GMT -6
Hopefully, the courts will stand firm on the 8th amendment - "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". In Furman v. Georgia, the following four principles were used: -The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. -"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.) -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." -"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. Except for the 3rd(unfortunately), the death penalty may be described as both degrading to human dignity, inflicted in an arbitrary fashion and - perhaps most of all - patently unnecessary. Whether the courts will come to their senses and realise this, is a wholly different question. Still, where there's life there's hope Do you even know what the hell that even means, DA? 1.The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.That means we can't do what Europe used to do, like: 1. Draw and Quartering 2. Disembowelment 3. Piking (Puting peoples dead corpses or pieces of them on pikes. 4. Burning at the stake 5. Crushing, placing the criminal under a plank and puting heavy stones on them until they suffocate to death. 6. Stoning 7. Many many other neats you guys used to do. 2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."It means that the courts have to look at all the facts and circumstances and weigh them accordingly. You cant give the penalty to meet a quota. 3. -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."Means the punishment must fit the crime. You cant get the death penalty for simple crime like stealing a soda from the store. 4. -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."That means like whipping a person before the execution. And also to back to the other concept the punishment must fit the crime.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 2, 2014 12:22:33 GMT -6
Hopefully, the courts will stand firm on the 8th amendment - "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". In Furman v. Georgia, the following four principles were used: -The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. -"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (Furman v. Georgia temporarily suspended capital punishment for this reason.) -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." -"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary. Except for the 3rd(unfortunately), the death penalty may be described as both degrading to human dignity, inflicted in an arbitrary fashion and - perhaps most of all - patently unnecessary. Whether the courts will come to their senses and realise this, is a wholly different question. Still, where there's life there's hope :) Do you even know what the hell that even means, DA? 1.The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.That means we can't do what Europe used to do, like: 1. Draw and Quartering 2. Disembowelment 3. Piking (Puting peoples dead corpses or pieces of them on pikes. 4. Burning at the stake 5. Crushing, placing the criminal under a plank and puting heavy stones on them until they suffocate to death. 6. Stoning 7. Many many other neats you guys used to do. 2. "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion."It means that the courts have to look at all the facts and circumstances and weigh them accordingly. You cant give the penalty to meet a quota. 3. -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."Means the punishment must fit the crime. You cant get the death penalty for simple crime like stealing a soda from the store. 4. -"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society."That means like whipping a person before the execution. And also to back to the other concept the punishment must fit the crime. None of this sufficiently addresses Fuglyville's argument. The justices of the current or future United States Supreme Court could easily overturn capital punishment in this country using the moral reasoning stated in the Furman v. Georgia decision. The whole point of an execution is to strip the condemned of human dignity, and if the imposition of capital punishment in this country isn't arbitrary, by any definition, then nothing is. Furthermore, the unwillingness of the electorate to actually execute the condemned would support the proposition that society has rejected capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Jun 3, 2014 16:54:16 GMT -6
The whole point of an execution is to strip the condemned of human dignity, and if the imposition of capital punishment in this country isn't arbitrary, by any definition, then nothing is. Furthermore, the unwillingness of the electorate to actually execute the condemned would support the proposition that society has rejected capital punishment. Nope, I don't agree with that at all. The death penalty is part of a graduated system of consequences. It means that once stepped across a certain threshold that society will not tolerate, you may forfeit your life in your decision to comit what the law defines as the most heinous of acts. It is not given arbitrarily. It is given when the circumstances are so grave that there are no mitigating circumstances that can reasonably be justified. These have been defined as: 1. Murdering an official in the performance of their duties. 2. Murdering a whiteness to cover up a previous crime. 3. Murder for hire. 4. Murder in conjunction with another felony. 5. Murder of a child 6. Murders of more than one person 7. Murder that involves cruel and/or gross maltreatment of the victim Those are the main reasons why someone gets the death penalty. Sometimes there may be a few other reasons, like terrorism, or treason. They make sure that the executions are done in a dignified manner. The condemned is allowed a final meal. Is allowed to visit family one last time. Is given the opportunity to make a final statement. It is done in private with the exceptions of a very select few allowed to whiteness it. Maybe it could undignified in a place like the middle east where they do it in the public squares where spectators are cheering the executioners on. Or like Iran that hangs people from street lights and lets them remain there for a few days before taking them down. Nope I would say its too dignified in this country.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 6, 2014 18:13:50 GMT -6
1. Murdering an official in the performance of their duties. 2. Murdering a whiteness to cover up a previous crime. 3. Murder for hire. 4. Murder in conjunction with another felony. 5. Murder of a child 6. Murders of more than one person 7. Murder that involves cruel and/or gross maltreatment of the victim Those are the main reasons why someone gets the death penalty. And yet most people who commit these acts are spared the death penalty. The 7th reason is stupid. Since when is murder not cruel or a gross mistreatment of a victim?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 7, 2014 9:01:12 GMT -6
1. Murdering an official in the performance of their duties. 2. Murdering a whiteness to cover up a previous crime. 3. Murder for hire. 4. Murder in conjunction with another felony. 5. Murder of a child 6. Murders of more than one person 7. Murder that involves cruel and/or gross maltreatment of the victim Those are the main reasons why someone gets the death penalty.[/quote The 7th reason is stupid. Since when is murder not cruel or a gross mistreatment of a victim? It is really about the mind, 7 shows us much more about that mind past murder.
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Jun 10, 2014 17:52:21 GMT -6
And yet most people who commit these acts are spared the death penalty. Well there are a lot of reasons. One goes against your argument about it being arbitrary. The process is not cut and dry. The crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial happens, once convicted it goes to a second hearing, sometimes with completely different jurors in some jurisdictions. The jurors give the judge a sentencing recommendation. Then the judge will weigh all of the mitigating to aggravating circumstances. Two things can happen, one is that the jury has at least one person who does not recommend death and the sentence is life. Sometimes the judge may overrule a life sentence, but this is rare. Usually there is very aggravating circumstance. Sometimes the judge may not be a proponent of the DP and give life versus a death recommendation. So that is how they can get life instead of death. Some states life is the only option, like New Mexico. The 7th reason is stupid. Since when is murder not cruel or a gross mistreatment of a victim? Not necessarily. Of course I know I am arguing against an anti. If the death was quick like a gunshot to the head the intent was not to cause long term suffering of the victim. Cruel is considered is considered to be a state of mind where the murderer took pleasure in causing unreasonable pain to the victim or the cause of death took an inordinate amount of time. Example there was a case in South Dakota where the victim was robbed for his truck. He was taken to a rural area in the winter time where it is sub zero temperatures and was beaten severely and they tried to unsuccessfully drown him. The victim pleaded them to let him out of the cold and give him a quick death. Instead the murderers laughed at him slit his throat where he was left to die in the severe cold for several minutes. Another example is that a victim is beaten so severely that the trauma does not kill them right away but they end up dying in severe pain. They dismember the victim while alive until they bleed out where the victim again suffers great pain until death fora long duration. Another example of cruel, was a case in California involving the former leader of the Crypts Gang. Stanley Tookie Williams robs a convenience store shoots the owner in the neck. And laughs for several minutes as the victim was dying by choking on his own blood. A victim is ran over several times by a car. A victim is burnt alive. A victim is deprived of sustenance and water for long periods of time is an example of cruel and maltreatment. These are examples of cruel. The condemned again is given three meals a day. They are allowed to write letters and have visitation privileges. If they are gien life w/o parole they are in the general population allowed to buy snakcs from the commissary, have a TV with cable service. They are allowed to exercise and have interactions with other inmates.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 14, 2014 9:42:57 GMT -6
Well there are a lot of reasons. None you cite are relevant to the question. One goes against your argument about it being arbitrary. The process is not cut and dry. And yet it should be. The crime of murder is always the same. The crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is no different in capital cases. The trial happens, once convicted it goes to a second hearing, sometimes with completely different jurors in some jurisdictions. The jurors give the judge a sentencing recommendation. Then the judge will weigh all of the mitigating to aggravating circumstances. Two things can happen, one is that the jury has at least one person who does not recommend death and the sentence is life. Sometimes the judge may overrule a life sentence, but this is rare. Usually there is very aggravating circumstance. Sometimes the judge may not be a proponent of the DP and give life versus a death recommendation. So that is how they can get life instead of death. Some states life is the only option, like New Mexico. Again, irrelevant. What mitigates an act of murder? What changes a murder victim from dead to less-dead, or to more understandably dead? Why shouldn't there be a penalty phase after every murder conviction? If juries are qualified to decide punishment in capital cases (which they're not), why shouldn't they sentence all convicts? Of course I know I am arguing against an anti. If the death was quick like a gunshot to the head the intent was not to cause long term suffering of the victim. I'm no anti. Execute all murderers, automatically. Let triers of fact decide guilt and let the law take care of the wet work. That's how I roll. Most death penalty "supporters" do not. After ten years here, I've figured out why. Cruel is considered is considered to be a state of mind where the murderer took pleasure in causing unreasonable pain to the victim or the cause of death took an inordinate amount of time. Example there was a case in South Dakota where the victim was robbed for his truck. He was taken to a rural area in the winter time where it is sub zero temperatures and was beaten severely and they tried to unsuccessfully drown him. The victim pleaded them to let him out of the cold and give him a quick death. Instead the murderers laughed at him slit his throat where he was left to die in the severe cold for several minutes. Again, who cares? It's not against the law to think a certain way. Murder is defined by acts, not by "mindsets." By treating murderers a certain way, you're treating murder victims a certain way. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? The law shouldn't be telling violent people how the state prefers its citizens to be murdered. These are examples of cruel. The condemned again is given three meals a day. They are allowed to write letters and have visitation privileges. If they are gien life w/o parole they are in the general population allowed to buy snakcs from the commissary, have a TV with cable service. They are allowed to exercise and have interactions with other inmates. This is telling the families of murder victims who didn't die a particular way that the lives of their loved ones weren't as important. If one of my loved ones dies by murder, I want my fellow citizens to cleave with me and come down on the perpetrator(s) like a ton of bricks. I don't want them to consider "mitigating" or "aggravating" circumstances, the whole concept of which offends my intelligence. What I would want is the same kind of justice I would want for anyone else whose loved one was murdered. I you want to cut the murder rate (and I'm not sure everyone here does), you have to at least pretend murder is the ultimate crime.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 14, 2014 13:23:50 GMT -6
Sounds good yet you know that will never happen in the real world.
To me personally it is the anti's allowing more blood shed by murder, leaving them out with short sentences, & even with LWOP when they still murder inside those walls( another 30 yrs added to their sentence) is a slap in the face to victims & all of society. Now it has become the civilized people ,are not worth a damn dime. Yet according to anti's allowing murderers to live we are showing we are better then them. Are we reallly sending that message to them?...I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jun 14, 2014 18:10:02 GMT -6
Sounds good yet you know that will never happen in the real world. To me personally it is the anti's allowing more blood shed by murder, leaving them out with short sentences, & even with LWOP when they still murder inside those walls( another 30 yrs added to their sentence) is a slap in the face to victims & all of society. Now it has become the civilized people ,are not worth a damn dime. Yet according to anti's allowing murderers to live we are showing we are better then them. Are we reallly sending that message to them?...I don't think so. The only difference between the antis you're talking about and the "pros" are 40 executions a year. It's not the "antis" that are the problem. What has happened in this "real world" of yours, WD, is the inexorable march to capital punishment's abolition by default. You can thank the "pros" for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2014 8:44:49 GMT -6
As I said in another thread, I am new here and what prompted me to join this forum was the recent execution of Dennis McGuire and the controversy surrounding it. Although I am worried slightly for the future of capital punishment as a whole, the prospect of lethal injection being no longer possible is something I have looked forward to for years. It seems in desperation the various states are looking to use any 'legal' method this country allows. The prospects of seeing a resurgence of the 'older methods' (performed in the same old way) will only satisfy the hard liners on the issue for a brief period of time until an even more grizzly death chamber scene occurs; then that would be the end of capital punishment in this country forever. I think for the lack of better options, this may be the time right now that a new method could be adopted. The idea is to use Nitrogen Asphyxiation or Inert Gas Asphyxiation. This concept is not new of course, it was suggested almost 20 years ago but since lethal injection was seen as the constitutionally safe method at the time, the idea went almost unnoticed. One factor I think this method has in it's favor is that the phenomenon and mechanism of death is very well understood by medical science. In a pure nitrogen environment, a person within it never knows they are suffocating, as has been the case in numerous accidental deaths caused by it. Information on it is easy to find for anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, starting here I suppose: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiationMy plan, and I hope I could get some help on this, would be to write the various states' officials/politicians with this idea. I suppose my biggest problem is that I wouldn't know where to start and who to talk to since I do not live a death penalty state. I would like to if possible plant that bug of an idea in enough people's ears that it may be given at least some serious consideration. Again, anyone who would be willing to help, that would be great. As much as I would like the various states to take their old sparkeys out of the museums and start sending their CO's to advanced target training, it will be a bad thing for capital punishment in the long run and will play right into the hands of the European Social-Democrat dominated agenda when capital punishment is abolished because some scumbag gets a nose bleed. For any anti DP people reading this, don't take all this as me being blood thirsty. I believe for the 99% of murders that happen in this country, capital punishment is not necessary. But I feel it should be there for those 1% of cases where the cruelty and/or enormity of that person's crime demands such punishment. For the most classic of examples, a Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh. Thank you all very much for your time. One of the most efficient methods of execution has always been hanging. This was mastered by the British and Singapore keeps up the tradition to this day. Americans find this method distasteful simply because in American Death Penalty History you will find example after example after example of botched executions by hanging. Another efficient method is the firing squad. However this method isn't in favour because it is a bit yucky to watch, a reason that has absolutely nothing to do with the suffering of the inmate. Write letters to politicians advocating for your personal execution fantasies to be carried out in real life is likely to get you dismissed as a crackpot, however I do wish you well.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 15, 2014 10:47:54 GMT -6
As I said in another thread, I am new here and what prompted me to join this forum was the recent execution of Dennis McGuire and the controversy surrounding it. Although I am worried slightly for the future of capital punishment as a whole, the prospect of lethal injection being no longer possible is something I have looked forward to for years. It seems in desperation the various states are looking to use any 'legal' method this country allows. The prospects of seeing a resurgence of the 'older methods' (performed in the same old way) will only satisfy the hard liners on the issue for a brief period of time until an even more grizzly death chamber scene occurs; then that would be the end of capital punishment in this country forever. I think for the lack of better options, this may be the time right now that a new method could be adopted. The idea is to use Nitrogen Asphyxiation or Inert Gas Asphyxiation. This concept is not new of course, it was suggested almost 20 years ago but since lethal injection was seen as the constitutionally safe method at the time, the idea went almost unnoticed. One factor I think this method has in it's favor is that the phenomenon and mechanism of death is very well understood by medical science. In a pure nitrogen environment, a person within it never knows they are suffocating, as has been the case in numerous accidental deaths caused by it. Information on it is easy to find for anyone who is unfamiliar with the concept, starting here I suppose: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiationMy plan, and I hope I could get some help on this, would be to write the various states' officials/politicians with this idea. I suppose my biggest problem is that I wouldn't know where to start and who to talk to since I do not live a death penalty state. I would like to if possible plant that bug of an idea in enough people's ears that it may be given at least some serious consideration. Again, anyone who would be willing to help, that would be great. As much as I would like the various states to take their old sparkeys out of the museums and start sending their CO's to advanced target training, it will be a bad thing for capital punishment in the long run and will play right into the hands of the European Social-Democrat dominated agenda when capital punishment is abolished because some scumbag gets a nose bleed. For any anti DP people reading this, don't take all this as me being blood thirsty. I believe for the 99% of murders that happen in this country, capital punishment is not necessary. But I feel it should be there for those 1% of cases where the cruelty and/or enormity of that person's crime demands such punishment. For the most classic of examples, a Ted Bundy or Timothy McVeigh. Thank you all very much for your time. Write letters to politicians advocating for your personal execution fantasies to be carried out in real life is likely to get you dismissed as a crackpot, however I do wish you well. Yep
|
|
|
Post by starbux on Jun 17, 2014 20:37:12 GMT -6
well we all know that the system isn't perfect. It has been dwindling down for quite some time. My gripes are when prosecutors don't do their job or it takes over 20 years to execute. Prosecutors sometimes will take the easy way out and plea down the criminal who obviously deserves the DP. They do that in some cases to beef up their conviction rate, so they look tough on crime. I dont think it should take more then a few years to execute 99% of the condemned criminals. As we see right now, most are not even arguing that they did not do the crime. Most spend 20 years hoping to find some small technicality to get them a new trial in hopes that after 20 years the crime will be so old that they will not get the DP on the 2nd go. If they do they can spend 20 years trying to defend the new trial. Then of course the recent set of appeals where they all argue they will be given a painful death over a few bad executions, all of them partly due to the criminals own doing. Either being too damn fat or in the caes in Oklahoma are not cooperating with the death staff.
Yeah, it does need revamping to bring justice to the table sooner.
|
|