|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 4, 2018 9:09:09 GMT -6
They´re both interesting documents, but the name of the executioner should be included - and there´s no reason why the name of the doctor involved should be blacked out.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 24, 2018 9:51:49 GMT -6
So we can conclude that felony murder laws doesn´t serve a purpose, leads to unfair punishment and can safely be abolished? Nice!
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 2, 2018 9:00:30 GMT -6
If a murderer pleas guilty, and their plea is supported by the evidence - should the sentence automatically be reduced to LWOP? In practice, this is often the case - and it would mean much less trouble for law enforcement and the criminal justice system.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 20, 2018 18:36:28 GMT -6
If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether? For all intents and purposes, that has already happened. Which, obviously, is a good thing. It needs to be stopped completely, but that doesn’t seem to be too far away.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 18, 2018 3:42:41 GMT -6
If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether? When your battery goes dead do you scrap your whole car or replace the battery? No, we need to make them relevant, purposeful, and moral. For starters, make them quick and make them public. Cars actually serve a decent purpose. The death penalty doesn't, and never has - and should have died years ago.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 17, 2018 18:05:16 GMT -6
what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If we were worried about his dignity or humanity, we wouldn't be killing him in the first place. If a condemned man is executed without passion, without anger, as they currently are, what's the point? It's just an irrelevant, desultory act absent any moral purpose. Which is why so few are condemned to death in the first place. The "pros" just don't care any more, if they ever did. If executions are irrelevant, desultory and without a moral purpose - how about just scrapping them altogether?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 15, 2018 13:18:54 GMT -6
Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. no they don't need to be solemn, they need to be professional. and they are VERY professionally carried out. I've witnessed one, you? No, but I've witnessed way too many last breaths - and I remember every single one of them. Professionalism is not what matters - what matters is to preserve the dignity and humanity of the inmate in the last moments. If being involved in an execution doesn't affect you, you shouldn't be involved in executions.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 15, 2018 6:19:47 GMT -6
if the death penalty does exist, it must be carried out in a constitutional manner with the respect and dignity that is required of such a solemn event,” Palombi said. This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 8, 2018 13:18:54 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger.
How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Mar 1, 2018 17:54:24 GMT -6
In other words - if one should keep the DP, should it be restricted to inmates who, even if incarcerated, still has a significant risk of murdering again? If so, you get less executions, which means more resources and funds to stuff that actually matters.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 19, 2018 2:01:01 GMT -6
a death penalty conviction should never be an easy thing to acquire. but then upon conviction punishment should not be drug out for 30 years either. one appeal, two years max. absolute perfection is unattainable and to expect it only clogs up the whole deal. beyond a reasonable doubt is well, reasonable. Absolute perfection is unattainable, which is why it's always better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to execute one innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 6, 2018 7:06:30 GMT -6
If inmates are sentenced to death by old age, there’s no problems with lack of drugs, cruel/unusual punishment, no stressful last-minute appeals, no tie-down team, no execution, no bullets - but the inmate still dies.
I’d say that it would be a win-win situation. What say ye?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 25, 2017 6:18:05 GMT -6
... or they could just repeal the whole thing? The lengths people are willing to go to keep killing people is scary, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 8, 2017 18:09:27 GMT -6
If there are any doubts about whether he did it and whether the trial was fair, it shouldn't even be a question - of course he should get a new trial, ffs! The fact that the authorities refuses to release evidence is a serious breach of justice, and that alone should be reason to postpone the execution.
If then guilty murderers goes free, it's always better than having one innocent person executed. The US Supreme Court needs to realise that.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 7, 2017 17:45:30 GMT -6
The more states fights to keep death penalty procedures and details about drugs secret, the more reason it is to make the information public. When will someone accept responsibility and leak them to the press/public?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 5, 2017 14:41:58 GMT -6
Execution of Jeffery Borden delayed after 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issues new stay Wednesday, October 4th 2017, 10:59 pm CEDT Thursday, October 5th 2017, 11:22 pm CEDT
BIRMINGHAM, AL (WBRC) - The execution of Jeffrey Borden scheduled for 6 p.m. Thursday night has been delayed after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a new stay.
The Department of Corrections confirms it’s calling off the execution Thursday night because the Alabama Attorney General’s office has decided not to immediately appeal that stay.
The U.S. Supreme Court had overruled the lower court Wednesday that stayed the Alabama execution.
Borden was convicted of killing his estranged wife and father-in-law in 1993.
Borden challenged the humaneness of Alabama's lethal injection procedure.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 8, 2017 7:04:30 GMT -6
a good start would be to adress the inmates by name. No, addressing them as numbers sends the correct message. They are not persons. They are inmates. As a prison guard, you should care about the inmates as human beings. If the inmates don't, why should correctional staff. They're inmates. Not people. The attitudes you're spouting is the reason why the U.S. has one of the largest recidivism rates in the world No, the responsibility for recidivism rests with the recidivists, not with the law-abiding. The only problem I see is that not enough of them are in prison, and that the inmates there are ever let out at all. 1: They're still people, first of all - then inmates. If you can't deal with that, that's your own problem. 2: The inmates doesn't, because the correctional staff doesn't. If the guards begun treating the inmates as people, chances are the inmates would treat the guards as people in return - and that's what you'd call a win-win situation. 3: The fact that the U.S. have a disturbingly high recidivism rate compared to other countries, shows that there are perfectly fine ways to avoid it - if one wants to. The fact that the authorities deliberately choose not to do so, gives them part of the responsibility for the current situation.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 8, 2017 6:55:30 GMT -6
Well, since this is going no where. Prison is a contract for whatever years one is assigned to. Inside the prison walls think of it as a nanny state. The prison over see's the inmates by making decisions for them, relating to private & personal behavior. Due to lack of space & safety they are only allowed certain personal property. While provided with nursing, social workers, dental, activities, library, recreation rooms, Tv, & many other free benefits one needs while living there. No extreme luxury of course. While many n living in society do not have luxury either. Work hard to pay our bills & their tab. The inmates inside the nanny state, did volunteer to be there, it was determined by the law of the land, how long they could be there. So, they are not property, & it would be impossible to not have to assign inmates numbers, due to high volume as well as too many people have the same name. To keep track of who is really who. As long as you have enough officers pr. inmate, it's perfectly possible to use the names of inmates - rather than numbers. The clue is to assign each inmate one guard, who will look after and take care of that exact inmate. That way, you build relations between officers and inmates and avoid uprisings and violence. When inmates knows that there are people they can relate their distress to without having to resort to violence, that's a win-win situation for anyone. Also - when the guards get to know the inmates, you avoid abuse such as the one's Rikers are dealing with right now. And if the guards can't face dealing with inmates as people, chances are they shouldn't be guards in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 6, 2017 15:08:34 GMT -6
They can be bought and sold? They can be forced into hard labor, without pay. They have no say over what they eat, when they sleep, who may visit them, or even whether or not they can communicate with the outside world. They are each assigned a number, and only by his number is an inmate addressed. Yeah, a good start would be to adress the inmates by name. As a prison guard, you should care about the inmates as human beings. The attitudes you're spouting is the reason why the U.S. has one of the largest recidivism rates in the world, and why the U.S. correctional system is *screwed* up. It's perfectly possible to fix this, but the first step is to realise that you have a problem. Right now, even that seems like too much to hope for.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 4, 2017 17:01:30 GMT -6
their job is to treat the inmates as human beings. They're not human beings. They're state property. Please tell me you don't work with people.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 4, 2017 5:24:46 GMT -6
A clear sign that people should stop participating in executions or killing people in other circumstances, is when the fact that they're taking someones lives doesn't bother them. What's being done - for execution teams and armed law enforcement officers - to ensure that doesn't happen? What on earth are you talking about. I don't want "sensitive" people working in my prisons. I want them to do their jobs. I agree, and their job is to treat the inmates as human beings. There's a reason why nurses and social workers are good correctional officers - and why security guards are not.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 1, 2017 18:05:19 GMT -6
A clear sign that people should stop participating in executions or killing people in other circumstances, is when the fact that they're taking someones lives doesn't bother them. What's being done - for execution teams and armed law enforcement officers - to ensure that doesn't happen?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 18, 2017 2:55:01 GMT -6
I believe they are going to execute one tonight, not sure which one if they do. Let's hope they don't. Update: They didn't, luckily.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 17, 2017 17:52:02 GMT -6
There is a stay in place that prevents Arkansas from executing 6 people in 11 days. (it was 8, but one man got clemency and another may have a mental defect to be murdered) A few of these men have killed more than one person and have been in prison for murder and either escaped or was paroled. One thing that anti's cannot deny is that execution of murderers cuts down on recidivism. www.arkansasonline.com/arkansasexecutions/Don William Davis-killed Jane Martha Daniels,62 in Benton County Arkansas. After she gave him everything he asked for, he shot and killed her execution style. Stacey Johnson- Carol Heath was beaten, strangled, and her throat was slit on either April 1st or 2nd. Jack Harold Jones, Jr.- Mary Phillips was bound with metal wire, raped, strangled with the cord of a coffee pot, and beaten. She died of strangulation and blunt force trauma. Jones choked Mary’s daughter Lacy until she passed out, then beat Lacy several times on the head with the barrel of a BB gun causing skull fractures. Lacy survived. Ledell Lee- Debra Reese was beaten 36 times with a tire thumper. Also it appears that she had also been strangled. Bruce Earl Ward-Rebecca Doss was strangled in a bathroom in the gas station where she was a clerk. Kenneth Williams-57 year old farmer Cecil Boren pleaded for his life, then turned and tried to run away. Williams shot him 7 times, one bullet hitting Mr. Boren in the spine, paralyzing him. Williams’ first victim was a cheerleader for which he got a sentence of life without parole. He escaped prison and killed 3 others, including the farmer and a truck driver turning left in front of Williams as he tried to get away. Marcel Wayne Williams-Williams confessed to kidnapping, raping, beating and choking a mother of two, Stacy Errickson. He was on parole from April, 1994 and was arrested in November, 1994. Questionable. Bruce Ward's attorneys claim Ward is mentally unstable, thereofor, not mentally capable of being executed. Stayed: Jason Ferrell McGehee-With other cohorts, Beat and killed John Melbourne, Jr. over a period of several hours because McGehee thought Melbourne ratted the group out to police. I believe they are going to execute one tonight, not sure which one if they do. Let's hope they don't.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 7, 2017 17:30:11 GMT -6
as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. The limit is reached when the electorate says it's been reached. It's a political question. Justice is nothing more than a compromise. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution It isn't post-conviction. The prosecution has done its job. and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. A convict is no longer a defendant. He's a convict. The state doesn't owe him, nor does it have to prove, anything. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man. No it isn't. Innocent men get killed every day. There is necessarily a practical limit to what is possible in criminal justice. Perfect justice is neither attainable or DESIRABLE. But hey, if you want innocent men to die - wouldn't it be easier to just go nuts with a shotgun? The result would be more or less the same as what you keep championing.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 7, 2017 17:27:51 GMT -6
as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. The limit is reached when the electorate says it's been reached. It's a political question. Justice is nothing more than a compromise. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution It isn't post-conviction. The prosecution has done its job. and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. A convict is no longer a defendant. He's a convict. The state doesn't owe him, nor does it have to prove, anything. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man. No it isn't. Innocent men get killed every day. There is necessarily a practical limit to what is possible in criminal justice. Perfect justice is neither attainable or DESIRABLE. I'll agree with you on one thing: Perfect justice is impossible. And in an imperfect world, the doubt has to favor the defendant. As long as there are appeals, the burden of proof is still on the prosecution - and the defendant is a defendant until all appeals have ended.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 6, 2017 18:12:21 GMT -6
That it's not possible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Yes, it does. At some point there has to be a time and/or an expense limit. Besides - if there are doubt, that doubt is to favor the defendant, not the prosecution. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defense only has to create doubt in order to win. Not after conviction. The burden of proof moves to the convict, and he is not entitled to an appeal. Yes, there should be a limit - but as long as there's a risk for innocent people being convicted, that limit has not been reached. And no, it does not. The burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt is still on the prosecution - and if there is doubt, that doubt still has to be counted in the defendants favour. It's still better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to take the life of one innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 5, 2017 12:09:13 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those. The legal system works even if they don't exist, as long as convicts got fair trials. Justice is not about absolute truth. Perfect justice is neither possible or desirable. That it's not possible, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. Besides - if there are doubt, that doubt is to favor the defendant, not the prosecution. It's important to remember that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - the defense only has to create doubt in order to win. In other words: If we are to let go of the "perfect justice" idea, it needs to benefit the defendants - not the state.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 2, 2017 15:18:12 GMT -6
Because those convictions are no longer valid. The legal system works because appeals and overturned convictions exists, and there needs to be more of those.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 1, 2017 18:52:00 GMT -6
Punishing the jury?? What? Do you think the compensation comes from the jury's pocket? Their's and every other taxpayer's. I'm not sure which world you live in, but it's definitely not the same as most people. Please tell me you've never been a legal professional or in an actual position of power.
|
|