|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:35:59 GMT -6
You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned. No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned, notwithstanding whatever exoneration may come later. The term "wrongful" is a misnomer. Criminal justice isn't about absolute truth, and never should be. Absolute truth is what the criminal justice system should seek. The justice system needs to make it acceptable to release people if there are a certain amount of guilt - and when the death penalty is involved, absolute truth is even more important. What's missing in capital proceedings, is the matter of necessity. In capital cases, the prosecution should be required to prove beyond doubt that the defendant commited the crime, and that there's a grave and significant risk that the defendant would commit murder again, even if given LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:28:36 GMT -6
when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. No, there indeed was justice. The process itself is what's important, not the actual guilt or innocence of those executed. The kind of criminal justice you want isn't humanly possible, and it isn't desirable even if it was. I don't advocate for capital punishment, so there's nothing for me to get over. I was speaking to the entire forum, most of whose members say they support the death penalty, but don't mean it. It may not be humanly possible, but it's still what the courts should strive after. And if that means releasing 10 guilty murderers, it's still better than the death of one innocent inmate. When neither guilt nor innocence matters, you may just as well replace the court system with the imprisoning and execution of random people from the streets.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:23:57 GMT -6
No one quoted or debated this comment of his Why? Yes, the fact that no one cares about the lifers is a severe problem, which deserves way more attention from the government and the media than it does. What it most definitely is not, is an argument in favour of the death penalty for innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 7, 2017 3:20:25 GMT -6
I'm sure that anti-DPers are absolutely overjoyed seeing as Delaware just abolished the death penalty also. It may die in some states, but not in all states. Given that Delaware had one of the busiest execution chambers in the US, I'd say there are good reasons for celebrating that decision. There are still too many DP states left, but things are looking promising.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 14, 2016 8:15:23 GMT -6
Some 5+ hours later after several appeals, Smith has been executed. He had fried chicken as a last meal. Alabama executed Ronald Smith Jr. late Thursday for the 1994 murder of a convenience store clerk — a death sentence imposed by a judge despite the jury’s recommendation of a life sentence. Smith’s execution lasted more than 30 minutes, and he “heaved and coughed through about 13 minutes.” “heaved and coughed through about 13 minutes.” DP opponents will jump onto this! As a pro DP, it is insane to have 5 hours of last minute appeals, not the 13 minutes. How carefully can you handle an appeal in 5 hours? As I see it, there are several disturbing problems With this. 1: The judge overruled the jury With a Death sentence. The fact that this is possible at all, is disturbing. 2: How carefully can you handle an appeal in 5 hours? If the time pressure meant an unfair treatment, that's a huge problem. 3: The "consciousness tests" seems ridiculous, to say the least. Given the fact that barbiturast can often mask pain reactions, an EEG would be the obvious solution.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 24, 2016 8:03:38 GMT -6
LOL to you, too
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 24, 2016 2:12:48 GMT -6
Setbacks happens, and sometimes people vote for destructive and pointless things. In other words, the death penalty still needs to die - it may just take a little more time. Like I stated on the first page of this thread, there never will be a last execution. Like I stated on the first page(and in the title, coincidentally), there will be a last execution.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 23, 2016 15:56:55 GMT -6
Setbacks happens, and sometimes people vote for destructive and pointless things. In other words, the death penalty still needs to die - it may just take a little more time.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 16, 2016 17:02:46 GMT -6
The important thing to you is to keep on killing people - whether they're guilty or not involved at all doesn't actually matter? No, I'm saying a jury verdict should be considered dispositive. After two appeals, one in state court and one in federal, that should be it. Case closed. In that case, one needs to remove the word reasonable from "reasonable doubt", and insist that the jury proves both the guilt of the defendant beyond any doubt and that the death penalty is a absolutely necessary to protect society from further murders. In other words - only if there is an extreme risk that the defendant will murder again if given a prison sentence, should the death penalty be considered at all.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 16, 2016 7:17:50 GMT -6
That's very philosophical. But we can strive to approach perfect justice, just as we can strive to approach perfect health. Though neither are within reach, it is desirable to get as close to each as is possible. It is not desirable if the pursuit of perfection comes at a high cost. There are finite dollars available to pursue justice (or health) of any kind. We are down to executing one murderer for every 300-500 murders, more or less. The decline in use of the death penalty isn't remotely attributable to the opponents of capital punishment. It has everything to do with the backpedaling of the so-called "pros," who trip over themselves trying to make executions more "humane." The provocative, foolish part is where you're fine with this, as if it is a cost of doing business. I wonder if you genuinely believe it, or if it's just something you like to say in order to get people in a flap. I'm genuinely fine with it. I've given it a lot of thought. I grew up opposed to the death penalty, for no better reason than the possibility that an innocent man could be put to death. I overcame my objection. But one cannot accept errors of this sort. Why not? I do, and have, as does every other nation whose people execute in the name of the law. The law demands assurance beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. proof to the point that any further doubt would be silly. You are claiming that proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not only impossible, it is not required by law, for very good reason. So... If I understand you correctly: The important thing to you is to keep on killing people - whether they're guilty or not involved at all doesn't actually matter? If one is to follow that logic, one might as well bring in random people from the streets to kill them.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 14, 2016 17:33:05 GMT -6
Perfect justice would be both swift and accurate. That is impossible. Whether or not that's achievable, it's most certainly desirable. Since it's impossible, attempting the impossible is not desirable, because there isn't enough time or money in the world to produce an ideal conviction. I like your provocative foolishness. You could have a career writing clickbait. This is not a rebuttal. Statistically, one can be fairly certain that in the past two hundred years, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of executions of those who were less than perfectly guilty of their crimes. If one is to defend capital punishment, one must accept that errors have occurred, and must occur, if executions are to be carried out. There is nothing in the United States Constitution, or in any state constitution, demanding absolute assurance of an inmate's guilt before executing him. That is not a foundation of the criminal law. The fact that it isn't possible, doesn't mean that judges shouldn't strive to reach it. And the presumption of innocence is kind of a given in every civilised country - and I believe the U. S. is trying to be civilised, despite the guy they just elected to be president. If the fact that innocent people have been murdered and will continue to be murdered doesn't bother you, that says more about you than the "justice" system. My point is, I guess, that it's always better to let ten guilty men go free than it is to let one innocent person die. That's the attitude you should have as a judge - and I'm sure glad you're not a legal professional.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 13, 2016 8:39:33 GMT -6
I would take that chance. The jurors could then explain to the families of murder victims, and the public at large, why lives of murderers matter more than those they killed. They'll say, "The evidence was strong, but not strong enough to send a man to his death. People needed to be surer when a man's life is on the line. We simply weren't sure enough." Would that satisfy you? It should. It's kind of how civilised justice works.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 11, 2016 4:01:29 GMT -6
Well since we have Trump as a president, I wonder if that will help the DP in any way...? God, I hope not - but given the Republican-controlled house, I fear you're right. The death penalty needs to die, but no one seems willing to kill it.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 7, 2016 6:00:04 GMT -6
The U.S. death penalty, along with this forum, seems to be steadily dwindling. How long do you think it will be, before it ends for good? Me, I'd hope for 5-6 years - but I'm guessing 10, because these things takes time. I will give it a decade. I think that the abolitionists multi-prong efforts against it will eventually win over a liberal dominated US Supreme Court to reverse Gregg vs. Georgia and associated rulings that supported the imposition of capital punishment. I hope you're right
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 4, 2016 7:12:03 GMT -6
True - and solving those causes would be a better start than the reinstatement of the death penalty. Fug you personally need to go to the gang area's in Chicago, & solve those causes. On a more serious note, I'm not saying I have all the answers - but the resources spent for a pointless death penalty or lost to corruption could be spent on research in how to solve this. If the death penalty is reinstated, those funds are wasted on nothing.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 4, 2016 7:07:29 GMT -6
True - and solving those causes would be a better start than the reinstatement of the death penalty. Fug you personally need to go to the gang area's in Chicago, & solve those causes. Sure, sure. You'll join me, right? Let me know when you have time.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 3, 2016 4:41:32 GMT -6
A familiar name. Should be; this is his seventh execution date! Arthur was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death for shooting Troy Wicker of Muscle Shoals through the right eye as he slept. The victim's wife, Judy Wicker, was romantically involved with Arthur and testified she paid him $10,000 to kill her husband in 1981. At the time of the killing, Arthur was in a prison work-release center in Decatur, serving a sentence for second-degree murder for killing his sister-in-law in Marion County. Arthur was sentenced to death on March 22, 1983. After 7 dates - is it still worth pursuing the execution? At some point, it's worth asking whether the resources would have been better spent otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 2, 2016 17:45:16 GMT -6
Yes, Chicago has a severe crime problem - but do we know the cause? Usually, problems can be solved by solving their causes - and I sincerely doubt that the lack of death penalty is a major reason for the murder rate. Chicago's not having a DP has not slowed down the crime problem either. Nor the corruption nor has it made the financial picture any better. Yeah, instead of wasting" money for a DP the politicians are filling their pockets. Most who served in office now serve in prison themselves. Special interest group extremist filling their pockets while the murders daily & many of them are gang related. Gangs not just murdering each other but, along with many innocents too, they do not care. The police are caught between politics and a target themselves. In shy town, the windy city is run by Dem's & liberals just like Detriot. Strict laws for the legal citizens going on at the same time. Well, I guess in the gang area's of chicago, the new DP is on the streets instead now. Those are the real cause's Oh to add, people now days are more offended by words, or which bathroom to use to pee instead. True - and solving those causes would be a better start than the reinstatement of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 2, 2016 17:42:34 GMT -6
I personally will never go with either extremist view, Joe wants all" no matter what degree to be executed. The anti side is" no matter what degree convicted of murder, there should be no DP. Both sides want absolutes. No one wants to except a middle ground. Crazy world it has become. There is a middle ground - it's called LWOP. The death penalty is an either/or thing - you either kill people, or you don't. The problem with instating the death penalty just for the "worst of the worst", is that it leads to a slippery slope - when you execute some people, it's easier to accept executing more people. Therefore, the wise thing to do would be to keep it repealed. For deliberate treason leading to the loss of several thousand lives, the death penalty may be considered appropriate in certain cases - but in other cases, it does way more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 2, 2016 9:15:01 GMT -6
Well - I'd suggest spending cash on avoiding crimes in the first place rather than unnecessary legal murders, but that's just me Like Chicago? Yes, Chicago has a severe crime problem - but do we know the cause? Usually, problems can be solved by solving their causes - and I sincerely doubt that the lack of death penalty is a major reason for the murder rate.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 1, 2016 17:31:47 GMT -6
I wonder if he actually got a good rib eye or if was the Grade B 2 dollar steak full of cartlidge and fat lols. If they're killing him, the least they could do is to give him a good rib-eye and a nice Cabernet Sauvignon to go with it.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 1, 2016 14:45:15 GMT -6
I think it will come back in full circle. Its nice and fluffy to not have it when crime is low. But now with more heinous crimes many states are reexploring bringing it back. And we will bring it back. Well - I'd suggest spending cash on avoiding crimes in the first place rather than unnecessary legal murders, but that's just me
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 30, 2016 13:24:11 GMT -6
but the development is looking good, by all means. Development is looking good? For who? For those who realise that the death brings nothing but more death and sorrow, and that it's a prime exampe of wasteful spending - which, given the current fiscal situation, is a travesty in itself. The fact that it hasn't been abolished yet, speaks volumes about how seemingly intelligent people sometimes do really destructive and pointless things.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 26, 2016 3:48:36 GMT -6
Of course there will! The death penalty's days are numbered. You too did not answer the question. If you believe the DP will totally end, how long before that will happen in your opinion. lol I still say, it never will totally end. I still say that it will
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 26, 2016 3:37:31 GMT -6
Thomas Jefferson had it right. You have a God given right to life. He didn't mean everyone, obviously. He was referring to landed, white males. Black lives matter, all lives matter is a joke all over the world. No life matters anymore. And we are debating having a DP? The DP is alive & well. There were 28 executions in the United States in 2015, against 15,696 murders. That's an execution for every 561 murders. A child might wonder why one describes the American death penalty as either "alive" or "well." Eleven years on this board has taught me one thing about capital punishment: Americans at BEST are deeply squeamish and embarrassed about it. Fuglyville is only annoying because her attitude is so popular among the so-called "pros." Obviously, more squeamishness and embarrassment is needed - but the development is looking good, by all means.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 16, 2016 17:23:59 GMT -6
The U.S. death penalty, along with this forum, seems to be steadily dwindling. How long do you think it will be, before it ends for good? Me, I'd hope for 5-6 years - but I'm guessing 10, because these things takes time.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2016 16:14:49 GMT -6
Guess you do not care about the children (victims), no mention of them from you. I somehow feel you really only hope the murderer rest in peace . In that case, please read what I wrote once more. Killing him does nothing but ensuring further - and unnecessary - victim. All I can say, is to hope that he - and his victims - are in a better place now. And yes, he volunteered - but that does in no way make this better. People who have done the most heinous things still deserve to be treated as people - and when the prison conditions are so awful that people would rather die, the TDCJ has a severe problem on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 6, 2016 17:00:09 GMT -6
May the victims and their murderer rest in equal peace.
On the bright side, the long gap between executions is always a good sign. Obviously, the gap needs to be made permanent - but this is a step on the way.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 12, 2016 6:59:40 GMT -6
Do you think that the government has an affirmative duty to inform you of your rights (as opposed to merely not hiding the info)? Definitely.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 7, 2016 18:40:10 GMT -6
Not sure what you're talking about. Could you say more? I forgot this - mea culpa. Wikipedia describes jury nullification in the US as: "Jury nullification in the United States has its origins in colonial British America. Similar to British law, in the United States jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.[3]" This opinion piece from the N.Y. Times shows what the problem is: Washington IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer. The information I have just provided — about a constitutional doctrine called “jury nullification” — is absolutely true. But if federal prosecutors in New York get their way, telling the truth to potential jurors could result in a six-month prison sentence. Earlier this year, prosecutors charged Julian P. Heicklen, a retired chemistry professor, with jury tampering because he stood outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan providing information about jury nullification to passers-by. Given that I have been recommending nullification for nonviolent drug cases since 1995 — in such forums as The Yale Law Journal, “60 Minutes” and YouTube — I guess I, too, have committed a crime. The prosecutors who charged Mr. Heicklen said that “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.” The prosecutors in this case are wrong. The First Amendment exists to protect speech like this — honest information that the government prefers citizens not know. Laws against jury tampering are intended to deter people from threatening or intimidating jurors. To contort these laws to justify punishing Mr. Heicklen, whose court-appointed counsel describe him as “a shabby old man distributing his silly leaflets from the sidewalk outside a courthouse,” is not only unconstitutional but unpatriotic. Jury nullification is not new; its proponents have included John Hancock and John Adams. The doctrine is premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished. As Adams put it, it is each juror’s “duty” to vote based on his or her “own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out. Nullification has been credited with helping to end alcohol prohibition and laws that criminalized gay sex. Last year, Montana prosecutors were forced to offer a defendant in a marijuana case a favorable plea bargain after so many potential jurors said they would nullify that the judge didn’t think he could find enough jurors to hear the case. (Prosecutors now say they will remember the actions of those jurors when they consider whether to charge other people with marijuana crimes.) There have been unfortunate instances of nullification. Racist juries in the South, for example, refused to convict people who committed violent acts against civil-rights activists, and nullification has been used in cases involving the use of excessive force by the police. But nullification is like any other democratic power; some people may try to misuse it, but that does not mean it should be taken away from everyone else. How one feels about jury nullification ultimately depends on how much confidence one has in the jury system. Based on my experience, I trust jurors a lot. I first became interested in nullification when I prosecuted low-level drug crimes in Washington in 1990. Jurors here, who were predominantly African-American, nullified regularly because they were concerned about racially selective enforcement of the law. Across the country, crime has fallen, but incarceration rates remain at near record levels. Last year, the New York City police made 50,000 arrests just for marijuana possession. Because prosecutors have discretion over whether to charge a suspect, and for what offense, they have more power than judges over the outcome of a case. They tend to throw the book at defendants, to compel them to plead guilty in return for less harsh sentences. In some jurisdictions, like Washington, prosecutors have responded to jurors who are fed up with their draconian tactics by lobbying lawmakers to take away the right to a jury trial in drug cases. That is precisely the kind of power grab that the Constitution’s framers were so concerned about. In October, the Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, asked at a Senate hearing about the role of juries in checking governmental power, seemed open to the notion that jurors “can ignore the law” if the law “is producing a terrible result.” He added: “I’m a big fan of the jury.” I’m a big fan, too. I would respectfully suggest that if the prosecutors in New York bring fair cases, they won’t have to worry about jury nullification. Dropping the case against Mr. Heicklen would let citizens know that they are as committed to justice, and to free speech, as they are to locking people up.
|
|