|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2012 20:23:21 GMT -6
They will be treated as human beings because they are human beings - doing something else, is a severe breach of medical ethics. The fact that they have done horrible deeds, does not make them any less human. And considering how the spectacle of an execution can hardly be said to have a deterring effect and the amount of resources the process leading towards an execution incurs - is it really worth it?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2012 19:52:14 GMT -6
And if they do get released or the sentence is overturned, there's probably a reason for it - if doubts about guilt surface after the execution, it's too late. If they are guilty, chances are that they'll stay in prison anyhow - thus, it's still essentially a death sentence. Therefore - why bother? Once the death of an innocent person becomes a risk one is willing to take, that's a clear sign that something is deeply wrong with the "justice" system. And as for your assertion that they'll probably kill again - where's your sources for that statement?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2012 19:38:01 GMT -6
It's still a death sentence, essentially - only difference, is that he'll die from natural causes. Thus, I fail to see the problem. He's still dead in the end, so why bother?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2012 19:18:20 GMT -6
The U.S. murder rates alone should be enough to crush the deterrence argument - and when that fails, there aren't really much left.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 13, 2012 19:12:09 GMT -6
The death penalty abolitionists have just as much sympathy for the victims as those who support the death penalty - there is no contradiction between opposing the death penalty and taking care of those left behind.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 7, 2012 11:49:01 GMT -6
Even Texas occasionally does show common sense and decency Hopefully, this is a sign that the death penalty is dwindling - even in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Oct 1, 2012 16:24:34 GMT -6
Kill him, people like him don't deserve to live. And what gives you the right to decide...? Fortunately, the Norwegian correctional system believes that the lack of freedom is the punishment - apart from that, prisoners are to be treated with dignity and humanity. Besides, there's extremely little danger of the death penalty becoming reinstated - and most people believe we're just as well without it
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 29, 2012 16:31:44 GMT -6
The chances of the death penalty being reinstated around here, are slim to none More's the pity. Your imprecision in the use of the English language is noted. "Murder" is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, so you're wrong on that count. Next is your use of the word "martyr." mar·tyr/ˈmärtər/ Noun: A person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs.Verb: Kill (someone) because of their beliefs: "she was martyred for her faith". Please explain what faith the perp espoused, and you might also want to toss in just for giggles who would mourn his passing. The only logical conclusion most could come to from your post is that you're just another Euroweenie idiot. In his twisted world, he is a lone warrior against multiculturalism - and yes, he definitely does have his supporters. Thus, in his view he would be executed because he fought for his beliefs - in that sense, the word "martyr" is entirely correct.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 28, 2012 17:04:48 GMT -6
The chances of the death penalty being reinstated around here, are slim to none - murdering him, would be to give him the martyrdom he hoped for. Besides - except for another death, it would accomplish nothing at all. With the current law, he will rot in jail - and eventually be forgotten. That's what people often fail to realise - despite his original sentence of 21 years, this sentence can(and most probably will) be extended every 5 years after the first 21. Thus, he is for most practical purposes serving a life sentence.
As for the Piper reference... Harsh punishment is in many ways the easy way out - it doesn't really accomplish anything, but it gives certain people the opportunity to seem "tough on crime". Quenching the thirst for blood - which is why certain parts of the U.S. still insists on the death penalty - has hardly ever served a purpose except for coldblooded, primitive and meaningless revenge.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 30, 2012 22:33:32 GMT -6
Why would she panic and flee if Brandon was really injured and/or died after she accidentally dropped him? If it had really been an accident, she would've called the police or an ambulance and told police/EMTs that she dropped him and gotten him some help. Again, there is no reason for an innocent person who did not intend an injury to a child (or anyone else) to panic, hide the body and flee the jurisdiction. I would like to know if any of Henderson's "experts" took the time between Brandon's death and the recovery of his body into account when rendering their opinions. It seems to me that, just as with Casey Anthony, not being able to examine the body immediately after death would make it difficult for any ME to render an accurate opinions as to the cause and nature of the child's death. kma367 She was most probably scared as hell, and scared and inexperienced people tend to be irrational - point being, that's still no evidence that she actually murdered om cold blood. And if the prosecution can't come up with actual evidence, they have no choice but to let her go. To sentence her for murder such as the case stands now, would be a travesty and a tragedy in itself.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 30, 2012 16:03:18 GMT -6
Sure, but none of this actually proves that she was the actual murderer. Unless such proof shows up, they have no choice but to release her. The fact that she panicked and fled proves that she panicked and fled - it DOES NOT prove a murder.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 27, 2012 5:09:14 GMT -6
Several of the cases I have looked at have used delaying tactics right up until the end, some beginning the whole process over. I'm simply saying it's extremely difficult for the victims loved ones seeking justice to have to deal with this. It is tough, no doubt - but when the alternative is the death of a possible innocent, they just have to deal with it. Every legal process takes time, and considering the gravity of a death sentence it's even more important that all doubt is cleared up. There should be an extremely high threshold for the death penalty, and letting someone die just to satisfy a thirst for blood serves no one in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 20, 2012 16:06:24 GMT -6
Jason January, the former Dallas County assistant district attorney who prosecuted Hearn for capital murder, said to stop the punishment because of fetal alcohol syndrome "would be a free pass for anyone whose parents drank." "No question he had a tough background, but a lot of people have tough backgrounds and work their way out and don't fill someone's head with 10 bullets," he said.
www.ctpost.com/news/article/Texas-executes-its-1st-inmate-using-single-drug-3715166.phpIt's important to note that fetal alcohol syndrome can manifest itself in a variety of different ways - the fact remains that some can deal with it while others are ruined; thus, unless it's conclusively proven that he didn't suffer from it at all the doubt should count to his favor. The fact that the state took his life instead, is a travesty and a disgrace to the state of Texas. At the very least, the state should pay for a decent funeral. That's the least any state can do when they kill people in cold blood. If they don't, they should.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 12, 2012 19:30:55 GMT -6
"Fast-tracking" a judicial process should never, ever be a priority - even less so in capital cases.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 12, 2012 19:07:47 GMT -6
if he is even executed,its cali remember..the last execution was on the 17th of january 2006, clarence allen was executed for 3 counts of first degree murder , if we keep going at this rate everyone on california's death row will die of natural causes. ... and the problem with that is...?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 30, 2012 7:13:26 GMT -6
'Let me ask you, Mr. Lopez, did our sister plead for her life as you stabbed her two dozen times?" said Sarah Bryant, one of Holmes' sisters. "Did she beg you not to rape her? Did she plead with you to spare her life as you almost decapitated her? Did she? "Nothing will bring her back, but you should pay for it," she said.'If anyone until now had even the slightest doubt about the justification for the death penalty... one has to only read the dialog above and just understand things better. I want to remind the board thing I've expressed years ago about the issue... As long as family members of murder victims demand their share of justice, they should always receive it. Plain and simple. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. Denying family members of murder victims their rights to get justice, retribution and closure for their agony, that's what is called violation of human rights in the plain meaning of the term. If his death somehow helps them cope, that's all well and good - but most important of all, is that every judgment should be based on the the rule of law and the fact that all doubt should serve in favour of the accused should. Whether those left behind wishes for release, LWOP or death should not be relevant for the final judgment. If one was to follow your ideal, that would be a return to mob rule rather than a state governed by the law. The wellbeing of those left behind are a matter for health services - not the courts.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 26, 2012 6:43:37 GMT -6
Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." ' I have yet to hear of an execution where the death penalty was an absolute necessity - nor in the U.S., nor anywhere else.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 16, 2012 16:53:13 GMT -6
If the execution are to serve as a deterrent(which is really the only understandable reason for keeping the death penalty) - wouldn't the point be kind of lost if there was no publicity?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 13, 2012 17:18:38 GMT -6
Considering how pros complain about the difficulty of getting people executed nowadays - wouldn't it be easier just to sentence the inmates to "death of old age"? Thus they would live and die behind bars, which for all practical purposes would serve the same needs as other forms of execution..
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 12, 2012 17:46:55 GMT -6
Even if he was guilty, he didn't need to die. What, exactly, does a death sentence achieve that LWOP doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 11, 2012 16:31:52 GMT -6
Just to clear up misunderstandings: I am male, I am a murder victim survivor - and no, I have never been personally in touch with a death row inmate or anyone else accused of murder. Why anyone believes otherwise, beats me...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 10, 2012 9:05:30 GMT -6
There are several great things about Texas, by all means:) But their current governor shouldn't rule any entity larger than a small grocery store - much less one of the largest states of the union. Because of him and his fellow minded comrades, Texas is in many ways the laughing stock of the nation.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 10, 2012 8:49:19 GMT -6
Texas will, hopefully, eventually. It's really just a question of time - and elections, obviously. A governor with a certain degree of common sense and sympathy - in other words, more or less the exact opposite of their current nutcase governor - might actually get something done. I'd say that state needs all the help it can get...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 9, 2012 19:21:15 GMT -6
Until proven guilty in a court of law, a convict is just as guilty as you are. Under the law, a convict is guilty in every sense of the word. Guilty. Period. End of discussion. That burden was met at trial. at least, that's how it ought to be. It isn't, and shouldn't be. Perfect justice is neither possible or desired. Perfect justice is what the legal system should strive after - but considering how that seems impossible, there is, or should be, a moral obligation to let any doubt favour the inmate. There is never a need to take someones life - and least of all when said person is potentially innocent. If an innocent person is executed or dies in prison, that's an unjustifiable tragedy. If a guilty murderer gets to live, there is no real harm done.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 9, 2012 17:55:15 GMT -6
If such a rule is instituted, the same should obviously go for the prosecuting side. Anyhow - one of the most important things, if not THE most important thing to remember in any criminal proceeding is that any doubt should be considered in favor of the defendant. Considering the vast resources the police has acces to compared to the defence attorneys, that's only reasonable. Not post-conviction. Convicts enjoy the legal presumption of guilt. Until proven guilty in a court of law, a convict is just as guilty as you are. Thus, the burden of proof lies on the prosecuting side - at least, that's how it ought to be.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 9, 2012 14:45:38 GMT -6
If such a rule is instituted, the same should obviously go for the prosecuting side. Anyhow - one of the most important things, if not THE most important thing to remember in any criminal proceeding is that any doubt should be considered in favor of the defendant. Considering the vast resources the police has acces to compared to the defence attorneys, that's only reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 7, 2012 18:09:20 GMT -6
My guess is that people will eventually learn to deal with this, and realise that the death penalty isn't really worth all the stress, costs, misery and sorrow it creates. Hopefully, other states will follow.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 1, 2012 10:07:18 GMT -6
I doubt this is really worth taking seriously... The drug companies has every right to refuse delivery to whomever they wish, and other organisations have every right to make their opinion known. Considering how Lundbeck brilliantly mocks the TDCJ accusations, there are little reason to believe that their other claims of harassment is based in reality.
Besides - considering how the EU has taken a clear stance against the death penalty both in Europe and the rest of the world, one shouldn't be surprised that they have chosen to sponsor Reprieve and other civil rights organisations. I doubt the European Union - nor Reprieve - actually cares about what the TDCJ thinks, in this case.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Mar 16, 2012 20:46:39 GMT -6
May they both rest in peace
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Mar 16, 2012 20:44:23 GMT -6
... and this is why elected officials should never be involved in life or death decisions. The State Pardon and Parole Board's decision should be the last word. If it turns out he was in a mentally impaired state at the time of the crime and the states decides to kill him, that's a tragedy in itself. If it turns out he wasn't and he ends up spending his life behind bars, that's no great loss for anyone. No one dies, and no one runs the risk of meeting him again. Thus, it's a win-win situation.
|
|