|
Post by RickZ on Feb 11, 2005 5:15:03 GMT -6
also.... There have now been 118 former death row inmates freed following their exonerations. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many exonerations - surely there cannot be that many loopholes in the system whereby the genuinely innocent are being wrongfully incarcerated. My PRO feelings sometimes slip away when digging up this information Some of those loopholes have been closed by the police videotaping interviews with suspects. The videotapes put the kabosh on claims of police brutality or show the ridiculous nature of recanted confessions. Also, DNA evidence, when properly analyzed by non-interested, independent third parties [parties that do not take the police's suspect and make the facts fit the accused], helps solidify DP convictions. But DP convictions based solely on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence can be problematic, but still valid. Would Scott Peterson have gotten the DP if Laci and Connor's bodies had not been found?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 5, 2004 6:47:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 13, 2004 7:21:58 GMT -6
So, Deon Tumblin was crying for his Mommy and still behaving like a total sh*t when he'd been told to be a good boy. For far too many, reacting legally, harshly, to anti-social actions is unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 3, 2004 12:10:00 GMT -6
Why would you want to pay for multiple trials? He already has a death sentence. I would find that a waist of tax payers money. First off, appeals happen. And appeals can be a roll of the dice from the prosecutions standpoint. So, the more death penalty sentences he has, the better his odds of not escaping that fate. Also, the cases that are not tried are still officially open, since there is no conviction. The police quietly close the case, but the victim never has justice for the crimes committed against them. Ted Bundy had three Florida death sentences. Two, from the Chi Omega murders, were under appeal. He was executed for murdering little Kimberly Leach. The more death sentences a murderer justly receives, the safer society is.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Nov 28, 2004 7:42:19 GMT -6
as i think there is something that bring a person to killl...otherwise all men should be killers... And women don't commit murder? Thanks, but no thanks, for your sexist statement.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 18, 2004 7:24:35 GMT -6
Unless you walk in someone else's shoes, you should not judge them. Especially if you do not know the truth of the incident. Sheeesh. Now you want to get rid of the US' jury system, too! First, it's the DP. Next, it's LWOP. Now, it's the jury system. What's next? Let's cut to the chase: What, exactly, are you proposing to leave the citizens of the US to wield as a weapon against criminals? And if what you propose occurs, how are we to convict them? Ouija boards?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 10, 2004 9:07:19 GMT -6
While as I read what this woman did to this child and am appauled, this case hits closer to home and I do understand some of why she did what she did. Personally, she did not intentially kill the child. In her anger she snapped. Now, the question is, where did her anger come from? Having been raped at 6 and 11 is something that can plant a deep seed of anger, hatred, and a feeling that you are worth nothing. I know, I was molested at a young age and it really screwed me up. If someone does not get counseling and deal with what happened, that anger festers itself so far down inside that little things can set you off. Unfortunately, this little innocent child did something that brought back horrid memories and in a fit of anger, fear and frustration the child happened to be the target that was close. This woman does not need to be executed. She needs to be in a hospital where she can get intense counseling and medication. I'm talking years, not a month or two. Something like this one does not get over in a few days or months. It's an ongoing battle of evil that one has to fight on a daily basis I have said enough. Having read other threads on this board, I know I will be attacked for this view. I just had to express my feelings on the feelings of someone who was raped/ molested and abused at such a young age. You won't be attacked by me. You've presented a cogent argument, replete with facts and logic. Who can argue with that? I can understand the snapped part. Way back when, my sister told me about my nephew, who was an infant. He had, unknown to all, an allergy to cow's milk, so he cried all the time. She'd feed him to quiet him, but he'd scream all the louder. She told me how frustrating and close run the situation was. But frustration is not an excuse. It is a reason, and possibly exculpatory as a factor. I could see Shaken Baby Syndrome as a better excuse, not bashing in his little head. But still, it's an excuse. The little one of three months could not possibly cause harm to the mother. As to the long-term trauma of sexual abuse, that, too, I understand. And I do agree that there are long term effects associated with this crime, which tends to be passed down to others in a spiral of depravity. People who break this cycle are true heroes for humanity uphold. But, again, where do we draw the line? At what point is someone legally responsible for their actions? Are these crimes signs of mental defect? No, I don't think so. Are these crimes results of mental disease? There is the question. At what point does depression allow someone to get away with murder? Even if depressed, to cause harm, for which one doesn't care but still knows is wrong? The 'knowing is wrong' part is the issue. Can a full-blown schizophrenic have a rational ability to understand his actions? But when you get into areas of depression and frustration and pent-up anger, the question really becomes at what point do you have legally accountable status? From the article in guest's post, I find the comment from the psychiatrist Mary Henderson very important: "After listening to a chronology of drug abuse, assaults and other details of Henderson's life, Anderson said that Henderson 'has shown a lack of remorse. . . . She is deceitful, angry and has no respect for the law. Even in prison, anyone weaker or (who) has their back turned could be vulnerable,' said Anderson. 'If I were her cellmate, I wouldn't want her to be mad at me.'" Stoicism in criminal cases such as this does not sit well with me. Nor does a continued pattern of violence while incarcerated. While I do find your argument has merit, I defer to the police, prosecutors, judge, and jury who heard this case. Things come out in trial that do not make the papers, only that which is suitable for pro-inmate web pages and fanzines. If her environment is to be judged guilty of this crime, then the opening for all sorts of environmental claims will be put forth. Justice will then not be served because the environment will be responsible, not any one individual. And to claim the burial of the dead child showed compassion is ludicrous. But even more thin an argument is this: "It was a motherly thing,'' she said. "If she had killed that baby, she could have thrown it into a Dumpster.'' As if burying to hide the evidence of a crime and throwing it in a dumpster like yesterday's trash excuses either act. 'little child inside', at what point in one's life is one held accountable for one's own individual, and oftentimes unique, actions? I believe this woman was responsible for the death of a child, buried the child to hide her crime, and fled to escape any punishment for the crime. She had knowledge of what she did in a fit of rage, and was cognizant enough to try to avoid legal culpability. Does even excersizing the God-given privilege of procreation after losing custody of her two children from a prior marriage for abuse not make her somehow responsible?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 10, 2004 16:25:57 GMT -6
Too many people side with men . . . . . . and women . . .
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 10, 2004 15:47:43 GMT -6
If every state in the US had the death penalty, this whole problem will be solved. Unfortunately, that is not a panacea, either. The DA in the Bronx, Robert Johnson, made plain that he would never seek a death penalty in his borough, contrary to the law of New York, which, BTW, he is sworn to uphold. A few years back, a cop killer in the Bronx was arrested. Johnson refused to seek the death penalty. Gov. Pataki, of whom I'm not a fan, did the right thing in that case and removed the Bronx DA from the case, handing it over to the NY Attorney General's office. The matter became moot when the suspect hanged himself in a holding cell before trial. The same problem occurs with the Manhattan DA, Robert Morgenthau. He is personally adverse to the death penalty, but plays a slicker game. He has a staff that reviews cases that could be subject to the death penalty. Miracle of miracles, he has never sought the death penalty in a Manhattan case, either. The Brooklyn DA, Joe Hines, also opposes the death penalty. But that borough has had cases where it sought the death penalty, and won. The same situation holds true for the Queens DA, Richard Brown. Another issue is the election process of DAs across the country. Kowtowing to election politics, they can seek the death penalty in cases where it might otherwise be inappropriate, just to show their 'belief' in the death penalty, of how strong they support it. There is a wide lattitude given to prosectors when it comes to seeking, or not seeking, the death penalty. There is also the serious matter of cost. In some smaller jurisdictions, to prosecute a legitimate death penalty case can cause a severe financial burden on the jurisdiction, to the point that seeking a death penalty does not become a viable option. This just shows that a death penalty case may not be sought for monetary reasons, to the detriment of, and emasculating, the law itself. [These points of discussion come from a pro-DP advocate, BTW.] Can the seeking of the death penalty ever be equitable? I'm not sure. One hope is that the Federal Government can step in and seek the death penalty where appropriate; that would occur only if there is a tinkering with the Federal Death Penalty law itself. But allowing those who commit heinous murders to escape ultimate justice because of real or perceived inequalities in prosecution decision making is not a solution. either. As for killing the death penalty [pun intended], there is a very pertinent matter. Living inside Corocoran State Prison, in CA, and coming up regularly for parole is none other that Charles Manson. He escaped his death sentence when the Supreme Court overturned the death penalty in Fuhrman vs Georgia. With any luck, the Parole Board in the Land of Fruits and Nuts will deny him parole forever, but there is no guarantee of that at all; stranger things have happened. Then there is the poster child of murderers paroled as a result of Fuhrman, Kenneth McDuff. He got out and went on to kill again, finally being executed by Texas. CA now has, what, around 500 prisoners on Death Row? Where would these lovely, upstanding citizens be placed if the death penalty were overturned? And who would become at risk if placed in a general population setting? Certainly other prisoners, which would violate their civil rights, but also correction officers. While I'm at it, the idea using LWOP for these killers is a strawman. If ever the death penalty is overturned, pro-prisoner advocates would seek to have that sentenced removed on the grounds of it being cruel and unusual. Some have mentioned building more Supermax prisons. One problem is the cost to build and maintain such penal institutions. But another is that, presently, there are lawsuits against the Supermax concept, again, on the grounds that Supermax' are inherently cruel and unusual. Too many people side with men who commit evil acts. They are horrified that we would condemn these evil men to death. I, for one, am glad we do.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on May 20, 2005 8:16:01 GMT -6
Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, Tennessee has only executed Robert Glen Coe in April, 2000. From 1608 to 1976, Tennessee carried out 335 executions. Of those executions, 4 were women (3 black [1807, 1808, 1819], and one race unlisted [1820]). Things are looking good for Pike, historically speaking. www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdfAs of August, 2004, 10 women have been executed nationwide since 1976.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Jun 14, 2005 20:42:55 GMT -6
i have written 2 letters and recieved two from efrain and i am debating on writing a third. In the vernacular of this board, you are a scum-pal. What thrill do you get from writing a murderer on death row (even if only for a little while longer)? Showing remorse would be a good godd*mn start in taking responsibility for his heinous actions. And, no, remorse will not bring Jennifer and Elizabeth back. He can never make a postive difference to the families as he's already made the greatest negative impact he possibly can. Why would anyone write to such trash?
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Oct 23, 2004 8:25:04 GMT -6
Well I thought I had finally found a website that wasn't full of the excuses I find so often on the Anti pages.Yet I read these posts and they all say "I hope they don't buy the ticket ,they were just kids. . . . LOL!!! You read four posts by people so starry-eyed over the condemned that they desire to keep these "celebrities" around. Not all of us on this board feel that way! ----------- Macklin, good article. This one line really sums up the death penalty argument in one sentence: "Criminal justice is done individually, particularly, with a focus not on how people act generally, but on how this person acted in this specific case." It's called holding one accountable for one's actions, i.e., personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 2, 2005 9:26:38 GMT -6
Forget it Texas Ranger, we don't like you! I'm sure that makes Bush absolutely . . . heartbroken.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Feb 28, 2005 20:21:06 GMT -6
Sorry, but I hate the "everyone else is lying" defense. I hate it about as much as I hate the SODDIT defense. (Some other dude did it)
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Aug 28, 2006 8:00:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Mar 4, 2006 8:20:03 GMT -6
A translated German blog on the hanging of a 16-year-old Iranian girl for having premarital sex. (The original from Henryk Broder; thanks Currywurst!) medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/09/die_sddeutsche_.html"If some US court had sentenced a 16-year-old murderer to death, German newspapers would be beside themselves with indignation, Amnesty International would protest and Claudia Roth, the Federal Commissioner for Human Rights, would cancel her Weight Watchers meeting to travel personally to the USA to demand an appeal of the verdict. (...) Sometimes the SZ is worth reading. Where else is such a calm, balanced, and understanding explanation of the cultural basis for a murder? A commentary on livestock transport in India would have been written with more passion. However, in this case it is important to respect the cultural differences and to avoid the appearance of haughtiness. It tells us not only how the mullahs think, but also how the liberals tick as they sip their lattes and get excited about Guantanamo. (...) As an afterthough, we learn that the the official age of marriage 'after delicate negotiations between reformers and conservatives, was raised from 9 to 10 years,' also a step in the direction of more human rights and nearly a feminist revolution. One has to realize that the term 'official age of marriage' is merely a cheerful description of what the Americans call 'fuckability'. Or, to put it in terms that everyone who has a 'Heart for Children' and donates to UNICEF can understand: in Iran there seems to be two types of child fuckers. The traditionalists want to start with the 9-year-olds, while the reformers are not in such a hurry and prefer the riper 10-year-olds. Wine lovers also know that older vintages can taste better. If a girl can be *screwed* at 10, she can be hanged at 16; then she is at least spared the knowledge that her husband has left her for a younger girl. And if the miniumum age for executions is raised to 18 years, then the European-Iranian human rights dialog will really have been successful. That's what the SZ is trying say between the lines, subtly, unobtrusively, and considerately. We only have to continue this line of thinking a little: Soon the terrorists will no longer behead their hostages with dull kitchen knives, but will use solid axes with blades of Solinger stainless steel for their 'excections'. Human rights are for everyone!"
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 31, 2005 11:20:57 GMT -6
Moltar: Rickz is not doorguy. True. And I've never been a doorman either, although I do hold doors open for women, risking indignant glances and/or comments from feminists.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 30, 2005 7:33:45 GMT -6
Okay, I ventured into the fever swamps (thanks be to showers).
Good debate?
As opposed to what, a murder accomodating liberal?
A stream-of-consciousness run-on sentence which starts off with a complete falsehood.
Yet locking up such people with LWOP is viewed with disdain. Look at how corrections officers are derided by many antis. Don't kill 'em, but we won't help watch 'em, either. And forget money to build more fascist prisons. Besides, the death penalty's not all about vengeance, as we know. Only the superficial think that. There is a social contract that was pretty much ripped to shreds by the murderer.
Sorry, but I stopped here. The moral equivalence was suffocating.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 20, 2005 6:37:55 GMT -6
Well, obviously I'm a Kossack too, otherwise I couldn't post there. There are a few things that I don't agree with, but in general I'm still a Liberal. I find the quality of the writing there good to excelllent. It's like grading papers for a graduate seminar. And they do grab breaking stories on a regular basis. I've found other political sites, but nothing of such high quality. "High" quality? You got that right. LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 17, 2005 6:41:38 GMT -6
www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/8/25127/2565It's not a whole blog, just my "diary" as they are called. I just could not get across to these people what it's like to be a survivor. If you have a better way, I'd love to hear it! Any other comments welcome, too. "I just could not get across to these people . . . ." You are talking about the Kossacks, you know. Just getting across 1 + 1 = 2 is a tough sell on that site.
|
|
|
Post by RickZ on Dec 4, 2005 11:39:58 GMT -6
A Singaporean blogger's foray into the Nguyen execution. It is interesting on two points: 1) The Asian concept of saving face; 2) The fact that the family and death penalty opponents, by their being outspoken, assuredly removed any chance for the Government of Singapore to save face, and with it any chance to commute Nguyen's sentence. xenoboysg.blogspot.com/2005/11/volte-face-in-singapore-politics-nay.htmlWednesday, November 30, 2005 I have deliberately refrained from commenting on the death penalty for Nguyen until today. Holding out some misplaced hope that this entry will be unnecessary. But it’s a couple of hours before Nguyen hangs. And it is necessary now to speak. What I say will be brutally realistic. Mistakes were made. No blame is meant. This is an analysis on taking on the Singapore political legal system. And it all boils down to Face. It was all about Face. Whatever fancy terms political scientists or politicians can coin, Game Theory, Great Man theories, brinksmanship politics, realism, post structuralism, Asian values, sovereignty, National Interest, international law etc, when we analyse this Nguyen affair, it was all about Face. No disrespect to Rodan, political activists, lawyers, journalists and the politicians both Singaporean and Aussie, who have all come out with the same tropes to appeal and defend their respective positions in this affair. It was all about Face. Face is not a topic covered in textbooks. Face underlies a lot of political decisions West or East. But it is perhaps only in the latter where Face is an art form. Coded by Confucius. (The posting continues.)
|
|