Queen Prawn Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I know the judge changed his mind based on the jailhouse informant, but I thought the guy owned up to his crime (I swear I read that this morning, but I don't have time to figure where I read it, sorry). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 11:59 AM) I think they should just hang the SOB. I think beating him to death is a better option but thats not politically correct enough. IMHO there's no amount of pain too great to inflict on people like this. If I had my way they would be tortured without mercy until they entered a vegetative state then a bullet to the brain to end it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(CubsSuck1 @ Feb 20, 2006 -> 10:19 PM) What the die hard death penalty supporters fail to realize is that the American justice system is not intended to punish, but rather keep the threats to society away and in jail so that they cannot repeat their horrid acts. Capital punishment does a fine job of this, but is incredibly inhumane and assumes that himans are perfect in thought and are incapable of making any mistakes. We do not rape those that commit rape. We do not stab someone twenty some odd times if we believe that is the crime they inflicted on another. We should not kill someone that we believe has killed another. As mentioned, we cannot reestablish the lives of the innocent victims of capital punishment. The primitive justice system of 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole world blind, and I can rest easy that those such as nuke cleveland and minors, with their bloodthirsty, vengeful motives, are not in any position in this country to make decisions regarding how the lives of others should be handled. About as humane as sucking the brain out of a baby. No cruel and unusual punishment there right? An innocent child pays for his parents mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 03:02 AM) Doesnt it cost just as much money to put a guy to death as life in prison does? How much does a bullet cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 06:30 AM) And I love how this is somehow the state's choice to make. As a person who thinks the government is inefficient with poverty payments etc, Nuke...how can you give them the authority to take lives and believe that they will do it judiciously? I do believe a jury of peers convicted this guy. Hence, the state is carrying out the punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 05:02 AM) Doesnt it cost just as much money to put a guy to death as life in prison does? when you are on death row, you get a mandatory three appeals, which can sometimes account for the twenty year wait until the bastard is put down. that is the sole reason why it costs more money right now to put someone to death than it does to put them in prison for the rest of their life. when it is calculated, they are figuring in lawyer's fees (on both sides) and court costs, which in a death penalty case, are frickin' huge. its definetly something they ought to change. interestingly, when timothy mcveigh was on death row, he wanted to waive his three mandatory appeals and just die. no prisoner had ever done this before, and they made him go through the motions (HUGE waste of money) even though he didnt want to appeal his death sentence. its just my opinion, but i think the benefits outweigh the costs despite the legal $$ that ends up costing taxpayers more to put someone down instead of put them in prison forever. the system needs to be improved, but honestly, what system doesnt? some crimes merit the offender being killed- thats why i support the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Gleason Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 02:16 PM) How much does a bullet cost? Hell with that, take him to a local farm, put his head under a tractor tire, drive away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 04:16 PM) How much does a bullet cost? they used to literally do that in the soviet union. if you were sentenced to death, you were shot in a room behind the court chamber immediatly after being sentenced with a single bullet behind the ear. then your family was billed for the bullet. supposedly, that still occurs in china today, though i havent heard that much about it in a while. no, in the US, its the legal fees that end up making the carrying-out of a death sentence so astronomically expensive. my previous post which is probably right above this says why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 02:14 PM) About as humane as sucking the brain out of a baby. No cruel and unusual punishment there right? An innocent child pays for his parents mistake. I never said I was pro-abortion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The reason violent offenders are sometimes forcibly paroled is due to mandatory minimum sentencing via the War on Drugs. Judge James Gray (Libertarian candidate a few years ago) has written extensively on this topic. The vast majority of those arrested in the War on Drugs are non-violent offenders that have amounts for personal use with no intent to sell. The statistics of the nation further prove this point. Due to the DOJ and the White House (both parties) wanting to be seen as "tough on crime", they put mandatory minimum sentences in place -- which have severely tied the hands of trial judges. Since these people are forced to serve their mandatory minimum for having a few joints for personal use, violent criminals are forced back out on the streets due to prison overcrowding. The answer seems simple. End the War on Drugs and then you can keep violent offenders in for their terms and only release them if they are truly rehabilitated. And CKnolls -- my point was that true conservatives want to severely limit the power of the state. If you believe that they are too inept for poverty payments etc., why give them the power to kill? Especially after the DA's in many states have been busted for hiding evidence that would exonerate a defendant, having witnesses lie, DNA exonerating criminals that they believed were guilty. For a government to say that individuals taking life is illegal and morally bankrupt, then shouldn't this stand for the government as well? If they believe in the sanctity of life, then shouldn't it stand to reason that the state cannot violate such sanctity if it expects its people to do the same? Aside from the philosophical debate about capital punishment, there are plenty of practical reasons to oppose state sanctioned murder. As Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment...It is also evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society." And a little empirical evidence for that Marshall quote: Over 80% of people executed since 1976 were convicted of killing white victims, although blacks make up more than half of all homicide victims in the US. A defendant who can afford his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. 95% of all people sentenced to death in the US could not afford their own attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060222/ap_on_...ornia_execution Seems the whole Hippocratic Oath is keeping doctors from performing the "necessary" task. The American Medical Association, the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the California Medical Association all opposed the anesthesiologists' participation as unethical and unprofessional. The anesthesiologists would have joined another doctor who is on duty at all California executions to declare the prisoner dead and ensure proper medical procedures are followed. The doctor does not insert any of the intravenous lines and is not in the room during the execution itself; typically the doctor watches the inmate's vital signs on electronic monitors outside the death chamber. And it also says something about the death sentence for this guy when the trial judge no longer believes the jailhouse snitch in the case that upped it from life in prison to the death sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 I feel so sorry for the victim's families waited 25 years for justice then this. As the mother said "I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes," she said. "It feels like we just got punched in the stomach." The fact is the state of California chickened out and now looks like fools, send him down here to the south and we will take care of him. "These are not circumstances by which somebody ought to be executed," Well did the victim deserve to die by those circumstances. Shame on California Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Maybe the prison guards need to accidently set him into the general popluation then accidently give a copy of the Morales case file to a couple of strongest meanest inmates in San Quentin and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) A defendant who can afford his or her own attorney is much less likely to be sentenced to die. 95% of all people sentenced to death in the US could not afford their own attorney. Great number, but what does it actually mean? How many murders were committed by people who couldn't afford their own attorney? Its easy to throw bald statistics out there, but without context they are just a bunch of numbers. I don't have the numbers in front of me either, but we all know that a lot crime is directly related to ones socioeconomic standing in life. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to have committed a crime. For whatever reason, that is the way it is. To me its only logical that people who are the most likely to be committing crimes, are also the most likely to be committing the big crimes as well, so when you say 95% of people sentenced to death couldn't afford an attorney, it just makes me say "Duh". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsSuck1 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(minors @ Feb 21, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) I feel so sorry for the victim's families waited 25 years for justice then this. As the mother said "I'm totally disillusioned with the justice system. We've been waiting 25 years with the expectancy that he is gonna pay for his crimes," she said. "It feels like we just got punched in the stomach." The fact is the state of California chickened out and now looks like fools, send him down here to the south and we will take care of him. "These are not circumstances by which somebody ought to be executed," Well did the victim deserve to die by those circumstances. Shame on California Decisons of this level of importance should not be made under pressure of 'chickening out'. Heres an idea- let's take an intellectual look at the situation, then make a logical decision, rather than what you seem to be advocating: acting out of anger and rage becuase you're pissed. People can do incedibly stupid things when they get emotional, and this is no exception to that notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) Only in California folks. Now the death warrant expired, and the corrections dep't. has to go back to the judge who sentenced this jackass and get a new warrant to carry out the punishment. Only a little problem now exists: the judge has now changed his mind on the death penalty. How many more years of agony will this family suffer before this scumbag is exterminated? Equal Justice ???? :puke Edited February 22, 2006 by Cknolls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 If the judge has changed his mind on whether the death penalty is warranted in this case, it would seem to me to be a good reason to not allow the death penalty carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) If the judge has changed his mind on whether the death penalty is warranted in this case, it would seem to me to be a good reason to not allow the death penalty carried out. I believe he changed his mind on the subject in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish71 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 02:19 PM) If the judge has changed his mind on whether the death penalty is warranted in this case, it would seem to me to be a good reason to not allow the death penalty carried out. At that point in time, he was okay with entering in this judgement. The appeals process is where we can re-examine the case. We do not rexamine judgement or sentencing because of second thoughts or political change in a judge. Edited February 22, 2006 by southsideirish71 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:26 PM) At that point in time, he was okay with entering in this judgement. The appeals process is where we can re-examine the case. We do not rexamine judgement or sentencing because of second thoughts or political change in a judge. Would he remove himself from the case then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 03:08 PM) I believe he changed his mind on the subject in its entirety. Actually it is in this case that he is doubting capital punishment -- mainly because he no longer believes the snitch that upped it from life w/out parole to death. Yeah, the guy is guilty of the crime but the two things that upped it from life to death are debunked. Hence, his change in this case. That's why he was arguing with the governor for clemency in the case. But all politicians want to be seen as 'tough on crime' (a la Bill Clinton going back to Arkansas to execute a retarded guy) so clemency doesn't happen too often. And SS, the possibility of success with the death penalty is one reason they use it against those with public defenders. Those lawyers who make an assload of money would make it difficult for the state to succeed, hence the state not wanting to pay the extra costs without it being a 'sure thing' (well, as sure as it can get in making a case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:26 PM) At that point in time, he was okay with entering in this judgement. The appeals process is where we can re-examine the case. We do not rexamine judgement or sentencing because of second thoughts or political change in a judge. But if the appeals process allows for a death warrant to expire, the judge would by definition get to reexamine judgment by reissuing or not reissuing a judgment. And let's say its a religious decision. What if the judge said that he wouldn't be cool with putting anyone to death anymore because of it? How would you react? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minors Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 I see Texas is leading the nation again in executions this year. Texas uses the bring em in ship em out policy. Texas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 22, 2006 -> 04:02 PM) But if the appeals process allows for a death warrant to expire, the judge would by definition get to reexamine judgment by reissuing or not reissuing a judgment. And let's say its a religious decision. What if the judge said that he wouldn't be cool with putting anyone to death anymore because of it? How would you react? Judge can't cite his own religous convictions is handing down a verdict can he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BHAMBARONS Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 11:24 PM) Judge can't cite his own religous convictions is handing down a verdict can he? Not in most states I can't say for all the states. But there is a legal issue here with the lying in wait clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts