Execution Halted

[Texsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/16/nevad...n.ap/index.html

 

I think it comes down to this, is there a way to kill someone that is usual? When killing someone becomes usual, we lose some humanity. I believe we should value all human life, even low life garbage like this monster.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/16/nevad...n.ap/index.html

 

I think it comes down to this, is there a way to kill someone that is usual? When killing someone becomes usual, we lose some humanity. I believe we should value all human life, even low life garbage like this monster.

 

 

Yeah. We value life alright........ The life of this piece of s*** gets a greater value assigned to it than that of the defenseless old lady he clobbered to death with a tire iron.

 

There are many ways to kill people that are usual. Bullet in the back of the head, electrocution, gas, hanging....etc......etc. For all the bleeding hearts who think lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" ( I can't help but laugh when I hear that ) I ask them to tell me what the preferred method of execution was when the 8th amendment was written. I guarantee you they weren't too worried about whether the perp felt pain back in those days.

[Texsox]

Valuing all life as sacred and valuable is less hypocritical than valuing some more than others, which is what your position does. You make it seem as if death is the only suitable punishment. Life in prison values both lives. I do not believe our government is perfect and do not feel comfortable allowing the government to execute humans. We've sent people to death row who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of.

 

If we allow executions, what could be considered cruel and unusual? Anything less than death could be considered better so all punishments would be allowed.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Valuing all life as sacred and valuable is less hypocritical than valuing some more than others, which is what your position does. You make it seem as if death is the only suitable punishment. Life in prison values both lives. I do not believe our government is perfect and do not feel comfortable allowing the government to execute humans. We've sent people to death row who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of.

 

If we allow executions, what could be considered cruel and unusual? Anything less than death could be considered better so all punishments would be allowed.

 

 

Valuing some more than others? Are you trying to place someone who committed a brutal crime on the same level as an innocent old lady? How do you justify that position? I also find it ironic that many of those who say that preventing executions "values life" are the same ones who approve of abortion. ( Not saying you hold that position personally ).

 

How is it so much more preferable to warehouse slime like this in jail......at the expense of the taxpayer...... for life than just eliminate it?

[BigSqwert]

Valuing some more than others? Are you trying to place someone who committed a brutal crime on the same level as an innocent old lady? How do you justify that position? I also find it ironic that many of those who say that preventing executions "values life" are the same ones who approve of abortion. ( Not saying you hold that position personally ).

 

How is it so much more preferable to warehouse slime like this in jail......at the expense of the taxpayer...... for life than just eliminate it?

How are we different than Saudis who behead? Why don't we just cut off the hands of thieves?

[Texsox]

Yes, I am placing all human life on the same level. So sacred that men in government have the same rights to take that life as men on the street. If he was murdered before trial, would you not prosecute the murderer? There is no higher value that I can place than on human life. It is impossible to calculate, and therefor can not be placed in a hierarchy.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

How are we different than Saudis who behead? Why don't we just cut off the hands of thieves?

 

 

Methodology.

[Harry Chappas]

Why aren't people allowed to make their own decisions? Unless the guy is deemed mentally incompetent why should the ACLU be allowed to step in? If the guy feels he should die for his crime as the courts state, why not let him. A tortured life of having to live with the horrendous crime you committed sounds a little like cruel and unusual punishment, does it not?

 

Also, doesn't it cost more to execute someone than to give them life without parole due to the legal costs associated with the appeal process?

[Harry Chappas]

Yes, I am placing all human life on the same level. So sacred that men in government have the same rights to take that life as men on the street. If he was murdered before trial, would you not prosecute the murderer? There is no higher value that I can place than on human life. It is impossible to calculate, and therefor can not be placed in a hierarchy.

 

Innocent until proven guilty and all appeals and stays of execution have been extinguished.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Also, doesn't it cost more to execute someone than to give them life without parole due to the legal costs associated with the appeal process?

 

 

It does......and that's a most unfortunate byproduct of a legal system which favors the rights of criminals over the rights of the victims they slaughter on a daily basis.

[Texsox]

I'd be interested in hearing your hierarchy of human values? Which lives are worth less than others?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I'd be interested in hearing your hierarchy of human values? Which lives are worth less than others?

 

 

 

 

 

Those who choose not to commit murder or rape or sell drugs or abuse the weak and defenseless

 

________________

 

 

Those that do.

 

 

It's very simple really.

[StrangeSox]

Valuing all life as sacred and valuable is less hypocritical than valuing some more than others, which is what your position does. You make it seem as if death is the only suitable punishment. Life in prison values both lives. I do not believe our government is perfect and do not feel comfortable allowing the government to execute humans. We've sent people to death row who were innocent of the crimes they were accused of.

 

If we allow executions, what could be considered cruel and unusual? Anything less than death could be considered better so all punishments would be allowed.

 

It seems like this point has been been ignored.

[Jenksismyhero]

It seems like this point has been been ignored.

 

It's an incredibly small percentage of cases. And really if you want to use that argument then we should just not prosecute people and put them in jail because mistakes have/are/will be made.

 

My personal belief is, just like every other fundamental right we all have, there are exceptions. When you take the life of someone else in the case of murder, you have lost your right to be treated as an equal with the rest of society. If that means death, then so be it.

[Balta1701]

It's an incredibly small percentage of cases. And really if you want to use that argument then we should just not prosecute people and put them in jail because mistakes have/are/will be made.

 

My personal belief is, just like every other fundamental right we all have, there are exceptions. When you take the life of someone else in the case of murder, you have lost your right to be treated as an equal with the rest of society. If that means death, then so be it.

Thus far, the Innocence Project counts 124 people who have been placed on Death Row since the re-introduction of the Death Penalty in the 1970's who have then been fully released with their names cleared. There are roughly 3300 people on Death Row currently in the U.S., over 600 of which are in CA. Neither of those numbers includes actions involving a person removed from Death Row but not fully released (a-la what Ryan did in Illinois a few years ago) which also numbers in the hundreds.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Balta1701

[Texsox]

Those who choose not to commit murder or rape or sell drugs or abuse the weak and defenseless

 

________________

 

 

Those that do.

 

 

It's very simple really.

 

Then God Bless

[StrangeSox]

It's an incredibly small percentage of cases. And really if you want to use that argument then we should just not prosecute people and put them in jail because mistakes have/are/will be made.

If the percentage is greater than zero, then we are allowing the government to murder innocent people. Incarciration is reversible. Execution is final.

 

My personal belief is, just like every other fundamental right we all have, there are exceptions. When you take the life of someone else in the case of murder, you have lost your right to be treated as an equal with the rest of society. If that means death, then so be it.

That's the whole point -- they didn't take another life and are wrongly being put to death.

 

 

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If the percentage is greater than zero, then we are allowing the government to murder innocent people. Incarciration is reversible. Execution is final.

That's the whole point -- they didn't take another life and are wrongly being put to death.

 

 

It's an acceptable risk. Just like we know that hundreds of thousands of people have died from car accidents yet we continue to let people drive; hundreds of thousands have been killed from acts related to alcohol, yet we still allow people to drink, etc etc.

 

The high and mighty moral position here of innocent life is just bogus in my opinion considering in all aspects of life we continue to walk through life knowing that people will die everyday.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Soxbadger]

I disagree that it is an acceptable risk, because I believe that life imprisonment is an equal, if not worse punishment than death penalty.

 

Death penalty is flawed for a variety of reasons:

 

1) I do not believe that humans are infallible, and therefore should not be able to end another persons life. A criminal case is a game, no game should be able to end with some one dieing just because one side played the game better. Prosecutors are playing to win, defense attorneys are playing to win, they are not playing to find the truth, or to make things right. If they have a suspect, and he is on trial, the game is conviction. Normally this is not a big deal because a 1 year sentence, life sentence, etc, while horrible can at least be salvaged at the end if turns out the guilty verdict was incorrect. The going rate for 1 year wrongfully imprisoned is about $1mil, maybe not as good as never going to prison, but I can tell you if I was wrongly convicted for murder Id much rather have spent 30 years in prison and get $30mil, than have spent 20 years in prison, been executed, and then 10 years after my death exculpatory evidence was found.

 

2) Death penalty presupposes that death in itself is a penalty. This is because for many death has spiritual ramifications, they believe the killer will go to hell, and face some worse fate than could be doled out in this life. But if there is no heaven, hell, or after life, death penalty is far superior to life imprisonment. Having to be in jail, confined, having all of your rights taken for the rest of your life, is far worse than the equivalent of sleeping. I wont even go into the idea that death could lead to something better for the person killed because this is all unproven and I really hate basing things on the unprovable.

 

I could go on, but basically I just dont believe that society killing 1 person wrongly is worth the death penalty. And Im not religious myself, but I have to believe that there would be some ramifications in the after life for wrongly putting some one to death, even if the govt allowed it, even if it was in line with the rules of the state, county, etc. Because many people have done horrific things following the rules of govt, but they are all just rules of man. And men are fallible, they are petty, they are wrong, and in the end they should not be deciding who lives or dies.

 

But then again, in my opinion, 1 wrongly convicted executed man completely undermines the whole system. Because it makes the system the murderer, and who pays for that price, who goes on trial and gets executed for that wrongful death.

 

(edit)

 

The state letting people drive, and the state actually putting people to death are apples and oranges. It would be like the state putting to death everyone who drove drunk because eventhough they didnt kill anyone, they might kill some one in the future, and therefore it is an acceptable risk to kill 1 drunk driver to potentially save the lives of others.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Soxbadger

[NorthSideSox72]

It's an acceptable risk. Just like we know that hundreds of thousands of people have died from car accidents yet we continue to let people drive; hundreds of thousands have been killed from acts related to alcohol, yet we still allow people to drink, etc etc.

 

The high and mighty moral position here of innocent life is just bogus in my opinion considering in all aspects of life we continue to walk through life knowing that people will die everyday.

While I agree that acceptable risk is part of many life-and-death decisions made by society... I think your calling the anti-death penalty position "high and mighty" and "bogus" is a over the top and maybe a but insulting. You may disagree with it, but its not as if its evil or something. No one is saying these people should go free.

 

And the reason we do less about traffic fatalities isn't about freedom, its about cost.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I disagree that it is an acceptable risk, because I believe that life imprisonment is an equal, if not worse punishment than death penalty.

 

Death penalty is flawed for a variety of reasons:

 

1) I do not believe that humans are infallible, and therefore should not be able to end another persons life. A criminal case is a game, no game should be able to end with some one dieing just because one side played the game better. Prosecutors are playing to win, defense attorneys are playing to win, they are not playing to find the truth, or to make things right. If they have a suspect, and he is on trial, the game is conviction. Normally this is not a big deal because a 1 year sentence, life sentence, etc, while horrible can at least be salvaged at the end if turns out the guilty verdict was incorrect. The going rate for 1 year wrongfully imprisoned is about $1mil, maybe not as good as never going to prison, but I can tell you if I was wrongly convicted for murder Id much rather have spent 30 years in prison and get $30mil, than have spent 20 years in prison, been executed, and then 10 years after my death exculpatory evidence was found.

 

2) Death penalty presupposes that death in itself is a penalty. This is because for many death has spiritual ramifications, they believe the killer will go to hell, and face some worse fate than could be doled out in this life. But if there is no heaven, hell, or after life, death penalty is far superior to life imprisonment. Having to be in jail, confined, having all of your rights taken for the rest of your life, is far worse than the equivalent of sleeping. I wont even go into the idea that death could lead to something better for the person killed because this is all unproven and I really hate basing things on the unprovable.

 

I could go on, but basically I just dont believe that society killing 1 person wrongly is worth the death penalty. And Im not religious myself, but I have to believe that there would be some ramifications in the after life for wrongly putting some one to death, even if the govt allowed it, even if it was in line with the rules of the state, county, etc. Because many people have done horrific things following the rules of govt, but they are all just rules of man. And men are fallible, they are petty, they are wrong, and in the end they should not be deciding who lives or dies.

 

But then again, in my opinion, 1 wrongly convicted executed man completely undermines the whole system. Because it makes the system the murderer, and who pays for that price, who goes on trial and gets executed for that wrongful death.

 

Six months from being a lawyer, and with plenty of experience in a trial setting, it's not a game. Talk to a victim of sexual assault, talk to someone who was shot because an intruder opened the wrong apartment door, they'll tell you its not a game. Yes both sides work towards winning their case, but that doesn't mean its just a game of competition. Law and Order et al has warped your mind I think.

 

And I disagree with point two. Death is a penalty. If you're dead, you can't kill anyone else.

 

And I understand you think its wrong that people are killed, and on occasion innocent people are killed. but why value those linnocent ives over the lives of drunk driving victims or hit and run victims or obesity victims or whatever? Take away peoples cars and make fast food illegal if your so worried about innocent lives being taken.

[Jenksismyhero]

While I agree that acceptable risk is part of many life-and-death decisions made by society... I think your calling the anti-death penalty position "high and mighty" and "bogus" is a over the top and maybe a but insulting. You may disagree with it, but its not as if its evil or something. No one is saying these people should go free.

 

And the reason we do less about traffic fatalities isn't about freedom, its about cost.

 

Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. I just find it odd that people consider one innocent life so important when we deal with death on a daily basis. If people are so strongly opposed to the death penalty because innocent lives are taken, then it shouldn't matter that the costs of society prevents us from protecting every life. How is that not a double standard? What if the statistics show that for every innocent person wrongly convicted and put to death, 10 lives are saved from criminals convicted of murder who kill again after they do their time? Would your positions change?

[Soxbadger]

Well I am a lawyer, and once you pass the bar and if you go into criminal work you will see that it is very much a game.

 

I also dont watch criminal shows.

 

Talk to the hundreds who were convicted on poor testimony, prior to DNA evidence, based on coerced confessions, etc etc.

 

Then tell me that humans should have the absolute final say on who has done right, who has done wrong, and what the truth is.

 

Compare high profile cases like OJ, to cases where they have poor defendants, cases with public defenders.

 

Perhaps you have gotten to criminal procedure 2, where you talk about jury selection, where you will learn about how stacked juries were in the middle of the 20th century, and how they were chosen to get a specific verdict. But then again, thats not against the rules, there are reasons for it, but at the same time both sides know that they are trying to stack the deck in their favor. It has nothing to do with the truth, it has everything to do with the verdict.

 

In 6 months if you go to work as a prosecutor for cook county, you will see that it is not about truth, veracity, etc. That it is about:

 

This is the guy, your job is to get the conviction.

 

But hey, my mind is just warped by Law and Order (which I never even watch), it couldnt be based on my experience and working at the Daley Center, 26 & Cali, etc.

 

If you want to argue why humans are infallible, why verdicts are never wrong, and why people should get the final say on life and death, go ahead.

 

If you want to attack me and tell me that my mind has been warped and condescend me, then I have a feeling you will be surprised.

 

By the way you said your 6 months from being a lawyer, I assume that means you are taking the Feb bar and will try and licensed in what April?

 

Or are you saying that you graduate law school next semester, have to take the bar next july, and wont get your license until next November?

 

Details are important to lawyers, with all your experience you should know that.

[Soxbadger]

Jenks,

 

Well Ive clearly argued that life imprisonment should be used instead.

 

Therefore they are never getting out of jail afterwards, and can never kill again.

 

So the amount of lifes lost from life imprisonment: 0

 

Amount of lifes potentially saved: All those wrongfully convicted, as of this time in the 100s, perhaps as science develops (less than 20 years ago DNA evidence was very raw) we will find out that we made even more mistakes. Mistakes that could be prevented.

 

That is my position, if you can prevent an innocent death you should try to.

 

I guess thats why I became a lawyer.

[NorthSideSox72]

Sorry, I don't mean to be insulting. I just find it odd that people consider one innocent life so important when we deal with death on a daily basis. If people are so strongly opposed to the death penalty because innocent lives are taken, then it shouldn't matter that the costs of society prevents us from protecting every life. How is that not a double standard? What if the statistics show that for every innocent person wrongly convicted and put to death, 10 lives are saved from criminals convicted of murder who kill again after they do their time? Would your positions change?

I know you weren't trying to be insulting, I just think you went a bit over the top in your characterization of those who find the DP morally repugnant.

 

Criminals who would otherwise be tried for capitol crimes aren't going to "go free" - they would be on life without parole. So I think the whole "remove them from society" angle doesn't fly, because its the same either way. That leaves three arguments in favor of DP, as I see it - cost, revenge and message (preventing crime via threat). I think the last of those three, and to a lesser extent the first, make some very good sense. But revenge is not a valid reason.

 

I am honestly on the fence on DP. I have zero problem with killing someone who has commited capitol murder. But, thing is, I agree with some others here about one critical point - no matter how hard you try to perfect the system, the occasional innocent will be sent to the chambers, and I am not sure that is acceptable to me. Unlike traffic deaths, they can be prevented very simply and for minimal increase in cost, by simple not having the death penalty.