I think that if we simply raise the threshold to "beyond a SHADOW of a doubt" and end these presently never ending appeals, maybe the death penalty would have a deterring factor.
As it stands now, every crook knows that the death penalty is not only unlikely to ever be carried out, and if it does finally happen, it will be years, most likely decades in the future. If that same criminal knows that he will get his ass fried within months of being found guilty, the death penalty might just start deterring criminals.
Please keep in mind, I do not support the death penalty in any case where the guilt of the accused is in any doubt. The death penalty is a permanent sentence and cannot be undone, but once guilt is not at issue, I see no reason to let prisoners languish on death row for a decade or more.
There is a simple way to get rid of the scums and end the debate.
1. This is the NRA and Second Amendment country. Get the firing squad. I guess majority of those being executed here used guns to kill their victims.
2. Remember Sadam? Use the snooze and hang them. Two minutes I guess is enough.
No drugs, No courts, No lawyers and No Popes! Make it uniform in all states and Federal. No discrimination.
It has never been a deterrent, costs too much to carry out, and innocent people have been and still are on death row.
1. This is the NRA and Second Amendment country. Get the firing squad. I guess majority of those being executed here used guns to kill their victims.
2. Remember Sadam? Use the snooze and hang them. Two minutes I guess is enough.
No drugs, No courts, No lawyers and No Popes! Make it uniform in all states and Federal. No discrimination.
I think that if we simply raise the threshold to "beyond a SHADOW of a doubt" and end these presently never ending appeals, maybe the death penalty would have a deterring factor.
As it stands now, every crook knows that the death penalty is not only unlikely to ever be carried out, and if it does finally happen, it will be years, most likely decades in the future. If that same criminal knows that he will get his ass fried within months of being found guilty, the death penalty might just start deterring criminals.
Please keep in mind, I do not support the death penalty in any case where the guilt of the accused is in any doubt. The death penalty is a permanent sentence and cannot be undone, but once guilt is not at issue, I see no reason to let prisoners languish on death row for a decade or more.
I agree...it does take years to be carried out and I'm glad that it does. Since 1976 there have been approximately 150 death inmates that have been exonerated. The wheels of Justice should turn slowly for those that have given the ultimate punishment. We all know the fallacies of our criminal justice system...why should we be anxious to exact punishment?
As it stands now, every crook knows that the death penalty is not only unlikely to ever be carried out, and if it does finally happen, it will be years, most likely decades in the future. If that same criminal knows that he will get his ass fried within months of being found guilty, the death penalty might just start deterring criminals.
Please keep in mind, I do not support the death penalty in any case where the guilt of the accused is in any doubt. The death penalty is a permanent sentence and cannot be undone, but once guilt is not at issue, I see no reason to let prisoners languish on death row for a decade or more.
In many cases guilt is not an issue, and THOSE are the cases where I think that justice should be quick and decisive.
I will say it one more time, I don't believe in carrying out the death sentence in ANY case where guilt has not been proven beyond a SHADOW of a doubt, but in the cases that is has, why the delays for a decade or more? Why can't we give the victims closure, save the taxpayers money, and stop making a mockery of our own system, and perhaps make future perpetrators think twice about committing the same crime?
...to meet. There is always at least a shadow of a doubt, even where there is videotape.
You can find millions of people who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Eric Garner was murdered by the NYPD yet the officer will not be tried criminally, even at the lower reasonable doubt standard.
Here are the typical jury instuctions for reasonable doubt:
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt."
There's a shadow of a doubt that the sun won't come up tomorrow. Did you think last year that gasoline would be under $2.50/gallon now? Did you have a shadow of a doubt that would never happen? Why, you may have even placed a bet that it would never happen.
You can find millions of people who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Eric Garner was murdered by the NYPD yet the officer will not be tried criminally, even at the lower reasonable doubt standard.
There is ALWAYS a certain amount of doubt about things that are to happen in the future, and yes that includes the sun rising tomorrow. There can be no doubt about "some" things that have happened in the past, like the fact you have race baited in the past for example. Now if we changed that to "will you race bait in the future?" well then the odds are still in favor of it, but there is certainly at least some slight doubt that you will do so. I mean you could get hit by a bus tonight, which of course would end your race baiting days. lol
My point remains that the threshold of proving guilt in order to level the ultimate punishment SHOULD be a very high standard, and justice can still be served if we keep a convicted criminal behind bars, but alive as long as the matter of his guilt is in question, no matter how slight those chances might be. That said, some crimes and some criminals deserve to forfeit their right to live and in such cases as long as the guilt of the defendant is not in doubt no one is served by postponing the inevitable, except for a bunch of lawyers I suppose. Is that why you are against this?
I would expand the death penalty to include other criminal acts committed against people. This would depend upon the severity of the crime, and yes I know this would be the tipping point of a very slippery slope. Yes I could live with concept.
As it stands now, every crook knows that the death penalty is not only unlikely to ever be carried out, and if it does finally happen, it will be years, most likely decades in the future. If that same criminal knows that he will get his ass fried within months of being found guilty, the death penalty might just start deterring criminals.
Please keep in mind, I do not support the death penalty in any case where the guilt of the accused is in any doubt. The death penalty is a permanent sentence and cannot be undone, but once guilt is not at issue, I see no reason to let prisoners languish on death row for a decade or more.
It is not a deterrent but a "punishment" for a crime committed. You kill, you face it. Well with DA and Prosecutor like in Fergusson, MO innocent people will get killed and guilty will go free.
The remedy is not to eliminate capital punishment but to correct the justice system
After he was killed by the state 70 years ago. Don't you think he would have liked to lived?
Shittiest example of the year
You may not like the example....but the fact remains that state killed this innocent child without evidence. People get convicted every day based upon bad eye witness testimony, manipulation of evidence by the police and prosecutors, or just honest mistakes every day in this country. We also know that the quality of your defense depends upon the size of your wallet. Knowing this to be fact, having the death penalty misapplied to the innocent is an untenable situation.
Shittiest example of the year
I don't see any proof that he was indeed "innocent" IOW, he still may have actually committed the crime, but after 70 years I am sure we will never know.
Exonerated legally and "proven innocent" are two very different things. What is not in doubt is that this child, guilt or innocent, was railroaded by the legal system at the time.
That has ZERO bearing on today. In fact, when you bring up stats about prisoners exonerated since 1970 that's bullshit too.
Why?
DNA.
Many of those convictions are overturned due to the use of DNA as a positive identifier.
Now it is used to exculpate. AND eliminate any shadow of a doubt
Once again...you supremely display how clueless you are on any issue in which you participate. Not every capital case necessarily has DNA evidence numnuts.
Why?
DNA.
Many of those convictions are overturned due to the use of DNA as a positive identifier.
Now it is used to exculpate. AND eliminate any shadow of a doubt.
You're the one tossing lies out of your ass.
Why do you prove:
"People get convicted every day based upon bad eye witness testimony, manipulation of evidence by the police and prosecutors, or just honest mistakes every day in this country."
Of course, I know what you'll do. Instead of putting your money where your mouth is, you'll just dismiss me as "clueless" and move on to the next cop hating rant.
BTW, NOBODY give a fuck about your "feeling sorry" for the families of the assasinated officers in NY. Particularly after your rhetoric is responsible for their deaths.
Do not commit criminal acts which are punishable by death.
living in captivity if they could stalk and kill their prey . Solution to several problems is throwing the death row convicts into the cages with the big cats . The cats are happy , the tax payers are happy and the families of the killers victims are happy because they get to watch the asshole ripped apart .
Here is a great example video . A stupid drunk Hadji falls into the Tiger habitat at a Delhi Zoo. Oops !
the only thing that got shot was his death