Death Penalty

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
http://deathwatch.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/breaking-innocent-man-released-from-death-row/

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/national/12DEAT.html

Beyond those few examples, my point finds contention soley with your statement that 10 years is too long for someone to languish on death row. According to your perspective, they should be put to death moments after being found guilty; they should walk out of the court room and right on to the gallows. There is a reason the laws that govern these practices are in place...and it's not just to outrage those who are easily outraged. I'm no opponent of the death penalty, but it's just silly and reactionary to assume that the sentence should be carried out as soon as the initial judgment is made.

On a side note, you've hurled a lot of insults at me tonight. Are you feeling threatened?

Sad for you that my post went completely over your head.

Thank you for having a conversation with yourself, I guess.

And, hurling insults?

Where?

Please do point those out. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's DNA evidence, video evidence, etc. combined with guilty pleas...and it becomes rediculous. I already covered this with Robard, I don't need to go over it again.

You can probably think of a million of them 😉

What is ridiculous is blatant detachment from the actual legal system.

Everyone generally knows that DNA, video, witnesses or whatever only determen the extent of possibility of being found guilty AND responsible of your own actions.

You hire a lawyer who will KNOW you are guilty and will KNOW you will be found guilty and will activelly WORK for you to get life in prison as opposed to death sentance.

Lawyer where the evidence are incriminating will not work to find you ''not guilty'' but to lesser your sentance.

Justice can and is bought.

I think this is pretty obvious.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What is ridiculous is blatant detachment from the actual legal system.

Wrong forum for this. That needs to go to the conspiracy forum.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Everyone generally knows that DNA, video, witnesses or whatever only determen the extent of possibility of being found guilty AND responsible of your own actions.

You hire a lawyer who will KNOW you are guilty and will KNOW you will be found guilty and will activelly WORK for you to get life in prison as opposed to death sentance.

Lawyer where the evidence are incriminating will not work to find you ''not guilty'' but to lesser your sentance.

Justice can and is bought.

I think this is pretty obvious.

You know as well as everyone else that some cases have what I called earlier, inexorable convictions. Meaning, the evidence is stacked so high that it is impossible to not be guilty. I am referring to 100% conviction.

And getting life in prison as opposed to the death penalty is tangential what is actually being discussed. What is being discussed is simply a 100% conviction. Not a stupid testimony from a witness. Not expert opinion. Hard.core.evidence. If you think that those cases don't exist, then you're taking a shit all over the faces of the forensics community...and your rubbing it on you're hot body at a medium pace.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong forum for this. That needs to go to the conspiracy forum.

You know as well as everyone else that some cases have what I called earlier, inexorable convictions. Meaning, the evidence is stacked so high that it is impossible to not be guilty. I am referring to 100% conviction.

And getting life in prison as opposed to the death penalty is tangential what is actually being discussed. What is being discussed is simply a 100% conviction. Not a stupid testimony from a witness. Not expert opinion. Hard.core.evidence. If you think that those cases don't exist, then you're taking a shit all over the faces of the forensics community...and your rubbing it on you're hot body at a medium pace.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You hire a lawyer who will KNOW you are guilty

I'm pretty sure that's a breach of legal ethics in the most places.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Can you mention a case that is 100% flawless?

No. I can't mention ANY case. 😐

Originally posted by lord xyz
Can you mention a case that is 100% flawless?

When the murderer admits to the crime, that along with the evidence, is pretty good.

Originally posted by Robtard
When the murderer admits to the crime, that along with the evidence, is pretty good.

He wants a specific case. I guess that could be the gang leader/founder of the crypts that got executed recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

This guy should do.

Richard Allen Davis:

-Witnesses watched him kidnapped Klass from her home
-Evidence lead police to him as a suspect
-He admitted to the crime
-He lead police to where he hide her body
-DNA pinned him as the rapist/murderer
-He made a lewd comment about what Klass's last words where before he killed her

But yeah, we can continue to be the uber-liberal idiot and shout 'it isn't enough!'

Originally posted by Robtard
Richard Allen Davis:

-Witnesses watched him kidnapped Klass from her home
-Evidence lead police to him as a suspect
-He admitted to the crime
-He lead police to where he hide her body
-DNA pinned him as the rapist/murderer
-He made a lewd comment about what Klass's last words where before he killed her

But yeah, we can continue to be the uber-liberal idiot and shout 'it isn't enough!'

That would be the perfect example of someone to get rid if, if they are going to execute anyway. No need to keep that bullshit in the system or 10 years or more. Just conict, and a couple of weeks later, execute.

On the same token, if there is any room for someone to say it isn't 100%, then it should be life. I would rather err on the side of caution.

But that is just me.

POS child-raping murderer is less than 2 miles away from me right now, in San Quentin. Sad thing, he'll probbly be on deathrow for decades to come.

I'm against it.

I support it and am for expanding it's use

I am for it.

I'm against it, nobody should have to right to take anothers life. That's the reason murder is a crime.

I'm really not sure where I stand on it.

On the one hand there are people I want to die. Like the wackos that shoot up elementary schools, Terrorists that bomb buildings full of innocent people etc etc. Part of me wants them to not only die, but to suffer too.

Against. There are monsters of human beings out there, and death is too quick a release. Life in prison without chance of parole, limited privileges.

Mistakes get made, innocents die.

For the death penalty. Nobody steals my computer and gets away with it.

Originally posted by Samurai100
I'm against it, nobody should have to right to take anothers life. That's the reason murder is a crime.

But the murder took someone's life so what about him?