Oklahoma to use gas instead of lethal injection

[Unknown Pleasures]

"humane" executions are for the people watching, not the immate.

If we were talking about humane bullet to the head or gallows would be tops.

Yup. Bullet to the head while person is sleeping.

That being said, I don't agree with the death penalty.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I have supported the death penalty most of my life. I found this Willie Guthrie song, about 2 months ago, and since then, I believe I have flipped my position.

If I don't trust the government to confiscate guns, I certainly don't trust the government to have the power to murder its citizens.

Amazing, thanks for posting that. Makes me want to listen to some more Woody G.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Honestly I'm only in favor of capital punishment for pretty horrfic crimes where there is zero doubt as to who did it and in those cases I'm not to concerned if it's unpleasant

Sounds good in theory, extraordinary difficult to implement in practice. Massive slippery slope about "zero doubt." Mens rea, insanity defenses, errors in handling of evidence that would seemingly be conclusive.

Then you'd have lawyers arguing over difference between "zero doubt" and "reasonable doubt" when people struggle to define what reasonable doubt is. Then we know that line will be blurred depending on the quality of your legal representation.

I appreciate the sentiment (I have it too), but wouldn't bother trying to put it into practice.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The criminal justice systems purpose is to get justice for the victims.

Which is important since the system doesn't allow people to seek their own justice.

If I don't trust the government to confiscate guns, I certainly don't trust the government to have the power to murder its citizens.

Hence the jury of your peers.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Which is important since the system doesn't allow people to seek their own justice.




Hence the jury of your peers.

The judge decides life in prison or the death penalty, and both the jury, and the judge are supposed to be constrained by the letter of the law. Who wrote those laws?

I don't think our current day death penalty laws are unjust, but I don't think you need to look too far into our past to find the state abusing its power to murder their citizens.

 

[oldshadow]

The judge decides life in prison or the death penalty, and both the jury, and the judge are supposed to be constrained by the letter of the law. Who wrote those laws?

I don't think our current day death penalty laws are unjust, but I don't think you need to look too far into our past to find the state abusing its power to murder their citizens.

It depends on the state on who imposes the sentence, judge or judge.

"However, there are some occasions when a jury will decide a convicted criminal's punishment. For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it is up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-law-faq.html

 

[VivaRevolution]

It depends on the state on who imposes the sentence, judge or judge.

"However, there are some occasions when a jury will decide a convicted criminal's punishment. For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it is up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/sentencing-law-faq.html

I see. Makes sense.

Although that raises questions to the amount of risk involved in having 50 different sets of rules, and authority, to do this.

Seems like a lot of risk and room for things to go wrong.

 

[oldshadow]

I see. Makes sense.

Although that raises questions to the amount of risk involved in having 50 different sets of rules, and authority, to do this.

Seems like a lot of risk and room for things to go wrong.

It goes back to states rights. They must work within the frame work of the constitution but they run their justice system .

The feds take over in any crime that crosses state lines and a few other crimes.

 

[VivaRevolution]

It goes back to states rights. They must work within the frame work of the constitution but they run their justice system .

The feds take over in any crime that crosses state lines and a few other crimes.

Sure, but that is how the law is. I'm more arguing for how I think the law should be.

I don't believe you trust the government anymore then I do.

If this conversation is about whether disgusting crimininals who committed disgusting crimes should recieve the death penalty, that is going to be a losing debate for those against the death penalty.

If the conversation can be moved to whether you trust the government to have the power to murder its citizens, that is a winning argument against the death penalty.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The judge decides life in prison or the death penalty, and both the jury, and the judge are supposed to be constrained by the letter of the law. Who wrote those laws?

I don't think our current day death penalty laws are unjust, but I don't think you need to look too far into our past to find the state abusing its power to murder their citizens.

Juries know there could be death, to my understanding. And like you, I'm not aware of any unjust laws carrying the death penalty.

Abuse of power? Examples? If anything I thought the biggest threat to innocent people facing death has historically been faulty eye-witness testimony.

 

[oldshadow]

Sure, but that is how the law is. I'm more arguing for how I think the law should be.

I don't believe you trust the government anymore then I do.

If this conversation is about whether disgusting crimininals who committed disgusting crimes should recieve the death penalty, that is going to be a losing debate for those against the death penalty.

If the conversation can be moved to whether you trust the government to have the power to murder its citizens, that is a winning argument against the death penalty.

I think the jury should always be a part of the sentencing.

I don't see justice as murder but as justice for the victims .

The defendant has the right to choose to have a judge only trial.

Also the victims should always get to express there view.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Juries know there could be death, to my understanding. And like you, I'm not aware of any unjust laws carrying the death penalty.

Abuse of power? Examples? If anything I thought the biggest threat to innocent people facing death has historically been faulty eye-witness testimony.

Executions through 1865
21The vast majority of America’s mass legal executions occurred during a span of just over two centuries, as the population grew from about a quarter million to nearer forty million persons. Only about one eighth of the subjects of mass executions had been convicted of murder, currently the only crime for which persons are sentenced to death and that even then accounted for 60% of all executions. About one fifth of the mass executions involved crimes related to war (treason, desertion, mutiny, espionage), with about 9% involving piracy. If the small number of legal executions related to Indian uprisings are added to those related to slave revolts, mass executions for those two offenses by oppressed minorities against the ruling authority account for over half of the mass legal executions in those two centuries. Meanwhile, the most famous mass legal executions, resulting from the Salem witch trials, accounted for just 2% of the mass executions of the period prior to the end of 1865.

http://journals.openedition.org/chs/460#text

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Executions through 1865
21The vast majority of America’s mass legal executions occurred during a span of just over two centuries, as the population grew from about a quarter million to nearer forty million persons. Only about one eighth of the subjects of mass executions had been convicted of murder, currently the only crime for which persons are sentenced to death and that even then accounted for 60% of all executions. About one fifth of the mass executions involved crimes related to war (treason, desertion, mutiny, espionage), with about 9% involving piracy. If the small number of legal executions related to Indian uprisings are added to those related to slave revolts, mass executions for those two offenses by oppressed minorities against the ruling authority account for over half of the mass legal executions in those two centuries. Meanwhile, the most famous mass legal executions, resulting from the Salem witch trials, accounted for just 2% of the mass executions of the period prior to the end of 1865.

http://journals.openedition.org/chs/460#text

Ok. I'm more thinking during my lifetime though.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ok. I'm more thinking during my lifetime though.

Why?

Do you think in these terms on guns?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Why?

Do you think in these terms on guns?

I think in terms of what's relevant. Not sure how that stuff is all relevant to the current state of the death penalty. But go ahead, tell me what we're supposed to take from your post.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think the jury should always be a part of the sentencing.

I don't see justice as murder but as justice for the victims .

The defendant has the right to choose to have a judge only trial.

Also the victims should always get to express there view.

Again, the juries are supposed to follow the law. I don't mean to shit on juries, as many times in our history they have decided to think for themselves, and disregard the law, but the whole point is that our government is corrupt, and writes the laws.

Hence the point of that song, "I don't know who writes the laws."

 

[VivaRevolution]

I think in terms of what's relevant. Not sure how that stuff is all relevant to the current state of the death penalty. But go ahead, tell me what we're supposed to take from your post.

That it happened before, and it can happen again, and I see a government that is becoming more authoritarian.

I know you are aware we executed a 16 year old American citizen without trial.

What has the government done in recent history to warrant your confidence in their ability to decide who should live and who should die?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What has the government done in recent history to warrant your confidence in their ability to decide who should live and who should die?

None. I'm talking about trial by jury where fellow citizens determine guilt.

 

[Based and White Pilled]

String em up

Easy day

 

[VivaRevolution]

None. I'm talking about trial by jury where fellow citizens determine guilt.

Based on the laws with very strict instructions, limited room for interpretation, where the government decides what evidence and arguments are admissible to the court room.

Again, I don't mean to shit on juries. They are great. It is the best part of democracy. But lets not pretend that juries aren't controlled by the government in almost every way possible, while not holding a gun to their heads (figuratively).

Let's also not pretend that money doesn't buy platinum citizenship in a court room with elite legal defense that can trump even the assets of the state. While on the other end, someone with no resources may end up with a public defender representing 60 different clients in a month.