Death Penalty... For or against?

[Cold Front]

How? Killing a perpetrator won't bring anybody back.

Idiot. Has anyone ever argued that the death penalty brings someone back?

It's not about bringing someone back. It's about sending someone away - for good.

Also would raping a rapist also bring closure to victims n family members?

Proportionality is reasonable in criminal sentencing.

If done properly how? By taking away the right of appeal n this way executing more innocent ppl?

The appeals are not done to save the innocent. They are done to gum up the works of justice and save the guilty.

 

[speakhandsforme]

The appeals are not done to save the innocent. They are done to gum up the works of justice and save the guilty.

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. You clearly have no grasp of the work and legislation that has gone into expediting appellate processes. But when you're deciding if the state should kill one of its citizens, there's a certain amount of care that should be exercised-- and yet we still execute wrongfully convicted persons. Then there are people like you.

But, by all means, please point to the grassroots system that is working to waste money and "save the guilty". It's not like, you know, attorneys everywhere are being recruited into pro bono work to accommodate the huge caseloads and law organizations are constantly discussing new options to lighten the load on judges because of the strain of appeals. But, yeah, appeals are made to save the guilty hurr durr.

 

[Cold Front]

This might be the dumbest thing I've ever read. You clearly have no grasp of the work and legislation that has gone into expediting appellate processes. But when you're deciding if the state should kill one of its citizens, there's a certain amount of care that should be exercised-- and yet we still execute wrongfully convicted persons. Then there are people like you.

But, by all means, please point to the grassroots system that is working to waste money and "save the guilty". It's not like, you know, attorneys everywhere are being recruited into pro bono work to accommodate the huge caseloads and law organizations are constantly discussing new options to lighten the load on judges because of the strain of appeals. But, yeah, appeals are made to save the guilty hurr durr.

The endless appeals on behalf of those on death row are done to save the guilty, not the innocent. The death penalty abolitionists don't care about the guilt or the innocence of the men they are saving. They just don't believe the state should execute them. Period. You're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

No one argues - not even the abolitionists argue - that the infamous Night Stalker Richard Ramirez was innocent. But he sat on death row for more than twenty years as the groups which hate the death penalty sought to delay justice until Ramirez died of natural causes.

That was a travesty. The man deserved to have his life taken from him years earlier. The many families of the victims he raped, murdered and mutilated deserved to see him strapped to a gurney and watch the life be taken from him.

But the dumb abolitionists were appealing right up to the end - twenty-four years after the fiend had been convicted - and it had nothing to do with the man being innocent. It was just delaying tactic after delaying tactic after delaying tactic.

 

[grimballer]

Idiot. Has anyone ever argued that the death penalty brings someone back?

Its not about bringing someone back. Its about sending someone away - for good.

So how's that gonna makes things better for the family exactly?

Might as give the killer life sentence n torture him for the rest of his life.

Would that make it even better for a sick fuck like you?

Proportionality is reasonable in criminal sentencing.

So in other words rape the rapist, kill the killer, cripple the crippler...

What if the guy was speeding or DUI n run over a child, how you gonna explain to the family that their child killer will serve some time behind bars n then be a free man cause "he really didn't mean it". What difference does that make to them?

The appeals are not done to save the innocent. They are done to gum up the works of justice and save the guilty.

Well you don't know that.

All the ppl who were wrongfully executed were found guilty at 1st.

Without appeals even more ppl will be wrongfully convicted of 1st degree, when in reality it might be manslaughter or even innocent

 

[speakhandsforme]

The endless appeals on behalf of those on death row are done to save the guilty, not the innocent. The death penalty abolitionists don't care about the guilt or the innocence of the men they are saving. They just don't believe the state should execute them. Period. You're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

No one argues - not even the abolitionists argue - that the infamous Night Stalker Richard Ramirez was innocent. But he sat on death row for more than twenty years as the groups which hate the death penalty sought to delay justice until Ramirez died of natural causes.

That was a travesty. The man deserved to have his life taken from him years earlier. The many families of the victims he raped, murdered and mutilated deserved to see him strapped to a gurney and watch the life be taken from him.

But the dumb abolitionists were appealing right up to the end - twenty-four years after the fiend had been convicted - and it had nothing to do with the man being innocent. It was just delaying tactic after delaying tactic after delaying tactic.

You aren't making a point and just completely ignored the points I brought up, which I expected.

The allowances for appeals are meant to protect all convicted. There isn't some arbitrary way to deny proper appeals processes to persons that you personally think are undeniably guilty-- if that was the case, the amount of wrongfully executed minorities throughout decades past would be exponentially higher than the still-shocking number that is coming to light (not that there aren't ample enough white folks also wrongfully executed). Surely you see that there is no procedural way to honestly and efficiently deny some the rights of many with the necessary objectivity.

You can harp on "abolitionists" all you want: they don't define statutes on appeal processes or on appellate oversight. You're arguing against a straw man because you clearly, clearly had no concept of the actual system before touting an ignorant statement.

Unless, of course, you have a secret system that could solve the issue that the world has not yet figured out.

 

[grimballer]

The endless appeals on behalf of those on death row are done to save the guilty, not the innocent. The death penalty abolitionists don't care about the guilt or the innocence of the men they are saving. They just don't believe the state should execute them. Period. You're an idiot if you believe otherwise.

No one argues - not even the abolitionists argue - that the infamous Night Stalker Richard Ramirez was innocent. But he sat on death row for more than twenty years as the groups which hate the death penalty sought to delay justice until Ramirez died of natural causes.

That was a travesty. The man deserved to have his life taken from him years earlier. The many families of the victims he raped, murdered and mutilated deserved to see him strapped to a gurney and watch the life be taken from him.

But the dumb abolitionists were appealing right up to the end - twenty-four years after the fiend had been convicted - and it had nothing to do with the man being innocent. It was just delaying tactic after delaying tactic after delaying tactic.

So let's say they did execute him, would you pop champagne bottles n drop confetti?

Are you really that miserable?

Maybe he was truly guilty, however there are also those who were sentenced to death at 1st, but then exonerated after the appeal.

Your Ramirez guy spend the rest of his life in jail n didn't hurt anybody else, while many others who were wrongfully sentence to death had the opportunity to avoid dp through appeals.

Having a guilty guy sitting the rest of his life in jail n an innocent man having a possibility to avoid dp > both of them getting executed

 

[Hog-train]

Which is why I asked that if we could completely remove the risk of wrongful executions would your position change. You admitted it wouldn't. That makes this whole argument about wrongful executions toothless. You're literally arguing over a position that you don't believe is decisive because you do have the opinion that the state should not kill people.

You're presenting the wrongful execution argument because you think it might convince me, not because it convinces you. What concerns you is the state's power to kill, not that it sometimes kills the wrong person.

You are saying wrongful conviction is the only argument against the death penalty- when it's just one factor.

For me personally, I agree with the death penalty... in theory. Because if someone killed someone I care about, I would definitely want them dead. So I would be hypocritical for being against it.

So I support the death penalty- but only in cases where the proof is irrefutable - like DNA.

However, we already know there are cases where people got sentenced on flimsier evidence than that.

Also:

1. The death penalty is not meted out fairly. There is definite racial bias in sentencing. As well as bias on a socioeconomic level.

Every courthouse has a woman with a blindfold on, signalling justice is blind. But it's not at all. Justice is tilted heavily in favor of the haves vs the have nots.

If you're going to kill someone, do it to everyone for the same crimes.

2. As mentioned before, it's much more expensive.

3. Wrongfully executing someone is worse than wrongfully imprisoning someone. At least the wrongfully imprisoned can have some level of redemption and let go. Even get some money in a civil case.

4. Your attempt to separate the flaws of the conviction phase with the sentencing phase is false.

Because: a. they are invariably linked.

b. There are flaws in the sentencing phase as well. Two people who did the same crime where one gets death while the other gets imprisonment. It's completely arbitrary based on the area you are from, the individual judge you get, your race, your socioeconomic status., what kind of lawyer you can afford, etc.

And the death penalty is utilitarian. Practical does not require perfect. My approach maximizes outcomes for free society, prison society, and prison guards.

You keep saying the death penalty is practical when, to a gov't official doing the budget, it's completely impractical.

Death penalty often costs millions more than life imprisonment. Therefore, it's completely impractical from a fiscal standpoint.

You keep saying those millions spent are worth it- to make sure they are guilty. Well yes I agree with that- but that doesn't make it practical.

 

[Sabin]

I'm not sure why anyone would accept that study.

Even the capital punishment abolitionists don't put forward anywhere near that number of arguable cases, and they highlight some questionable cases. There's not a single definitive proven case of an innocent man being put to death since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976.

I can't seem to find the source, but I remember reading on a credible site that the 1.4% estimate is a widely accepted one.

The 4% was to sensationalize a little, as that's the highest I've seen from a credible source, but it seems to be a good worst case scenario bound. Unfortunately no one knows the true number and it's all estimates.

 

[Cold Front]

So how's that gonna makes things better for the family exactly?

They get to know that the puke who tortured, raped, and/or murdered their child or sibling or parent is now dead and can no longer derive any enjoyment from life. He can't smile when he sees someone get shanked. He can't get conjugal visits in prison. He can't get fan letters. The dead receive none of those privileges.

Might as give the killer life sentence n torture him for the rest of his life.

Would that make it even better for a sick fuck like you?

It might. But I would like it better if you were forced to live in a cell with him as his bedmate until he was executed. Best of both worlds, I say. You would get a firsthand education into the kind of person you're defending, and he would still get the chair, noose, or needle.

So in other words rape the rapist, kill the killer, cripple the crippler...

You must not know what the word proportionality means. Let me help you: It's not an eye for an eye. It simply means that the punishment fits the crime.

But certainly an eye for an eye would be a better justice system than the one you're pushing for that allows the worst of murderers to continue enjoying their lives.

What if the guy was speeding or DUI n run over a child, how you gonna explain to the family that their child killer will serve some time behind bars n then be a free man cause "he really didn't mean it". What difference does that make to them?

Can this really be a question written by someone with a college education?

Well you don't know that.

I do know that.

All the ppl who were wrongfully executed were found guilty at 1st.

Like who? Give me your best case for an innocent executed after 1976.

Without appeals even more ppl will be wrongfully convicted of 1st degree, when in reality it might be manslaughter or even innocent

I'm not for denying appeals. Appeals are a good thing.

I'm for denying the deliberate gumming of the works that abolitionist groups help fund, whose purpose is not to help prove innocence, but to deliberately put off the sentence of the guilty with staling tactics and other legal maneuvers.

 

[Cold Front]

You aren't making a point and just completely ignored the points I brought up, which I expected.

The allowances for appeals are meant to protect all convicted. There isn't some arbitrary way to deny proper appeals processes to persons that you personally think are undeniably guilty-- if that was the case, the amount of wrongfully executed minorities throughout decades past would be exponentially higher than the still-shocking number that is coming to light (not that there aren't ample enough white folks also wrongfully executed). Surely you see that there is no procedural way to honestly and efficiently deny some the rights of many with the necessary objectivity.

You can harp on "abolitionists" all you want: they don't define statutes on appeal processes or on appellate oversight. You're arguing against a straw man because you clearly, clearly had no concept of the actual system before touting an ignorant statement.

Unless, of course, you have a secret system that could solve the issue that the world has not yet figured out.

You're an idiot. Appeals don't take twenty years to work their way through the courts. The abolitionists use the law as a stalling tactic. They aren't seeking genuine appeals to prove innocence. They use them to delay justice, so that the guilty die in their beds rather than on a gurney.

This point isn't disputable. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Are Opponents Of The Death Penalty Contributing To Its Problems?

San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos, who is handling the case, blames the long delay on Cooper's multiple appeals in state and federal courts.

"This is all a big strategic plan to really manipulate the system to attack capital punishment, not just in California, but in the United States," Ramos says.

The death penalty is under considerable pressure, both from court decisions and a series of problematic executions, including one this week in Arizona. Six states have abolished the death penalty over the past seven years.

Death penalty supporters such as Ramos say this is no accident. They believe opponents intentionally toss sand in the gears of the execution process, and then complain that the system doesn't work.

"It's a delaying tactic that then allows them to scream it's unconstitutional because it's been delayed too long," Ramos says.

Of course the NPR article goes on to say that defense attorneys disagree.

Even Supreme Court Justices recognize what is going on:

 

[speakhandsforme]

You're an idiot. Appeals don't take twenty years to work their way through the courts. The abolitionists use the law as a stalling tactic. They aren't seeking genuine appeals to prove innocence. They use them to delay justice, so that the guilty die in their beds rather than on a gurney.

This point isn't disputable. You just don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Are Opponents Of The Death Penalty Contributing To Its Problems?



Of course the NPR article goes on to say that defense attorneys disagree.

Even Supreme Court Justices recognize what is going on:



You just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Death penalty abolitionists are fighting in every conceivable way to stop the death penalty. Any delay to them is a good delay, and they do't care whether the delays they throw up prevent the execution of evil men. They still support doing it.

You aren't fucking getting this. Activist don't shape the system. I work in the system: it doesn't work that way. You can lament the actions of activist groups all you want: THAT DOESN'T MATTER IN REGARD TO THE APPEALS PROCESSES IN PLACE. Do said groups care particularly about the innocence of specific defendants? Probably not. You're right about that. But being right about an irrelevant fact doesn't mean shit.

You're just ignoring facts to argue against straw men who have no placement in the discussion. You said the system is meant to defend the guilty. That's a moronic statement from an uninformed perspective. The guidelines in place are set by legislators, judges, and lawyer associations to best protect all death penalty defendants. There is no way to arbitrarily discriminate against ones you don't like.

But, again, (and I'm sure you'll just ignore this yet again), please propose a revision to the system which the world has not yet figured out? Can't? That's what I thought.

So, again. Moron.

 

[Cold Front]

You aren't fucking getting this. Activist don't shape the system. I work in the system: it doesn't work that way.

What's it mean to "work in the system"? And given your lack of brains, why should I care?

I just gave you two sources with people who also work in the system and they disagree with you. So unless you want to get very specific about how your experience trumps their experience, you have no standing.

You can lament the actions of activist groups all you want: THAT DOESN'T MATTER IN REGARD TO THE APPEALS PROCESSES IN PLACE. Do said groups care particularly about the innocence of specific defendants? Probably not. You're right about that. But being right about an irrelevant fact doesn't mean shit.

Of course it does. These perps don't have the money or the brains to strategize clever delaying tactics. Almost all of them have state-appointed lawyers. They need institutional support to delay in the courts in the way they do. And the capital punishment abolitionists give it to them.

You're just ignoring facts to argue against straw men who have no placement in the discussion. You said the system is meant to defend the guilty. That's a moronic statement from an uninformed perspective. The guidelines in place are set by legislators, judges, and lawyer associations to best protect all death penalty defendants. There is no way to arbitrarily discriminate against ones you don't like.

Sure there is. You fund endless appeals on bullshit rationales (i.e., is the drug the state is using painless? is the death penalty too arbitrary) to lengthen the period before the state can execute a convicted murderer.

But, again, (and I'm sure you'll just ignore this yet again), please propose a revision to the system which the world has not yet figured out? Can't? That's what I thought.

Just shorten the appeals process to ten years max. Why in God's name does it take nearly three years for the state to even go to trial in a case like that involving James Holmes?

 

[speakhandsforme]

What's it mean to "work in the system"? And given your lack of brains, why should I care?

I just gave you two sources with people who also work in the system and they disagree with you. So unless you want to get very specific about how your experience trumps their experience, you have no standing.

My experience, being a lowly law student clerking for a state appellate court, does not trump the experience of the judges and attorneys you cited. Thankfully, however, none of them actually said anything supportive of your vapid argument. I didn't read the WSJ article by Bravin, but I'm assuming that the article (written by someone who is markedly not apart of the "system") is as much of a dud as your other, at least in regard to supporting your argument.

Of course it does. These perps don't have the money or the brains to strategize clever delaying tactics. Almost all of them have state-appointed lawyers. They need institutional support to delay in the courts in the way they do. And the capital punishment abolitionists give it to

Sure there is. You fund endless appeals on bullshit rationales (i.e., is the drug the state is using painless? is the death penalty too arbitrary) to lengthen the period before the state can execute a convicted murderer.



Just shorten the appeals process to ten years max. Why in God's name does it take nearly three years for the state to even go to trial in a case like that involving James Holmes?

Holy fucking shit.

Firstly, your sources do not claim anything--- these straw men activists still have no bearing on the system and it's not claimed that they do.

Here, from your NPR article (had you thoroughly vetted the source, you may have discovered answers to your questions):

But many of the delays aren't caused by defense attorneys, rather the very lack of them, Denno says. In California, it can take years for a condemned prisoner even to be appointed counsel, and years more to wait for what is known as a post-conviction hearing.

In the California case, Carney specifically looked at delays that were the fault of the state, not of the prisoner.

Luby says defense appeals aren't frivolous but rather serious attempts at making sure the irrevocable death penalty is carried out justly and properly. He notes that many sentences are vacated on appeal and contends that challenges against lethal injection have been vindicated by the many problems seen just this year.

In the Arizona case, the Supreme Court had lifted the stay of execution granted by an appellate court based on death row inmate Joseph Wood's right to know more the state's drug sources and methodology.

So, tell me, what supports your argument?

The system is in place because the very concept of the state killing a citizen requires maximum oversight and leaving no stone unturned. Your citing of "arbitrary" appeals justifications really just further indicts you as a complete novice in this area. Appeals are very thoroughly vetted and thrown out on notice if the JUDGES do not find them worthy of inspection.

Wanna fix it? Try and pass legislation to influx the system with a few billion dollars to expand the arena and the amount of state-paid attorneys.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court, ALI, UCCC, ABA, ALA, and every other professional in this field sides with me.

On your side? A weird overstated disdain for activists.

 

[Cold Front]

My experience, being a lowly law student clerking for a state appellate court, does not trump the experience of the judges and attorneys you cited. Thankfully, however, none of them actually said anything supportive of your vapid argument.

They did say it, so I guess there is at least one "lowly law student clerking for a state appellate court" who is functionally illiterate and unable to comprehend a basic argument. Doesn't speak well for the future of the country.

I didn't read the WSJ article by Bravin, but I'm assuming that the article (written by someone who is markedly not apart of the "system") is as much of a dud as your other, at least in regard to supporting your argument.

Are you talking about Justice Samuel Alito, who claimed the purpose of the case before the Court was that it was part of a "guerrilla warfare campaign against the death penalty"?

Hell, even my language wasn't as strong as Alito's.

Firstly, your sources do not claim anything--- these straw men activists still have no bearing on the system and it's not claimed that they do.

Yes, that assertion is quite clearly made, but I guess you have to understand English text to comprehend it.

So, tell me, what supports your argument?

Hmmm. I wonder why it is that these high-profile death penalty cases can't find any lawyers to represent them ... until *after* they are convicted?

Hmmm. It's a mystery.

....except to the non-retarded, who immediately understand that the death penalty abolitionists are under no incentive to speed up a potential death penalty trial by helping the accused quickly find legal representation. They save their money for gumming up the works, not spending it on fair trials.

The system is in place because the very concept of the state killing a citizen requires maximum oversight and leaving no stone unturned.

Horseshit. That doesn't explain the wide variance in how quickly some states (and the federal government, when it is motivated) are implementing the death penalty and how slowly it is implemented in others.

And the reason is that some states, like California, make it very easy for these death penalty abolitionists to gum up their works and some states, like Texas, do not.

Your citing of "arbitrary" appeals justifications really just further indicts you as a complete novice in this area. Appeals are very thoroughly vetted and thrown out on notice if the JUDGES do not find them worthy of inspection.

Except that judges are also politically motivated on this issue, but because the public retaliated against many on the bench who took an unpopular stand against the death penalty (see Rose Byrd in California), these judges now make indirect attacks on the death penalty by accepting frivolous cases that slow things down.

Wanna fix it? Try and pass legislation to influx the system with a few billion dollars to expand the arena and the amount of state-paid attorneys.

Otherwise, the Supreme Court, ALI, UCCC, ABA, ALA, and every other professional in this field sides with me.

And pay for some poor illiterate law student to get some entry-level legal job to help pay off his student loans? Fuck that.

I'd rather see real reform rather than some payoff to a group that doesn't need it and which is still going to try and undermine the death penalty even if it does get the money.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Once again, you've completely dick-tucked from your original argument and keep trying to set up your "abolitionist" straw man. It doesn't work and it makes you look, beyond being uninformed, weak and petty. We are talking about the appellate process and the safeguards in place.

Are you talking about Justice Samuel Alito, who claimed the purpose of the case before the Court was that it was part of a "guerrilla warfare campaign against the death penalty"?

Hell, even my language wasn't as strong as Alito's.

Hahahaha. Firstly, Alito was not in the NPR article and, as I mentioned previously, I did not read the Wall Street piece. Secondly, Alito's "guerrilla warfare" quote was in reference to abolitionists indicting the constitutionality of lethal injection-- that is IN NO WAY RELATED TO APPELLATE PROCESS STATUTES. Furthermore, whether you support lethal injection or not (I'm not of a particular stance on the issue), Alito's reasoning, stated elsewhere, is hilarious.

"Justice Samuel Alito found that current lethal injection drugs, however unreliable, must be constitutional because lethal injection is itself constitutional"

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122196/samuel-alito-death-painful-so-why-not-lethal-injection

Yes, that assertion is quite clearly made, but I guess you have to understand English text to comprehend it.

Then find it. Quote it, source it, place it here. You might as well argue that BLM protesters have a great influence on the goings on and procedural setup of my local traffic court because of the fact that they are protesting outside of it.

But please don't argue that. I can only take so many laughable attempts at logic.

Hmmm. I wonder why it is that these high-profile death penalty cases can't find any lawyers to represent them ... until *after* they are convicted?

Hmmm. It's a mystery.

....except to the non-retarded, who immediately understand that the death penalty abolitionists are under no incentive to speed up a potential death penalty trial by helping the accused quickly find legal representation. They save their money for gumming up the works, not spending it on fair trials.

Ahh, yes, it is attorneys with secret motives, which just so happen to permeate throughout each and every nook and cranny of our appellate system. THAT's why the processes are how they are stated.

Even if that were the case, it STILL betrays your point. You are claiming that specific attorneys are abusing the agreed upon rules: not that the system (rules, statutes, procedural guidelines) is meant to defend the guilty.

Horseshit. That doesn't explain the wide variance in how quickly some states (and the federal government, when it is motivated) are implementing the death penalty and how slowly it is implemented in others.

And the reason is that some states, like California, make it very easy for these death penalty abolitionists to gum up their works and some states, like Texas, do not.

"Horseshit" may have been your most cogent argument yet. Yes, there is a variance in the implementation of the death penalty, as there should be in different legal cultures (California vs. Texas), however, as agreed upon by the NCCUSL, the same logistical and administrative statutes are in place (with some exception, particularly to Louisiana).

Except that judges are also politically motivated on this issue, but because the public retaliated against many on the bench who took an unpopular stand against the death penalty (see Rose Byrd in California), these judges now make indirect attacks on the death penalty by accepting frivolous cases that slow things down.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you realize how much more invested judges are about protecting their opinions from appellate or Supreme Court judges, and the corresponding publishing and historicizing of their miscues than the fucking public? I might have to quote this, so I can actually convince people that there's someone stupid enough to believe that 1) activists outside the courtroom dictate the procedural statutes set forth by thousands of legal minds 2) there is some secret coalition of defense attorneys that are bogging down the system as some continuous political gesture and 3) that judges are purposefully ruling against the grain of set statutes to which they are bound (legally or persuasively) for the sake of appeasing the general public, when, in fact, more than 60% of Americans favor the death penalty outright.

They did say it, so I guess there is at least one "lowly law student clerking for a state appellate court" who is functionally illiterate and unable to comprehend a basic argument. Doesn't speak well for the future of the country.

And pay for some poor illiterate law student to get some entry-level legal job to help pay off his student loans? Fuck that.

I'd rather see real reform rather than some payoff to a group that doesn't need it and which is still going to try and undermine the death penalty even if it does get the money.

Ad homs like this won't rustle me. Although I don't consider myself the highest of opinions on this forum (there are some posters here who I truly respect), I'm fairly comfortable knowing that I'm more proficient than you, on this topic and probably most that require an inkling of reasoning ability. And, in regard to my education and my future employment, I'll make sure to send you a postcard, as I'm fairly confident in my prospects.


You've embarrassed yourself. But, please, go ahead and make the exact same post for the fifth time, using the same straw man, peddling the same softballs my way.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Also, another (third?) nice dick tuck and dodge on the reform issue. If suggesting a ten-year cap on all capital cases is your best solution, then you should reconvene with the millions of illiterate Facebook grandparents who also haven't figured out the basic impropriety of that approach, which I assure you has been justly indicted by history again and again.

 

[grimballer]

They get to know that the puke who tortured, raped, and/or murdered their child or sibling or parent is now dead and can no longer derive any enjoyment from life. He can't smile when he sees someone get shanked. He can't get conjugal visits in prison. He can't get fan letters. The dead receive none of those privileges.

But those who's family member got killed by a drunk driver don't get the same benefits? Makes sense...

Also you really have to be a miserable person when someone's death makes you feel better about yourself.

Is it the case of abuse earlier in life n now you have no empathy n look forward to ppl being executed even if some of them are innocent?

It might. But I would like it better if you were forced to live in a cell with him as his bedmate until he was executed. Best of both worlds, I say. You would get a firsthand education into the kind of person you're defending, and he would still get the chair, noose, or needle.

Or he could be lockup like in any other non Stone Age/ non medieval time nation...

You must not know what the word proportionality means. Let me help you: It's not an eye for an eye. It simply means that the punishment fits the crime.

Well if you advocate killing the killer, how's raping the rapist n crippling the crippler not "proportional"?

Gotta work on you line of reasoning

But certainly an eye for an eye would be a better justice system than the one you're pushing for that allows the worst of murderers to continue enjoying their lives.

So Iran n Saudi Arabia are better than Scandinavian countries?

Good to know

Can this really be a question written by someone with a college education?

Can you answer the question, or are you realizing how dumb your views are?

I do know that.

Well clearly you don't, cause if you knew you would know there were plenty of cases of ppl wrongfully convicted n executed

Like who? Give me your best case for an innocent executed after 1976.

Yeah that's cause they had a right to an appeal n the case got overthrown. Kinda goes against your point of speeding up the executions

I'm not for denying appeals. Appeals are a good thing.

I'm for denying the deliberate gumming of the works that abolitionist groups help fund, whose purpose is not to help prove innocence, but to deliberately put off the sentence of the guilty with staling tactics and other legal maneuvers.

Look you don't seem very smart but I'll try anyways

You can't pick n choose you gets the right of appeal.

If an innocent man gets dp, that's cause judge n jury were convinced he's guilty.

An appeal can actually save his life.

What you want is for him to get executed as quickly as possible, cause you want your Ramirez guy dead as soon as possible.

Do you see how idiotic that is?

 

[Cold Front]

Once again, you've completely dick-tucked from your original argument and keep trying to set up your "abolitionist" straw man. It doesn't work and it makes you look, beyond being uninformed, weak and petty. We are talking about the appellate process and the safeguards in place.

I haven't backed off my original argument at all. You're simply trying to prove that you are the dumbest fucking law student in America.

What do they ave you doing for your clerk duties? Giving hand jobs to the judges?

Hahahaha. Firstly, Alito was not in the NPR article and, as I mentioned previously, I did not read the Wall Street piece.

Who cares? I gave you two sources and I quoted Alito's opinion here for you to read. So even if you couldn't access the WSJ journal piece, you still had enough to see that Alito took my position.

Secondly, Alito's "guerrilla warfare" quote was in reference to abolitionists indicting the constitutionality of lethal injection-- that is IN NO WAY RELATED TO APPELLATE PROCESS STATUTES.

I never mentioned a thing about the "appellate process statutes." So that dog won't hunt.

I said, accurately, that the death penalty opponents gum up the works. And they do. Alito agrees with me.

Furthermore, whether you support lethal injection or not (I'm not of a particular stance on the issue), Alito's reasoning, stated elsewhere, is hilarious.

"Justice Samuel Alito found that current lethal injection drugs, however unreliable, must be constitutional because lethal injection is itself constitutional"

Changing the subject is a sign you've lost the argument.

You told me that informed people know that death penalty opponents don't gum up the works and now you want to talk about Alito's Constitutional reasoning on the death penalty.

Just throw in the white towel, man. It's no disgrace. You fought like a puss, but at least you fought.

Then find it. Quote it, source it, place it here. You might as well argue that BLM protesters have a great influence on the goings on and procedural setup of my local traffic court because of the fact that they are protesting outside of it.

I already have, and all it caused you to do was change the subject. Even when a Supreme Court Justice told you that it was true, you hemmed and hawed and decided you don't like his Constitutional reasoning in some other irrelevant area concerning the death penalty.

Ahh, yes, it is attorneys with secret motives, which just so happen to permeate throughout each and every nook and cranny of our appellate system. THAT's why the processes are how they are stated.

It's not that secret. And it's not just attorneys.

Even if that were the case, it STILL betrays your point. You are claiming that specific attorneys are abusing the agreed upon rules: not that the system (rules, statutes, procedural guidelines) is meant to defend the guilty.

No, I said that opponents of the death penalty are gumming up the works by abusing the system in a way that is not meant to defend the innocent, but to protect the guilty from receiving the sentence of death.

"Horseshit" may have been your most cogent argument yet. Yes, there is a variance in the implementation of the death penalty, as there should be in different legal cultures (California vs. Texas), however, as agreed upon by the NCCUSL, the same logistical and administrative statutes are in place (with some exception, particularly to Louisiana).

Yet that same procedure allows for a man to be executed on average within ten years in Texas and not within twenty-five years in California. You are far more likely to die of illness or commit suicide than you are to be put to death by the state of California.

And look at how long the wait has become, nationally, since the 1980s. It has more than doubled in less than thirty years.

Again, you're selling a line of shit, laughing boy, and you ain't the sales chops for it.

Do you realize how much more invested judges are about protecting their opinions from appellate or Supreme Court judges, and the corresponding publishing and historicizing of their miscues than the fucking public?

More of your horseshit. You must not think people keep score out there.

The judges in California don't mind being overturned. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals leads the nation in being overturned, which means the liberal judges who sit on the district courts know the appellate court is going to usually support their opinion regardless of whether there's a danger the Supreme Court overturns them or not.

I might have to quote this, so I can actually convince people that there's someone stupid enough to believe that 1) activists outside the courtroom dictate the procedural statutes set forth by thousands of legal minds 2) there is some secret coalition of defense attorneys that are bogging down the system as some continuous political gesture and 3) that judges are purposefully ruling against the grain of set statutes to which they are bound (legally or persuasively) for the sake of appeasing the general public, when, in fact, more than 60% of Americans favor the death penalty outright.

I've already proven my case. Who are the people more likely to believe about this matter: you or Justice Alito?

Ad homs like this won't rustle me. Although I don't consider myself the highest of opinions on this forum (there are some posters here who I truly respect), I'm fairly comfortable knowing that I'm more proficient than you, on this topic and probably most that require an inkling of reasoning ability. And, in regard to my education and my future employment, I'll make sure to send you a postcard, as I'm fairly confident in my prospects.

You shouldn't be, man. The law is a tough racket and the student loans are a killer if you don't get picked up by a law firm. And with the reasoning you've demonstrated here, who in God's name is going to want you?

 

[Cold Front]

Also, another (third?) nice dick tuck and dodge on the reform issue. If suggesting a ten-year cap on all capital cases is your best solution, then you should reconvene with the millions of illiterate Facebook grandparents who also haven't figured out the basic impropriety of that approach, which I assure you has been justly indicted by history again and again.

History doing the indicting?

History doesn't do any indicting, dipshit. People indict each other. Why is it that the people who know the least amount of history are the most illegally to anthropomorphize it, like it's Jesus or the Easter Bunny?

And executions worked fairly well in a previous era where trials where fair and speedy and when the quality of evidence was not as good. There's no reason most convicted murderers shouldn't be dead within three to five years of their first sentence.

 

[Cold Front]

But those who's family member got killed by a drunk driver don't get the same benefits? Makes sense...

Even a half-educated idgit understands the difference between deliberate murder and negligent accidental death. One would have to go to tribesman in New Guinea to find people who don't understand that distinction.

Also you really have to be a miserable person when someone's death makes you feel better about yourself.

No, you're the miserable person for trying to keep some disgusting excuse of a human being alive.

Most Americans and most people around the world - and even most Europeans when they are allowed to express their opinion on the matter - support my view. You're the oddball out.

Is it the case of abuse earlier in life n now you have no empathy n look forward to ppl being executed even if some of them are innocent?

You can't find any innocents.

No, it's case of our side having a higher moral view of innocent life, and you being attracted to dangerous men.

Or he could be lockup like in any other non Stone Age/ non medieval time nation...

Oh, you mean like Japan, the United States, and most of Europe until forty years ago.

There would be even more support in advanced countries for the death penalty if the EU didn't lobby them to drop it.

Even Russia effectively ended its use of the death penalty at the EU's behest, because Russia knew it could always use extra-judicial mean to kill whoever it wanted. That's progress only to you.

Well if you advocate killing the killer, how's raping the rapist n crippling the crippler not "proportional"?

Gotta work on you line of reasoning

There's nothing wrong with my line of reasoning. You just don't know what the word "proportional" means.

Besides raping the rapist isn't effective. What if he likes it? I prefer neutering him.

So Iran n Saudi Arabia are better than Scandinavian countries?

Is Russia better than Japan? Senegal better than Taiwan? Kyrgyzstan better than South Korea? Colombia better than Singapore? No, no, no, and no.

And the Scandinavian countries lost all credibility on this issue when Norway sentenced Anders Brevik to only 21 years in prison and a three-room cell for the murder of 77 people.

Many Europeans would love to bring back the death penalty if their elites allowed them to vote on it. Belgians in the wake of the Marc Dutroux murders were especially keen on executing him.

Can you answer the question, or are you realizing how dumb your views are?

It's a dumb hypothetical. I can only sneer at it, not answer it.

Well clearly you don't, cause if you knew you would know there were plenty of cases of ppl wrongfully convicted n executed

So provide a case of an innocent being executed since 1976. You can't.

Yeah that's cause they had a right to an appeal n the case got overthrown. Kinda goes against your point of speeding up the executions

There's nothing wrong with appeals based on innocence, but that is not what's gumming up the works right now.

Look you don't seem very smart but I'll try anyways

You can't pick n choose you gets the right of appeal.

Yes, you can. Appeals based on the type of capital punishment used or its arbitrariness should be disallowed.

This petition, for example, should have never been heard.