Man United NSR Politics thread

[Motterman]

I agree with you. Perhaps I just don't like the way its done now. Perhaps if Juries would convict, then a panel of judges could sentence. However something has to be done, because there are alot of problems with who gets executed.

I still don't know why Manson (or any other of those famous mass killers) gets a dinner every night... :mad:

[Sapphire]

But we have democracy for a reason, and majority (of electoral college votes) rules at the moment... Well, I respect what you're saying here, but the part of the role of the judisciary is to protect the minority opinion, when it's right. (And good luck figuring that out!). So, it would be reasonable for a court to rule the death penalty unconstitutional (probably as cruel and unusual punishment) even though the majority disagrees. Of course, it's also reasonable for them to uphold it's constitutionality (although I disagree).

That's the beauty of our system when it's functioning; checks and balances, baby :cool:

[yossarian]

I agree with you. Perhaps I just don't like the way its done now. Perhaps if Juries would convict, then a panel of judges could sentence. However something has to be done, because there are alot of problems with who gets executed.

Ring v. Arizona : juries must decide whether the aggravating factors exist to allow a death sentence. It's unconstitutional for judges to do so.

[johno]

I still don't know why Manson (or any other of those famous mass killers) gets a dinner every night... :mad:

that's the sh1t that gets to me. Especially when you consider the many people who just lost it once or twice and went too far and they've already been executed but you've got those idiots still around in jail costing the public $30,000 a year.

[johno]

Ring v. Arizona : juries must decide whether the aggravating factors exist to allow a death sentence. It's unconstitutional for judges to do so.

thanx. I didn't doubt that there was a precedent, I just think that people who's jobs and reputations are at stake should make the choice on whether someone will die, as opposed to random folk with no legal training.

[Achtung]

I think Achtung touched upon the socio-economics, but there's got to be something to say for tossing these cold blooded murderers out of the gene pool.

I agree on people like serial killers and the like, they need to be out of society completely, either through life imprisonment or the death penalty. Which is why I never say I'm totally against the death penalty, but I come close to it.

[Motterman]

Well, I respect what you're saying here, but the part of the role of the judisciary is to protect the minority opinion, when it's right. (And good luck figuring that out!). So, it would be reasonable for a court to rule the death penalty unconstitutional (probably as cruel and unusual punishment) even though the majority disagrees. Of course, it's also reasonable for them to uphold it's constitutionality (although I disagree).

That's the beauty of our system when it's functioning; checks and balances, baby :cool:

Well, the fact that it's a standing law is a small factor in whether I support it or not. I like checks and balances too, but I think that the judiciary likes to legislate from the bench as well. The "cruel and unusual" punishment argument doesn't fly with me personally. I'm more apt to listen to problems about the system as a whole - from the police, investigation, trial, judge, jury, etc. down the line, more than anything else.

[yossarian]

thanx. I didn't doubt that there was a precedent, I just think that people who's jobs and reputations are at stake should make the choice on whether someone will die, as opposed to random folk with no legal training.

It is within a judge's power to over-rule a jury's death sentence if they don't agree that the factors are present or there was constitutional error during the trial, etc. But they just are not allowed to impose it on their own. Ring found that doing so was a violation to a defendant's right to trial by jury.

[johno]

It is within a judge's power to over-rule a jury's death sentence if they don't agree that the factors are present or there was constitutional error during the trial, etc. But they just are not allowed to impose it on their own. Ring found that doing so was a violation to a defendant's right to trial by jury.


thanks. I actually enjoy studying cases. I had a class called Race, Place and the Law that was probably the best class I've ever had that discussed those sorts of things and I questioned whether I wanted to get into law after that. I think its important for as many people as possible to learn about cases that set precedents and helped to form law or the interpretation of it - its a lot cooler than it seems at first.

[Motterman]

I agree on people like serial killers and the like, they need to be out of society completely, either through life imprisonment or the death penalty. Which is why I never say I'm totally against the death penalty, but I come close to it.

The problem with life imprisonment in these cases, at least when it comes to people like Manson etc. is that they can still spread their poison to other people they meet and converse with, and it's never cut off.

I think you need to cut the head off the snake sometimes....

[Vermont Red]

I'm against the death penalty on moral grounds. If, God forbid, something happened to a loved one and I was asked to speak to a jury in the death penalty phase of a trial, I would plead for life in prison for the person.

[yossarian]

I still don't know why Manson (or any other of those famous mass killers) gets a dinner every night... :mad:

Manson was sentenced to death but in 1972, the Supreme Court found the death penalty (as it was currently practiced) to be unconstitutional. When the Court began re-allowing it again in 1976, Manson could not be re-sentenced to death as the death penalty was now being administered under a new constitutional standard and to do so would have been ex post facto.

[Motterman]

Manson was sentenced to death but in 1972, the Supreme Court found the death penalty (as it was currently practiced) to be unconstitutional. When the Court began re-allowing it again in 1976, Manson could not be re-sentenced to death as the death penalty was now being administered under a new constitutional standard and to do so would have been ex post facto.

Thank you, I did not know that. I was expressing general frustration, but you probably knew that.

In any case, I'm just sorry that nobody on the inside took care of him before now, although he's probably viewed as some sort of royalty... :rolleyes:

[Sapphire]

Well, the fact that it's a standing law is a small factor in whether I support it or not. I like checks and balances too, but I think that the judiciary likes to legislate from the bench as well. The "cruel and unusual" punishment argument doesn't fly with me personally. I'm more apt to listen to problems about the system as a whole - from the police, investigation, trial, judge, jury, etc. down the line, more than anything else.I certainly agree with your last point. Especially since the overall system is much more of a problem. And it IS tiresome for me to defend people that often are, well, really bad people (it's hard not to swear here :o); but I'm attacking the punishment in principle rather than defending Manson and his like, who I'm sure has a special place in hell or will be reincarnated as a urinal cake or whatever jives with your belief system.

And "cruel and unusual" doesn't fly with me either; as I've said before, in my opinion it's just flat wrong. As wrong as killing an innocent person, imo. I don't know of any legal precendent where the judiciary can just say "um, people in the majority, sorry but you're wrong about that; we don't kill people ever in our legal system, cause killing's bad"; so whichever legal maneuver works in a utilitarian manner to achieve the same end is fine by me, frankly. And forgive my simplicity here, I really don't know much about the sophisticated legal debates surrounding the death penalty; wish I did for the sake of this conversation.

[yossarian]

Thank you, I did not know that. I was expressing general frustration, but you probably knew that.

In any case, I'm just sorry that nobody on the inside took care of him before now, although he's probably viewed as some sort of royalty... :rolleyes:

IIRC, Manson is kept away from the gen. pop. You're right that he's probably viewed as royalty by some....but I wouldn't be surprised if there were a significant number of others that wouldn't mind making a name for themselves as the one who shanked him.

[StrikerCW]

So, what do you anti-DP people think should happen to these type of guys? Life sentences so they can cost the general American public several million dollars as they live for 50 more years by eating well in prison and having good health?

I'm not talking about how we sentence them, but what to do instead of DP? Sure (at least on a non-religious/spiritual level) they suffer much more, maybe, in prison for the rest of their life, but it costing the regular person too. I'm not talking about your simple murder cases, I'm talking about these cold-blooded mother********ers that kill for fun. Perhaps not nessicarilly gang-related, etc. type violence (although that is, at least where I live, what I believe to be the most people in jail for, that and drug-related things) but especially these murders. When I say murder I mean murderer not a killer. There is a difference.

edit: now that I think about it, there really aren't that many just plain murders compared to gang/drug related offenses I guess..

[Howard Zinn]

So, what do you anti-DP people think should happen to these type of guys? Life sentences so they can cost the general American public several million dollars as they live for 50 more years by eating well in prison and having good health?



I'm probably completely off on this, but I remember a tidbit mentioned to me several times in high school that it costs more to perform these fancy executions we have now on a person once than to keep them in jail for many decades.

[StrikerCW]

I'm probably completely off on this, but I remember a tidbit mentioned to me several times in high school that it costs more to perform these fancy executions we have now on a person once than to keep them in jail for many decades.
Really? Well then.. there goes my arguement. But you could always just make it clean, like back in the days of Monsieur Guillotin.

[Vermont Red]

Without having the figures in front of me I can't be certain, but I would guess that the amount of taxpayer funds that are used to keep lifers alive in prison is negligible in the total Federal budget. In any case, I'm not going to advocate the death penalty just because my taxes could decrease. I wonder how the amount spent on prisons compares to the amount spent in Iraq.

For me, I believe in redemption. More specifically, I believe in the possibility of redemption. Ideally, we should all meet our end with our souls prepared. The death penalty may remove that possibility. In addition, each government-sanctioned murder demeans the people live under that government's rule. I believe that we should strive to be better.

In an apparent paradox, I believe that a woman has the right to make her own decision about her unborn child.

[Howard Zinn]

Really? Well then.. there goes my arguement. But you could always just make it clean, like back in the days of Monsieur Guillotin.


Like I said, I could be wrong on that, but that doesn't kill your argument because you could also be against fancy executions.