No proof to back up your facts. Just what a bunch of people who don't understand the justice system. Keep trying and you'll get it eventually.
Agreed. IMO there's a place for the death penalty but it should be used only when it will directly benefit society. This would fall into one of 2 major categories. First, in treason or murder-for-hire cases, when the deterrence aspect is obviously far greater than it is in other murder cases. Second, if the criminal, if allowed to live, will pose a risk to society even if they are given a life sentence with no possibility of parole. Examples of this might include criminals who pose a high risk of escape (the criteria for which should basically be that they've already seriously tried to escape) or those who are a member of an organization, such as a terrorist organization, which could threaten Americans with violence in an attempt to win their release.
Sadly this case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1992 even prior to Herrara and the Court ruled that Coleman's possible showing of innocence was insufficient to warrant a habeas appeal.
One of the many problems with the death penalty is that it is too easy to gamble with other peoples' lives. There's no downside to getting it wrong and murdering an innocent person. But if you're gambling with your OWN life... Well, that instantly becomes a different story. Therefore, the following law should be enacted immediately: For any person on death row or executed who is later proved innocent, both the prosecutor who sought the death penalty and the judge who pronounced sentence are executed. Then we'd suddenly see a whole new respect for "beyond doubt". Then it would take some balls to seek or to pronounce a death sentence.
That was the old practice, which has been declared unconstitutional in the USA. The SCOTUS has declared that juries must impose the DP after unanimously finding beyond a reasonable doubt aggravating factors, outweighing any mitigating factors.
In that case, the prosecutor and the jury members must be executed if someone they've sentenced to death is later found innocent.
Obviously, you've not read Karl Keller's work. Or Jonathan Swift's either, for that matter. Actually, your post is dumber than mine because at least I give reasoning behind my idea, as deliberately outrageous as it was - to make a serious point, mind you. You just make a blind, unwarranted assertion with no factual back up. You might as well as typed "Waaah! Waaah! You disagree with me!" for all the value you added to this thread with your post. As it is, you obviously don't have enough courage of your convictions or strength in your belief to bet your life on it. Or enough intelligence to recognize a modest proposal. But don't worry - you're not as dumb as DoyleG who, when presented with a solid statistical fact, tried to come back with an anecdote and then pushed the envelope of dumbness even further by uttering the amazingly dumb "you have no proof" in response to the facts provided by mritalin1210, who even provided a link to said fact! (I'm assuming that DoyleG wasn't simply trying to deliberately recreate the absurdist comedy of, say, Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch. Many apologies to DoyleG is such is the case.)
Note to the satire-impaired: Read post #35 and then go in the corner and weep for shame. Thank you for proving post #35 to be 100% correct, although you've just drawn closer to DoyleG in the Dumbness Derby. A few more posts like #36 and you'll be right back in the race.
You've got to be kidding. Did you even read the link? Assuming you're capable?? It's NOTHING BUT facts.
Sorry that you fell for it so easily. REAL FACT: The death penalty was only abolished because Pierre Trudeau forced his party to vote along party lines in order to achieve his "Just Society". Trudeau succeded in giving life to those that don't deserve it. They aren't even right on the polls either. REAL FACT #1: Prisonsers sentenced to 25 Years can get out after 15 years thanks to the "Faint Hop Clause". Prisonsers will rarely served the 25 years for 1st Degree Murder. In fact, few are even charged with 1st Degree Murder. REAL FACT #2: "Dangerous Offender" status is strict in who would qualify for it. Murders aren't the first target for the use of this provision. They have a review period every 7 years. REAL FACT: Polls have shown that hanging isn't the preferred choice of execution. They base their stupid assumption on the fact that was the method of execution at abolition. How dumb do they think we would give sanctuary to such a sicko. Any country in their right mind would've sent him back faster than we did. REAL FACT: The Homicide rate has been going up in Canada since the start of 2004. The trend continued in 2005 with cities experiencing record homicide rates. Of course, the definition of homicide in Canada and the US are different.
How about this: get rid of the death penalty and outlaw abortion except for extreme cases. Fair trade off? I don't think liberals will go for this as it's more important to them to be able to kill innocent babies than offing the dregs of society. Anyone who's had a child knows what abortion truely is, it's infanticide! Flame away!
If you were serious about eliminating abortion, you wouldn't outlaw it - you'd help eliminate unplanned pregnancy. That'd do more to end abortion than making it illegal ever would.
(1) It's clear that you don't understand what being a blues man is; nor the idea of becoming fully human as I've articulated it. That's okay, because even though I haven't noticed you in this forum until now, from what you've posted in the other thread about Paul Schroeder's WP commentary about the needless death of his son in Iraq, you can't really read, or relate to what you read, either. So who knows if you've actually processed what you've responded to or not...I'm trying to figure out if even this post is worth the effort... (2) So we should post about governance and citizenship and institutions ostensibly democratci with some..."cheer?" That's an evaluative tool you employ in the discussion of these matters? Instructive. I think that there are lots of folks who think like you...man, they just want to hear the good news, and if its seemingly "bad news" - which translates in to news that requires anything of them other than the exercise of their mental derision - then it better be couched with, or sandwiched around, things like this...because we need "cheerful news," ******** whether it's accurate, or whether it calls upon us as citizens and not necessarily consumers, or whether it reflects a process of nation-building that we are still in the midst of, and as a result cannot rest replete in the Mythology that the nation was already built for us, and that we now get to just operate that "built" nation... PS: Yes.
What do you consider the most persuasive part of your post? The emotive tone, the unsupported claims labelled as FACT, or the "I'm Canadian so I know better" insinuation that runs through it like the streak of shit in your pants? You have a hard-on for the death penalty. It makes you feel less frightened. Why not just say it? We might not agree with you, or be persuaded by that perspective, but at least we'd give it some level of credence.
Or how about this: we abolish the DP and all of you sniveling liberals get to be volunteer prison guards, since they can't be punished for killing a guard. And any lawyer that gets a murderer off on a technicality gets to have that citizen live with them. Bring real accountability to the system.
yes, he may feel like a murderer, and it is his right to feel as such. but this issue should, and will, be decided through the legislative process. and that is just. as for my own position, I support the death penalty. all cases should be reviewed thoroughly, maybe even placing a minimum of a 10 yr period before the execution can occur, so that no innocent man is executed. I support the death penalty because it is just. If you reject individual rights and take the life of another, you have rejected your own life, and will be dealt with as such.
yes, you have a 'fact' sheet telling me that it costs $2m to execute somebody. but where did this number come from? I hardly doubt this number. I've also seen numbers as high as $50,000/yr per inmate. why do other countries come into your argument. the death penalty is part of the law in the USA. the laws of other nations do not apply here.
One of these isn't like the other! One of these things isn't quite the same! Dude, when you write a post that would flunk on Sesame Street, you oughta be embarassed.
Yes, one of them is eliminating a deadly cancer in society, and the other is getting rid of a nuisance. And of course, liberals are against eliminating the cancer, and disposing of the nuisance is their highest priority issue.
Irony, coming from a Bush defender. Smiley, the fact that the criminal justice system is about society's punishment, and not a form of personal retribution, seems to have escaped you. To get back to ratdog's Modest Proposal, any prosecuting lawyer who knowingly or recklessly violates the rules of evidence or other trial rules to get a man on death row should be punished as harshly as a lawyer who embezzles $5,000. We had a terrible, terrible case in North Carolina, last name Gell (if the googling mood strikes you) where the prosecutors cheated like hell to get the conviction, but escaped any meaningful sanction. One of them had already been busted for the same thing, so he unquestionably knew better. At least the two-time offender, if not both, should have been disbarred. Instead, they were asked nicely not to do it again. Total ****************.