peterson

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

S

StarBellieAngel

Senior Member
he's gonna FRY!

they just handed back the sentence... they unanimously chose the DEATH PENALTY.




discuss.
 
i hope they kill him realy slow...like a couple of days of puer torture....may God have no pitty for him
 
life without parole = drain on taxpayers. we feed him, keep him clothed, and let him watch cable the rest of his life?

death sentence = 20 years of appeals... the line is THAT long in this state... but, fuck it... he'll die by some other guy's plastic fork at dinner.
 
Yeah, he won't last long.

Have his hay loft invaded while he waits in a cell before they find him dead in the corner of the cafeteria with a light bulb in his butt.
 
Originally posted by Slammed90Lude@Dec 13 2004, 05:33 PM
i'd like to see him face the firing squad, to be honest
[post=431539]Quoted post[/post]​
Click to expand...


:werd:

in my opinion, there shouldn't be a waiting period for the death penalty, we'll just pay for him to sit in jail, and enjoy a life were he can finish school, work out, watch tv, do almost the exact same things he can do on the outside, except he'll have to do it within the confines of prison. why wait, kill him tomorrow. i say we go back to the "Eye for an Eye" laws, but we choose not to due to the fact that we are a pro-life country. to me, prison isn't gonna change anybody. if you killed before prison, you're gonna kill again. thats just my 2 cents.
 
Ok, I guess I'll take the unpopular position here and say I still don't feel that he got a fair trial. I don't think it is simple coincidence that after kicking out two members of the jury they shortly came up with their verdict. Beyond that I don't ever agree with the death penalty, for a few reasons.
Too many times (one is too many) we have found people to be innocent after they have been put to death, and their deaths are on the hands of every American; their blood on my hands is not something i am ok with.
I think we also need to examine why we employ the death penalty. Some say that it acts as a deterrent to the crimes that are punishable by death, but as we can see by texas having the highest capital punishment rate and still maintaining a high crime rate, there is no correlation there. Others will argue that it is for the families of the bereaved, but numerous studies show that those family members do not feel better after the supposed offender has been executed. Their loved one is still dead and the death of the person convicted does little to nothing to fill the gap in their lives.
Beyond that you have to pay attention to the higher execution rates of minorities and those who cannot afford awesoe legal council. I mean christ, Oj's evidence was far more condenming, yet he was not convicted. Of course the falterings in our justice system are something that has to be worked through, but i cannot with clear conscious ever be ok with using a justice system that can at times be flawed, yet still determine whether or not to end the life of a human.
 
I agree with you on the trial, Guy. However, to have a completely fair trial, you have to have a completely unbiased jury. At this point, you'd have to go to another planet, or at least another country. And true also about the finding people innocent after death. But, as you say, there are some big kinks in the current legal and judicial system which create problems on their own. I feel, in most cases, that life in prison is a waste of time and dollars.
 
True as that may be, regarding the jurors, we as a nation cannot put the lives of defendants in the hands of biased jurors. That is not fair to them, you, me, or anybody.
To address the issue of cost effectiveness of the death penalty:
It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, on the assumption that life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, however, just the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."56 A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs – including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs – are mostly borne by the taxpayer. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.57

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."58 In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."59 Florida, with one of the nation's most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence."60

A 1993 study of the costs of North Carolina's capital punishment system revealed that litigating a murder case from start to finish adds an extra $163,000 to what it would cost the state to keep the convicted offender in prison for 20 years. The extra cost goes up to $216,000 per case when all first-degree murder trials and their appeals are considered, many of which do not end with a death sentence and an execution.61

From one end of the country to the other public officials decry the additional cost of capital cases even when they support the death penalty system. "Wherever the death penalty is in place, it siphons off resources which could be going to the front line in the war against crime…. Politicians could address this crisis, but, for the most part they either endorse executions or remain silent."62 The only way to make the death penalty more "cost effective" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant's (and society's) only protection against the most aberrant miscarriages of justice. Any savings in dollars would, of course, be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus provisions, the murder conviction or death sentence was overturned.63

In 1996, in response to public clamor for accelerating executions, Congress imposed severe restrictions on access to federal habeas corpus64 and also ended all funding of the regional death penalty "resource centers" charged with providing counsel on appeal in the federal courts.65 These restrictions virtually guarantee that the number and variety of wrongful murder convictions and death sentences will increase. The savings in time and money will prove to be illusory.
Click to expand...
 
Hmm....Not the same style, but after watching run away jury, I just don't trust the legal system, anything could be true at that point.

I just don't know....

And yeah, I heard from my HCWI teacher that it is more expensive to give him the death penalty then letting him live for his natrual life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top