Death penalty is a fair & compassionate

P

PowerballWinner

New Member
I actually think the death penalty is fair and compassionate for two reasons:

1. If people were executed for their crimes by lethal injection, nobody could complain that anybody else's punishment was of an unfair length of prison sentence.

2. Prison has got to be the worst place for criminals. Who would want to spend 5 years in prison for murder when he/she could just ask for the death penalty and then be executed for tax evasion? In prison you gotta watch out for all the mean big "Bubbas" that want to beat you to death and/or rape you, you lose all your freedoms and don't get to do what you want.
 
markjs

markjs

Banned
What about when the man was wronly convicted? It happned 17 times at least in one state in a period of several years.
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs said:
So it's just OK?!? We should have just executed those innocent people anyway? It's only 17!
Click to expand...

I'll answer that one...mostly because I think there are too many complaints about this.

The answer is yes...but...once the true facts came out, I think that everybody involved who wrongly convicted that person should also get the death penalty. If the prosecutor had a weak case, and him/herself felt that the person was not guilty, they should fry. If the judge had any doubts about the case, he/she should fry. If the defense attorney didn't do his/her job correctly, he/she, should fry. If the detectives were proven to have tampered with the evidence, he/she should fry. Get the point? If a person is wrongly convicted, then everybody associated with that conviction should get the exact same punishment.
 
P

PowerballWinner

New Member
I agree with Gato Solo. But I'm referring to criminals who are actually guilty and plead guilty. I think that not guilty people wrongly sent to prison/jail should be paid $1,000,000 per day they had to spend in prison/jail.
 
markjs

markjs

Banned
Gato_Solo said:
I'll answer that one...mostly because I think there are too many complaints about this.

The answer is yes...but...once the true facts came out, I think that everybody involved who wrongly convicted that person should also get the death penalty. If the prosecutor had a weak case, and him/herself felt that the person was not guilty, they should fry. If the judge had any doubts about the case, he/she should fry. If the defense attorney didn't do his/her job correctly, he/she, should fry. If the detectives were proven to have tampered with the evidence, he/she should fry. Get the point? If a person is wrongly convicted, then everybody associated with that conviction should get the exact same punishment.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous!
 
markjs

markjs

Banned
I shouldn't even bother to explain this but if the proscecutor didn't have a case there might never have been a trial. Just because you have a good case does not make it ironclad, and you can't punish every mistake. There was evidence enough to convict these men, but late breaking evidence appeared to exonerate them. No foul on the judge or proseuters part! Who would punish the prosecutor? Another prosecutor? Your example is RIDICULOUS!
 
Gato_Solo

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs said:
Ridiculous!
Click to expand...

Why? Makes perfect sense to me. :grinyes: How many trials would take place on shoddy evidence? How many convictions would take place with the death penalty? Open up a little, and see the obvious... ;)
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
PowerballWinner said:
should be paid $1,000,000 per day they had to spend in prison/jail.
.
Click to expand...
And I think that since Powerball winner won the Powerball that he should pay the mil a day.
 
Inkara1

Inkara1

Well-Known Member
I asked if he was going to donate some of his powerball millions to pay them last time he brought up that idea. If memory serves, that question was the last reply in that thread.
 
Shadowfax

Shadowfax

<b>mod cow</b>
5 years in jail, or ask to be killed....yeah, i'd definately do the latter..:rolleyes:

this definately goes for the weird-thread-of-the-day-prize!
 
Winky

Winky

Well-Known Member
Death penalty for all.

Oh sure that's what all you Rich guys say
when you are out slumming.
 
unclehobart

unclehobart

New Member
From MSNBC:

Justices won't overturn death sentences

Inmates complained judges, not jurors, decided their fatesThe Associated Press
Updated: 10:44 a.m. ET June 24, 2004
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court refused Thursday to overturn the death sentences of more than 100 inmates who argued their fates were improperly determined by judges, not jurors.

advertisement

The 5-4 decision spares at least four states from having to decide whether to spend millions of dollars for new sentencing hearings or consent to prison sentences for the convicted killers.

It was issued on the two-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the constitutional right to a trial by jury means that jurors should weigh factors that determine whether a particular killing merits death or life in prison. Justices said in the follow-up decision that the 2002 ruling does not apply retroactively.

The case involved the biggest death penalty issue of the court’s term, which is expected to end next week. Next fall, justices will consider a broader subject, whether it is unconstitutional for states to execute people who committed their capital crimes when they were juveniles.

In Thursday’s case, justices ruled against Arizona prisoner Warren Wesley Summerlin, sentenced to die more than 20 years ago by a judge who later lost his job because of a drug problem. Summerlin was convicted of raping and bludgeoning to death a bill collector who came to his house in 1981 to collect a payment for a piano.

The 2002 Supreme Court ruling, Ring v. Arizona, forced changes in the death penalty laws of Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska and Colorado, because those states left it to judges to determine whether a killer should be executed. The ruling also cast doubt on death-sentencing procedures in other states that used a combination of juries and judges to impose death sentences.

Had the high court ruled the other way, states would have had to decide whether to pursue death sentences for 85 Arizona inmates and about 25 others in Idaho, Montana and Nebraska. Inmates in other states also could have tried to use the ruling to win new sentences.
Click to expand...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5285880/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top