BuffettNews.com

Elrod wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:I never implied that my suggestion was perfect or satisfying, but then again, neither is our justice system.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how they suggest perfecting our justice system so that we don't have to worry about the possibility of putting to death innocent people?

Until you get people to only commit crimes in the presence of a judge and 12 jurors, it won't be perfect. But it's going to be right a hell of a lot more than it's going to be wrong.

So you're stating that state-sponsored execution of an innocent person is okay? It's for the greater good?

Geez, wouldn't you just love to be the physician administering the execution later to find out the man/woman was innocent?

BTW... I have the Northwestern University's Law Library at my fingertips right now, so I'm ready for a quality debate.

iuparrothead wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

Wino you know wrote:Yet ANOTHER pleasant personality among us.

How's THIS for a careless, frivolous, narrow minded statemen, professor-
WHENEVER A CONVICTED FELON IS PUT TO DEATH, IT'S A GREAT DAY IN AMERICA!!!

So are you saying that an innocent person has NEVER been convicted of a felony in this country?

My apologies. I am not accusing you of being narrow-minded, careless or frivolous... your statement was.

My argument has been rather pleasant all day. Thank you for noticing!

NOPE! I didn't say innocent people have never been convicted. But here lately everyone seems to trust the judiciary branch of government, so along with that, you'd trust juries to do the right thing too, right?
If it's been proven BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that someone has committed a murder, their life should be taken as well.
(Like some guy named "O.J." something, who got away with murder).
It WILL be a great day in America when this a-hole in Florida who killed the little girl is put to death.

So juries, made up of fallible human beings are NOT capable of incorrect verdicts?

And for that matter, innocent people have NEVER been forced to confess to a crime they did not commit?

And if that jury is in fact wrong, or that person confessed to a crime (felony) he/she did not commit and is convicted... they should be executed?

If I can take it back to the current event.......

in this particular case the scum was a registered sexual predator AND confessed to this heinous, SICK, and TWISTED MURDER of an innocent 9yr old!!!! I pray for her.

Okay, I'll get off the soap box.....

iuparrothead wrote:BTW... I have the Northwestern University's Law Library at my fingertips right now, so I'm ready for a quality debate.

No wonder you're against the death penalty.
I'm a police officer, so, I guess you could say no wonder I'm FOR the death penalty.

I'll say it AGAIN-when a person has been convicted-CONVICTED-CONVICTED beyond a SHADOW OF A DOUBT of murder, manslaugter, homicide, etc., THEY SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH THEMSELVES.
That's all I have to say about it, you're certainly free to disagree with me (hopefully I have permission to disagree with you), and narrow minded or not, those are my beliefs. I'm now through with THIS discussion.

Wino- I understand your position completely, despite my disagreement and suggestion that it's narrow. Understand about me though that I was completely against the death penalty long before I began working for NU. My position is fundamentally attributed to my faith, values and morals.

If you believe that a felon convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt should be executed that is fine with me... I would still like to know how you would make sure that every convicted felon sitting on death row has, in fact, actually committed the crime they were convicted of.

My position continues to be that humans are fallible... what we can guarantee is that humans will make errors... and if one, single, solitary human being has ever been put to death by the state for a crime they did not commit then we cannot risk putting another person to death, despite irrefutable evidence of a felony. I believe that we as an evolved civil society, individually or collectively, cannot morally take the lives of others... no matter the evil, despicable, inhumane, criminal deed they are accused and/or convicted of.

On a side note, my faith leads me to believe that a person who commits heinous or grievous acts, such as rape or murder, will answer to a much higher power than their peers and will suffer a much more critical fate than we humans could ever exact on them.

You KNEW I'd lie, didn't you?

iuparrothead wrote: I believe that we as an evolved civil society, individually or collectively, cannot morally take the lives of others... no matter the evil, despicable, inhumane, criminal deed they are accused and/or convicted of.

and what about Terry Schiavo-what crime did SHE commit?

iuparrothead wrote:On a side note, my faith leads me to believe that a person who commits heinous or grievous acts, such as rape or murder, will answer to a much higher power than their peers and will suffer a much more critical fate than we humans could ever exact on them.

On that, I AGREE with you. These people WILL answer to a higher power. As a society, our job is to simply arrange the meeting.

Wino you know wrote: You KNEW I'd lie, didn't you?

Yes.

Wino you know wrote:

iuparrothead wrote: I believe that we as an evolved civil society, individually or collectively, cannot morally take the lives of others... no matter the evil, despicable, inhumane, criminal deed they are accused and/or convicted of.

and what about Terry Schiavo-what crime did SHE commit?

I never suggested she did. The only thing I can say is that her eventual death, whenever it is, won't be state-sponsored, which is good.

Wino you know wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:On a side note, my faith leads me to believe that a person who commits heinous or grievous acts, such as rape or murder, will answer to a much higher power than their peers and will suffer a much more critical fate than we humans could ever exact on them.

On that, I AGREE with you. These people WILL answer to a higher power. As a society, our job is to simply arrange the meeting.

Um... I don't know about that, but I will say that our duty as a civil society is to protect innocents.

rednekkPH wrote:

FFishstick wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

FFishstick wrote:Studies are clear that the death penalty is not an effective deterant to 1st degree murder.

How many people has Ted Bundy killed since he was executed? It deterred the hell out of him.

Truer words have never been spoken.

You know exactly what my point was, and taking it out of context with your follow up statement could cause one to question your mental capacity. I, however, will reserve judgement.

I'll reserve judgement as well, although I'm getting a pretty good idea as to why the California Educational system is consistantly ranked among the bottom 10 states...

Well you have opened up the door for judgement. All I can say is F you. Obviously you are a mental midget and I will no longer entertain your caveman mentality.

iuparrothead wrote:Um... I don't know about that, but I will say that our duty as a civil society is to protect innocents.

I AGREE AGAIN.
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

But I'd have no problem arranging a meeting between a convicted murderer and God. [/b]

FFishstick wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

FFishstick wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

LIPH wrote:

FFishstick wrote:Studies are clear that the death penalty is not an effective deterant to 1st degree murder.

How many people has Ted Bundy killed since he was executed? It deterred the hell out of him.

Truer words have never been spoken.

You know exactly what my point was, and taking it out of context with your follow up statement could cause one to question your mental capacity. I, however, will reserve judgement.

I'll reserve judgement as well, although I'm getting a pretty good idea as to why the California Educational system is consistantly ranked among the bottom 10 states...

Well you have opened up the door for judgement. All I can say is F you. Obviously you are a mental midget and I will no longer entertain your caveman mentality.

Thanks for proving my point.

I knew a police officer that was gunned down. Had been friends with his brother for several years and David (the officer) at one time had been my neighbor.

He stopped a car for speeding without knowing the car was stolen and inside were a couple of men who had been on a kidnapping, robbing criminal spree in the area. The reason he didn't know the car was stolen is because the owner of the car was still at her home tied up and wasn't able to free herself to notify police of the car's theft. David walked up to the car - just to issue them a speeding ticket and both men opened fire on him dropping him in his path. He was shot numerous times. This happened right in front of a hospital and I was told even if it had happened at the ER doors there would have been nothing that could have been done for him.

The execution of one of his killers was highlighted on one of the shows like 48 hours or 60 minutes back in 96, can't remember which one, but it showed his brother and family traveling to Huntsville to witness the execution.

I'd like for anyone to tell his widow or his kids that the execution of the man who gunned down their husband/father in cold blood was unjustified and unwarranted. Tell his brother who started his career as a public servant as a police officer and later switched to being an EMT that the execution wasn't just. Tell his father who served as a fireman the execution wasn't just.

While I will admit that there can and have been mistakes when you consider the number of mistakes that aren't made vs those that haven I don't think you have a huge error ratio. And in some cases it is so apparent the person is so grossly guilty to consider anything BUT the death penality is unthinkable to those of us that have been close to someone murdered.

Incidently if you will notice in an earlier post of mine - people don't receive the death penalty for just any crime. States specify which crimes are a capital offense and the criteria that must be proved in a court of law in order for a defendant to receive the death penalty. People are not given a death penality for lesser crimes such as car theft, forgery etc.

ph4ever wrote:Incidently if you will notice in an earlier post of mine - people don't receive the death penalty for just any crime. States specify which crimes are a capital offense and the criteria that must be proved in a court of law in order for a defendant to receive the death penalty. People are not given a death penality for lesser crimes such as car theft, forgery etc.

I just read where our esteemed Senator Rick Santorum (BTW - Google "Santorum" sometime...funny stuff) wants to narrow the definition of capital crimes in PA. His position as a US Senator doesn't afford him the jurisdiction to have a direct impact on this issue, but I'm sure he has plenty of influence to throw around on those who do.

Way to go, (P)Rick...

What does he want to narrow the list to?

ph4ever wrote:I'd like for anyone to tell his widow or his kids that the execution of the man who gunned down their husband/father in cold blood was unjustified and unwarranted. Tell his brother who was started his career as a public servant as a police officer and later switched to being an EMT that the execution wasn't just. Tell his father who served as a fireman the execution wasn't just.

I admit this story is tragic and I have compassion for the family and for all families and loved ones of murder victims. I don't want anyone here to think I am not compassionate and that if someone I cared for were murdered that I would not be enraged. Also, if anyone were to abuse my nieces or nephew, I would want to personally gouge their eyeballs out and serve them to that person for lunch.

That being said, my fundamental stance is based on the principal that no individual, or collection of individuals, has ANY moral justification to end the life of another human being... no matter how dispicable, evil or heinous that person's deeds were because I believe that all human life is unequivocably equal. There is no means for humans to classify the value of human life based on deed... good or evil. (My faith suggests that God does the classifying in the ultimate end.)

Now, because that is my conviction does not mean I don't want to see murderers, pedophiles & terrorists punished. I want them punished SEVERELY. That's why I am a staunch proponent of penal labor... make the s.o.b.'s work until their fingers bleed and ever fiber in their body feel excrutiating pain like it's on fire. To me, that's justice.

I'm not to familiar with the appeals process involved with a death sentence. Are you able to appeal as many times as you want? How long before you're out of time?

PHBeerman wrote:What does he want to narrow the list to?

Doesn't give specifics, Troy. A quote from the AP article "Santorum said Tuesday...that it's use should be limited to the 'most horrific and heinous of crimes'".

CaribbnSoul wrote:I'm not to familiar with the appeals process involved with a death sentence. Are you able to appeal as many times as you want? How long before you're out of time?

Theoretically, you can appeal any conviction all the way up to the US Supreme Court, providing the Court agrees to hear your case - which they are not required to do.

CaribbnSoul wrote:I'm not to familiar with the appeals process involved with a death sentence. Are you able to appeal as many times as you want? How long before you're out of time?

There is one automatic appeal....this is to review the case and make sure there are no glaring issues...after that, it depends on the lawyer to find cause...such as improper jury instructions, inadequate counsel....etc, etc. There is also a process called a Commutation Hearing. At this point, the defendant and the attorney appeal to the Board of Pardons to commute the sentence from death to life without. This appeal is usually based on the defendant...such as s/he "found God" while in prison, s/he was the victim of horrific child abuse and is somehow less culpable for the offense....

In our particular case, appeals were filed until hours before the execution....finally the Supreme Court just said, "We've heard it all before....No."

So appeals can be filed and filed and filed, it's just a matter of whether or not the court accepts them and agrees to stay the execution to review them. Like I said, it our case it took eighteen years between conviction and execution.....of course, there was the period of time in the middle that there were no executions....

rednekkPH wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:What does he want to narrow the list to?

Doesn't give specifics, Troy. A quote from the AP article "Santorum said Tuesday...that it's use should be limited to the 'most horrific and heinous of crimes'".

Man those Rebubs you have in PA would be left wing nut jobs here. I would hate to see what the Libs are like.

PHBeerman wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

PHBeerman wrote:What does he want to narrow the list to?

Doesn't give specifics, Troy. A quote from the AP article "Santorum said Tuesday...that it's use should be limited to the 'most horrific and heinous of crimes'".

Man those Rebubs you have in PA would be left wing nut jobs here. I would hate to see what the Libs are like.

Yes sir. Funny thing is my boss is regarded as being much more conservative on alot of issues than our so-called conservatives.

Our REAL Libs are REAL scary.