Death Penalty for Under 18?Follow

Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not an activist!

Choose the path of Doctor's Against Abortion and you can be both.

Anyone know the Stella Awards?

Named after the woman who sued McDonald's because the coffee was warm, you know the story.

An example of America's fine justice system:

Terrence ******* of Bristol, Pennsylvania was leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He could not re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation and Mr. ******* found himself locked in the garage for 8 days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The Jury agreed to the tune of $500,000.

With a justice system like that you could get locked away if you fart in public.

Terrence ******* is an urban legend
Hoax

And again

The answer to a successful death penalty trial and appeals process would be to allow the normal trial process to take place, but the appeals process must be completed in one year's time from the time of sentencing. The final opportunity to present evidence proving the now twice convicted felon is innocent would be given to the governor to him to examine prior to execution. This means from conviction to injection it takes a total of 18 months maximum. It gives the convict three opportunities to prove he is not guilty and satisfies the economic concerns, excessive legal wranglings, and timely justice being dispensed.

Totem

Gives new meaning to the phrase:

"Incarceration (or extermination?) without rehabilitation really don't mean sh*t"

- Outkast

Current human methods can't achieve the level of certainty to make me feel comfortable executing people.

For that matter, unless we evolve telepathic powers, they probably never will.

No kidding, Capt. Dimbulb? I've been arguing that for the last two pages. You need to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

People shouldnt be on death row for more than 5 years. Hell if I had my druthers it wouldnt be longer than 2 or 3 but I'll give ya 5 just to be nice. I've seen people in Californias death row for like 15 years. My god!

You sound very much like every one of those convicts who loudly proclaim their innocence despite overwhelming and irrefutable evidence their are guilty as sin. "I done was framed!" or "I'm a political prisoner being incarcerated and persecuted by The Man for exercising my right to express my religious beliefs!. That liquor store owner was my human sacrifice to Allah!"


What about the ones who WERE framed?



So lemme get this straight, Jo-- every one of these felons are innocent pending a futuristic device or technique which will undoubtedly prove them not guilty at a later date? Based on that logic, we should not have any jails and let them roam the streets since prison is an inhumane location to store all these harmless and misunderstood individuals.


Stop being an idiot. Incarcerting an innocent person can be rectified to a certain degree. Killing one can't.


Since apparently there are no people actually committing murders-- folks are just spontanously getting their domes lopped off and bullets are miraculously forming inside people's bodies --what you are arguing is that prison is slightly less inhumane because it lets you give them a decade or so of their life back after they are finally proven innocent. Or are you telling me that prison isn't such a bad place to be for 50 years if you're not guilty? Hey, it's not inhuamne, it's just kind of a... stasis or Purgatory for these guys.


Let's ask one of the dozens of people sentanced to death who later found to be innocent if they would have prefered death.


Eighteen months is plenty long to try, convict, retry, reconvict, and re-examine the evidence of death penalty eligible criminals.


Apparently it isn't because it's failed thusfar. The only thing that kept innocent men alive was lengthy appeals in many cases.

Who said "every"? No one here did.

We're talking about the fact that there are some, and that number of "some" is more than we feel is acceptable.

In Illinois, since the reinstatement of the Death Penalty in 1977, MORE MEN WERE EXONERATED FROM DEATH ROW THAN WERE EXECUTED.

And do you know who was behind many of those exonerations? College students. Northwestern University Journalism students.

When that is what we rely on to ensure justice, it's a sign that the system is broken.

In Illinois, since the reinstatement of the Death Penalty in 1977, MORE MEN WERE EXONERATED FROM DEATH ROW THAN WERE EXECUTED.

Yeah, but we all know Illinois is crooked. They probably just knew someone named "Daly"

Smash,
Incarcerating that innocent person for his entire life, only to found utterly without guilt after he died in prison can't be rectified. He's dead. And you made him suffer endless **** rapings, bad food, uncomfortable living conditions, and a metal toilet for his entire life. "Life without parole" means just that: Life behind bars.

If you are going to argue that being alive is better than dead even if it is in a diminished capacity, then you need to argue that unborn children-- even poor, deformed, or retarded children --would have a better life than one that is killed. Dead is dead and you can't have the opportunity to show that you made something of yourself despite what society wanted to do to you if you were killed.

At least unborn children haven't done anything deserving of death. Murderers at least have gone through the process by which they have been shown to be heiniously guilty of a particular crime which merits the death penalty.

If you are going to argue that we should keep murderers in prison for life, then you need to recognise that there are innocent men being made to live their life in a cage for their entire existence. That is your version of humane?!?

Not to mention that you will conveniently ignore mountains of evidence against the vast majority of convicted murderers which prove them guilty. If a possible piece of evidence forthcoming is enough to keep them from a lethal injection, then it is enough to keep them from jail, ergo, all murderers should not be incarcerated. Jails should be eliminated since no proof is conclusive enough for "inhumane treatment" and rehab --preferably in a tropical setting --is the only alternative.

The whole "we must keep them alive because who knows what techniques or evidence may prove them innocent someday" line of reasoning means that you are perfectly fine with locking a possibly innocent man up for his entire life, but are too squeamish to pull the trigger and end his (literally) miserable existence with the death penalty.

It talking out of two sides of your mouth-- more inconsistencies from the liberal Left.

Totem

editted because of whole post bold text. See ya tomorrow-- this is it for me today.

Bah. Still isn't reconforming my bold text to normal.

More editting to make a sentence make better sense.



Edited, Wed Oct 13 16:02:04 2004 by Totem