Criminals

[Sam Dunham]

From reading some of the replies here which debate the Death penalty and the forgiveing radical liberal attitude of the libbies towards criminals, it makes me wonder why they have such a timid, defending attitude towards those who commit crimes that may have been handed down through adjudication.
I submit that they just do not know many of these "hardcores" that would prey upon them given the chance. I have been around these Crims all my adult life and can attest to fact that "Murders are comitted by Murderers", When the Perp did it, he crossed the line into Criminality and will do it again if it behooves them. Religeon in jail? Well, that is only between them and thier God, Not society.
The Ten Commandments in proper grammatical definition is " Thou shall not MURDER" not kill. To kill may be justified! To murder cannot be!
Bottom line------Do not pretend to be so understanding and soft on Murderers until you have seen the damage and loss inflicted to families etc. And do not pretend you could welcome these convicted murderers into your home for Tea and crumpets until you have spent some quality Cell time with them.

[vermonster13]

I spent 5 years as a High Security Unit/Sex Offenders Unit CO. I have no doubt that the Death Penalty is reasonable after hearing them relive their crimes in therapy and other tax payer paid rehabilitation services.

[Flatbow1]

I]QUOTE=vermonster13;181953]I spent 5 years as a High Security Unit/Sex Offenders Unit CO. I have no doubt that the Death Penalty is reasonable after hearing them relive their crimes in therapy and other tax payer paid rehabilitation services.[/QUOTE][/

I agree 100% , but it seems we've lost common sense in our justice system.
It gets under my skin to see law enforcement officers putting their life on the line to arrest these criminals......to be let back out on the street.

[vermonster13]

Prison is a wonderful educational and networking service for convicts. Many make lifelong associations within it's walls and find themselves mentors and advisers with decades of experience. Of course you think they would realize if these older guys were so good at their "professions" they wouldn't be inside too.

[Bowcephalus]

I fail to comprehend the logic of end of life counciling for the no longer productive as it relates to "pulling the plug" and not as it relates to "throwing the switch".

[Dartwick]

Based on the rate of DNA exonerations I wouldnt say we are as good at determining murders(or at least we werent in the past) as we should be.

But do we really have a bunch of people wanting to get lovey dovey on murders here?

[Sam Dunham]

So your against the death penalty Dart?
If so, why?
And what are your countermeasures?
And assumeing you understand that "less than 1%" are not guilty by means of DNA testing, and 99% are guilty.
Do you propose that the standard time spent on death row, which is more than ten years in most cases, be extended another ten so they can all have 20 years to re-appeal through the appellate courts before we kill them?
Man, consider that capital or murder one carries different penaltys under the law.
Most murders are not given the death sentance in todays courts.
Less than 5% convicted get the needle.
These are the particularly hanous crimes which involve non passionate crimes like Molestation, rape, and carving them up slowly before they murder them crimes.
Well consider these Hannibal Lecters loose in your neighborhood.
Knock, knock, Whos there? Your neighbor. Ok, come in. I'm here to carve you up slowly and then kill you. No way! I'm a supporter of DNA testing and think the Death penalty is wrong. Ha, get ready to bleed.

[Dartwick]

Im cool with killing people when it is absolutely provable that they are first degree murders in principal.

We however have a history of of using it mistakenly. Especially when either race or rape are involved juries end up not being as objective as they could be.
Our juries are not made up of smart enough people.

Additionally we have used some bad science in the past to convict people. Our stupid juries are completely helpless(even worse the guy on trial) in the face of obviously dumb science. Here is a sad example of bad science.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/tech/main678678.shtml

[Sam Dunham]

OH, but Dart, You calling your peers "Stupid"? So based on what you determine, not the court. "Jurors are all stupid"?
Come on Man! Do you want to change the system?
To What?
Our Judicial system is based on the premise that all are innocent, until proven guilty!
What about Miranda and Habeas Corpus?
What about "Due Process"?
Is our system Stupid?

[Esquire]

We have the best system, arguably, the world has ever known. It's still run by humans and is therefore imperfect.

I wrote a 2 page piece entitled "On The Merciful Function of Capital Punishment," for the Federalist Society, in law school, simply pointing out several categories of individuals for whom the death penalty provides a merciful function.

There is such an inordinate focus on certain strawman arguments, including the old revenge piece, that the merciful function often gets overlooked.

[Dartwick]

OH, but Dart, You calling your peers "Stupid"? So based on what you determine, not the court. "Jurors are all stupid"?
Come on Man! Do you want to change the system?
To What?
Our Judicial system is based on the premise that all are innocent, until proven guilty!
What about Miranda and Habeas Corpus?
What about "Due Process"?
Is our system Stupid?


Our system isnt "stupid".

Its one of the best justice systems in the world IMO - but that doesnt mean its results are even close to acceptable accuracy.

And Im not sure why you are asking me about those elements of the system. I pointed out the main weak point of our ystem - the intellegense of our juries.

We use juries to fight off systematic curruption of our legal process and it works to a degree. But we have a huge problem in that out juries in general are unn-able to weigh the validity of modern forensic methods and they are too easily swayed by emotion.

[pondscum2]

i gotta go with Dartwick at least partway on this one. our jury system is set up so that prosecutors get to weed out anyone that shows the slightest inkling of independent thought capabilities. they claim that this is so they won't go to the expense of a trial & not get a conviction. the object of a trial is NOT to get a conviction, it is to discern the truth as best we can. this is nearly impossible without jurors that look upon the prosecutor with AT LEAST the same amount of suspicion as they do the defendant. trial by a jury of your peers is a joke if you end up with a bunch of folks that cannot make up their own minds without a prosecutor/career politician wannabe holding their hand & telling them what truth is. in some states now, judges are charging jurors with contempt of court for even MENTIONING "jury nullification". a jury has the right to find a suspect not guilty if they find the LAW to be wrong, wrongfully enforced, or just a piss-poor idea. nothing scares a prosecutor or judge more than getting slapped down by the jury. our jails would be a lot less crowded if we quit trying to put everyone that we disagreed with into a cell... as usual, i ask not etc etc etc. pondscum

[SandSquid]

The opinions I have developed after several years as a sworn Law Enforcement Officer are thus.

In the case of a admittedly guilty party, construct a gallows in front of the courthouse and use it. Upon pronouncement of a death sentences march them out front and hang them. Televise it on every news station... Perhaps we can generate some funding for our ailing legal system py putting it on Pay Per View?

With that being said, there are sadly WAY TOO MANY (IMO, even one is way too many) legitimate cases of false convictions and executions. If there is ANY shred of reasonable doubt what so ever, nope.

[Sam Dunham]

The trials I,ve been involved in allow the defense to be involved in Jury selection.

[pondscum2]

yes they do, Sam, but once the prosecutor asks that the panel member be dismissed, they are gone. the defense is not going to waste a challenge on someone that can think for themselves. after the # of challenges is reached, then you are stuck with the pigs in the poke. not good for justice, i'd say. pondscum

[raisins]

I fail to comprehend how preferring to keep a convict in jail for life without parole instead of killing them outright is all lovey-dovey on criminals. My opinion is based upon what Dart brought up, I am LOVEY DOVEY on the wrongly accused and convicted. Also, I think eventually in our society we will have to collectively start taking a higher path in order for society to change. And it has over time.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Setting an example by not taking vengeance and killing people is a good start. We feel less guilty about it because the blood is spread over 300 million hands, not just one. So we hardly see the drop. Some here don't mind the blood, but I do.

[Sam Dunham]

Move to the country of you choice guys! I'm partial to America.

[Dartwick]

lolz "love it or leave it"

[Sam Dunham]

like Uncle Ted says "I prefer dead criminals" 1st and second time losers should be shot the 1st time. Uncle Ted is a great guy, and advocate of our gun rights but, He's a tad radical. I like him alot though.

[raisins]

Nugent/Palin 2012!

[Sam Dunham]

I'd vote for them.