Lethal injection

[Easy n Dirty]

If we were to reform the system we could have a much quicker and less expensive process while at the same time ensuring that the chances of executing an innocent person are almost nil.

 

 

That's a neat trick - how you gonna' do that?

 

The entire criminal system needs to be overhauled so that criminals fear getting caught and fear the consequences.

 

 

Again, how?

 

I don't have an axe to grind here at all, just curious as to what changes specifically you guys are recommending.

[Easy n Dirty]

From the orignal article:

 

Florida got rid of the electric chair after two inmates' heads caught fire during executions in the 1990s and another suffered a severe nosebleed in 2000.

 

Reminds me of The Green Mile, which I thought was a pretty good flick.

[Grits and Shins]

That's a neat trick - how you gonna' do that?

Again, how?

 

I don't have an axe to grind here at all, just curious as to what changes specifically you guys are recommending.

 

 

I'm not sure but for starters I believe that prisoners should have to work their asses off from dawn to dusk. No television, no gyms, no basketball courts. When you go to prision you should get up in the morning work your ass off all day and fall down in bed at night. No hourly pay, no libraries, no frivilous law suits.

 

And yes ... The Green Mile was a good flick, albeit a little long in the middle

Edited December 16, 2006 by Grits and Shins

[Strike]

That's a neat trick - how you gonna' do that?

Again, how?

 

I don't have an axe to grind here at all, just curious as to what changes specifically you guys are recommending.

 

 

Easy. You only execute those who are pretty much obviously guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty - Serial and multiple murderers and/or those with clear cut evidence. You want massive physical evidence along with multiple eye witnesses. No borderline cases. At the same time you overhaul the system to say once they've convicted we know they're guilty so we don't need 30 appeals. And make them consolidate all their appeals issues into one case. The way it is now they appeal one thing, drag it out for years, then start over with another issue that could have been decided along with the other appeals issues, all for the sake of dragging out the time and expense of the appeals process. With an expedited appeals process you speed up the process of execution and minimize the expense, all while minimizing the risk of executing an innocent person. You end up with more people in prison for life but so what? The idea is to get the worst of the worst and not execute innocent people. It's a fair trade off and one recommended by many experts.

[Furd]

Easy. You only execute those who are pretty much obviously guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty - Serial and multiple murderers and/or those with clear cut evidence. You want massive physical evidence along with multiple eye witnesses. No borderline cases. At the same time you overhaul the system to say once they've convicted we know they're guilty so we don't need 30 appeals. And make them consolidate all their appeals issues into one case. The way it is now they appeal one thing, drag it out for years, then start over with another issue that could have been decided along with the other appeals issues, all for the sake of dragging out the time and expense of the appeals process. With an expedited appeals process you speed up the process of execution and minimize the expense, all while minimizing the risk of executing an innocent person. You end up with more people in prison for life but so what? The idea is to get the worst of the worst and not execute innocent people. It's a fair trade off and one recommended by many experts.

 

 

 

1) OK. Right now we have a "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Why don't you take a stab at at a burden of proof to convict "those who are pretty much obviously guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty in nonborderline cases."

 

2) You don't get 30 appeals. You get one appeal, perhaps to several courts. And you have to have to appeal all issues at the same time. Any issue not raised on an appeal is waived.

 

3) You do know that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable?

 

4) "You end up with more people in prison for life but so what?" - Where do you start with that? Its probably best not to start at all.

 

5) "It's a fair trade off and one recommended by many experts." - Who might those be? In any event, you seem to be saying that it is fair and desirable to incarcerate more innocent people for life just so we can execute some people (that we could incarcerate for life). Huh?

[wiegie]

3) You do know that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable?

I call BS--in a perfect world, those rapists on the Duke Lacrosse team would have already been executed.

 

[Strike]

1) OK. Right now we have a "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Why don't you take a stab at at a burden of proof to convict "those who are pretty much obviously guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty in nonborderline cases."

 

2) You don't get 30 appeals. You get one appeal, perhaps to several courts. And you have to have to appeal all issues at the same time. Any issue not raised on an appeal is waived.

 

3) You do know that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable?

 

4) "You end up with more people in prison for life but so what?" - Where do you start with that? Its probably best not to start at all.

 

5) "It's a fair trade off and one recommended by many experts." - Who might those be? In any event, you seem to be saying that it is fair and desirable to incarcerate more innocent people for life just so we can execute some people (that we could incarcerate for life). Huh?

 

 

LOL. You've gotten every point so wrong I'm not even going to bother picking your post apart

[Azazello1313]

The criminal justice system is far from perfect. Juries make mistakes. DNA evidence has proven that many persons are wrongly convicted. Many people have been executed for crimes they did not commit.

 

Its not about whether someone "deserves" to die. Its about whether the state should be killing people. It shouldn't be.

 

yup. and really that's all that needs to be said here, as, IMO, there is no legitimate counter-argument to these points.

[H8tank]

Dogs that eat chickens cannot be rehabilitated, they are put down.

 

This is not hard to figure out.

 

Anyone that asks for prison for a convicted child rapsit/killer... well you are on my list of those to kill.

[H8tank]

DNA evidence has proven that many persons are wrongly convicted. Many people have been executed for crimes they did not commit.

 

 

Not anymore... Don't be a foktard.

[Furd]

LOL. You've gotten every point so wrong I'm not even going to bother picking your post apart

 

 

 

Oh c'mon laughing boy. Give it a shot.

[Kid Cid]

You may be right. Today Americans are all about what feels right damn the consequences and murder is just the extreme expression of not caring about the consequences.

 

This is a sweeping generalization that while it may seem applicable on the surface, doesn't really speak to what untateve is saying. untateve is saying that murderers are not "normal" humans by some psychological standard that he's applied and you're equating that to someone who is having pre-marital sex. Try looking at things objectively for a change rather than just spouting off your opinion.

[peepinmofo]

It costs more to execute someone than to keep them imprisoned in a supermax prison for the rest of their natural life.

 

Thats only because they keep them alive for 15 years before executing them. If they are GUILTY 100%, then there is no need to keep allowing appeals... This is clearly a problem with our court system.

[peepinmofo]

From the orignal article:

 

Florida got rid of the electric chair after two inmates' heads caught fire during executions in the 1990s and another suffered a severe nosebleed in 2000.

 

Reminds me of The Green Mile, which I thought was a pretty good flick.

But who cares? Arent they there to die? They killed, so why does it matter how they die? They serve NO purpose in life, and as such, they really deserved the torture and pain they went through to die.

[peepinmofo]

1) OK. Right now we have a "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Why don't you take a stab at at a burden of proof to convict "those who are pretty much obviously guilty of a crime worthy of the death penalty in nonborderline cases."

 

Not sure if this is what yer looking for, but what about John Couey? He raped, and buried ALIVE a little girl. He admitted it. He sais he was guilty, then changed his plea to not guilty. So he IS guilty, and had the girl buried in his yard. So lets see... Whats the defense of NOT executing him right away?

 

Admission of killing? check

Child involved? check

Rape of the said child involved? check

Overwhelming evidence against you? check

 

Now, I gotta hear a defense for that... I dont care how dirty the needles are, or how hot the seat is. This SOB should be killed by any means possible. If that means he has to suffer for a whole 34 minutes (as in the guy in the original article here) then so be it. If his head catches fire, who is going to care? Anyone here?

[Scorcher]

I remember when there was a moritorium on the death penalty and then Gary Gilmore was executed . I wqorked for an egotistical tyrant at a newspaper company. The headline read "Murderer Gilmore Executed". We all made sure our 12 year old paper boys put that news on everybodies porch. When I got back to the office my oh so sensitive boss exclaimed " Good, that bastard deserved it!" I was on my 62nd day in a row because he bullied me and threatened my job if I didn't work or came in every day. I didn't think much of his statement and continued to do my job, which ended up being 76 days before I had one to myself. The second man executed after the reinstatement of the death penalty was a poor indigent named John Spinklelink. He was executed in Florida. Anyone who was old enough to have a subscription to "Newsweek" at that time read a really sad story. He was a small man 5'7". He was homeless and begging on the streets. He managed to save enough money with another man to get a motel room. During the night he killed the man. The man he killed was much bigger than him, over 6 ft. He never denied killing the man. He said the man attacked him and it was self defense. He was poor and only had a public defender to state his case. He was found guilty and sentenced to death. The "Newsweek" article said he was executed in the electric chair at 10:00 a.m.. He was carried to the chair kicking and screaming, crying and begging for mercy. The thing that bothers me most about the death penalty is that it is so arbitrary. Once a life is taken it can't be brought back. I live in a state where the death penalty is in full force. It used to be a big deal in the newspapers; now it's just another story.

[Azazello1313]

Thats only because they keep them alive for 15 years before executing them. If they are GUILTY 100%, then there is no need to keep allowing appeals... This is clearly a problem with our court system.

 

 

even with all those "excessive" appeals and safeguards, it is a proven fact that innocent people are being sent to death row at an alarming rate. these, of course, are people a jury determined were "GUILTY 100%" -- and yet, they weren't. there are a LOT of problems with our court system...which is why attaching the ultimate final penalty to such fallible human judgments is so totally out of whack.

[dabuffbills]

well I think most of the opinions are based on religious ideals and stuff like that, but in my opinion, how are the people that sentence a man to death not murderers themselves? Grant you, they don't kill the person directly, but indirectly they do. Why aren't these people also sentenced to death? They killed a person, just like the man or woman they sentenced to death did.

[Strike]

well I think most of the opinions are based on religious ideals and stuff like that, but in my opinion, how are the people that sentence a man to death not murderers themselves? Grant you, they don't kill the person directly, but indirectly they do. Why aren't these people also sentenced to death? They killed a person, just like the man or woman they sentenced to death did.

 

 

Because the definition of murder is "illegally killing". Just like self defense isn't murder because it isn't "illegally killing" neither is sentencing someone to death or being the person who pulls the plug.

[untateve]

Not sure if this is what yer looking for, but what about John Couey? He raped, and buried ALIVE a little girl. He admitted it. He sais he was guilty, then changed his plea to not guilty. So he IS guilty, and had the girl buried in his yard. So lets see... Whats the defense of NOT executing him right away?

 

Admission of killing? check

Child involved? check

Rape of the said child involved? check

Overwhelming evidence against you? check

 

Now, I gotta hear a defense for that... I dont care how dirty the needles are, or how hot the seat is. This SOB should be killed by any means possible. If that means he has to suffer for a whole 34 minutes (as in the guy in the original article here) then so be it. If his head catches fire, who is going to care? Anyone here?

 

 

 

I don't know this case...however, you are aware that people confess to crimes, on occasion, when they were not involved in any manner? Or should people who lie about committing murder also be executed?

Edited December 17, 2006 by untateve

[peepinmofo]

even with all those "excessive" appeals and safeguards, it is a proven fact that innocent people are being sent to death row at an alarming rate. these, of course, are people a jury determined were "GUILTY 100%" -- and yet, they weren't. there are a LOT of problems with our court system...which is why attaching the ultimate final penalty to such fallible human judgments is so totally out of whack.

 

Im not saying the jury needs to be 100%, Im saying that if there is a confession, or the evidence is overwhelming, and there are no doubts at all, then execution should be allowed.

 

I do NOT think it should be up to the minds of 8 jurors. It has to be a for sure thing.

[peepinmofo]

I don't know this case...however, you are aware that people confess to crimes, on occasion, when they were not involved in any manner? Or should people who lie about committing murder also be executed?

 

If you want to confess to a murder, thats your own stupid mistake. There is no reason to do so unless you did it.

 

The case stated above was huge. You have to know of it - The girl he killed was Jessica Lunsford. It happened so close to home that it had a major affect on people in the entire state of Florida, let alone the entire country. Google her name if your interested, and try to defend a POS like him.

 

Getting back to the question you asked, if someone confesses to a murder, and there is overwhelming evidence to support his/her claim, then execute them. If they claim a murder, and there is NOT overwhelming evidence, then no, he should not be executed. In fact, just like the guy that claimed to kill Jon Benet Ramsey... He admitted it, there was evidence that went against what he said, so he was not killed. I dont know where he is now, but I guarantee he is monitored VERY close.

[untateve]

If you want to confess to a murder, thats your own stupid mistake. There is no reason to do so unless you did it.

 

The case stated above was huge. You have to know of it - The girl he killed was Jessica Lunsford. It happened so close to home that it had a major affect on people in the entire state of Florida, let alone the entire country. Google her name if your interested, and try to defend a POS like him.

 

Getting back to the question you asked, if someone confesses to a murder, and there is overwhelming evidence to support his/her claim, then execute them. If they claim a murder, and there is NOT overwhelming evidence, then no, he should not be executed. In fact, just like the guy that claimed to kill Jon Benet Ramsey... He admitted it, there was evidence that went against what he said, so he was not killed. I dont know where he is now, but I guarantee he is monitored VERY close.

 

 

 

I have heard of Jessica Lunsford but to be honest, I don't watch local/national news. I also don't get a newspaper. I keep up with what's going on in general through various news websites, NPR, and even Fox. Too much news focuses on and glorifies all that is bad, that I can no longer watch. It may also be that with the type of work I do, I can't come home and be innundated with more killing/raping, etc.

[Furd]

Im not saying the jury needs to be 100%, Im saying that if there is a confession, or the evidence is overwhelming, and there are no doubts at all, then execution should be allowed.

 

I do NOT think it should be up to the minds of 8 jurors. It has to be a for sure thing.

 

 

 

What does "overwhelming evidence" mean? You have to come up with a jury instruction.

 

And if a jury doesn't make the decision, who does?

[Azazello1313]

Im not saying the jury needs to be 100%, Im saying that if there is a confession, or the evidence is overwhelming, and there are no doubts at all, then execution should be allowed.

 

I do NOT think it should be up to the minds of 8 jurors. It has to be a for sure thing.

 

 

it's gotta be up to somebody, dude. somebody has to decide that yeah, this case meets peepinmofo's "for sure thing" standard or it doesn't. and i guarantee, whoever we give the power to to make that decision, they're going to get a bunch of them wrong. that is the nature of our justice system, or of any justice system ever devised by man. to err is human.