True, I don't know any of the specifics of those cases.

A better example would be Ernest Willis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6643919/).

Funny, the judge made no mention of his guilt, or innocence. Only finding that rules and procedures, in effect at the time of his ruling, had not been followed.

Besides, the Salem Witch Trials were held by the Church, and we need not go into their record of killing.

I'm sorry moderate, but that is not correct.

The proceedings were under the jurisdiction of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, Wm Stoughton, LT governor of the Colony as Chief Magistrate, Thomas Newton, Crown's Attorney, prosecuting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyer_and_terminer

I'm sorry moderate, but that is not correct.

The proceedings were under the jurisdiction of the Court of Oyer and Terminer, Wm Stoughton, LT governor of the Colony as Chief Magistrate, Thomas Newton, Crown's Attorney, prosecuting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyer_and_terminer


Gee, Guess the schools were wrong, when they taught that the Puritans were behind those Witch Trials.

True, I don't know any of the specifics of those cases.

A better example would be Ernest Willis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6643919/).

Well, I googled this guy and browsed 5 or 6 online articles about him and I can't find one objective account of this guy's case. Everything may as well be anti-death penalty opinion pieces. This is the best article I could find, and even it is far too opinionated for my taste:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364113605

What the articles did quote is the guy claiming that the prosecution drugged him, which simply sounds ridiculous to me. He said he ran into the house to save the people but he didn't have a single burn while everyone else in the house burned to death. I can't say that sounds all that innocent to me. Not to mention the guy has a checkered criminal history.

Certainly, 12 jurors thought the guy did it. Now that we have a young attorney 10 years later saying "he might be innocent" does not really convince me.

Even if you take every felon whose conviction has been overturned and released from prison and assume those people are "innocent," ( I use quotation marks because even these guys usually have a nasty criminal history) you're talking about less than 1% of the convictions. I think that's a pretty damn successful justice system and one worth using the death penalty.

Gee, Guess the schools were wrong, when they taught that the Puritans were behind those Witch Trials.

At the time of these trials, Puritan influence in the Bay Colony was on the wane, but let's blame those pesky Puritans for everything! Even though the accused were tried in secular courts.

Speaking of execution of witches, the Catholic Church was at the forefront of the persecution of these "sorcerers" in Europe--esp in France and Germany. Conservative estimates show that approx 10, 000 women, men and KIDS were burnt or hanged for this "offense", compared to 19 in Salem.

Now, back to the discussion of modern day executions.

PS See quote by Increase Mather, "notorious" hardline "rabble rousing" Puritan--"better that 10 witches go free than one innocent person be hanged."

Well, I googled this guy and browsed 5 or 6 online articles about him and I can't find one objective account of this guy's case. Everything may as well be anti-death penalty opinion pieces. This is the best article I could find, and even it is far too opinionated for my taste:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364113605

What the articles did quote is the guy claiming that the prosecution drugged him, which simply sounds ridiculous to me. He said he ran into the house to save the people but he didn't have a single burn while everyone else in the house burned to death. I can't say that sounds all that innocent to me. Not to mention the guy has a checkered criminal history.



My thoughts exactly. Biased to a degree, those "news" stories were, and none gave the specifics of the case. What one DID do was compare Willis to Cameron Todd Willingham, a supposedly "innocent" man wrongfully executed for setting a fire that killed his 3 young kids....after taking out a huge insurance policy on them, (from a guy with an 8th grade education who made a sporadic living as an auto mechanic) and was found to have burns caused by lighter fluid on his own arm.

If Willingham was "innocent", I'd like to see the evidence against Willis. According to some, they yanked him out of the checkout line at Krogers and decided to fry him simply because they were bored and/or didn't like him.

What one DID do was compare Willis to Cameron Todd Willingham, a supposedly "innocent" man wrongfully executed for setting a fire that killed his 3 young kids....after taking out a huge insurance policy on them, (from a guy with an 8th grade education who made a sporadic living as an auto mechanic) and was found to have burns caused by lighter fluid on his own arm.


Don't forget that his cell mate actually testified that Willingham told him that he did it!

I mentioned this earlier but I didn't provide a link, the race of the defendant and the race of the victim plays a roll in the severity of the sentencing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=#The%20Raw%20Data

The raw data of death sentences in Philadelphia between 1983 and 1993, provide the first piece of disturbing evidence that race discrimination may be operating. The rate at which eligible black defendants were sentenced to death was nearly 40% higher than the rate for other eligible defendants. A sentencing rate is simply a ratio of the number of death sentences for a particular group compared to the total number of cases of that group which would be eligible for a death sentence. In the chart below, a death sentencing rate of .18 for blacks means that for every 100 eligible black defendants, 18 will be sentenced to death. For other defendants, only 13 out of 100 will be similarly sentenced.

I mentioned this earlier but I didn't provide a link, the race of the defendant and the race of the victim plays a roll in the severity of the sentencing.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=#The%20Raw%20Data
Wow! I just read through quite a bit of that article, and I have to say that it was a little surprising.

Before we discuss race, statistics, and the death penalty, let's get one commonly-ignored statistic straight:

Blacks commit homicides at a rate of SEVEN times (or seven hundred percent) more than whites...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm#orace

Yet, blacks are put to death at a rate LESS than seven times the rate of whites.

Okay, now, I want someone to explain how the death penalty is racist against black people.....

I googled a bit more and found a guy with the same interpretation of data as myself. His retort is linked here: http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/racism.htm

Before we discuss race, statistics, and the death penalty, let's get one commonly-ignored statistic straight:

Blacks commit homicides at a rate of SEVEN times (or seven hundred percent) more than whites...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm#orace

Yet, blacks are put to death at a rate LESS than seven times the rate of whites.

Okay, now, I want someone to explain how the death penalty is racist against black people.....

That's extremely misleading and you know it. From your statistics, 52% of homicides are committed by blacks and 45% are committed by whites. If blacks were executed at a rate 7 times that of whites, we'd have a serious problem on our hands.

To answer the question raised in your second link, (56% of people executed are white compared to the 35% that are black, when blacks murder more than whites) If you would look back at the link I posted (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=#The%20Raw%20Data):

These results are summarized in the graph below. Reading the graph from left to right, black defendants, regardless of their victims' race, are consistently more likely to receive a death sentence than other defendants, and this holds true to varying degrees throughout the increasing levels of crime severity. Similarly, black victim cases are less likely to receive the death penalty, regardless of the race of the defendant.

So since the vast majority of black murders are against other blacks, and since murders against black victims are far less likely to result in an execution compared to white victims, it would make sense that less blacks are executed even though there are slightly more black murderers than white ones. Also consider the vast majority of white murders are against white victims, which would lead them to be executed more often.

I found it humorous that your second link referenced the site I used for it's information. Considering it's called "prodeathpenalty.org", I'd rather go back to the source of the information instead of something that's spun to fit an agenda. Your source doesn't try to explain the statistics, it just says, "Here are the numbers! Look, blacks are executed less often!"

That's extremely misleading and you know it. From your statistics, 52% of homicides are committed by blacks and 45% are committed by whites. If blacks were executed at a rate 7 times that of whites, we'd have a serious problem on our hands.

Actually, no. That's not misleading at all, and I know its not. Talking in proportions is the least misleading way to approach statistics.

What is misleading is to talk only about quantity and ignore the fact that there are like seven times as many whites in the U.S....for example, using your "non-misleading" methods, I could say there are more white people living in poverty than black people living in poverty, implying that white people are poorer than black people. Of course, that is misleading, so the least misleading way to talk about economic status based on race is to say that black people are five times (that's a made-up number) more likely to be living in poverty than white people.

To answer the question raised in your second link, (56% of people executed are white compared to the 35% that are black, when blacks murder more than whites) If you would look back at the link I posted (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=539&scid=#The%20Raw%20Data):


I looked at your link. It does not alay my concerns.



I found it humorous that your second link referenced the site I used for it's information. Considering it's called "prodeathpenalty.org", I'd rather go back to the source of the information instead of something that's spun to fit an agenda. Your source doesn't try to explain the statistics, it just says, "Here are the numbers! Look, blacks are executed less often!"

C'mon now, do you really think that your website is less biased? At least my link doesn't try to hide its agenda.

So, since blacks are seven times more likely to murder, and they aren't executed seven times more than whites, that this shows there isn't a bias in our judicial system. Please correct me if I'm interpreting that wrong, as that argument is still silly.

Are these statistics taken from states that use the death penalty,or are they nationwide figures?
Nationwide would explain the difference.

So, since blacks are seven times more likely to murder, and they aren't executed seven times more than whites, that this shows there isn't a bias in our judicial system. Please correct me if I'm interpreting that wrong, as that argument is still silly.

It shows there is no bias against blacks for sure. However, it does show bias against whites, not that that bothers me, because the risk of being executed when you're innocent is insignificant IMO.

EDIT: I'm not sure why you think that argument is silly. If blacks commit seven times as many murders, shouldn't a race-neutral system be sentencing them to death at a seven times higher rate. That makes plenty of sense to me. Is there anyone else who does not understand this?

Are these statistics taken from states that use the death penalty,or are they nationwide figures?
Nationwide would explain the difference.

The figures I am using are nationwide, Carbonlife's figures are from a single city, Philidelphia.

But you're right, that very well could tell the difference. Also, I believe the study Carbon's link refers to is based on data from 1983-1993....that could explain some disparity also.

It shows there is no bias against blacks for sure. However, it does show bias against whites, not that that bothers me, because the risk of being executed when you're innocent is insignificant IMO.

This would be true if blacks and whites were equal in population. Considering that blacks only make up 12% of the population, you can't use the proportions in the way that you are using them.

This would be true if blacks and whites were equal in population. Considering that blacks only make up 12% of the population, you can't use the proportions in the way that you are using them.

That's why I'm using proportions, to offset statistical disparities that occur because the sheer number of whites is far greater than the sheer numbers of blacks in the U.S.

That's why I'm using proportions, to offset statistical disparities that occur because the sheer number of whites is far greater than the sheer numbers of blacks in the U.S.

But you're saying that if the system was fair, blacks should be executed seven times more than whites. Since blacks and whites have about the same amount of murderers, shouldn't they have about the same number of executions?

But you're saying that if the system was fair, blacks should be executed seven times more than whites. Since blacks and whites have about the same amount of murderers, shouldn't they have about the same number of executions?

Yes, if blacks and whites have about the same amount of murders, then they should have about the same amount of executions.

Yes, if blacks and whites have about the same amount of murders, then they should have about the same amount of executions.

Don't they? 52% of murderers are black and 45% are white. That's pretty close.

Don't they? 52% of murderers are black and 45% are white. That's pretty close.

Agreed. But of those executed since 1976, 34% have been black and 64% have been white (including Hispanics). See why the system actually exhibits a bias against whites rather than blacks?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

Definitely deterred this murderer:

Review Doesn't Halt Texas Executions
By MICHAEL GRACZYK
Associated Press Writer

Posted: Sep. 25 9:50 p.m.
Updated: Sep. 25 10:50 p.m.

HUNTSVILLE, Texas — The nation's busiest death penalty state executed another inmate Tuesday night, hours after the Supreme Court said it would review whether the lethal injection method most states use is cruel and unusual.

Michael Richard, 49, was put to death for the 1986 shooting of Marguerite Lucille Dixon, a 53-year-old nurse and mother of seven. Richard had been released from his second prison term eight weeks before Dixon was raped and killed inside her home.

Asked if he'd like to make a final statement, Richard said, "I'd like my family to take care of each other. I love you, Angel. Let's ride." He was pronounced dead at 8:23 p.m.

...more


http://www.wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/1861963/

Asked if he'd like to make a final statement, Richard said, "I'd like my family to take care of each other. I love you, Angel. Let's ride." He was pronounced dead at 8:23 p.m.

...more




What a touching last statement. One for the ages. No word about being sorry or remorse for what he'd done.

Still tho, better than Cameron Todd Willingham's last statement, a white man slash lowdown dog (excuse me, "innocent" man who was railroaded by the sinister Texas Dept of Corrections because they claimed he killed his own kids for money--the NERVE!!)

His final statements had to be excerpted out--nothing but an obscene rant against his wife and those who were "killing" an INNOCENT man!!!!!!!!!!

Sitting on death row for 21 years is cruel & unusual punishment. To have the death penalty be effective it should be used sooner than later.

Lethal injections are so uninteresting. Perhaps throwing the condemmed into a gator pit within a year of their conviction and showing it live on tv would be more of a deterrent.

One thing's for certain - those executed, by whatever method, will never again commit a crime.

I'm more in favor of life, without the possiblity of parole. Do away with death rows, no fanfare, no media, just another prisoner with a number. Keep them all in complete solitary.

All this talk about race is bullshit. No one cares what color a murderer is, except opponents of the death penalty.
If the bastard is convicted of killing someone, or participating in a crime where someone is killed, "fry" his/her ass. Just so he/she/they won't kill again, period.

Lethal injections are so uninteresting. Perhaps throwing the condemmed into a gator pit within a year of their conviction and showing it live on tv would be more of a deterrent.

.

John Wayne Gacy managed to make his injection interesting.
The whining coward blubbered and cried on the table, claiming that it "hurt".

Didn't hurt as much as being handcuffed and then slowly stranlged into unconsciouness, then brought back again and again for the thrill of watching yr countless teenage victims die, eh, John, ya pathetic cringing POS?

Lethal injections are so uninteresting. Perhaps throwing the condemmed into a gator pit within a year of their conviction and showing it live on tv would be more of a deterrent.

Agreed.



I'm more in favor of life, without the possiblity of parole. Do away with death rows, no fanfare, no media, just another prisoner with a number. Keep them all in complete solitary.

Considering how much we spend to put someone to death, I pretty much agree. Unfortunately, Texas does not have a life without the possibility of parole sentence. We just have "life" sentences, which means you're eligbile for parole in about 30 years.

Ok, I'm not positive the name is the most common but there have certainly been a lot of people convicted of murder in the USA with this middle name? First correct answer wins! Sorry, no points are being awarded for this question! Just the satisfaction knowing you got the name I was looking for first.

Agreed.





Considering how much we spend to put someone to death, I pretty much agree. Unfortunately, Texas does not have a life without the possibility of parole sentence. We just have "life" sentences, which means you're eligbile for parole in about 30 years.


You sure of that? I thought that was changed, this year. Or did Perry veto it?


On edit: Found it, changed in 05. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0627/p02s02-usju.html

Ok, I'm not positive the name is the most common but there have certainly been a lot of people convicted of murder in the USA with this middle name? First correct answer wins! Sorry, no points are being awarded for this question! Just the satisfaction knowing you got the name I was looking for first.

Wilkes?
Harvey?
Robert?

John!!!

Wilkes?
Harvey?
Robert?

John!!! Dammit and my money was on you being the first one to get it right! Seriously!

Well, I googled it and found the answer, but I'm not sure that's correct or even scientific.

(Does this mean that Jack the Ripper's REAL name was LaKamerion ---- Smith???????????????????????? Egad.)

Well, I googled it and found the answer, but I'm not sure that's correct or even scientific.

(Does this mean that Jack the Ripper's REAL name was LaKamerion ---- Smith???????????????????????? Egad.) Well first of all Jack the Ripper was not from the USA. So when you googled it the name Smith came up? So then perhaps it is not the most familiar but there are a lot of people with this middle name that are convicted of Murder in the USA. Smith is just to common of a name in general and that is not the answer I was looking for but I still say you will get the correct middle name before anyone else. Or will you?

Jack the Ripper WASN'T American?

I am shocked, I tell you, shocked. Because, according to some, the ONLY country who has murder or even crime, is the good old US of A.

I know, he was English. There's a thread about him in the History section that I started, in honor of everyone's favorite crook ( next to Hillary, but I digress)

(The answer to yr question is Wayne, but I cheated.)

On edit: Found it, changed in 05. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0627/p02s02-usju.html

That's right...Thanks for the correction!

Awwww, I was gonna guess WAYNE!

You ruined it for me, Ren. I win on default!

Sorry, smartie!

Rodham is a very close second.

Agreed. But of those executed since 1976, 34% have been black and 64% have been white (including Hispanics). See why the system actually exhibits a bias against whites rather than blacks?

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=5&did=184

I addressed this in an earlier post. I'll repost.

So since the vast majority of black murders are against other blacks, and since murders against black victims are far less likely to result in an execution compared to white victims, it would make sense that less blacks are executed even though there are slightly more black murderers than white ones. Also consider the vast majority of white murders are against white victims, which would lead them to be executed more often.

The exact numbers are on deathpenaltyinfo.org, I'm too lazy to look them up again. I do remember that 94% of black murderers are against other blacks, and somewhere in the mid-80s is the percentage of whites killing other whites.

Also, your argument that the system is more biased against whites just plain doesn't make sense to me. Let's be realistic, plenty of people in this country are just plain racist. Even more have unconscious bias. Both of those can be a determining factor if a murderer gets 25 to life or a needle.

Sorry, smartie!

Rodham is a very close second.


:lolhit:

(followed closely by Jefferson, no doubt)

I addressed this in an earlier post. I'll repost.

So since the vast majority of black murders are against other blacks, and since murders against black victims are far less likely to result in an execution compared to white victims, it would make sense that less blacks are executed even though there are slightly more black murderers than white ones. Also consider the vast majority of white murders are against white victims, which would lead them to be executed more often.

So you're saying the cause of racial disparity in the system is due to race of the victim rather than the race of the offender? So the system is biased against white offenders and for white victims, and vice versa for blacks?

If that's right, that doesn't change the fact that a white killer is more likely to be executed than a black killer. Agreed?

All this talk about race is bullshit. No one cares what color a murderer is, except opponents of the death penalty.
If the bastard is convicted of killing someone, or participating in a crime where someone is killed, "fry" his/her ass. Just so he/she/they won't kill again, period.

:rolleyes: Yes, not a single person in this country cares about what color a person is. Nope, it's completely impossible.

So you're saying the cause of racial disparity in the system is due to race of the victim rather than the race of the offender? So the system is biased against white offenders and for white victims? If that's right, that doesn't change the fact that a white killer is more likely to be executed a black killer. Agreed?

If it's white on white vs. black on black, then yes the white person is more likely to be executed. However, if it's black on white vs white on white or black on black vs white on black, then the black person is more likely to be executed.

Basically, the race of the victim is more important than the race of the defendant, but both play a factor.

:rolleyes: Yes, not a single person in this country cares about what color a person is. Nope, it's completely impossible.


Read my post again, carbon.

"No one cares what color a murderer is.." is a far cry from..."not a single person in this country cares about what color a person is.."

and if they do care ... fuck them.

Also, your argument that the system is more biased against whites just plain doesn't make sense to me.

Well, it's pretty simple really. Since 1976, 52% of murderers are black, but only 34% of those executed are black. That means a white murderer is more likely to get the death penalty than a black murderer.

Let's be realistic, plenty of people in this country are just plain racist. Even more have unconscious bias. Both of those can be a determining factor if a murderer gets 25 to life or a needle.

Sure, there are some racist people, of every race, but that doesn't make the system racist. The people who are racist don't necessarily end up on a jury. For one, those people probably tend to be poor and uneducated and are probably less likely to show up for jury duty. Two, we have a strike system in which lawyers can look for people who are potentially racist and eliminate them from the jury. Does that mean a racist NEVER ends up on a jury panel? Of course not, but we have a system that resists that possibility.

One thing is for certain, the fact that a bunch of whites end up on a jury panel has not caused a disproportionate number of black people to be executed.

Basically, the race of the victim is more important than the race of the defendant, but both play a factor.

That statement sounds fair (although I would stress that race of the victim is MUCH more important than race of the defendant), but it still ultimately works against white people.

So you're saying the cause of racial disparity in the system is due to race of the victim rather than the race of the offender? So the system is biased against white offenders and for white victims, and vice versa for blacks?

If that's right, that doesn't change the fact that a white killer is more likely to be executed than a black killer. Agreed?
it's not the juries value whites more than blacks, it's that interracial crimes of violence tend to be more brutal, and there's more whites than blacks to be victims by about 8-1.

:rolleyes: Yes, not a single person in this country cares about what color a person is. Nope, it's completely impossible.

Actually, seems to me it has more to do with JURY'S decisions than anything else. Do you think all-white juries tend to convict more black people and all-black juries tend to convict more white people??

Really kinda stupid argument, since defense attorneys have just as much to say about who gets on a jury as prosecutors do.

:confused:

Well, it's pretty simple really. Since 1976, 52% of murderers are black, but only 34% of those executed are black. That means a white murderer is more likely to get the death penalty than a black murderer.

True, the numbers don't lie. But I think I've explained why that happens and it's not because jurors are biased against white defendants. Which is how I was interpreting your statement.

Sure, there are some racist people, of every race, but that doesn't make the system racist. The people who are racist don't necessarily end up on a jury. For one, those people probably tend to be poor and uneducated and are probably less likely to show up for jury duty. Two, we have a strike system in which lawyers can look for people who are potentially racist and eliminate them from the jury. Does that mean a racist NEVER ends up on a jury panel? Of course not, but we have a system that resists that possibility.

One thing is for certain, the fact that a bunch of whites end up on a jury panel has not caused a disproportionate number of black people to be executed.

I agree with everything you just said. I want to be clear, I think our system works about as well as a system could work. However, at the end of the day I think there's too many variables to be handing out death sentences, from the quality of lawyers to evidence that may be disproved with advances in technology to the biases of the jury.

Actually, seems to me it has more to do with JURY'S decisions than anything else. Do you think all-white juries tend to convict more black people and all-black juries tend to convict more white people??

My argument's been more with the sentencing than the convictions. I think juror's biases come more into play with how severe the punishment is than if the person is guilty or not, which should be pretty straight forward with the evidence.

So, to answer your question in the terms of sentencing, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if both were true. Getting an all black jury would pretty much be a statistical anomaly, however. (.12^12 is pretty darn small)

Really kinda stupid argument, since defense attorneys have just as much to say about who gets on a jury as prosecutors do.

What if the defendant can't afford a lawyer and gets a real shitty one from the state? Too bad?

Read my post again, carbon.

"No one cares what color a murderer is.." is a far cry from..."not a single person in this country cares about what color a person is.."

My point was there are people in this country who care about race and since juries are selected randomly, they can play a roll if the person is executed or not.

and if they do care ... fuck them.

Finally something we can agree on.

My argument's been more with the sentencing than the convictions. I think juror's biases come more into play with how severe the punishment is than if the person is guilty or not, which should be pretty straight forward with the evidence.

So, to answer your question in the terms of sentencing, I certainly wouldn't be surprised if both were true. Getting an all black jury would pretty much be a statistical anomaly, however. (.12^12 is pretty darn small)



What if the defendant can't afford a lawyer and gets a real shitty one from the state? Too bad?

It happens sometimes. Maybe the defendant shoulda thought of that BEFORE committing the crime?

Maybe the chance of getting a shitty court-appointed lawyer is also a deterrent to crime?

Certainly should be.

My point was there are people in this country who care about race and since juries are selected randomly, they can play a roll if the person is executed or not.



Only if the defendant's lawyer fails to do his job. I'd be more concerned about the inequities between those with money, and name recognition, and those without. Those two elements play a much bigger role than does race, in both convictions and type of sentence handed down.

Well, it's pretty simple really. Since 1976, 52% of murderers are black, but only 34% of those executed are black. That means a white murderer is more likely to get the death penalty than a black murderer.



Sure, there are some racist people, of every race, but that doesn't make the system racist. The people who are racist don't necessarily end up on a jury. For one, those people probably tend to be poor and uneducated and are probably less likely to show up for jury duty. Two, we have a strike system in which lawyers can look for people who are potentially racist and eliminate them from the jury. Does that mean a racist NEVER ends up on a jury panel? Of course not, but we have a system that resists that possibility.

One thing is for certain, the fact that a bunch of whites end up on a jury panel has not caused a disproportionate number of black people to be executed.

It's been explained that very few if ANY Wealthy whites have been
executed in this Country.
I bet Martha was trying to take advantage of dat golden Rule.
Butt,she done flunked.
Her finicky perfectness was put to the test.

It happens sometimes. Maybe the defendant shoulda thought of that BEFORE committing the crime?

Maybe the chance of getting a shitty court-appointed lawyer is also a deterrent to crime?

Certainly should be.

Typical Women's POV.The first thing a Gal does when their
tire runs flat,is pass blame.

Typical Women's POV.The first thing a Gal does when their
tire runs flat,is pass blame.

I get over flat tires pretty quick. But the man in my life better damn well not let me run out of water or oil. That's man's work.

;)
SMW

That's right...Thanks for the correction!I was sorta suprised on this one, Leper. You are normally right up on the criminal law angle, particularly the particulars.

So, anyway, in capital cases there are three options open to a jury? Life, death, life-without-parole? I wonder if an examination of jury decisions would show any decrease in executiuons ordered as a result of this option.

[QUOTE=smartmouthwoman]I get over flat tires pretty quick. But the man in my life better damn well not let me run out of water or oil. That's man's work.


Sounds like a lotta hot air ta mead.

There've been a few wealthy white defendants executed in the US--granted, not many.
Here's some details of a scurrilous crime concerning 2 Harvard professors, both well-off.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/george_parkman/1.htm

There was another case in 1930's Ohio concerning a wealthy doctor, and his execution. I'll have to do more research on that.

There've been a few wealthy white defendants executed in the US--granted, not many.
Here's some details of a scurrilous crime concerning 2 Harvard professors, both well-off.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/george_parkman/1.htm

There was another case in 1930's Ohio concerning a wealthy doctor, and his execution. I'll have to do more research on that.

THE First case dubbed - The Trial of the Century - or the Infamous
" Leopold & Loeb " Murder trial,defending by the Great Clarence Darrow
was a case in point.Darrow eloquently,in typical persuasive manner,
convinced the jury for mercy and medical treatment instead of
retributive Capital punishment.
And Alan Dershowitz {Harvard Law Prof.},got Von Bulow
off as well.

THE First case dubbed - The Trial of the Century - or the Infamous
" Leopold & Loeb " Murder trial,defending by the Great Clarence Darrow
was a case in point.Darrow eloquently,in typical persuasive manner,
convinced the jury for mercy and medical treatment instead of
retributive Capital punishment.
And Alan Dershowitz {Harvard Law Prof.},got Von Bulow
off as well.

Darrow's closing argument in the Leopold and Loeb trial was one of the most brilliant I've ever read.

I've posted the link to it another thread---just type in "Darrow" in the search box above and something should come up.

However, the "boys" he referred to (and they weren't boys, they were young men--clever of Darrow to call them that) should have, without a doubt, hanged for their brutal, brutal, vicious crime. The prosecutor in the case thought so as well--he was furious.

PS I'm about to go home--will look for the wealthy Ohio doctor who was electrocuted tomorrow and post it if anyone's interested--I cannot recall his name but it was a cause celebre of the time.

I get over flat tires pretty quick. But the man in my life better damn well not let me run out of water or oil. That's man's work.

;)
SMW

Amen, sistah!

it's not the juries value whites more than blacks, it's that interracial crimes of violence tend to be more brutal, and there's more whites than blacks to be victims by about 8-1.

I would somewhat agree with that. I would also say that interracial crimes are more likely to involve the victimization of a stranger. And killing a stranger is going to get you in more trouble than killing significant other who has pissed you off....e.g. those are less likely to be "crimes of passion."

I hate jumping into these threads so late when they are already so far in another direction......But a point i never seen mentioned that is very clear is...

If your in the frame of mind that your going to commit murder 1

(and yes only those who commit murder 1 or armed robbery resulting in death pretty much get actually exicuted.... except texas)

Then the last thing on your mind is a possible penalty of the death...

Timothy McVeigh sat on row for close to 6 years before he died,and he stopped personally apealing in 1998.

Someones gonna start the Timothy McVeigh conspiracy thing now.

no conspiracy .....Clinton was in office... they usual wack jobs that start that crap think that was 8 years of paradise.....

I am saying that here is someone that plead guilty to killing 160 plus people,was sentence to death,and stopped filing person appeals and it still took 6 years to put him under.... A typical run of the mill murder 1 offender will sit on row forever if he even sees the day.

death penalty is not scaring people from killing.... make it easier to actually put these guys to death and then we will see a huge decline in pre med murders....

death penalty is not scaring people from killing.... make it easier to actually put these guys to death and then we will see a huge decline in pre med murders....This may be a model you'd be comfortable with. Let me know.
http://www.rawa.us/movies/zarmeena.mpg

This may be a model you'd be comfortable with. Let me know.
http://www.rawa.us/movies/zarmeena.mpg

i didnt mean I agreed with a speed lane to the needle.... I am saying what they need to do, in order for it to scare people, into not committing the very crimes that warrants it.

I will never believe that the death penalty deters others from killing. It only stops a convicted killer from killing again.
Criminals just do not believe they will be caught, and convicted. An honest person doesn't plan to kill, so the idea of deterance never enters the picture.

I will never believe that the death penalty deters others from killing. It only stops a convicted killer from killing again.
.
Nothing wrong with that,not where i am sitting,,,, You pre med you die too..

(The answer to yr question is Wayne, but I cheated.)[/quote] See I knew that you would get it right. How did you cheat?

I will never believe that the death penalty deters others from killing. It only stops a convicted killer from killing again.
Criminals just do not believe they will be caught, and convicted. An honest person doesn't plan to kill, so the idea of deterance never enters the picture.

You'd DIE the same way your VICTIM died... not in an electric chair/lethal injection (too humane for my taste)... WOULD YOU DO IT?

I say you would not.

Damn, TWO college students this past week... BOTH WITH MORE to give to society then the SCUM that killed them!

DEATH PENALTY... NOW! ENOUGH!

IF these scum bags who have no wish to contribute to society were taken out of society what loss is that to society? Yet what they TOOK from society is a great LOSS!

Taking them out of the gene pool doesn't appear to be to me to be bad... it is JUSTICE for what they did!

You.. have an incredibly... FAMILIAR.. style of posting.

Reminds me of somebody.
(thinking now)

Somebody banned, and who later came back under a variety of registered identities... and got BANNED again and again.... for being so easily RILED... and argumentative.....
Who could it be?

:rolleyes:

LOL... I dunno Sparky. If there's IP address evidence I will believe you, but I think this is a slightly different brand of psycho.

I'm pretty well convinced it's her.
(And remember that warrior bragged that she posted from some sort of IP-address-hopping proxy server, and that we would never be able to trace her actual location.)

In this thread from last year (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=26214), lifelongnomad and warrior1972 were shilling for each other. And then out of nowhere, lifelong revives the long-dead thread.
To what end, I wonder?

Oh, yeah, to get attention.
And to prove how clever one fat, blubbering, child-abusing troll can be.

And as in 'clever', I mean to say shallow and transparent.
When first banned, the model mom warrior came back as a politically-opposite gay man. And then later a politically-ambivalent lesbian couple.

lifelongnomad is just the latest incarnation, and one that has flown under the radar for awhile at that.
I'm not buying that they are two separate people.

I'm pretty well convinced it's her.
(And remember that warrior bragged that she posted from some sort of IP-address-hopping proxy server, and that we would never be able to trace her actual location.)

In this thread from last year (http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?t=26214), lifelongnomad and warrior1972 were shilling for each other. And then out of nowhere, lifelong revives the long-dead thread.
To what end, I wonder?

Oh, yeah, to get attention.
And to prove how clever one fat, blubbering, child-abusing troll can be.

And as in 'clever', I mean to say shallow and transparent.
When first banned, the model mom warrior came back as a politically-opposite gay man. And then later a politically-ambivalent lesbian couple.

lifelongnomad is just the latest incarnation, and one that has flown under the radar for awhile at that.
I'm not buying that they are two separate people.

I am of the opinion that warrior is also sparky.
Sparky can be argumentative and condesending too. What better way for that clever villian to throw us off her trail than to ban herself and then accuse others of being her?

:rolleyes:

I am of the opinion that warrior is also sparky.
Sparky can be argumentative and condesending too. What better way for that clever villian to throw us off her trail than to ban herself and then accuse others of being her?

:rolleyes:


I've never used another name to post under and I've never been band from any forum.

Yes I am direct and to the point but unlike some I've seen posting here I don't swear when their views differ or try to make them look foolish. I just state my opinion and don't believe the post Sparky is so offended by my post as it was not condescending to the original poster.

Just like they feel strongly the death penalty isn't a deterrent, I feel it would be if implemented correctly. Give them all the appeals they want and if convicted let them die in the same manner they killed. Frankly, I cannot believe anyone would kill IF they knew that... but that's just my opinion and that is what these boards are about.

Again, thanks dharmabu... I do enjoy your posts and the smartmouthwoman's... can't say I've ready anything by Sparky so can't agree or disagree w/your assessment of him.

Regards.

1............and if convicted let them die in the same manner they killed.

2. Frankly, I cannot believe anyone would kill IF they knew that...



1.Where would you find a person who'd chop up a tarantula and put it in the condemned's food? Or drop a gallon of paint on the condemned's head? Also, if you could find such a person, would they

A. Use their own tarantula and then get in trouble with PETA

B..Buy one from a pet store and be reimbursed by the state

C. Get in trouble with the Painter's Union

2.Yes, they would.

Someones gonna start the Timothy McVeigh conspiracy thing now.
i think he gave up on appeals because he was afraid to give away the rest of the conspirators.

1.Where would you find a person who'd chop up a tarantula and put it in the condemned's food? Or drop a gallon of paint on the condemned's head? Also, if you could find such a person, would they

A. Use their own tarantula and then get in trouble with PETA

B..Buy one from a pet store and be reimbursed by the state

C. Get in trouble with the Painter's Union

2.Yes, they would.
Then our society is doomed.

Those two college students murdered this week held great promise of making a difference in this world. Both are dead because of two men w/records as long as your arm killed and have no hope of ever contributing anything worth while to society.

Why should society pay for these two to be fed, housed, etc., for the next 30+ years instead of being put to death the way they killed their victims?

I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty, LLG.

As for our society, tho--it's always been doomed. Murder is as old as mankind. I do not support yr idea, tho, that the killer should be executed in the same manner is which he took a life. This simply would not work. I think we should bring back hanging myself. There's nothing wrong with the slow knot for certain killers I can think of.

I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty, LLG.

As for our society, tho--it's always been doomed. Murder is as old as mankind. I do not support yr idea, tho, that the killer should be executed in the same manner is which he took a life. This simply would not work. I think we should bring back hanging myself. There's nothing wrong with the slow knot for certain killers I can think of.

Ok, I'll go with hanging... yes murder is old but there was far less of it years ago because the penalty was there and you could not use the excuses they use today to justify their crimes.

I don't want to hear "leathl" injection hurts or the electric chair is cruel... not when they are out their shooting and stabbing their victims, and often beating them prior to the final kill! Like that didn't hurt the victim who did nothing to them?

Society has to start making punishment fit the crimes in a timely fashion. By all means make sure they are guilty and if any doubt jail them w/o parole for life. BUT if guilty beyond doubt show them the same mercy they showed their victim and whatever little pain they suffer in the process so be it... it will never equal the pain they caused their victims or their families.

Not too long ago I read some articles on the cost of keeping these murders in jail and the numbers were staggering. Anywhere from 90K to 140K per prisoner depending on where you live. Why is the taxpayer that includes the victims family paying to keep these people in better accommondations then many law abiding citizens live?

I don't want to hear "leathl" injection hurts or the electric chair is cruel...
I'm against the death penalty because I don't think that our government should have the right to kill its citizens.

I'm against the death penalty because I don't think that our government should have the right to kill its citizens.
the government only pulls the trigger, it's a jury of the condemned's peers that makes the decision.

the government only pulls the trigger, it's a jury of the condemned's peers that makes the decision.
No, the death penalty is chosen by the judge. And either way, my point still stands.

I'm against the death penalty because I don't think that our government should have the right to kill its citizens.
In that case, why even bother giving the government the right judge its citizens in the first place. The death penalty is nothing but a punishment for a crime. If you can be judged to spend X amount of time in prison, then there is no reason to also be able to judge that someone should lose their life for particularly heinous crimes.


Ren- I agree witht he idea of bringing back hanging. Do it in a public place as well. Start advertising what awaits for certain crimes.

In that case, why even bother giving the government the right judge its citizens in the first place. The death penalty is nothing but a punishment for a crime. If you can be judged to spend X amount of time in prison, then there is no reason to also be able to judge that someone should lose their life for particularly heinous crimes.
And if it turns out a conviction was based on bad evidence or was just plain wrong, we can reverse the death penalty, apologize profusely to the person we have wronged, and provide him with a boatload of money for false imprisonment, right?

Most of the condemened are guilty without question. There is overwhelming evidence against them. Frequently there is also a confession--not that it's needed, many times.

The supporters of this sentence are all agreed that this should only be carried out against those as stated. We are not barbarians.

And if it turns out a conviction was based on bad evidence or was just plain wrong, we can reverse the death penalty, apologize profusely to the person we have wronged, and provide him with a boatload of money for false imprisonment, right?I dunno borg. To me that is another subject entirely. I think the whole judicial system should be held more accountable for their judgements or lack thereof.

There are many cases where a judge lets out criminals that should never be released and there is never any repercussion for those judges when the criminal commits another crime. I say make judges accountable for their judgements. I'm not smart enough to figure out exactly how that would work, but im sure the current system needs some tweaking.

I'm against the death penalty because I don't think that our government should have the right to kill its citizens.

I'm for the death penalty because I believe our government has an OBLIGATION to protect all citizens from those who kill them for whatever lame reason they come up with... ate twinkies as a kid, parents abused them, whatever... I don't care unless they are truly insane they deserve the death penalty. Otherwise they deserve life behind bars w/o parole ever... IF deemed insane a sanitarium... otherwise jail... they are a danger to society.

No, the death penalty is chosen by the judge. And either way, my point still stands.
you are incorrect, sir. the judge determines if the death penalty is an option.

We are not barbarians.
that's one of the reasons we gave up on public executions-they were turning into circuses.

Executing a convicted person is revenge-not justice.
The state has no more right to kill than the murderer.

Executing a convicted person is revenge-not justice.
You could consider any form of punishment to be revenge.



The state has no more right to kill than the murderer.
If thats the case, why allow any form of punishment at all?

there are instances where i believe there is no problem with putting a bullet through someones head and they are not to be executed.
defending yourself, your family, your community, friends, the innocent.
i believe shooting politicians and rich people should be a national sport though.
but i do believe that if someone is executed for "murder" and is later found to not have done the crime, the judge, lawyers, and the jury should ALL be executed.
but i believe also that automatic death penalties will just make people sneakier.

You could consider any form of punishment to be revenge.



If thats the case, why allow any form of punishment at all?

Nah that doesnt wash.

No Government has a right to a life for a life.

I liked it when Utah had the firing squads.


Read up on Gary Gilmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore)if you want to learn more, and also get a different perspective on the Death Penalty.

I am a staunch supporter of the death penalty, LLG.

These people agree.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/MahmoudAhmadinejadD300.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/muslimapocalyptic/taliban.jpg

These guys too, I reckon.

http://www.onlinegiftplace.com/images/late05early06items/Presidentsfloor.gif

I liked it when Utah had the firing squads.


Read up on Gary Gilmore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gilmore)if you want to learn more, and also get a different perspective on the Death Penalty.

Your sick Sparky.