Arkansas Executions

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Maas

How do you feel about chain gangs?

That depends entirely on your definition of "chain gangs".

What do they have to do with the death penalty?

[bobmueller]

Originally Posted by The Fat Guy

You make my point. Both scenarios require risk-based decisions. Why are you allowed to sentence someone to death but not a constitutionally appointed jury of someones peers?

Imminent threat, for starters.

Plus, I shoot to stop the threat. I'm not trying to kill the person; I'm just trying to make sure he can't hurt me.

[Agoge]

Originally Posted by bobmueller

Imminent threat, for starters.

Plus, I shoot to stop the threat. I'm not trying to kill the person; I'm just trying to make sure he can't hurt me.

Lethal force is called that for a reason, my friend, it's not "shoot to wound" force. When you shoot someone, it will be investigated as either a homicide or an attempted one. There is no "shooting to wound."

When it comes to the death penalty, you are either for it or against it. You can't put caveats on it because it is designed to be applied under our system of laws. Each state has its base statutes for what crimes apply.

[KidA]

Originally Posted by The Fat Guy

You make my point. Both scenarios require risk-based decisions. Why are you allowed to sentence someone to death but not a constitutionally appointed jury of someones peers?

As stated: imminent threat.

Juries are only presented with some information. Bad witnesses, outright false testimony, mistaken identity, a shoddy defense attorney, an institution willing to end a case for closure, etc.

In my house where you have no right to be? Very few variables there. No mistaken identity, etc.

look how many people have been exonerated. If our system was foolproof there'd be none.

[Agoge]

Originally Posted by KidA

If our system was foolproof there'd be none.

No such thing brother! Not as long as humanity is involved in the process.

[ramzmedic]

Originally Posted by Agoge

Lethal force is called that for a reason, my friend, it's not "shoot to wound" force. When you shoot someone, it will be investigated as either a homicide or an attempted one. There is no "shooting to wound."

Sadly you are correct. Our litigation crazy society has made sure of that. There was a time a LEO would simply wound a perp and dissolve the situation. But now we pay the perp for the rest of their life, LEO gets terminated, etc. If looking at the situation without litigation blinders on shooting to stop would be a better option than killing a perp. JMO

[Ole crusty bastard]

There are many who need to be executed, killed or otherwise dispatched off this planet.

I've seen court appointed lawyers do what they do in court, our system is fucked.

KidA, down here in Florida, even with the liberal law on shooting intruders, if someone is in your house illegally, he has to be seen as a deadly threat, like with a deadly weapon, before you can respond with deadly force.

[grog18b]

That is the "politically correct" way of describing the actions of a LEO. Shooting to "stop the action". Well, I'm not all that politically correct so...
(Insert your suprised face here.)

The real reason you employ deadly force on another human being is to stop the action of their heart and brain. People can argue all day that they are only trying to stop the action of the "perp" but in the real world, where I exist, you are dropping the hammer on someone you deem is a threat to you.

Is the military now doing that in asscrackastan? Do we drop 1k lb JDAMs on a building to "stop the action"? or do we do it to kill every motherfucker in the building?

Political corrrectness needs to go the way of the Dodo and Boobie bird.

...and I am all for electric bleachers. Perhaps another way to save the taxpayer money and reduce the deficit. When all doubt of guilt is removed, such as in the case of Manson or Dahmer, then yes, pay for the bullet or bleacher.

I am Grog and I approve this politically incorrect message.

[Whitebean54]

Originally Posted by Ole crusty bastard

There are many who need to be executed, killed or otherwise dispatched off this planet.

I've seen court appointed lawyers do what they do in court, our system is fucked.

KidA, down here in Florida, even with the liberal law on shooting intruders, if someone is in your house illegally, he has to be seen as a deadly threat, like with a deadly weapon, before you can respond with deadly force.

Just some food for thought on this: lots of folks think they need a tranditional weapon like a gun or knife. Tools used to gain entry like a crowbar, screwdriver etc can all be lethal implements.

I'm pretty sure you knew that OCB.
Just incase you didn't.

[Maas]

The current DP system doesn't work. It's not a deterrent and the only ones who benefit are the lawyers.

We need to change the way we utilize it. We should do monthly public hangings. That third time you get a violent felony or first time child molester off you go.

I'm also for using chain gangs, it adds a sense of public shame with it. Just like in the movies. Except using a four wheeler.

Maas

[bobmueller]

Originally Posted by Maas

first time child molester off you go.

227 people wrongfully convicted of child sex crimes have been exonerated since 1989.

Not released on a technicality. Exonerated. Innocent people spending time in prison.

[1RiserSlip]

It's not a deterrent because it's not scary anymore. Lethal injection, cruel? Hardly. If anyone here has ever had an operation it's mostly the same thing. Best sleep you'll ever get when you go under.

The only thing wrong is it takes too much damn time from sentencing to execution. With all of our technology; dna, forensic science, cameras everywhere, cell phone tracing...you would think it wouldn't take 10 years to execute someone.

[redhawk]

Originally Posted by Maas

...or first time child molester off you go.

The easiest crime to frame someone for.

[MixedLoad]

I can see both sides of the issue. I'm definitely a proponent of the death penalty, but only if it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, as others have argued. Unfortunately the cases BobMueller is stating are accurate and it's not an "oops" to me, nor an acceptable margin of error, if we the people kill the wrong person.

But, in cases where we have a confession, witnesses, DNA, footage, you name irrefutable evidence and it should be on the table. At that stage, I believe it should be swift, as in the PRC, and be handled by an execution squad. No public spectacle, behind prison walls, and done with cold precision.

The death penalty has become an emotional and political roller-coaster because it's a judicial trainwreck. How is Manson, or anyone of his clique, still alive? Why do we let child molestors and serial rapists walk after a few years?

I've felt the same way about our legal system as I do about our tax code. It's a disaster intended to work for a very small group of people and hold a massive segment of the population accountable whenever it benefits the authorities.

[leopardprey]

Originally Posted by MixedLoad

I can see both sides of the issue. I'm definitely a proponent of the death penalty, but only if it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, as others have argued. Unfortunately the cases BobMueller is stating are accurate and it's not an "oops" to me, nor an acceptable margin of error, if we the people kill the wrong person.

But, in cases where we have a confession, witnesses, DNA, footage, you name irrefutable evidence and it should be on the table. At that stage, I believe it should be swift, as in the PRC, and be handled by an execution squad. No public spectacle, behind prison walls, and done with cold precision.

The death penalty has become an emotional and political roller-coaster because it's a judicial trainwreck. How is Manson, or anyone of his clique, still alive? Why do we let child molestors and serial rapists walk after a few years?

I've felt the same way about our legal system as I do about our tax code. It's a disaster intended to work for a very small group of people and hold a massive segment of the population accountable whenever it benefits the authorities.

Very well said.

[Maas]

Originally Posted by redhawk

The easiest crime to frame someone for.

How about the ones caught in the act?

I realize that we've seen cases where labs or police have made bad cases. I'm talking about those instances where there is no doubt.

Maas

[Whitebean54]

Originally Posted by Maas

How about the ones caught in the act?

I realize that we've seen cases where labs or police have made bad cases. I'm talking about those instances where there is no doubt.

Maas

They should never see the inside of courtroom. Just my personal feelings on it.
Now, like redhawk said, child molestation can be a very easy frame.

Kid:"He touched me down there"
Adult:"no I didn't"
Cop: "that's what they all say"

Childs testimony can be all that's needed. The adult gets offered a plea to be a tier or level 1 sex offender(least amount of time on the "list")in exchange for not going to trial and risking 7-10 years in jail for something that had no tangible evidence.

[Spinner]

Originally Posted by Purple36

I agree with you. Death Penalty only IF it is 100% confirmed. In that case I would like to see a speedy sentence.

I'm less inclined to support the DP, too many cases where they've convicted the wrong man. In Illinois especially.

[SamEid]

The good thing I think coming out of this is that law enforcement and prosecutors are getting better at building a solid case. Not just circumstantial evidence, or even eyewitnesses, but solid scientific proof.

I don't want to see any innocent person put to death and am kind of glad it takes time to make sure the right person is on death row.

As to the death penalty for crimes against children, I would worry more about the perpetrator just killing the child rather than just saying "sssh, don't tell."

I have no sympathy for the person getting the DP if the conviction is beyond a shadow of a doubt. But for those innocent people locked up for years, my heart breaks for them and their families.

[bobmueller]

25 of the 116 Death Row exonerations involved eyewitness ID.

Of the 2003 total exonerations at UM 's National Registry of Exonerations, 592 involved eyewitness ID.

The jury is still out on the reliability of eyewitness ID. This case is particularly interesting. It's been an issue since at least 1907. The science behind it is very interesting.