Why the death penalty, you ask?

GoRightAndYouCan'tGoWrong · #21 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gbig

The death penalty is more needed today than at any time in history. Plus, the only real argument against it is now moot, that of innocent being convicted. Anyone who gets convicted based on DNA evidence should not even have an appeal. One way ticket to the needle.

Bleeders who cannot see past this issue feel guilt about their lives in some pathetic way. They show selfishness in regard to victim families and society at large.

Great point.......

A. Crowley · #22 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:32 PM

Yeah.

Take all those Republicant Pedophiles, for example...

All those creepy scumbags should go Down!

Sudzman · #23 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:33 PM

I'm definatly not against the death penalty because it's "wrong" or anything. I just think from a punishment standpoint, life without parole is worse. If I were facing life without parole or a quick death... hey, go a head and light me up. Our prisons are over flowing, and spending tax money on keeping these people alive is pointless.

Yellowjacket · #24 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

And the death penalty being used for his first murder would've saved the Lifes of 6 people...It's not only possible in this case, but a Fact.

His 1st conviction was 2nd degree murder, not aggravated murder. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed by current law. I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is in Tennessee where this took place, but it is possible he served it. If so, and you disapprove, I suggest you start a letter writing campaign to your representatives to change the statute and impose tougher penalties. As a 25 year correction officer, no one is more "law and order" than I am, but there are limits placed on us, not only by the Constitution, but by the will of "the People".

Yellowjacket · #25 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Anyone who gets convicted based on DNA evidence should not even have an appeal.

Certain appeals are mandatory. Original trial by jury determines guilt based on evidence presented. Appeals determine that proper procedures were followed in the gathering of evidence as well as the conduct of the original trial court. Criminals, like it or not, have the same Constitutional rights as you or I have, and they must be protected under our system of government.

Teak · #26 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellowjacket

His 1st conviction was 2nd degree murder, not aggravated murder. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed by current law. I'm not sure what the maximum sentence is in Tennessee where this took place, but it is possible he served it. If so, and you disapprove, I suggest you start a letter writing campaign to your representatives to change the statute and impose tougher penalties. As a 25 year correction officer, no one is more "law and order" than I am, but there are limits placed on us, not only by the Constitution, but by the will of "the People".

Murder is murder, or should be. Many states have made the murder of a police officer a capital crime, regardless of circumstances. Thats wrong. The murder of a police officer is no worse than the murder of any other person, every murder should be considered a capital crime, including murders committed due to DWI.

Yellowjacket · #27 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

Murder is murder, or should be. Many states have made the murder of a police officer a capital crime, regardless of circumstances. Thats wrong. The murder of a police officer is no worse than the murder of any other person, every murder should be considered a capital crime, including murders committed due to DWI.

Murder maybe SHOULD be murder, however that is not how it is now. The people, through their representatives and senators, have determined that different circumstances deserve different consideration when determining the severity of a crime and its punishment. Unless you take away what little voice the people have left, or change their mind, that is the way it must be. As to the murder of a police officer, most states view it not only as an attack on a person, but as an attack against the government, much like treason at the federal level. Not saying I agree or disagree, just offering an explanation. Technically speaking, most DWI deaths are accidental and do not meet the criteria for murder. In most states, manslaughter due to reckless behavior is the best they can do as there is no premeditation or intent to do harm. Again, not agreeing or disagreeing, just offering an explanation.

Teak · #28 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellowjacket

Murder maybe SHOULD be murder, however that is not how it is now. The people, through their representatives and senators, have determined that different circumstances deserve different consideration when determining the severity of a crime and its punishment. Unless you take away what little voice the people have left, or change their mind, that is the way it must be. As to the murder of a police officer, most states view it not only as an attack on a person, but as an attack against the government, much like treason at the federal level. Not saying I agree or disagree, just offering an explanation. Technically speaking, most DWI deaths are accidental and do not meet the criteria for murder. In most states, manslaughter due to reckless behavior is the best they can do as there is no premeditation or intent to do harm. Again, not agreeing or disagreeing, just offering an explanation.

And that is why I will continue to fight for changes in those laws. THEY ARE WRONG. A person driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is already committing a crime, any death resulting from that SHOULD be treated as murder, not manslaughter.

Yellowjacket · #29 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teak

And that is why I will continue to fight for changes in those laws. THEY ARE WRONG. A person driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol is already committing a crime, any death resulting from that SHOULD be treated as murder, not manslaughter.

I know your frustration. Problem is, some very sharp attorney will use the argument that, when his client started drinking, he had no intent to operate a vehicle. At the time he operated the vehicle, he was so intoxicated that he was not mentally competent to make the decision to drive / not drive. Thus, he is not guilty by reason of temporary mental incompetence. Don't laugh! Silly as this sounds, this is the kind of shit attorneys use to get their clients off. Remember, they only need to convince one person to hang a jury.

Teak · #30 (**permalink**) 03-10-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellowjacket

I know your frustration. Problem is, some very sharp attorney will use the argument that, when his client started drinking, he had no intent to operate a vehicle. At the time he operated the vehicle, he was so intoxicated that he was not mentally competent to make the decision to drive / not drive. Thus, he is not guilty by reason of temporary mental incompetence. Don't laugh! Silly as this sounds, this is the kind of shit attorneys use to get their clients off. Remember, they only need to convince one person to hang a jury.

Thats why the only life form lower than a lawyer, is a lawyer turned politician.