I tend to agree. That being said, if your rights are being denied by someone, an attorney can be useful. For this reason, I consider them a necessary evil. Especially considering how our education system has dumbed down the people to the point many don't even know they have rights.

I personally believe that the "study and learn" thing would be alright, but then....
what happens if through this study we learn that criminals are just mentally criminals and it's genetic? That presents a serious dillema in my opinion. At that point, you can't punish them for committing a crime can you? I mean they can't help it right? So what do you do? Legalize murder?!? Or do we genetically test all our children and any that have the criminal gene gets automatically aborted?
I believe that genetics probably has a lot to do with how people act, but we all still have that magical thing called free will. You may have the fantasy or even the opportunity to commit crime, but most will never act upon it because of either the fear of the penalty or better yet they decide it's morally apprehensive and it's wrong.
Death penalty is a great deterrent if done publicly. I've never seen a guillotine or the like in operation, but if there was one set up in the town square you'd think twice about doing anything wrong lol. If DNA proves 100% they did the crime death penalty is the best way for the taxpayer. Putting a prisoner in jail for LIFE is cruel and unusual punishment on the taxpayers that foot the bill for their food, TV, electricity, hospital bills, etc, etc.
Thats what I think anyhow.

Nah.

The death penalty and state sponsored murder are always wrong.

__________________

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Please clarify your opinion. Wrong how? Legally? Morally? Based on religious teachings?

I bow to your expertise on the Law Enforcement aspect Y/J. But to me, Murder is Murder. I can understand Accidental Deaths,,,and possibly Involuntary Manslaughter being used as a Defense.

But the word Murder to me, means it was intentional. There ARE no degrees in a intentional death. It's Murder

Take care.

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

I'm far from an expert, just a long-time practitioner. I understand your viewpoint, but the reality is, we must live with the statutes we have or take the steps necessary to change them. Until the changes are made, I have to do my duty within the confines of the laws on the books and ultimately, the Constitution. If I violate the rights of anyone, even a convicted criminal, I place my own rights at risk as well. A Thomas Paine quote pretty much sums up that philosophy: "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

That's true, as one dealing within the Law Enforcement System,,,as a Professional, you'd have to adjust your natural instincts... Or lose your position.

As for Mr Paine,,,he'd have been much better off if he'd of taken "care" of his Enemies, as we should the repeat released Murderers.

Problem solved. Take care.

__________________
A Liberal is a Man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel (Robert Frost 1874-1963).

Yes. Yes. Yes.

__________________

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Life terms are not cheaper, it costs the taxpayers 22k a year to keep the average prison inmate, on average. Death row is twice that!

Killing is what the perpetrators did. Punishment is what the state does. Why you anti death penalty guys refuse to honor the victims families, and the decency of society by destroying the trash among us who prey on the innocence is beyond reason.

Point 1:

Death penalty is Constitutional:

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Point 2:

Marality is a personal issue. What one person considers immoral, another may find totally acceptable. The reality is, based on current law, the majority of the people do not find the death penalty objectionable.

Point 3:

Religious teachings vary from religion to religion, and even within the same religion. For instance, the Christian Bible refers to stoning adulterers to death, and "an eye for an eye" in the Old Testament, then teaches forgiveness in the New Testament. It's all a matter of personal viewpoint. The courts have ruled that sincerely held religious beliefs are a personal matter and need not be a part of an organized religious body. Furthermore, the government may not act based on a religious viewpoint without serious constitutional questions being raised.