Do you trust your government's handling of your health care? Do you agree 100% how your tax dollars are being spent, do you think the justice system is always fair with a perfect track record? How about your government's stance on privacy and your personal freedom? Has there never been instances when you read about some court ruling and thought...what the heck was the judge thinking?

If you've answered no to any of the above...then why would you think it's a good idea to give the government the authority to impose capital punishment?

Interesting link.

Uses photo of beheading with sword, yet states the method of execution is unknown. As outlined above, it's known - just not what for who.

Saudi has been cleaning up it's act with the Crown Prince even allegedly hanging one of his brothers by his heels - Bin Al Waleed, the one who owns the top floors of a hotel in Vegas. Hmmm. He was kept in confinement until he released portions of the family money back to the control of the Kingdom. Al Waleed is also reputedly the major shareholder in the six major media corporations in America, controlling over 87% of the news. But that's old news dug up years ago.

Names of the 81 would be interesting.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
If I were executed I think I'd like to fall from a tall building. The end is pretty quick but at least you find out what happens instead of waking up...

Heh heh heh!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Capital punishment is actually a mercy to the condemned. We are doing the guilty a favor by allowing him to save his soul and seek absolution.

As Samuel Johnson once quipped, "When a man knows he is to be hanged...it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

I've never heard that before. Something to think about. Thank you.

At least 90% + are no brainers. There is no realistic doubt about guilt and innocence.
If we just focused on the last 10% that might be time and money well spent. Nobody should want anybody executed that might be innocent.
If you cleared out the easy cases, the Ted Bundy's, you'd have more resources to deal with the cases that have some merit.

^^ Problem is a lot of cases are confessions made under coercive questioning. If you question someone enough while depriving him of sleep, he will eventually confess to anything.

I would advocate only a jury trial to determine capital punishment. And exclusion of any "confessions" made to police without a lawyer present. That should make it fair enough.

Seems like I remember some years ago a member of the Palace Guard was caught messing around with one of the daughters of the King of one of those sandbox countries .. The law of that country for messing around between the sexes demanded punishment with a sentence of public decapiation which was carried out in a public square for both parties eventhough on person was the daughter of the king...................................................................................................................... Had a friend working in one of those sand box countries as a contract worker and while visiting another co worker on their compound they decieded to go somewhere and they left a very large amount of cash out on the bed and was not worried about theft because if someone had stole the money and caught then the offending hand would have to be cut off ...........drill sgt.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: drill sgt,

I think those serving life without any possibility of parole should be given the option of volunteering for execution.

quote:

I was living in IL when Gary Dotson was freed after years in prison for a rape he did not commit. His life was still a trainwreck and he got himself killed a few years later, but he was wrongly convicted by a woman who lied to cover up for another guy.

Dotson is still alive, from all accounts I'veseen.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
The folks that are against the death penalty because an innocent person might be condemned haven't thought it through. If you are innocent and wrongly convicted, the death penalty is a humane end to your torment.

This is the retarded cousin of "died doing what he loved."

The saudis drug the condemned. Executions are public and by beheading, generally. The technique has been in use a long time. A sword, a scimitar, is used, and the victim is set kneeling, and stuck in the spine with the scimitar. That causes the victim to arch his or her back, sitting up straight, involuntarily. The sword swipe is taken as the victim sits straight, severing the head.

Spectators are encouraged to come, and to video or take pictures.

Those losing a hand are likewise drugged, and the hand is sawn off (not chopped).

The saudis are not known for justice, and they're known for taking things to the extreme. When I lived there, a couple in my compound was discovered to be unwed. A Phillipine couple, they were arrested, each assigned 600 lashes, six months in prison, and then deportation, for the crime of being together, unmarried. In their prisons, unless you know someone who can come feed you, you may die of thirst or starvation, because the saudis don't care much about prisoners. Justice is largely dependent on the will of allah, and is subverted by payments and other corruption. Families of victims may demand equal compensation, money, or a legal remedy. Your capital crime may be as simple as offending someone and having a trumped up charge placed on you, a judgement, and then you await what will not be a pardon. It's a disposal. Justice, ain't.

If you've never lived there, you won't understand, no matter how much you read, or how many movies you watch. Authority is supreme. There are places in country that are so fundamentalist that you'd be killed just for being white and a stranger. Extreme wahabiism. The nation considers itself the keeper of the two mosques and the foundation of Islam, that position permeates everything. The authority of the royals backs that up, and is limitless. The will of Allah can (and will) be used to justify anything. Anything.

quote:

Originally posted by airsoft guy:

This is the retarded cousin of "died doing what he loved."

It could happen. So long as what he loved, was dying.

Otherwise, yes, it's an idiotic saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
You have to admit though, DNA evidence has exonerated a fair number of death row inmates that were railroaded or forced to confess. Prosecutors and police DO railroad people for political reasons.

I'm not going to admit that. OJ Dream Team lawyer Barry Scheck and his Innocence Project taught me to question how the legal system has been corrupted by alleged "science". Scheck challenged the chain of custody with DNA evidence in that trial, not convincingly but just enough to cloud the issue. Not getting into specifics and to be flippant, Scheck's chicanery meant the chances someone other than OJ was the perp were a bazillion to one vs. a gazillion to one, reasonable doubt? No, just one of too many illegitimate clouds in that trial.

Point being, I can't say I've looked into any case where an old conviction was overturned by DNA evidence but I can show you where science is used to subvert our way of life.

Barry's regular job is getting the convictions of many wrongly accused people overturned because the DNA evidence provides absolute proof they were not the perpetrator. He regularly argued how conclusive a DNA mismatch is to rule out a suspect, and how the odds of a DNA match between two different people is so high that is is statistically impossible.

For O.J. he was paid to say the opposite - that even though the DNA mostly matched, it was not proof enough. The match wasn't perfect due to contamination with other blood, and he argued illogically that blood samples from the scene could somehow be contaminated in such a way that they looked like match to O.J. He should have refused the case, because as you said, he loses credibility arguing both sides depending on who is paying him. But then, he's a lawyer, so....

I’ve considered the reason the DNA didn’t totally match was that OJ was covering for a blood relative. But there were other issues with that prosecution, like the excuses the police used for entering OJ’s property, and then collecting evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The leftists say that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

I have asked Leftists how they can possibly know this is true. They say it with such authority. There's never been a satisfacory response - usually there's no response.

I’m willing to concede it may not be an effective deterrent, but no arguing that it isn’t an effective punishment and last I checked it was called “Capital Punishment” not “ Capital Deterrent”.

Quite a few years ago, I was protecting an American political leader during his visit to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. One of our motorcade drivers mentioned that on the past Friday, we could have witnessed the death of a prostitute by stoning, He described her death as quick since the officials tied her down with stakes, then backed up a wrecker holding
a concrete slab which was dropped on her. He described how first offense theft would result in public amputation of one hand (no anesthetic); second offense, the other hand is cut off - 3rd
offense, the thief's head is removed. Our hotel had no locks on guest room doors, so we never could
leave valuables (or our firearms) therein. The Saudi's encourage Americans attend Punishment Day
so we could better understand how criminals should
be punished. Wow!

So Ron white was correct - there is such a thing as "an express lane" for capital punishment!

As Ron White would say, “They put in an express lane”.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
^^ Problem is a lot of cases are confessions made under coercive questioning. If you question someone enough while depriving him of sleep, he will eventually confess to anything.

I would advocate only a jury trial to determine capital punishment. And exclusion of any "confessions" made to police without a lawyer present. That should make it fair enough.

The reliability of any admissions of guilt ("Confession") is ultimately determined by the "Finder of Fact" (judge or jury) and issues such as whether or not the means used to solicit incriminating statements are made after the defense has had the opportunity to present their own experts in court. Virtually any environment where someone is being accused of committing murder is going to be "coercive" to some degree, merely due to the nature of the investigation.

As a court approved expert on this subject matter myself, I can assure you and other members that forced sleep deprivation is certainly one example of an excessively coercive technique that can lead to unreliable admissions and is not something that meets the standard of best practices. Threats and promises of leniency can and do lead to exclusions of unreliable admissions/confessions, but only after the court(s) have examined the specifics of what was said by the interrogators and the response(s) provided by the person being questioned.

There is no situation in this country where a defendant doesn't have the RIGHT to a trial by jury and the jury has a say in whether or not capital punishment is appropriate. Judges cannot sentence a defendant in this country to death if a jury hasn't recommended it. He/she can only overrule a death recommendation with a Life sentence. In places like Colorado, there's been a concerted effort by opponents of the death penalty to subvert justice by insuring that opponents of capital punishment can't be excluded from serving as jurors. Defense attorneys in that state have developed a well organized program designed specifically to prohibit the exclusion anyone assigned to a jury who'd vote against a sentence of death, no matter how compelling the evidence (based on their own biases).

Your suggestion that any and all confessions made to the police without the accused's lawyer being present be excluded is patently absurd. Such a "standard" would result in virtually every suspect invoking his/her right to remain silent upon advice of his/her attorney, or the attorney would walk out. Any lawyer that allowed his/her client to answer any questions in his/her presence in a capital case would subsequently be disbarred as incompetent, and a "Guilty" verdict would be reversed due to ineffective counsel. This is hardly "fair" to "The People" (the state), the murdered victims, or their loved ones.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael J. Shannon:
Quite a few years ago, I was protecting an American political leader during his visit to Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. One of our motorcade drivers mentioned that on the past Friday, we could have witnessed the death of a prostitute by stoning, He described her death as quick since the officials tied her down with stakes, then backed up a wrecker holding
a concrete slab which was dropped on her.

Holy shit

THIS is why the West will never get along with these cultures.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael J. Shannon:
... The Saudi's encourage Americans attend Punishment Day so we could better understand how criminals should be punished. Wow!

As a nine-year old living in Africa in the late 60s, one of my father's Liberian colleagues took me, along with his two sons (one eight, one nine) to see Sharia justice served on a thief.

The thief was brought to the square, his crime and sentence read out, then he was pinned down and a machete used to amputate his left hand. No anesthesia, but they did apply a crude tourniquet beforehand.

Hell of an object lesson.

and after that display, you weren't likely to steal anything