Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Death penalty: whats your opinion ?
- Thread starter manny78
- Start date
life is good
New member
Sorry Im a little late on the discussion. There always will be errors in the judicial system, that is a problem with the judicial system not the death penalty. The death penalty in the united does not work right now. It doesnt work because it is not implimented enough. If all first degree murderers, rapists and child molesters were put to death the disgusting things that happen in this country would decrease amazingly.IMO. I dont think the death penalty should only be a penalty for murder. rapist and child molester should be castrated then put to death. I am serious.
nikolai_bolkov
New member
life is good - you can't be serious, but in the case you are, I will post a serious reply.
There is not a finite number of 1st degree murderers, rapists, and child molesters that can be eliminated. Such criminals are created by the society they live in, with perhaps some help from certain genes.
One of the main purposes for any punishment is to act as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The problem with such disgusting crimes of which we are speaking, is that the persons committing them are not able to reason that deterring factor against their impulse or desire to act. I don't think a person committing armed robbery weighs "hmmm...I'll commit armed robbery, and if I get caught, I'll get 10 yrs, but I better not kill anyone, since I could possibly get life or execution".
The key is to focus on what breeds such acts, not on punishing for punishments sake.
There is not a finite number of 1st degree murderers, rapists, and child molesters that can be eliminated. Such criminals are created by the society they live in, with perhaps some help from certain genes.
One of the main purposes for any punishment is to act as a deterrent to would-be criminals. The problem with such disgusting crimes of which we are speaking, is that the persons committing them are not able to reason that deterring factor against their impulse or desire to act. I don't think a person committing armed robbery weighs "hmmm...I'll commit armed robbery, and if I get caught, I'll get 10 yrs, but I better not kill anyone, since I could possibly get life or execution".
The key is to focus on what breeds such acts, not on punishing for punishments sake.
life is good
New member
nikolai_bolkov, I agree completely about focusing and fixing what breeds these kinds of crimes, but I DO think that the death penalty if executed enough is a detterent. And the armed robbery thing. There are many many documented cases and studes done where people stated that they either did not load the gun or did not use a gun for that very reason. Also people have dropped hostages at state lines because the state they were entering had the death penalty for kidnapping.
I understand that some crimes will not and cannot ever be dettered but that doesnt mean we should not do everything in our power to detter the ones we can(which I believe are the majority) As stated above a non premeditated murder is not a capital crime. I dont believe you should be put to death for a non premeditated crime.(like the walking in on the wife). IN that crime someone may hit someone too hard or act in a moment of rage. But ALL acts of child molestation or rape are premeditated. You can tell me that someone doesnt premeditate their rape or whatever but that is complete BULLSHIT. And I wont believe it for a second. There are too many variables and too much crap to argue about but i honestly believe that this nation is going to destroy itself and the implementation of the death penalty much more often could at least slow the proccess down.
oh yah and send all your child molesters to me and I will Slaughter them myself. forget all that we dont have the right to take life crap. if someone touches my little sister i will tourture that person I would castrate and touture that person for weeks. I am a sick freak I know. But the injustice in this country makes me sick.
I understand that some crimes will not and cannot ever be dettered but that doesnt mean we should not do everything in our power to detter the ones we can(which I believe are the majority) As stated above a non premeditated murder is not a capital crime. I dont believe you should be put to death for a non premeditated crime.(like the walking in on the wife). IN that crime someone may hit someone too hard or act in a moment of rage. But ALL acts of child molestation or rape are premeditated. You can tell me that someone doesnt premeditate their rape or whatever but that is complete BULLSHIT. And I wont believe it for a second. There are too many variables and too much crap to argue about but i honestly believe that this nation is going to destroy itself and the implementation of the death penalty much more often could at least slow the proccess down.
oh yah and send all your child molesters to me and I will Slaughter them myself. forget all that we dont have the right to take life crap. if someone touches my little sister i will tourture that person I would castrate and touture that person for weeks. I am a sick freak I know. But the injustice in this country makes me sick.
nycdefender
New member
Sorry to chime in so late, but I am against the death penalty. Litig8tr is from Texas, a state, previously, where the option of life without parole was not a sentencing option. So in a capital case, the jurors had the choice of the death penalty or life with the chance of parole (guy would serve about 40 years). Many Texas jurors who were polled said that had the option of life without parole been presented, they would have opted for that sentence in lieu of the death penalty.
In many other U.S. jurisdictions, life without parole is a sentencing option. That is why Texas is the death penalty capital of the world.
So when litig8tr says that a jury agreed with him on the death penalty, it may not be that the jurors really felt that death was appropriate. Rather, death was the better alternative than giving the defendant a chance to get out on parole.
Let us not forget that many death row inmates have been vindicated and that 22% of those vindications involved false confessions. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the U.S. has executed an innocent person. Our system of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not assure us of convicting only guilty defendants. Obviously, prosecutors have obtained convictions and death sentences against innocent people. So when litig8tr claims that the rules of evidence are designed "to protect those rare instances where an innocent man is charged," obviously the rules of evidence don't do that. The jury system in the U.S. does not perform its function so well that innocent people are not executed. I believe that it is the best system (in theory) in the world, but it is not equipped to determine whether the state should execute someone.
I am not in any way attempting to flame or to attack litig8tr. He is doing what he believes to be correct. I am only rebutting his posts. I am sure that he is deeply disturbed by the decisions he has to make in capital cases. And for that, I offer my sympathies. But I could not ask that someone be executed. To me, that is playing God--saying who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Yes, juries make the final decision on the death penalty, but someone asked and persuaded them. That's a job I refuse to do.
Litig8tr is correct that there are some extremely dangerous people out there. I have several clients that truly deserve life without parole, because they seem to me to be very evil. But as I said, I could not ask for the death penalty against them, because it requires me to judge my fellow man and determine whether he lives or dies. I'd rather leave that up to God come Judgment Day.
In many other U.S. jurisdictions, life without parole is a sentencing option. That is why Texas is the death penalty capital of the world.
So when litig8tr says that a jury agreed with him on the death penalty, it may not be that the jurors really felt that death was appropriate. Rather, death was the better alternative than giving the defendant a chance to get out on parole.
Let us not forget that many death row inmates have been vindicated and that 22% of those vindications involved false confessions. I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the U.S. has executed an innocent person. Our system of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not assure us of convicting only guilty defendants. Obviously, prosecutors have obtained convictions and death sentences against innocent people. So when litig8tr claims that the rules of evidence are designed "to protect those rare instances where an innocent man is charged," obviously the rules of evidence don't do that. The jury system in the U.S. does not perform its function so well that innocent people are not executed. I believe that it is the best system (in theory) in the world, but it is not equipped to determine whether the state should execute someone.
I am not in any way attempting to flame or to attack litig8tr. He is doing what he believes to be correct. I am only rebutting his posts. I am sure that he is deeply disturbed by the decisions he has to make in capital cases. And for that, I offer my sympathies. But I could not ask that someone be executed. To me, that is playing God--saying who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Yes, juries make the final decision on the death penalty, but someone asked and persuaded them. That's a job I refuse to do.
Litig8tr is correct that there are some extremely dangerous people out there. I have several clients that truly deserve life without parole, because they seem to me to be very evil. But as I said, I could not ask for the death penalty against them, because it requires me to judge my fellow man and determine whether he lives or dies. I'd rather leave that up to God come Judgment Day.
NYC is correct. Texas still does not have Life wthout parole. I in fact supported a bill that would have given Texans that choice. (our legislature only meets once every two years. We don't want them fucking things up year round) Some of my fellow DAs disagreed with me for the vary reason stated by NYC, It would cut down on the death penalty. I do not think it will make much difference. The last man that I tried to a death penalty was 38 when he was sentenced. The jury knew he would die in prison. I told them he would die behind bars if they gave him life. They still answered the special issues in such a way they knew would result in death. In fact they did so in 1 hour and 15 min.
As for innocent men being executed, it may be possible. I can only address the cases I have tried or to which I have had been closely tied. There was no question about guilt.
Your point on confessions is well taken. I am not as well versed in the law of other States as you seem to,but in Texas you can not obtain a conviction on a confession alone. You must have other evidence that tends to link the defendant to the crime. This is in all criminal cases. Additionally, Texas confessions must be Written or recorded with the defendant acknowleging he knows he being recorded, the recording must contain the reading of the defendant's rights and the defendant's waiver of those rights before a jury will ever here it. None of the NYPD blue "tell me what you did - here write it on a legal pad"
These rules and others are DESIGNED to protect the accused'd rights. No doubt, individuals who are "not guilty" sometimes (but rarely) get convicted. That is the purpose of our lengthy multilevel, multijurisdictional appellate process that takes years, sometimes decades to complete. This certainly is not for the benefit of the victims or the government.
Finally, perhaps it is distinction without a difference, but I merely present a case made up of facts and evidence. The jury must decide. I do what my laws ask me to do and what I feel is moral. It is not easy. Assisting in anothers death should not be. As i stated before, when asking for a death penalty no longer bothers me, It is time to go chase some ambulances.
NYC,I suspect I would enjoy trying a case with you. You sond like the kind of defense attorney that would make work. Unfortunately, more often than not, that is not the case.
hasta
litig8r
As for innocent men being executed, it may be possible. I can only address the cases I have tried or to which I have had been closely tied. There was no question about guilt.
Your point on confessions is well taken. I am not as well versed in the law of other States as you seem to,but in Texas you can not obtain a conviction on a confession alone. You must have other evidence that tends to link the defendant to the crime. This is in all criminal cases. Additionally, Texas confessions must be Written or recorded with the defendant acknowleging he knows he being recorded, the recording must contain the reading of the defendant's rights and the defendant's waiver of those rights before a jury will ever here it. None of the NYPD blue "tell me what you did - here write it on a legal pad"
These rules and others are DESIGNED to protect the accused'd rights. No doubt, individuals who are "not guilty" sometimes (but rarely) get convicted. That is the purpose of our lengthy multilevel, multijurisdictional appellate process that takes years, sometimes decades to complete. This certainly is not for the benefit of the victims or the government.
Finally, perhaps it is distinction without a difference, but I merely present a case made up of facts and evidence. The jury must decide. I do what my laws ask me to do and what I feel is moral. It is not easy. Assisting in anothers death should not be. As i stated before, when asking for a death penalty no longer bothers me, It is time to go chase some ambulances.
NYC,I suspect I would enjoy trying a case with you. You sond like the kind of defense attorney that would make work. Unfortunately, more often than not, that is not the case.
hasta
litig8r
nycdefender
New member
In New York, a conviction, also, cannot be based solely upon a confession. It is true of most jurisdictions. Unfortunately, jurors convict in almost 99% of homicide cases where there is a confession. So it seems that the corroborative evidence required for conviction is not substantial.
Unfortuantley, New York does not require audio/videotaped confessions. I do remember Texas' rule of admissibility; I graduated from U of H law school. Maybe when I go and visit my parents in Texas, we could meet up.
Litig8tr, no matter how you ever feel about the death penalty, there's never a reason to do personal injury law.
Unfortuantley, New York does not require audio/videotaped confessions. I do remember Texas' rule of admissibility; I graduated from U of H law school. Maybe when I go and visit my parents in Texas, we could meet up.
Litig8tr, no matter how you ever feel about the death penalty, there's never a reason to do personal injury law.
