What would you recommend for this guy?

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina+Jul 6 2005, 02:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JiriHrdina @ Jul 6 2005, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Jul 6 2005, 03:41 PM
Well, we can always overlook the fact that the US executes people for criminal activity, while those other nations often execute people for political reasons.

We can also overlook the fact that given the high number of people executed in the US there has been without question some innocent people wrongfully executed.

Great documentary on this subject is available now - I think its called Deadline and chronicles a US governor as his weighs whether or not to cancel all pending executions in his state upon realizing that his justic system has serious problems. [/b][/quote]
Oh I am sure that some innocent people were wrongfully convicted. It is irrelevent to the point though. Lumping the US - who executes people only for criminal acts - with nations that execute people for political, as well as criminal, acts is fairly ridiculous.


Transplant - I've heard as well that the cost of executing a person is higher than of jailing them for life. It is mainly because of the number of appeals that are guaranteed when a person is sentenced to death. It costs $100k a year to house a criminal, but it costs a hell of a lot more to house a criminal and pay for a myriad of appeals.

That said, in cases like this, the cost is well worth it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 7 2005, 12:36 PM

What?

The jury IS who decides sentence in capital punishment cases.

No idea what you are getting at.

There are provisions in the majority of states with the death penalty, that allow prosecution to attach special circumstances as part of the charge. These generally are in such cases as the one we are talking about here. Multiple felonies all attached to one incident. Also for repeat offenders.

Your opinion. Thats cool.

Gonna have to prove that one...no idea how you are coming up with that.

Yeah thats what is being suggested. Weak.

It's as plain as the nose on your face that the government is the one running the arrest and the trial and prosecution and the whole show so I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that his life would be in the hands of the government.

Check Agamemnon's link re: the financial part. It's quite simple really -- the guy is, for one thing, going to be on death row for a long time and that's expensive. Then if you count in all the court costs, appeals, lawyers bla bla bla it costs a fortune.

"In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of 2.3 million, about 3 times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years" -- Dallas Morning News, 1992

[notoepik]

Originally posted by jam26+Jul 7 2005, 12:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jam26 @ Jul 7 2005, 12:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-notoepik@Jul 6 2005, 05:33 PM
If the remains that were found do turn out to be the boy, he was killed in Montana. Tried and convicted here, he could be hanged. That is clearly too good for this monster.

You still hang people there?? [/b][/quote]
No, we only allow lethal injection these days. Hanging in Montana was banned by a ballot vote a few years ago.

But hanging still would have been too good for this guy.

[transplant99]

so I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge that his life would be in the hands of the government.

They would carry out the sentence...agreed. They do NOT impose it however....what is it you arent grasping about that? Juries decide it...seriously. Look it up.

Unless you are calling juries employees of the government as well?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 7 2005, 01:35 PM

They would carry out the sentence...agreed. They do NOT impose it however....what is it you arent grasping about that? Juries decide it...seriously. Look it up.

Unless you are calling juries employees of the government as well?

I didn't think I'd have to explain this but...

Some guy gets murdered, right, so they send out a government employee to collect the evidence, then they send out two other government employees to arrest they guy the government thinks did it, then the government gets a public defender to defend the guy they arrested and they appoint another government employee to prosecute him in a government owned and operated courtroom, in front of a government appointed judge.

Now sure, sometimes there is a jury in there, but do you really think the government isn't in control of the situation? Can't you see at all where this might go wrong and maybe, if the guy is lucky enough to have a jury, they might be swayed by the government and it's rather stacked deck?

[Resolute 14]

You arent wearing a tinfoil hat right now, are you Rouge?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jul 7 2005, 04:02 PM
You arent wearing a tinfoil hat right now, are you Rouge?

Actually I find it works better if you chew the tinfoil and wear a wet towel over your head.

Really though it's not a conspiracy theory to suggest the government runs the justice system.

You and tranny have a lot more negative things to say about our government then I ever have but you'd still like to give them more power? That's what I don't get. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think you've called them both criminal and incompetent but you sound as though you'd agree with giving them the right to execute people.

[transplant99]

Now sure, sometimes there is a jury in there

99% of all capital cases will see a 12 person jury. Sometimes?

but do you really think the government isn't in control of the situation

Ummm no. The judge, though paid by the government, is the one in control of the situation. Along with independant counsel and the prosecutor.

Can't you see at all where this might go wrong and maybe, if the guy is lucky enough to have a jury, they might be swayed by the government and it's rather stacked deck?

Do i see how a prosecution and a defense can "go wrong"....ummm, no.

Lucky enough to have a jury? What are you going on about? Its a 100% guarentee the guy will have a jury if thats what he chooses. Your really losing me with this argument.

they might be swayed by the government and it's rather stacked deck?

Stacked deck? The government now controls/influences juries? Is this what your saying?

Or is it a "stacked deck" most of the time, well.....beause they usually have the guy who did it? Or is it now that prosecutors are so inept and unfair, they just charge the first schmuck walking down street?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by notoepik+Jul 7 2005, 07:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (notoepik @ Jul 7 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

You still hang people there??

No, we only allow lethal injection these days. Hanging in Montana was banned by a ballot vote a few years ago.

But hanging still would have been too good for this guy. [/b][/quote]
He and Ted Earnst would make good cell mates I think.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 7 2005, 04:31 PM

99% of all capital cases will see a 12 person jury. Sometimes?

Ummm no. The judge, though paid by the government, is the one in control of the situation. Along with independant counsel and the prosecutor.

Do i see how a prosecution and a defense can "go wrong"....ummm, no.

Lucky enough to have a jury? What are you going on about? Its a 100% guarentee the guy will have a jury if thats what he chooses. Your really losing me with this argument.

Stacked deck? The government now controls/influences juries? Is this what your saying?

Or is it a "stacked deck" most of the time, well.....beause they usually have the guy who did it? Or is it now that prosecutors are so inept and unfair, they just charge the first schmuck walking down street?

Okay whatever. You don't think the government runs the justice system and I do.

The judge, paid by the government, couldn't conceivably have some sort of bias? The public defender couldn't suck at his job? The police couldn't have botched something? You don't think a jury could be wrong?

You think the federal government of Canada is full of crooks and incompetents, but you don't think a trial could get fouled up?

Do you think OJ is innocent?

You know those stories where "Joe Blow got released from prison today after 15 years because new evidence proves he didn't do it"? Those aren't fakes. It happens. Maybe not very often and maybe 99% of the time they have the right guy, but that's not good enough.

[transplant99]

The judge, paid by the government, couldn't conceivably have some sort of bias? The public defender couldn't suck at his job? The police couldn't have botched something? You don't think a jury could be wrong?

Sure things can go wrong...who said any different. You seem to be claiming however, that somehow the government is directing judges to find guilt based onwhat they want, and not in regards to evidence etc. I think thats foolish. judges are as independant as anyone...its there job to be so.

Public defender could suck at his job...so what? Also, what if its a private lawyer....or are they part of the giant gov't conspiracy to send every inocent man to death row as well?

Do you think OJ is innocent?

No but clearly you do. Otherwise the whole government would of made sure he was found guilty....right?

You know those stories where "Joe Blow got released from prison today after 15 years because new evidence proves he didn't do it"? Those aren't fakes. It happens. Maybe not very often and maybe 99% of the time they have the right guy, but that's not good enough.

being right 99% of the time isnt good enough? LOL. OK.

You want perfection..something that exists no where, in an arena where it is impossible to know EXACTLY what happened in certain situations unless there is full confession/disclosure from the alleged perpetrators.....guys that are generally OK with lying to get out of their situation.

Whew.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by transplant99@Jul 7 2005, 05:04 PM

Sure things can go wrong...who said any different. You seem to be claiming however, that somehow the government is directing judges to find guilt based onwhat they want, and not in regards to evidence etc. I think thats foolish. judges are as independant as anyone...its there job to be so.

Public defender could suck at his job...so what? Also, what if its a private lawyer....or are they part of the giant gov't conspiracy to send every inocent man to death row as well?

No but clearly you do. Otherwise the whole government would of made sure he was found guilty....right?

being right 99% of the time isnt good enough? LOL. OK.

You want perfection..something that exists no where, in an arena where it is impossible to know EXACTLY what happened in certain situations unless there is full confession/disclosure from the alleged perpetrators.....guys that are generally OK with lying to get out of their situation.

Whew.

Okay now I see where you are coming from. If the government executes 100 people and one of them was innocent then that's good enough for you. It's not good enough for me and it's definitely not good enough for the guy that is, you know, dead.

If a guy has a public defender and he doesn't do his job and an innocent person gets executed, I think that's bad, you think "so what".

What is this conspiracy bullshinguard that you keep throwing out. I've said nothing more than the government runs the judicial system. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

I believe that within that government-run judicial system, mistakes can happen. I've said it over and over and you've agreed. It bothers me, it's okay with you. I guess that's that.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Jul 7 2005, 03:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Jul 7 2005, 03:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@Jul 7 2005, 04:02 PM
You arent wearing a tinfoil hat right now, are you Rouge?

Actually I find it works better if you chew the tinfoil and wear a wet towel over your head.

Really though it's not a conspiracy theory to suggest the government runs the justice system.

You and tranny have a lot more negative things to say about our government then I ever have but you'd still like to give them more power? That's what I don't get. I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think you've called them both criminal and incompetent but you sound as though you'd agree with giving them the right to execute people. [/b][/quote]
I agree with the principle of capital punishment, yes. However, it is not George Bush (or Paul Martin) who would be making the decision on who should be executed and who should not. That would be left up to the jury of the criminal's peers.

I dont see the death penalty as being "more power" but "more options". For the most heinous of criminals - ie Robert Pickton, Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmoka - then the death penalty is the best option, quite frankly.

Yes, I have called the Liberals criminal, but that is not to mean I consider "government" criminal. Honestly, I do not trust the Liberals to do anything but to serve themselves, so the capital punishment debate as it relates to Canada is nothing more than a hypothetical until a different government is elected.

[Agamemnon]

Well, to take a step back, doesn't the Government legislate the Law? The judge enforces the letter of the law, as do juries, but they don't create the law. The Government creates the law.

And, in the US right now, the Government (State and Federal) has the power to revoke, or maintain the Death Penalty. I'd say the Government has _everything_ to do with the application of capital punishment, given that it's the final authority on it's existence and use.

[Resolute 14]

Government cannot sentence a man to death though. It can only commute a death sentence.

Ultimately, it is the judge and/or jury that dictate the death sentence, not government.

[notoepik]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Jul 7 2005, 01:51 PM
I didn't think I'd have to explain this but...

Some guy gets murdered, right, so they send out a government employee to collect the evidence, then they send out two other government employees to arrest they guy the government thinks did it, then the government gets a public defender to defend the guy they arrested and they appoint another government employee to prosecute him in a government owned and operated courtroom, in front of a government appointed judge.

Now sure, sometimes there is a jury in there, but do you really think the government isn't in control of the situation? Can't you see at all where this might go wrong and maybe, if the guy is lucky enough to have a jury, they might be swayed by the government and it's rather stacked deck?

Not really Roos.

Here the guy that goes out to arrest the suspect, would be the Sheriff, elected by the people. He hires the guys that go out and collect the evidence. We, the people, pay them.

The public defender here, is paid through the county, again by the people. They are chosen from a pool of the attorneys in the area. Everyone takes a turn. He might be paid through the government this time, but he is usually a private firm attorney. They do have reason to provide a good defense for the accused.

The people are at it again when they elect the judge. He or she is not appointed by the goverment unless there is a vacancy during a term.


I have served on a jury twice Roos. I can assure you, no one was thinking gee I should really go for/against the government here.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@Jul 8 2005, 03:24 AM
Government cannot sentence a man to death though. It can only commute a death sentence.

Ultimately, it is the judge and/or jury that dictate the death sentence, not government.

I don't see how this refutes the points I made though. Sure, in individual cases, the justice system administrates who dies and who lives, but in the grand (and ultimately, more important) sense, again, it is the government that legislates the legality of the death penalty. If the government chooses, it can revoke it. How then, is it not the ultimate authority on this matter?

In a single case, 12 people are responsible for the application of this penalty. For the entire country, the government is responsible for the application of this penalty, through legislation or lack thereof.

[InTheSlot]

I say run him through the Appeals process and announce a not-guilty verdict. Then 5 seconds later after momentary celebration from the defense, have the judge stand up and say "just kidding" (or even, better, do it on April 1st and have him say "April Fools!") and then execute him immediately.