Post by abendlaender on Jun 22, 2012 12:09:14 GMT -5
I am interested in seeing how broadly the death penalty should be applied in your point of view. If you are in favour of answer 5 in addition to answer 2,3 or 4, please choose these two answers. Otherwise, please choose only one answer.
i can't vote for number five as stated. you are obviously including those sentenced to imprisonment. if they haven't been sentenced to death, obviously, execution is not an option for them. if they wish to die, it is their responsibility to do it themselves
happiness is a warm gun and a dead thief. me peace comes from the barrel of a gun little red book 2008 PRO MEMBER OF THE YEAR
Post by alanthony3 on Jun 24, 2012 12:17:29 GMT -5
I agree with Jim, though in some cases yes where it is truly evident; that would be a small percentage. The courts have turn into a hypocrisy where the Judges, Lawyers, and the Prosecution are all playing cards together, half the people on death row were placed there on deals made behind closed doors, or some shady tactical manoeuvre. For example; and only one of the many.. If I approached a witness, and offered that person a deal to testify. I would get charged with tampering with a witness, and most likely convicted of that crime. The DA on the other hand is allowed to make these deals in this fair Justice system. The point of this one statement is; there are many people on death row that were sentence to death primarily on one witnesses testimony, and in every case the primary witness had secured a deal, the testimony was secured with a deal, and a accolade after the testimony.
Last Edit: Jun 24, 2012 12:21:22 GMT -5 by alanthony3
Post by alanthony3 on Jun 25, 2012 10:52:33 GMT -5
The system wishes to believe that the appeals system works. If a person agreed to voluntary execution apposes a life sentence, then later cleared as wrongfully convicted. Then what you have suggested failed. It’s the same ideology as the State claims they have never executed an innocent person.
Post by abendlaender on Jun 25, 2012 17:14:25 GMT -5
If a convict is not guilty, he or she will most probably not make use of a rule that I propose for penal laws but fight on to proove their innocence unless sentenced to death at once or highly depressive. A few who have given up their fight to proove innocence would perhaps agree to execution. Unfortunately, no system on earth is perfect.
Many years in jail has probably not less serious results than the death penalty. In the first case, the innocent will be alive, but how? His or her life will be ruined by the stigma of a criminal. And jail is harder for innocent people than for true guilty ones. Which of both is worse, death or a ruined life? One advantage I see is that one for friends and family of the innocent convict.
Post by alanthony3 on Jun 25, 2012 18:21:59 GMT -5
The justice system itself needs to be renovated. I wouldn’t be looking to find other alternatives to execute people based on a system that is broken. Your entitled to a fair trial, what most people do not release is the definition of that phase.
The system should not be incarcerating people who pleaded not guilty, that were found guilty, while they still have appeals pending, even if that takes 10 or 20 years to unfold. The wheels of Justice move slowly, so why should a person spend that time in prison. That is one flaw, your convicted, your were innocent till proven guilty. If there is an appeal filed, that should suspend the guilty verdict, till there is a definitive decision. The final appeal for example is exhausted , and the original verdict is valid, then that person should beginning their sentence, not before. The accused then could afford through earning power to hire a defense, or chose to take one shot with the State one free chance appeal paid for Lawyer. This system I suggest once implemented, and completed the development phase would reduce; continually suspend the prison population by 50 per cent on a guess.
The only other comment I could make is. Jim is right in his opinion. In fact in prison the trick is to try and stay alive, if you didn’t want to, I’m sure you wouldn’t.
Post by abendlaender on Jun 26, 2012 10:57:15 GMT -5
I understand your point, Alan. We have to meet both the interests of victims and possibly wrongful sentences. Would you like to have the possible violent criminal in freedom for some more years if there is a justified suspect?
For trials of serious crimes, we need effectively working special courts in order to decide quickly and well-groundedly.
The practice of the 18th and 19th century in Britain has prooved to be reasonable. Chaplains have cared about sentenced prisoners in order to make truely guilty ones to confess and to lead them to acknowledge their guilt.
They have had quite good success. Many prisoners have agreed from inside to their coming execution and went deliberately to the gallows.
Also today, caring about the soul of prisoners ought to be one priority. It is to chaplains to meet with the personalities of prisoners. Facing them with the victim's family and friends could also work to bring their conscience (back) into work.
Therefore, I would like to see mandatory church services with clear preaching of sin and salvation of the soul into jails. Members of other faiths should have the right to be cared of by spiritual leaders of their faith. Nevertheless, a church serve each week does not harm and gives every prisoner the chance to hear about Christ.
Prisoners applying all tricks to stay alive are the other side of penitent ones, probably the most evil ones.
No system on earth is perfect. In some time, decisions must be taken in order to fight crimes effectively.
Post by alanthony3 on Jun 26, 2012 12:56:37 GMT -5
I’m personally not interested in religion, and false confession induced through it. And again to address your first paragraph, if there is an appeal in progress, filed, the sentence, and guilty verdict should be suspended, the accused should not have to be incarcerated through that process.
18th and 19th century reference; I personally would confess to anything for the easy way out of that Hell.
This is not, as far as I know a bible forum. I have my own opinions on that, but this is not the place. As a defendant looking at a life sentence, or Death. I don’t want to hear some idiot telling me, it Gods will.
JimSneak: Ronnie James Dio what it be like dude? I used to be a member here with more posts then even you, lol...
Apr 29, 2019 20:38:20 GMT -5
festus: You responders seem to be a little bit low on the evolution tree of brains....
May 4, 2019 9:39:03 GMT -5
puppylover54: im ted bundys daughter
May 11, 2019 19:46:15 GMT -5
May 11, 2019 19:46:24 GMT -5
bundyobsessed: What is Bundy's daughter's new name?
May 22, 2019 19:36:21 GMT -5
beanybags: no way to know since both sites are gone
Jun 16, 2019 17:16:23 GMT -5
seriously: Regarding your comment that Charles Ng comes from a "wealthy family", a "GOOD FAMILY"; since when does being wealthy equate to good? They are two entirely different things; and, frankly, some of the worst criminals are in fact wealthy. Con't in next post.
Sept 1, 2019 20:16:46 GMT -5
seriously: Consider the Clinton's: Bill has oral "isn't sex" in the White House, now virtually every kinder. knows what oral sex is. Then there's Hillary first deriding the women who came forward about her husband; then she deleting files to hide her activities.
Sept 1, 2019 20:19:48 GMT -5
seriously: Oh, and let's not forget Bill Clinton "didn't inhale" when he smoked pot...yeah, right! At a time when America's young men are being drafted for the Vietnam war, Bill & Hillary choose to take a trip to Russia and conveniently miss the draft all together.
Sept 1, 2019 20:22:46 GMT -5
seriously: Remember Hillary is for women & children; yet she only had one child and she doesn't even bake cookies...oh my! She defames her opponents with accusations of womanizing hoping we forget about her husband IN THE OVAL OFFICE! Not happening honey!
Sept 1, 2019 20:26:48 GMT -5
seriously: Then there's the BIG BANK BAIL-OUT; the banker's show up in Washington D.C. to get WELFARE (OUR tax dollars) by flying there in a LEAR JET...really! Even Obama was shocked at that move! But they're GOOD because they're WEALTHY? I think not!
Sept 1, 2019 20:33:22 GMT -5
seriously: I think Obama should have made them liquidate all their assets both business AND PERSONAL so they could climb over their own pile of s***; instead of expecting the American tax payers to do it.
Sept 1, 2019 20:35:38 GMT -5
seriously: Wake up people! Don't you realize that WE THE PEOPLE don't need the rich, THEY NEED US...to do the work that makes them richer so they don't have to clean their own toilets; and all we get is industrialized meats and crops, GMO's, antibiotic resistance.
Sept 1, 2019 20:38:53 GMT -5
seriously: Patented seed crops, running small farmer's out of business, toxic waste, poisoned water, dirty air, deforestation, global warming. By the way, who even wants to live in a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT world with a GLOBAL ECONOMY?
Sept 1, 2019 20:41:57 GMT -5
seriously: America should be more like Switzerland, fix our own 'broken wagon' and let the rest of the world fix theirs...it's not an U.S.A. problem. Screw oil, it pollutes the earth...GO SOLAR, WIND, WATER POWER! Screw the utility companies!
Sept 1, 2019 20:48:33 GMT -5
seriously: That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Best way to topple the rich...eliminate money and go back to the barter system; let the rich wipe their own bums and clean their own toilets...for a change! No more "Groom of the stool" for them.
Sept 1, 2019 20:51:50 GMT -5
seriously: Then banks and wall street can crash all they want; why should we be dragged down with them.
Sept 1, 2019 20:53:16 GMT -5