TubeNet

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/433677_tubaman18.html" target="_blank

Living in a free society is nice but it has it's drawbacks. It's just a shame something can't be done to keep things like this and the incident in Tuscon from happening.

In court, McMichael's brother, Kelsey, asked that the teens receive only the agreed-upon sentencing recommendations: 15 to 36 weeks for the teen convicted in the January 2010 robbery, and twice that length for the other two, including the now-18-year-old involved in the recent bus incident.

Uh... why?

bloke wrote:By the time I was four years old, I knew not to hit or kill. This is another great example of the strong argument for reinstating public hangings.

The only thing public executions will do is (maybe) satisfy the need for vengeance(capital punishment is the ultimate "feel good" legislation--very popular but does nothing to deter serious crime)--and bring back an old source of entertainment. If you think that is a valid reason, that's fine. Please understand it does not deter anyone from committing murder nor does it make our society safer.

JJ

The only thing public executions will do is (maybe) satisfy the need for vengeance(capital punishment is the ultimate "feel good" legislation--very popular but does nothing to deter serious crime)--and bring back an old source of entertainment. If you think that is a valid reason, that's fine. Please understand it does not deter anyone from committing murder nor does it make our society safer.

Man, I really "felt good" reading this.

It DOES deter SOME from committing murder and other serious crimes. This is my opinion. I am stating it in opposition to your OPINION.

Mojo workin' wrote:

The only thing public executions will do is (maybe) satisfy the need for vengeance(capital punishment is the ultimate "feel good" legislation--very popular but does nothing to deter serious crime)--and bring back an old source of entertainment. If you think that is a valid reason, that's fine. Please understand it does not deter anyone from committing murder nor does it make our society safer.

Man, I really "felt good" reading this.

It DOES deter SOME from committing murder and other serious crimes. This is my opinion. I am stating it in opposition to your OPINION.

I would be happy to supply are the stats and studies to back my opinion via PM. Not starting a flame war here guys--all those who want to discuss it with me feel free to PM...Thanks

JJ

I see a couple of things here. They weren't tried, at least by my reading of the reports. They pleaded (pled? plead?) guilty. Probably to avoid going to trial and facing the death penalty. This is one of the arguments given for having a death penalty. People will plead to something to avoid the death penalty. The prosecutor took the plea, probably because they were short on witnesses and might not have gotten a conviction if it had gone to trial. Plea bargaining often brings a case to a quicker resolution and much cheaper for the taxpayers than a trial does. And if the death penalty is given, appeals go on for years at much expense. The brother probably accepted the "agreed-upon sentencing recommendations" because it came with the plea bargain and the chances of them getting off entirely if it went to trial favored agreeing to the plea bargain.

Death penalty probably does deter some premeditated murder, but probably not much of the heat-of-the-moment murders. And, obviously, when it is applied, it prevents a killer from killing again. Society does have a right to defend itself, and capital punishment may well be one of the tools it should have available, but my opinion is that capital punishment is just as morally wrong as murder. But sometimes adding a second wrong to the first may add up to a greater good. (How's that for straddling a fence?)

Having said all that, I would ask, What does it say about a society that would say a young person who commits murder at 15 years of age is beyond all hope and should be put to death?

A couple of years ago I saw a bumper sticker that said something like, "Capital punishment isn't about revenge, it's about making bad people dead."

alfredr, hoping this doesn't get too political

In this country, if you kill someone you can serve 6 or 7 years and get out... IF you get convicted. No recent serial killer or rapist ever got the sentence Bernie Madoff did.

If you have ever had someone close to you murdered by a recitivist that should, by all rights, have received the death penalty the first time around, then you know that the death penalty would have prevented the second crime. Some animals are guilty of crimes so heinous that they have forfieted their right to breathe the same air as the rest of us. A vicious dog is put down after it attacks someone, rather than give it the chance to do it again. The same fate should await those that murder innocents.

The death penalty is imposed in a system where race, status, bias are major factors that determine the kind of justice you will receive. In a system where witnesses will lie, police officers will lie, prosecutors and judges will lie, juries will ignore the facts (such as lack of credible evidence) to get a conviction--a system FAR from perfect imposing a sentence that can NEVER be reversed once its carried out. Since 1977, over 140 people have been released from death row in 26 states because it was proven they were wrongly convicted. With that in mind, it makes you wonder how many have been wrongly executed? (I know for sure of 2 cases in Texas within the last 30 years.)

We must be careful not to let our personal emotions overwhelm our social obligation to see that Justice is truly served.

JJ

TUBAD83 wrote:.....Since 1977, over 140 people have been released from death row in 26 states because it was proven they were wrongly convicted. With that in mind, it makes you wonder how many have been wrongly executed? (I know for sure of 2 cases in Texas within the last 30 years.)

We must be careful not to let our personal emotions overwhelm our social obligation to see that Justice is truly served.

JJ

I often wonder about that, too. However... my personal thinking is that it's high unlikely that those folks weren't guilty of something. I still have faith that the system won't simply 'pluck' someone off the street just to get a conviction.

I'm not sure what the answer is. The punishment should ALWAYS fit the crime, but rarely ever does. As much as I loathe what Bernie Madoff did, he didn't deprive anyone of their life. These scumbags did, and when they get out, they will probably do it again. The death penalty isn't an effective enough deterrent because it isn't enforced properly, or in a timely manner.

I'm not for the death penalty because stats can show that we probably have executed people who were not guilty.

Interesting case related to this topic recently completed in my area (NW Washington State).

A couple was robbed in their home, shot and the house was burned to try to cover it all up. A suspect was caught on video about a half hour after the FD concluded the fire was set attempting to use the victim's ATM card. Along with careful investigation of the crime scene, a very strong case could be made against the suspect. The suspect was provided with good, experienced representation, the prosecutor presented a good case and the suspect was found guilty.

An extra factor in this trial was that this couple were members of one of the oldest families in our area and were well known and liked in the logging industry. There was a parade of about 100 log trucks going to their memorial. They were related to about one third of the community and, personally, I was surprised that there wasn't a change of venue for this case.

Before the trial, the prosecution laid the situation out to the family about what might happen. If they went for the death penalty, it would be many years after all the appeals before the criminal was executed. The family would have to deal with all of the appeals cases and the stress involved. If they went for life without possibility of parole, the verdict at the end of the trial would be the end of it for the family. The family chose the life without parole and that's what the criminal received upon conviction. The family spokesman said, "In prison, this person doesn't have to take up space in our minds ever again."

Point is, if there ever was a slam dunk case, this was it. Careful background work developed a case that probably would not have a case for appeal. Probably. If every murder case in the nation was conducted as carefully as this one, the death penalty might be fair. But they are not. You can let someone out of jail but you can't bring them back to life.

TUBAD83 wrote: We must be careful not to let our personal emotions overwhelm our social obligation to see that Justice is truly served.

JJ

That street runs two ways, my friend. When there's DNA, solid witnesses, and multiple juries and courts of appeal have upheld the overwhelming evidence, then the social obligation becomes one of making sure that that PARTICULAR criminal never commits such a horrific crime again, even against another inmate (they have families, too). And there's only one way to be SURE that he/she doesn't.

TUBAD83 wrote:The death penalty is imposed in a system where race, status, bias are major factors that determine the kind of justice you will receive. In a system where witnesses will lie, police officers will lie, prosecutors and judges will lie, juries will ignore the facts (such as lack of credible evidence) to get a conviction--a system FAR from perfect imposing a sentence that can NEVER be reversed once its carried out.

I don't know of a single case where a criminal protesting his innocence was put to death without at least two full appeals, and without many, many years in which to formulate an appeal to the governor and president. The existence of the wrongly accused on Death Row is highlighted by those who were not put do death because of facts that subsequently came out.

But it is true that there is no perfect system. The question is: Does a recidivist murderer give all those same appeals and all the time to seek a stay to his next victim? There is risk of unwarranted death either way, but I rather think the criminal has the overwhelming advantage in that trade-off. The number of innocent victims of recidivist murderers must surely far exceed the number of innocent victims of the death penalty.

Rick "thinking the risk of emotion goes both ways" Denney

The Big Ben wrote:You can let someone out of jail...

You can indeed.

Rick "even when they receive a life sentence" Denney

Rick Denney wrote:
I don't know of a single case where a criminal protesting his innocence was put to death without at least two full appeals, and without many, many years in which to formulate an appeal to the governor and president. The existence of the wrongly accused on Death Row is highlighted by those who were not put do death because of facts that subsequently came out.

Just because there is an appeals process it does not guarantee a fair hearing---the appellate courts, both state and federal, favor the prosecution not the convicted.

It is beyond doubt that our system of justice is not perfect---but some would still want to keep the death penalty and to those I pose this question: In a imperfect justice system that uses the death penalty, one must acknowledge that innocent people have been executed--do you find such mistakes acceptable?

JJ

Blackstone's formulation: Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation" target="_blank

Apparently not a commonly held belief?

I see that, according to the Wikipedia article, Pol Pot for one did not subscribe to that principle.

alfredr wrote:Blackstone's formulation: Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_formulation" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Apparently not a commonly held belief?

Certainly not held by victims of escaped murderers.