• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

SC brings back the firing squad

A public stoning until dead might open a few other “bad guys” eyes on why they might want to follow the law and not commit major crimes.

Isn’t it ironic how so many of society are worried and sympathetic to the criminals pain and suffering regarding the death penalty while having total disregard to the person/s suffering and manner of death that the criminal did…..?
 
I hope that one day Laken Rileys killer will find justice at the end of a shank.
Can't believe he only got life in prison. 3 hots and a cot is better than what she endured.
Dogs get put down for less, yet we can finance his existence for much too long.
Matt
 
JB10 said:
I do not wish for an execution to be humane. Look at the victims, most victims suffer for no reason. Why should the guilty have injections that put them to sleep painlessly then kill them. They did nothing humane to the victims.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Rights of first refusal for executioner volunteer should go to family of the victim. And, they should get to choose the method of execution.
 
cavedweller60 said:
I kind of like how japan administrates their death penalty. You are condemned, tossed in a cell and forgotten about....no date, no nothing. It might happen 3 years or 10 years down the road but you won't find out til the morning of your death. One day they show up at your cell and tell you it's your time. A couple hours later sentence is carried out by hanging.

Here they have months and years to mentally prepare. You have regular contact with your "spiritual advisor", your lawyer, etc. Then, 20-30 years later, after months of planning, your last meal and visits with your family, they execute you.
Click to expand...
I generally agree with you. However, waiting for a few years to kill the guy is ok. I have heard a lot of stories about people who got sent to prison that were later determined to be innocent. Lawyer screwed up, new evidence was found, etc.
Carrying out an execution by any means necessary is not an issue in my eyes but making sure that we have the right guy is obviously important.

On the topic of sentencing and execution, we shouldn’t be in a hurry to make a mistake.
 
I agree with the death penalty. I don’t agree with allowing months, years, or decades prior to carrying out sentence.

However, it’s doubtful that legislation would be developed to place each state on the same page to move into the realm of “timely”.

I also can’t understand why fentanyl isn’t sourced in each state that supports the death penalty. It’s pretty evident that a minute amount can kill hundreds.
 
Hengehold said:
I generally agree with you. However, waiting for a few years to kill the guy is ok. I have heard a lot of stories about people who got sent to prison that were later determined to be innocent. Lawyer screwed up, new evidence was found, etc.
Carrying out an execution by any means necessary is not an issue in my eyes but making sure that we have the right guy is obviously important.

On the topic of sentencing and execution, we shouldn’t be in a hurry to make a mistake.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you are saying but, we hold people for 15-20 years AFTER all their appeals have been exhausted. I'm all for giving the condemned plenty of chances to prove they shouldn't be killed but, when every appeal has been exhausted, the executioner should be knocking on their door expeditiously.
 
dryhumor said:
I agree with the death penalty. I don’t agree with allowing months, years, or decades prior to carrying out sentence.

However, it’s doubtful that legislation would be developed to place each state on the same page to move into the realm of “timely”.

I also can’t understand why fentanyl isn’t sourced in each state that supports the death penalty. It’s pretty evident that a minute amount can kill hundreds.
Click to expand...
On the fentanyl topic, I worked in LE for almost 22 years. I have been to more than a few fentanyl ODs in which the decedent was sitting on the edge of a hotel bed with the needle still in their arm. THAT is how quick it kills. I agree, it should be made available to prisons for executions but, I also believe that all execution related drugs should also be made available to them.
 
cavedweller60 said:
On the fentanyl topic, I worked in LE for almost 22 years. I have been to more than a few fentanyl ODs in which the decedent was sitting on the edge of a hotel bed with the needle still in their arm. THAT is how quick it kills. I agree, it should be made available to prisons for executions but, I also believe that all execution related drugs should also be made available to them.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Hengehold said:
I generally agree with you. However, waiting for a few years to kill the guy is ok. I have heard a lot of stories about people who got sent to prison that were later determined to be innocent. Lawyer screwed up, new evidence was found, etc.
Carrying out an execution by any means necessary is not an issue in my eyes but making sure that we have the right guy is obviously important.

On the topic of sentencing and execution, we shouldn’t be in a hurry to make a mistake.
Click to expand...

We expect a defense attorney, the only person in the courtroom who has necessarily ever even heard the defendant’s voice or their rendition of what happened, to try to persuade the jury not to convict, regardless of what that attorney might think the truth is. That lawyer is ethically bound to direct attention any plausible direction BUT upon his client. Should that lawyer have come across indication of guilt in his investigating, you know it, - stop asking, move on, look elsewhere.

Every prosecutor is assessed on the conviction rate. Every prosecutor will telegraph that this is as strong a case against this defendant, as any of the many hundreds they have seen, which is patently insincere. Every prosecutor knows that most defendants, guilty or not, can be made to knuckle under, facing the life wrecking burden of a conviction at trial, and plead guilty to a lesser offense.

Before the jurors are even selected, motions to dismiss and to exclude evidence, witnesses or certain arguments from the record have already been fought over. Some of those were absolute game changers.

Mistakes. Every divided jury is pushed to the mental breaking point by the judge, to reach unanimity. You got it guys, six versus six somehow melds over days or weeks into 12-0 as weaker souls simply cave in. Few as 2 or 3 have certainly turned the others, many times. What was the point of 12, again? Once they have acquiesced to the strongest will and reached a verdict the judge often has the temerity to have each member confirm this is his verdict, amazing.

Mistakes. Before 12 are picked, lawyers and consultants on each side exercise strikes and challenges to stack the deck in their favor with the kind of people they think will side with them.

Then, we have heard jurors admit they simply decided which lawyer they liked or gave an interview after the case that revealed the schmuck never really grasped a thing. I have been a practicing lawyer since 1997. I’m not speaking from a vacuum.

Responsibility is intractably splintered. Mistakes. That is not even the appropriate word. It’s like looking at a roulette wheel’s possibilities and calling the ones you didn’t pick mistakes, when they are statistical certainties. Everything is decided by people off the street who are instructed that this matter - cases of any and all complexity and specialization, is solely up to them and their role ends forever, upon verdict. They are expressly told they determine who and what is credible and what weight to give it. Spurious and unfortunate outcomes can’t really be called mistakes under these circumstances.

The adversarial system has such glaring, built in potential to distract from or blunt the truth, but which contradictions are so obvious, self-evident and transparent, they became devoid of the motivation for improvement, associated with revelation or intrigue, so as to be merely acknowledged and accepted, or (unrealistically) halted and reinvented from scratch while maintaining the inertia of say, “healthcare” or “manufacturing.”
 
Last edited:
davidjoe said:
We expect a defense attorney, the only person in the courtroom who has necessarily ever even heard the defendant’s voice or their rendition of what happened, to try to persuade the jury not to convict, regardless of what that attorney might think the truth is. That lawyer is ethically bound to direct attention any plausible direction BUT upon his client. Should that lawyer have come across indication of guilt in his investigating, you know it, - stop asking, move on, look elsewhere.

Every prosecutor is assessed on the conviction rate. Every prosecutor will telegraph that this is as strong a case against this defendant, as any of the many hundreds they have seen, which is patently insincere. Every prosecutor knows that most defendants, guilty or not, can be made to knuckle under the life wrecking burden of a conviction at trial, and plead guilty to a lesser offense.

Before the jurors are even selected, motions to dismiss and to exclude evidence, witnesses or certain arguments from the record have already been fought over.

Mistakes. Every divided jury is pushed to the mental breaking point by the judge, to reach unanimity. You got it guys, six versus six somehow melds over days or weeks into 12-0 as weaker souls simply cave in. Few as 2 or 3 have certainly turned the others, many times. What was the pint of 12, again? Once they have acquiesced to the strongest will and reached a verdict the judge often has the temerity to have each member confirm this is his verdict, amazing.

Mistakes. Before 12 are picked, lawyers and consultants on each side exercise strikes and challenges to stack the deck in their favor with the kind of people they think will side with them.

Then, we have heard jurors admit they simply decided which lawyer they liked or gave an interview after the case that revealed the schmuck never really grasped a thing. I have been a practicing lawyer since 1997. I’m not speaking from a vacuum.

Responsibility is intractably splintered. Mistakes. That is not even the appropriate word. It’s like looking at a roulette wheel’s possibilities and calling the ones you didn’t pick mistakes, when they statistical certainties. Everything is decided by people off the street who are instructed that this matter - cases of any and all complexity and specialization, is solely up to them and their role ends forever, upon verdict. They are expressly told they determine who and what is credible and what weight to give it. Spurious and unfortunate outcomes can’t really be called mistakes under these circumstances.

The adversarial system has such glaring, built in potential to distract from or blunt the truth, but which traits are so obvious, self-evident and transparent, they became devoid of the motivation for improvement, associated with revelation or intrigue, so as to be merely acknowledged and accepted, or reinvented from scratch.
Click to expand...
It sounds like the death penalty should be off the table unless the evidence is irrefutable so all that lawyer stuff would be less likely to happen. I'm sure a lot of innocent people have got a bad deal.
 
davidjoe said:
We expect a defense attorney, the only person in the courtroom who has necessarily ever even heard the defendant’s voice or their rendition of what happened, to try to persuade the jury not to convict, regardless of what that attorney might think the truth is. That lawyer is ethically bound to direct attention any plausible direction BUT upon his client. Should that lawyer have come across indication of guilt in his investigating, you know it, - stop asking, move on, look elsewhere.

Every prosecutor is assessed on the conviction rate. Every prosecutor will telegraph that this is as strong a case against this defendant, as any of the many hundreds they have seen, which is patently insincere. Every prosecutor knows that most defendants, guilty or not, can be made to knuckle under the life wrecking burden of a conviction at trial, and plead guilty to a lesser offense.

Before the jurors are even selected, motions to dismiss and to exclude evidence, witnesses or certain arguments from the record have already been fought over.

Mistakes. Every divided jury is pushed to the mental breaking point by the judge, to reach unanimity. You got it guys, six versus six somehow melds over days or weeks into 12-0 as weaker souls simply cave in. Few as 2 or 3 have certainly turned the others, many times. What was the point of 12, again? Once they have acquiesced to the strongest will and reached a verdict the judge often has the temerity to have each member confirm this is his verdict, amazing.

Mistakes. Before 12 are picked, lawyers and consultants on each side exercise strikes and challenges to stack the deck in their favor with the kind of people they think will side with them.

Then, we have heard jurors admit they simply decided which lawyer they liked or gave an interview after the case that revealed the schmuck never really grasped a thing. I have been a practicing lawyer since 1997. I’m not speaking from a vacuum.

Responsibility is intractably splintered. Mistakes. That is not even the appropriate word. It’s like looking at a roulette wheel’s possibilities and calling the ones you didn’t pick mistakes, when they are statistical certainties. Everything is decided by people off the street who are instructed that this matter - cases of any and all complexity and specialization, is solely up to them and their role ends forever, upon verdict. They are expressly told they determine who and what is credible and what weight to give it. Spurious and unfortunate outcomes can’t really be called mistakes under these circumstances.

The adversarial system has such glaring, built in potential to distract from or blunt the truth, but which traits are so obvious, self-evident and transparent, they became devoid of the motivation for improvement, associated with revelation or intrigue, so as to be merely acknowledged and accepted, or reinvented from scratch.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you say but, something else needs to be remembered.

The jury is the entity that sentences a defendant to death and, it is done by unanimous decision.

While judges do put pressure on a jury to reach a unanimous decision as to GUILT, they don't however, in the vast majority (all?) of cases, do the same with a sentence.

If a single juror has doubts as to "guilt" yet cedes to the majority, they still have the ability to block a death sentence.
You can be fairly certain, if someone has been sentenced to death, the jurors all believe that is the appropriate sentence.
 
I consider myself a follower of the teachings of Jesus and I don’t believe there were any exceptions or ambiguity around murder, state sanctioned or not.
 
Evan said:
I consider myself a follower of the teachings of Jesus and I don’t believe there were any exceptions or ambiguity around murder, state sanctioned or not.
Click to expand...
I am not a biblical scholar or, for that matter, notably educated on the bible but, depending on which version you prefer, I believe you are wrong. It is definitely addressed in the OT in Exodus 21:12. It is seemingly addressed, and allowed, in the NT in Romans 13:1-4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Classified Ads

Forum statistics

Threads
166,258
Messages
2,214,423
Members
79,479
Latest member
s138242

Share This Page

Back
Top