Death penalty

[Gadawg73]

LOL, you watch too many Rockford re-runs Joe.
Death penalty is rarely, if ever, sought in the killing of a spouse or former spouse. Additionally, I may be wrong here, but Simpson did not have a criminal record of much if anything so that also plays into it. Most all death penalty cases are for career criminals.

No matter what Gil Garcetti did in that case someone that gets their information from Entertainment Tonight like you would be upset. I believe it was Ira Reiner who was DA before him out there and I would bet big $$$ he would not have sought the death penalty either in that case.

Again, stick to the hammer.

Actually, Simpson also killed a kid named Ron Goldman, who was only there returning Nicole's sunglasses. True he was only a poor kid working for minimum wage, but he deserved justice, too.

He brought a knife with him, that proves premeditation.

I mean, Jesus, man, I figured that out, without the expertise you claim to have.

Sorry, the only reasons he the DP got taken off the table was he was rich, he was a celebrity, and yeah, it was only a couple years after the King riots, so there were racial considerations.

Turning your ex-wife into Pez dispenser is the kind of vicious crime we need a DP for.

But only if the system if fair and equitable. Two words that make plutocrat apologists like yourself cringe like a vampire in front of a crucifix.

"If the system is fair and equitable"
YOU are the one that is going to determine what is "fair and equitable"?
If you have some facts to show us what determines "fair and equitable" then pound the facts on that . If you have some case law on what is "fair and equitable" then pound the case law on that.
But I would bet big $$$ that you will just keep doing as you have been doing over and over and over again with NO facts and NO case law to pound or argue.
Just keep pounding the table Joe as that is all you are left with and all you ever do.

 

[Noomi]

LOL, now I admit that is a good one Joe!

Specific words would be better.
Police and prosecutors do not determine guilt or innocence or sentence folk.

Oh, please.

Please don't give me the holy writ of 12 morons too stupid too get out of Jury Duty...

They don't pick people who can think for themselves on Juries.. Which is why a rich person has never gotten the Death Penalty.

Could it be something about the fact that rich people DO NOT MURDER people as much as poor people?
Over 90% of all murders are by folks that live at or below the poverty line.
WELL DUH!
NO one gets out of jury duty in Georgia. The law bans that.

You might be correct, but then again, maybe not. We are talking of people who have been caught after committing a murder. A rich person would be more likely to have the means to kill and dispose of the body, and create an alibi.

 

[JoeB131]

Jurists do not get disqualified Joe. They get struck for cause or dismissed.
And then they go back to the jury room and another panel is called and they can be chosen on that jury as the process goes on again.

Justice is an unbiased jury. Without voir dire how would the jury system work?

Only two percent of cases are heard by juries..

56% are pleabargained.

Getting "Struck for cause" usually means "I can't count on that person to vote my way".

Now, sometimes, yeah, that's great.

But in the case of the animal rights lady, she was struck for no other reason that the prosecutors working for Richie Daley couldn't count on her harshly punishing a gangbanger.

There's no such thing as an "unbiased" Jury. everyone has a bias. All "Jury Selection" does is make sure it's your kind of bias. Which again, works great if you're rich, not so good if you are poor.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL, you watch too many Rockford re-runs Joe.
Death penalty is rarely, if ever, sought in the killing of a spouse or former spouse. Additionally, I may be wrong here, but Simpson did not have a criminal record of much if anything so that also plays into it. Most all death penalty cases are for career criminals.

No matter what Gil Garcetti did in that case someone that gets their information from Entertainment Tonight like you would be upset. I believe it was Ira Reiner who was DA before him out there and I would bet big $$$ he would not have sought the death penalty either in that case.

Again, stick to the hammer.

Actually, Simpson also killed a kid named Ron Goldman, who was only there returning Nicole's sunglasses. True he was only a poor kid working for minimum wage, but he deserved justice, too.

He brought a knife with him, that proves premeditation.

I mean, Jesus, man, I figured that out, without the expertise you claim to have.

Sorry, the only reasons he the DP got taken off the table was he was rich, he was a celebrity, and yeah, it was only a couple years after the King riots, so there were racial considerations.

Turning your ex-wife into Pez dispenser is the kind of vicious crime we need a DP for.

But only if the system if fair and equitable. Two words that make plutocrat apologists like yourself cringe like a vampire in front of a crucifix.

"If the system is fair and equitable"
YOU are the one that is going to determine what is "fair and equitable"?
If you have some facts to show us what determines "fair and equitable" then pound the facts on that . If you have some case law on what is "fair and equitable" then pound the case law on that.
But I would bet big $$$ that you will just keep doing as you have been doing over and over and over again with NO facts and NO case law to pound or argue.
Just keep pounding the table Joe as that is all you are left with and all you ever do.

I think you proved my point about how the words "Fair and Equitable" makes you cringe...

 

[2RightsMakeLeft]

I've been following along and hope you don't mind me throwing my 2 cents in here.

There's no such thing as an "unbiased" Jury. everyone has a bias. All "Jury Selection" does is make sure it's your kind of bias.

You could not be more correct with that statement. There are numerous studies which show that not only is a death qualified jury more likely to convict a defendant, the people selected are more likely to believe the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney all believe the defendant is guilty. Death qualified juries are predisposed to the defendant's guilt. A death qualified jury is biased against the defendant.

Does everyone have a bias? Absolutely. But, because of my strong bias against capital punishment, I would never be allowed to sit on a capital jury (unless, of course, I lied) and would be excused as unable to follow the law. That's fine; it's the law. But, that means that the only people that will ever sit on a capital jury are those in favor of capital punishment or those whose opposition to capital punishment is not so strong and, under the right circumstances, could consider its use. Even so, the latter would most likely still be excused by the state using a peremptory challenge.

You're absolutely correct; all juries have a bias and, unfortunately, because of the death qualification process, that bias on capital juries is a bias against the defendant, even prior to hearing any facts and evidence.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh, please.

Please don't give me the holy writ of 12 morons too stupid too get out of Jury Duty...

They don't pick people who can think for themselves on Juries.. Which is why a rich person has never gotten the Death Penalty.

Could it be something about the fact that rich people DO NOT MURDER people as much as poor people?
Over 90% of all murders are by folks that live at or below the poverty line.
WELL DUH!
NO one gets out of jury duty in Georgia. The law bans that.

You might be correct, but then again, maybe not. We are talking of people who have been caught after committing a murder. A rich person would be more likely to have the means to kill and dispose of the body, and create an alibi.

Last time I looked Simpson was found not guilty.
How does a society "fairly and equitably" sentence someone to the death penalty that has been found not guilty?

 

[Gadawg73]

Actually, Simpson also killed a kid named Ron Goldman, who was only there returning Nicole's sunglasses. True he was only a poor kid working for minimum wage, but he deserved justice, too.

He brought a knife with him, that proves premeditation.

I mean, Jesus, man, I figured that out, without the expertise you claim to have.

Sorry, the only reasons he the DP got taken off the table was he was rich, he was a celebrity, and yeah, it was only a couple years after the King riots, so there were racial considerations.

Turning your ex-wife into Pez dispenser is the kind of vicious crime we need a DP for.

But only if the system if fair and equitable. Two words that make plutocrat apologists like yourself cringe like a vampire in front of a crucifix.

"If the system is fair and equitable"
YOU are the one that is going to determine what is "fair and equitable"?
If you have some facts to show us what determines "fair and equitable" then pound the facts on that . If you have some case law on what is "fair and equitable" then pound the case law on that.
But I would bet big $$$ that you will just keep doing as you have been doing over and over and over again with NO facts and NO case law to pound or argue.
Just keep pounding the table Joe as that is all you are left with and all you ever do.

I think you proved my point about how the words "Fair and Equitable" makes you cringe...

How do we "fairly and equitably" sentence someone to the death penalty if they are found not guilty like OJ Simpson?

 

[JoeB131]

Could it be something about the fact that rich people DO NOT MURDER people as much as poor people?
Over 90% of all murders are by folks that live at or below the poverty line.
WELL DUH!
NO one gets out of jury duty in Georgia. The law bans that.

You might be correct, but then again, maybe not. We are talking of people who have been caught after committing a murder. A rich person would be more likely to have the means to kill and dispose of the body, and create an alibi.

Last time I looked Simpson was found not guilty.
How does a society "fairly and equitably" sentence someone to the death penalty that has been found not guilty?

Well, first you take everything he has civilly.

And then when he sticks up a sports memorbilia dealer, you get an all-white jury to give him for what amounts to a life sentence.

Then you toss him in the can with a bunch of Aryan Brotherhood guys who take offense when he starts talking smack about all the white women he had.

O.J. Simpson Beaten In Prison Attack: Report [UPDATE: Prison Denies Claim]

PRison officials denied it happened....

 

[Gadawg73]

You might be correct, but then again, maybe not. We are talking of people who have been caught after committing a murder. A rich person would be more likely to have the means to kill and dispose of the body, and create an alibi.

Last time I looked Simpson was found not guilty.
How does a society "fairly and equitably" sentence someone to the death penalty that has been found not guilty?

Well, first you take everything he has civilly.

And then when he sticks up a sports memorbilia dealer, you get an all-white jury to give him for what amounts to a life sentence.

Then you toss him in the can with a bunch of Aryan Brotherhood guys who take offense when he starts talking smack about all the white women he had.

O.J. Simpson Beaten In Prison Attack: Report [UPDATE: Prison Denies Claim]

PRison officials denied it happened....

You are going to wear that table out Joe.
Once again you are all over the map.
The subject YOU were on was the Simpson murder trial and the death penalty not being fairly and equitably given.
So how does one fairly and equitably give the death penalty Joe when the defendant is found NOT GUILTY as in the Simpson MURDER CASE YOU entered into this discussion.
Quit pounding the table Joe.
Give us SOMETHING, ANYTHING on facts or case law.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn, guy, you think it's fine for a rich guy to turn his wife into a Pez dispenser because he had a shitload of money to hire assholes to weed out any juror with a brain.

Except now he's in jail anyway. Getting the shit beaten out of him by Nazis.

Sometimes, there is a God.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yawn, guy, you think it's fine for a rich guy to turn his wife into a Pez dispenser because he had a shitload of money to hire assholes to weed out any juror with a brain.

Except now he's in jail anyway. Getting the shit beaten out of him by Nazis.

Sometimes, there is a God.

I thought Simpson was guilty as hell and hoped he would be gang raped and had his throat slit before trial.
But it does not matter what you or I think.
You make shit up all the time with your fantasies of what OTHER PEOPLE "think".
Because you have NOTHING of any substance to offer on your own.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn, guy, you think it's fine for a rich guy to turn his wife into a Pez dispenser because he had a shitload of money to hire assholes to weed out any juror with a brain.

Except now he's in jail anyway. Getting the shit beaten out of him by Nazis.

Sometimes, there is a God.

I thought Simpson was guilty as hell and hoped he would be gang raped and had his throat slit before trial.
But it does not matter what you or I think.
You make shit up all the time with your fantasies of what OTHER PEOPLE "think".
Because you have NOTHING of any substance to offer on your own.

I did offer something of substance.

Rolando Cruz was innocent, but got convicted of murder twice and sent to death row because he was poor.

O.J. Simpson was as guilty as hell, but got off because he had money to fool stupid jurors into thinking he was the victim of a racial conspiracy.

And one more point. Let's say you are retained as an investigator for a defense team. And during the course of your investigation, you come across a bit of evidence that proves the cocky arrogant bastard did it.

Do you turn that over to prosecutors or hide it?

Not going to "speculate" what goes through your brain, would be interested in your answer.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yawn, guy, you think it's fine for a rich guy to turn his wife into a Pez dispenser because he had a shitload of money to hire assholes to weed out any juror with a brain.

Except now he's in jail anyway. Getting the shit beaten out of him by Nazis.

Sometimes, there is a God.

I thought Simpson was guilty as hell and hoped he would be gang raped and had his throat slit before trial.
But it does not matter what you or I think.
You make shit up all the time with your fantasies of what OTHER PEOPLE "think".
Because you have NOTHING of any substance to offer on your own.

I did offer something of substance.

Rolando Cruz was innocent, but got convicted of murder twice and sent to death row because he was poor.

O.J. Simpson was as guilty as hell, but got off because he had money to fool stupid jurors into thinking he was the victim of a racial conspiracy.

And one more point. Let's say you are retained as an investigator for a defense team. And during the course of your investigation, you come across a bit of evidence that proves the cocky arrogant bastard did it.

Do you turn that over to prosecutors or hide it?

Not going to "speculate" what goes through your brain, would be interested in your answer.

I would be arrested under the rule of law for turning over that evidence to the prosecution Joe.
Amaxzing how you just throw BS out there shot gun style just to see what sticks.
I am retained by the defense attorney. I turn over all evidence to him as I am an extension of the attorney client privilege.
Now I CAN NOT stop any witness from coming forward with that evidence to fry our guy.
And Joe, this is the area you are so lacking in with your false assumptions on the criminal justice system.
EVERY lawyer I know wants to know what evidence there is out there that hurts their client. Why? So they can inform their client that they are liars and that they need to make a plea to accept whatever the district attorney is offering.
And of course with a plea Joe there is a defendant's statement in open court of GUILT, publicly and a plea colique where the Judge asks the defendant specific questions about their guilt and the defendant answers "yes, I am guilty of that".
Just last week I had TWO criminal cases I worked where the defendant's story was most all BULL SHIT and not credible and so I go to the lawyer and tell him that and show him the witness statements and the attorney goes to the defendant and says "well, here it is, want to do the max or do you want to take the state's offer?"
What is the real kicker here Joe is that if I hired you to do a job for me I would 100% defer to you and your job experience, wisdom and opinion on WHAT YOU DO and would never 2nd guess or question YOUR judgment in your work and how you do it.
You, on the other hand, are the classic KNOW IT ALL, have an opinion about everything and anything and believe YOU know more about everyone else's job that they have worked at for over 30 years.
And in most cases it has made what I believe to be a far from above average man of intelligence like you look very stupid at times.

 

[JoeB131]

So, okay, after that, you admit, it isn't about a pursuit of the truth, it's about maintaining a system...

A system that you admit is so flawed, it shouldn't have an ultimate penalty.

It's not about finding the truth, it's about who can win the game. And if Rolando fries and OJ walks free, that's just the game, right?


Since you want to talk to me about my job, the reason I'm good at what I do is because I question stuff.

Which is the only way you get answers.

I admit, I don't have an answer how to fix the problems, but I'm willing to understand there's a problem.

And throwing up our hands and sayng, "Well, we can't execute John Gacy because we might also execute Rolando Cruz" is not an answer... it's a cop-out.

 

[Gadawg73]

So, okay, after that, you admit, it isn't about a pursuit of the truth, it's about maintaining a system...

A system that you admit is so flawed, it shouldn't have an ultimate penalty.

It's not about finding the truth, it's about who can win the game. And if Rolando fries and OJ walks free, that's just the game, right?


Since you want to talk to me about my job, the reason I'm good at what I do is because I question stuff.

Which is the only way you get answers.

I admit, I don't have an answer how to fix the problems, but I'm willing to understand there's a problem.

And throwing up our hands and sayng, "Well, we can't execute John Gacy because we might also execute Rolando Cruz" is not an answer... it's a cop-out.

I pursued the truth and gave it to who hired me.
Something about The US Constitution and THE RULE OF LAW.
Something you are too stubborn and hard headed to learn anything about.
Go to the LEGISLATURE to change the law Joe.
LEARN something about how our government works.
You and your buddies want to carry baseball bats and crack skulls of everyone and anyone that disagrees with you to get your MOB RULE.
The Founders set up the current system. Perfect, NO. But the best in this world.

 

[dudleysharp]

INNOCENTS ARE MORE AT RISK WHEN WE ALLOW MURDERERS TO LIVE
Dudley Sharp

Innocents Matter

Do anti death penalty folks really care about innocents at risk? Of course.

But, for their leadership, they would prefer to see an additional 6.3 murdered innocents, instead of the execution of 1250 known murderers (2).

Astounding.

For some very well known leaders of the anti death penalty movement, their motivation is not protecting innocents, but protecting the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost in innocent lives. That's their moral choice.


THE LOW RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT

Depending upon review, possibly we have sent from 25-40 actually innocent people to death row, or about 0.4% of the 8400 so sentenced in the modern era, post Furman v Georgia (1972) (1).

So far, the evidence is that the death penalty is 99.6% accurate in finding actually guilty murderers guilty and 100% accurate in sparing those actually innocent from an unjust execution.

It is unlikely that there is a more accurate system.

There appears to be no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1930's.

That includes the Troy Davis, Cameron Willingham and Carlos DeLuna cases.

It is much more likely that an actual innocent, sentenced to life, will die in prison, than it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

About 5000 prisoners, on average, under custody, die every year in the US (2).

On average, we have executed about 33 murderers per year since 1973.

In addition, at least 14,000 additional innocents have been murdered by murderers we have allowed to harm, again, since 1973, the year that US states started to re-enact new death penalty statutes after Furman v Georgia (2).

Since 1973, somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000 actual innocents have been murdered in the US by criminals who were under the government supervision of parole or probation, at the time of the murders. (2).

Yet, it is the death penalty that some are trying to ban?!
====== ==================

FOOTNOTES

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

 

[Gadawg73]

INNOCENTS ARE MORE AT RISK WHEN WE ALLOW MURDERERS TO LIVE
Dudley Sharp

Innocents Matter

Do anti death penalty folks really care about innocents at risk? Of course.

But, for their leadership, they would prefer to see an additional 6.3 murdered innocents, instead of the execution of 1250 known murderers (2).

Astounding.

For some very well known leaders of the anti death penalty movement, their motivation is not protecting innocents, but protecting the lives of all murderers, no matter the cost in innocent lives. That's their moral choice.


THE LOW RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT

Depending upon review, possibly we have sent from 25-40 actually innocent people to death row, or about 0.4% of the 8400 so sentenced in the modern era, post Furman v Georgia (1972) (1).

So far, the evidence is that the death penalty is 99.6% accurate in finding actually guilty murderers guilty and 100% accurate in sparing those actually innocent from an unjust execution.

It is unlikely that there is a more accurate system.

There appears to be no proof of an innocent executed in the US, at least since the 1930's.

That includes the Troy Davis, Cameron Willingham and Carlos DeLuna cases.

It is much more likely that an actual innocent, sentenced to life, will die in prison, than it is that an actual innocent will be executed.

About 5000 prisoners, on average, under custody, die every year in the US (2).

On average, we have executed about 33 murderers per year since 1973.

In addition, at least 14,000 additional innocents have been murdered by murderers we have allowed to harm, again, since 1973, the year that US states started to re-enact new death penalty statutes after Furman v Georgia (2).

Since 1973, somewhere between 40,000 and 200,000 actual innocents have been murdered in the US by criminals who were under the government supervision of parole or probation, at the time of the murders. (2).

Yet, it is the death penalty that some are trying to ban?!
====== ==================

FOOTNOTES

THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES

Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

Of all endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

1) The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives

2) Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty

Then change the law through Congress and/or the Legislature.
As of now the burden of proof is all or nothing in criminal procedure.
BTW, your stats that 200,000 were murdered under parole or probation IS NOT from murderers let go from prison so that is bogus to the core in this argument.
65% of all murders are from a firearm so under your theory the gun is at fault.
And the real stat is that murder rates are DRASTICALLY going down so how does that match the death penalty deters argument?
The death row population NOW is about 3250. Under your theory 15 are innocent and must die for the other "innocent" in society to live.
Dude, you are bat shit crazy.