Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Church does not need to "pour millions in an ad campaign" to purify its position on the death penalty.
I wish to God the RCC was content with just "purifying its position" on abortion rights and gay marriage.
Pardon me for objecting to blatant hypocrisy.
Regardless of what my religion teaches, I support the death penalty. Each case should be weighed on it's own merits. There are instances where a person's crime is bad enough that it warrants the forfeiture of their own life. Just my personal opinion. That and $4.95 will get you a cup of joe.
My state of Texas has the death penalty.
They run it like an assembly line at a factory.
Commit murder and you forfeit "your" life.
Some states will only give out the death penalty if there is an eye witness or a confession.Regardless of what my religion teaches, I support the death penalty. Each case should be weighed on it's own merits. There are instances where a person's crime is bad enough that it warrants the forfeiture of their own life. Just my personal opinion. That and $4.95 will get you a cup of joe.
There are certainly people whose deaths I would welcome, even help to carry out. But in most states with an active death penalty, there are men and women on death row with very questionable convictions, as well as plenty of garden variety murderers who just had shitty defense lawyers.
It is applied too haphazardly and since I see no pay off, I support repeal.
I agree; that is wrong and needs to be changed.My state of Texas has the death penalty.
They run it like an assembly line at a factory.
Commit murder and you forfeit "your" life.
Your state does not allow defense counsel to submit proof of actual innocence after the initial appeal...only several days after the conviction is rendered. Not years, days.
Sound like due process? Not to me...where's the social benefit from executing the innocent?
I agree; that is wrong and needs to be changed.My state of Texas has the death penalty.
They run it like an assembly line at a factory.
Commit murder and you forfeit "your" life.
Your state does not allow defense counsel to submit proof of actual innocence after the initial appeal...only several days after the conviction is rendered. Not years, days.
Sound like due process? Not to me...where's the social benefit from executing the innocent?
Regardless of what my religion teaches, I support the death penalty. Each case should be weighed on it's own merits. There are instances where a person's crime is bad enough that it warrants the forfeiture of their own life. Just my personal opinion. That and $4.95 will get you a cup of joe.
There are certainly people whose deaths I would welcome, even help to carry out. But in most states with an active death penalty, there are men and women on death row with very questionable convictions, as well as plenty of garden variety murderers who just had shitty defense lawyers.
It is applied too haphazardly and since I see no pay off, I support repeal.
Regardless of what my religion teaches, I support the death penalty. Each case should be weighed on it's own merits. There are instances where a person's crime is bad enough that it warrants the forfeiture of their own life. Just my personal opinion. That and $4.95 will get you a cup of joe.
There are certainly people whose deaths I would welcome, even help to carry out. But in most states with an active death penalty, there are men and women on death row with very questionable convictions, as well as plenty of garden variety murderers who just had shitty defense lawyers.
It is applied too haphazardly and since I see no pay off, I support repeal.
That is why there is a lengthy appeals process. Todays technology is helping to weed out the very few who were wrongly convicted.
There are certainly people whose deaths I would welcome, even help to carry out. But in most states with an active death penalty, there are men and women on death row with very questionable convictions, as well as plenty of garden variety murderers who just had shitty defense lawyers.
It is applied too haphazardly and since I see no pay off, I support repeal.
That is why there is a lengthy appeals process. Todays technology is helping to weed out the very few who were wrongly convicted.
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
They sucked the last 2 years.
You mean where the Cowboys play? HOLY SHIT! NO WONDER THEY SUCK THIS YEAR!
That is why there is a lengthy appeals process. Todays technology is helping to weed out the very few who were wrongly convicted.
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
That is the exception to the rule. Does it happen? Yes. More often than not, hard evidence plays more of a role in conviction that the sheriff hauling in the local mental defective.
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
That is the exception to the rule. Does it happen? Yes. More often than not, hard evidence plays more of a role in conviction that the sheriff hauling in the local mental defective.
One step forward in death penalty law would be to outlaw its application unless there was solid forensic evidence of guilt. That has not happened and there's an excellent reason most death penalty convicts are poor, black and mildly retarded.
Of course, it would also be a step forward if the SCOTUS reversed and held that proof of innocence could save the life of a convict at any point in the appeals process.
Basically, I think there are too many problems and not enough upside; I support flat-out repeal.
There are certainly people whose deaths I would welcome, even help to carry out. But in most states with an active death penalty, there are men and women on death row with very questionable convictions, as well as plenty of garden variety murderers who just had shitty defense lawyers.
It is applied too haphazardly and since I see no pay off, I support repeal.
That is why there is a lengthy appeals process. Todays technology is helping to weed out the very few who were wrongly convicted.
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
A Buddhist says no. We take vows called the five precepts and the first one is not to kill.
That is why there is a lengthy appeals process. Todays technology is helping to weed out the very few who were wrongly convicted.
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
This case almost matches your criteria exactly. Three of them will be tried with the death penalty, so you don't think any of these people deserve the death penalty then? They were 'hauled' in and they confessed as well, poor things were being taken advantage of I guess.
Jennifer Daugherty, Mentally Disabled Woman, Trusted Everyone, Including Her Killers - Crimesider - CBS News
It doesn't work, kwc57. In the typical "problem case", a county has a horrifying crime and the sheriff hauls in the local mental defective and extracts a "confession". Then we go through a parody of a trial with defense counsel who might could be asleep (actual case) on drugs (actual case) missing in action (actual case) or just incompetent (many actual cases). Once the death sentence is imposed at trial, the odds of overturning it -- even with good evidence and competent appellate lawyers -- are about 1 in 250,000, so time passes, we have many meaningless appellate hearings and one day a decade or so later, we execute.
If that's justice, then I guess. Certainly is a far cry from the vigorous judicial examination and re-examination most people think goes on regarding death sentences.
This case almost matches your criteria exactly. Three of them will be tried with the death penalty, so you don't think any of these people deserve the death penalty then? They were 'hauled' in and they confessed as well, poor things were being taken advantage of I guess.
Jennifer Daugherty, Mentally Disabled Woman, Trusted Everyone, Including Her Killers - Crimesider - CBS News
They prolly deserve to die by drawing and quartering, Newby....but what exactly do you think we get from executions we could not get from LWOP?