Governor challenges federal government on death penalty.

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution overrides State law and explicitly allows the Death Penalty. So it doesnt matter what the Governor thinks. He can't do what he chooses, at least assuming we follow the Constitution.

So, am I to infer you believe the US Constitution trumps the conscience of the Governor? And, the conscience of the people of a state?

Seems a set up for the conservative judges on the Supreme Court.

Yes as a matter of fact the US Constitution does override ANY consideration from ANY STATE or the people of said State. Pretty simple concept.

I notice you don't care what the people want when it is a pet issue of yours. Say like Gay Marriage.

 

[The T]

So we pay for his room and board for the rest of his life? Why should i? Also, we have DNA now, so it's less "likely" to happen. I agree it's unfair that poor people can't get private attorneys, I couldn't afford one! But that's the way it goes....not all murderers are poor. And they sit in prison for years before they have to worry much about it, look at Scott Peterson. He wasn't poor.....and he's still alive!

Yep, we pay for his incarceration. The last thing I want to chance is meeting my Maker with innocent blood on my hands.

Blackstone's Ratio - In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

The principle is much older than Blackstone's formulation, being closely tied to the presumption of innocence in criminal trials. An early example of the principle appears in the Bible (Genesis 18:23-32),[1][2] as:
“

Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it?[3] ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake."[4]
”


The twelfth-century legal theorist Maimonides, expounding on this passage as well as Exodus 23:7 ("the innocent and righteous slay thou not") argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."[1][5][6]

Sir John Fortescue's De Laudibus Legum Angliae (c. 1470) states that "one would much rather that twenty guilty persons should escape the punishment of death, than that one innocent person should be condemned and suffer capitally." Similarly, on 3 October 1692, while decrying the Salem witch trials, Increase Mather adapted Fortescue's statement and wrote, "It were better that Ten Suspected Witches should escape, than that the Innocent Person should be Condemned."

Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer".[7]

Well...God knows who is guilty and who is innocent. He knows everything about us.
We are human...human's make mistakes. God knows this.

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

Sodom was destroyed....God knew there were no innocent.[/QUOTOnly lott and his family that were visiting to which he sent an angel to warn them to flee and NOT look back. Lott's wife disobeyed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well...God knows who is guilty and who is innocent. He knows everything about us.
We are human...human's make mistakes. God knows this.

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

Sodom was destroyed....God knew there were no innocent.

Romans19:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Government is not run by God nor by a religion. What man's Government chooses to do has nothing to do with God. And personally since God is NOT going to smite the evil doer I have no problem with the Death penalty.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well...God knows who is guilty and who is innocent. He knows everything about us.
We are human...human's make mistakes. God knows this.

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

Sodom was destroyed....God knew there were no innocent.

Romans19:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Government is not run by God nor by a religion. What man's Government chooses to do has nothing to do with God. And personally since God is NOT going to smite the evil doer I have no problem with the Death penalty.

I never said it was, I said that I didn't want to meet my Maker with innocent blood on my hands. I also posted Blackstone's Ratio, and a Jefferson quote showing America's position on justice, you know, the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing?

I also mentioned the fact that the death penalty is not equally applied, and the other fact that several Death Row inhabitants have been cleared of their crimes. Would you be good with those innocent men being executed only to find out AFTER the fact that they were indeed INNOCENT?

 

[WillowTree]

I think the death penalty is wrong. We have no God-given right to take a life unless it is in self-defense.

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I think the death penalty is wrong. We have no God-given right to take a life unless it is in self-defense.

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think the death penalty is wrong. We have no God-given right to take a life unless it is in self-defense.

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

Ok, now explain how innocent blood is on your hands if the federal Government executes someone. They would have been properly convicted and exhausted all their appeals before it ever happened.


And while we are at it, how did you feel about the US Government assassinating a US Citizen and his 16 year old son with out ever even charging them with a crime?

 

[WillowTree]

I think the death penalty is wrong. We have no God-given right to take a life unless it is in self-defense.

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

it's the law of the land libtard. so blow it out yer ass

 

[ladyliberal]

If the prisoner were sentenced to death in federal courts, could that sentence be carried out without the state's permission? The usual rule seems to be that the "Sovereign" (ie, state or federal court system) with primary jurisdiction would impose their sentence first (http://www.bop.gov/news/ifss.pdf). So if RI had primary jurisdiction and sentenced him to life without parole, could the federal government insist that their sentence of death be carried out first?

Also, it has been suggested in this thread that the state shouldn't have to pay to keep certain prisoners alive. The balance of the evidence (Does the death penalty cost less than life in prison without parole? - Death Penalty - ProCon.org) indicates that the death penalty as currently practiced in the US is much more costly to the state than pursuing prison sentences.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can a state refuse extradition to the federal government?

Not if a Federal court orders it to do so.

Well...God knows who is guilty and who is innocent. He knows everything about us.
We are human...human's make mistakes. God knows this.

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

Sodom was destroyed....God knew there were no innocent.

?

What does that have to do with anything?

Yes as a matter of fact the US Constitution does override ANY consideration from ANY STATE or the people of said State. Pretty simple concept.

Very simple. That includes the state or the people of said state violating the Constitution by excluding gays equal access to marriage laws.

I notice you don't care what the people want when it is a pet issue of yours. Say like Gay Marriage.

Which would be correct and consistent on his part, since the people may not decide who may have his rights and who may not.

 

[Peach]

Don't you just love it when a liberal challenges the supremacy of federal laws and no one mentions it?

You mean no liberal mentions it? Perhaps because they read the entire article. This is more a procedural issue than a ‘challenge.’

It was not immediately clear Thursday night whether any other states have flatly rejected a request to turn over a prisoner to the federal government.

But Jarad Goldstein, a professor of constitutional law at Roger Williams University, said it’s possible Chafee was within his legal rights to turn down the request, given that the federal government didn’t get a court order that would have mandated it be given custody, but made the request under another agreement that allows states to request an interstate retainer.

“This agreement gives each state the discretion to decline a request from another state. It may be that the state is within its rights, though it is still not clear to me whether a state can decide not to turn over a defendant because it disagrees with the federal policy,” Goldstein said. “Usually, federal law trumps state policy but, in this case, I think an argument can be made either way.” Goldstein said the federal prosecutors could get an order from a federal judge that state officials could not ignore.

Which will probably be the outcome.

Amy Kempe, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, said her boss was on a plane returning from a meeting of state attorney generals in Chicago and was not available for comment.

No one edits copy anymore?

Death sentences are a mixture of Federal and State law; very often taken to the Federal courts.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Don't you just love it when a liberal challenges the supremacy of federal laws and no one mentions it?

You mean no liberal mentions it? Perhaps because they read the entire article. This is more a procedural issue than a ‘challenge.’

Which will probably be the outcome.

Amy Kempe, a spokeswoman for state Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin, said her boss was on a plane returning from a meeting of state attorney generals in Chicago and was not available for comment.

No one edits copy anymore?

Death sentences are a mixture of Federal and State law; very often taken to the Federal courts.

In States with no death Penalty the Fed still has the Death penalty. The State has no say in Federal Court about Federal law or Federal punishment.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

Ok, now explain how innocent blood is on your hands if the federal Government executes someone. They would have been properly convicted and exhausted all their appeals before it ever happened.


And while we are at it, how did you feel about the US Government assassinating a US Citizen and his 16 year old son with out ever even charging them with a crime?

If I support the execution then the blood is on my hands the same as it would be if I was the one to flip the switch, which is why I don't support the death penalty. There have been several cases where properly convicted people have been proven INNOCENT after their appeals have been exhausted.
As for government assassinations, I'm against those, too.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

it's the law of the land libtard. so blow it out yer ass

So was slavery, so was the law that said women couldn't vote, just because it's the law doesn't make it right, you ignorant Neanderthal!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, since libtards don't believe in God we don't need his permission. so you can sit down and stfu.

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

it's the law of the land libtard. so blow it out yer ass

So is Roe v. Wade

 

[Wry Catcher]

STFU? Why don't you KMA? I've got just as much a right to my opinion, based on logic, as you do to yours, based on bloodlust.

And just so you know, I've got several hundred posts on this board that demonstrate that I am no kind of 'libtard', but keep your ignorance on display, it's BREATHTAKING!

it's the law of the land libtard. so blow it out yer ass

So was slavery, so was the law that said women couldn't vote, just because it's the law doesn't make it right, you ignorant Neanderthal!

I thanked you too soon. Your post is an insult to all Neanderthals, living and dead.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Governor challenges federal government on death penalty.

Don't you just love it when a liberal challenges the supremacy of federal laws and no one mentions it?

As usual.....you "conservatives" are on the.....

....WRONG-side of History!!!!

"The House of Delegates voted 82-56 to repeal Maryland’s death penalty on Friday, making the state the sixth in as many years to abolish executions and delivering a major legislative victory to Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The bill, which passed the Senate last week, now heads to the governor for his signature. O’Malley (D) has lobbied lawmakers for years to end capital punishment, and he put the full weight of his office behind it this session."

​