The Death Penalty---OP/ED

[BULLDOG]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

 

[BULLDOG]

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yeah right

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

Yes and if you actually read any of my posts you'd know why

The average layperson does not have the knowledge and expertise to interpret evidence. Juries base verdicts on opinions and emotions that are manipulated by lawyers.

And lawyers actually pick the jury.

A panel of experts can dispassionately weigh evidence as no jury ever could

 

[BULLDOG]

You want to get rid of our judicial system, yet you whine about shredding the constitution. Right wingers are stupid.

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

Yes and if you actually read any of my posts you'd know why

The average layperson does not have the knowledge and expertise to interpret evidence. Juries base verdicts on opinions and emotions that are manipulated by lawyers.

And lawyers actually pick the jury.

A panel of experts can dispassionately weigh evidence as no jury ever could

Right. You are against a jury of our peers. How perfectly republican of you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never whine about it I tell you IDIOTS that the Constitution can be changed
Maybe you didn't know that but there is a procedure for changing the Constitution

You might want to look it up

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

Yes and if you actually read any of my posts you'd know why

The average layperson does not have the knowledge and expertise to interpret evidence. Juries base verdicts on opinions and emotions that are manipulated by lawyers.

And lawyers actually pick the jury.

A panel of experts can dispassionately weigh evidence as no jury ever could

Right. You are against a jury of our peers. How perfectly republican of you.

Sorry I'm not a republican but you can't think beyond 2 dimensions can you ?

I do not want to be judged by my peers I would rather be judged by someone with more knowledge expertise and wisdom than the average person

If you would rather have some random people off the street listen to scientific testimony for days on end while their eyes glaze over because they haven't had a science class since high school interpret evidence of your guilt or innocence then you are too stupid to deserve more

 

[BULLDOG]

And the change you want to make is doing away with our judicial system. Idiot.

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

Yes and if you actually read any of my posts you'd know why

The average layperson does not have the knowledge and expertise to interpret evidence. Juries base verdicts on opinions and emotions that are manipulated by lawyers.

And lawyers actually pick the jury.

A panel of experts can dispassionately weigh evidence as no jury ever could

Right. You are against a jury of our peers. How perfectly republican of you.

Sorry I'm not a republican but you can't think beyond 2 dimensions can you ?

I do not want to be judged by my peers I would rather be judged by someone with more knowledge expertise and wisdom than the average person

If you would rather have some random people off the street listen to scientific testimony for days on end while their eyes glaze over because they haven't had a science class since high school interpret evidence of your guilt or innocence then you are too stupid to deserve more

Right. You are another one of those who is embarrassed to admit you are a republican, yet you always support republican policies and goals. I don't care if you want to call yourself a fluffy bunny instead of a republican.You are still a republican. What you want isn't what our constitution laid out. You lose, and your idea is stupid.

 

[Conservative65]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

I say people like you that care more for a guilty murderers than the innocent victims of those murderers. That's the problem. If you execute those guilty in a manner in which it needs to be done, the smart ones that would do such a thing would learn and the idiots that don't would be subject to the same punishment.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No it is not it is changing the judicial system not abolishing it MORON

My mistake. You just want to do away with the right to have a jury of our peers. More than that, you said you want to get rid of any kind of jury.

Yes and if you actually read any of my posts you'd know why

The average layperson does not have the knowledge and expertise to interpret evidence. Juries base verdicts on opinions and emotions that are manipulated by lawyers.

And lawyers actually pick the jury.

A panel of experts can dispassionately weigh evidence as no jury ever could

Right. You are against a jury of our peers. How perfectly republican of you.

Sorry I'm not a republican but you can't think beyond 2 dimensions can you ?

I do not want to be judged by my peers I would rather be judged by someone with more knowledge expertise and wisdom than the average person

If you would rather have some random people off the street listen to scientific testimony for days on end while their eyes glaze over because they haven't had a science class since high school interpret evidence of your guilt or innocence then you are too stupid to deserve more

Right. You are another one of those who is embarrassed to admit you are a republican, yet you always support republican policies and goals. I don't care if you want to call yourself a fluffy bunny instead of a republican.You are still a republican. What you want isn't what our constitution laid out. You lose, and your idea is stupid.

Really always?

I have no problem with abortion or gay marriage or many other liberal polices. In fact I am one of the most liberal minded people here.
I have a problem with the government telling me that I have to buy health insurance that includes coverage I don't need but who wouldn't

I have never once voted for a republican or a democrat for that matter

No don't let your head blow up because I know that thinking beyond 2 dimensions taxes you

And what's stupid is trusting your fate in the courts to 12 random people who do not want to be there and are picked by the attorneys to be the ones they believe are the most easily manipulated

 

[BULLDOG]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

I say people like you that care more for a guilty murderers than the innocent victims of those murderers. That's the problem. If you execute those guilty in a manner in which it needs to be done, the smart ones that would do such a thing would learn and the idiots that don't would be subject to the same punishment.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to most murderers.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.
Death Penalty Focus : Deterrence
deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
Death Penalty Focus of California

 

[JoeB131]

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

i want to get rid of the second amendment because it's a stupid idea (or at least the way the tiny-dicked compensators are interpreting it) in 2016. We don't have militias anymore, so we don't need an armed populace.

Getting rid of the people having a say in the court system, not so much. Anyone who doesn't trust a jury trial can always ask for a bench trial.

 

[Conservative65]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

I say people like you that care more for a guilty murderers than the innocent victims of those murderers. That's the problem. If you execute those guilty in a manner in which it needs to be done, the smart ones that would do such a thing would learn and the idiots that don't would be subject to the same punishment.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to most murderers.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.
Death Penalty Focus : Deterrence
deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
Death Penalty Focus of California

Don't care. The ONLY thing that matters is the one that is being executed is getting what he/she deserved for what he/she did.

 

[Conservative65]

The juries are the problem the juries are chosen by lawyers and are manipulated by lawyers and they don't understand the science involved in forensics to the degree necessary to interpret evidence

Get rid of the jury system and the only thing that natters is the evidence not what 12 random people think the evidence is

And you want to get rid of the second amendment so so much for your shredding the constitution theory

i want to get rid of the second amendment because it's a stupid idea (or at least the way the tiny-dicked compensators are interpreting it) in 2016. We don't have militias anymore, so we don't need an armed populace.

Getting rid of the people having a say in the court system, not so much. Anyone who doesn't trust a jury trial can always ask for a bench trial.

There we have it. Another piece of shit gun hater that thinks because he believes something is stupid the rest of us should be subject to his beliefs.

I'd say since you hate the Constitution and are afraid to own a gun, it's not because you're tiny but because you're a *****. Because you're scared doesn't mean the rest of us should accommodate your cowardice.

 

[BULLDOG]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

I say people like you that care more for a guilty murderers than the innocent victims of those murderers. That's the problem. If you execute those guilty in a manner in which it needs to be done, the smart ones that would do such a thing would learn and the idiots that don't would be subject to the same punishment.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to most murderers.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.
Death Penalty Focus : Deterrence
deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
Death Penalty Focus of California

Don't care. The ONLY thing that matters is the one that is being executed is getting what he/she deserved for what he/she did.

Even if the one being executed is innocent and the guilty one is still free?

 

[Conservative65]

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

I would say SOME lawyers are the problem. so you fix the lawyers, not the juries.

again, we don't have enough forensic specialists to process evidence we have now. and most cases don't rely on forensics anyway.

1) Make sure the accused have adequate representation.
2) Sanction prosecutors who behave in unethical manners
3) Get rid of the death penalty because the system will never be infallible.

Problem. *******. Solved. And you didn't have to shred the constitution.

I say people like you that care more for a guilty murderers than the innocent victims of those murderers. That's the problem. If you execute those guilty in a manner in which it needs to be done, the smart ones that would do such a thing would learn and the idiots that don't would be subject to the same punishment.

The death penalty is not a deterrent to most murderers.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that executions deter people from committing crime anymore than long prison sentences. Moreover, states without the death penalty have much lower murder rates. The South accounts for 80% of US executions and has the highest regional murder rate.
Death Penalty Focus : Deterrence
deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=82
Death Penalty Focus of California

Don't care. The ONLY thing that matters is the one that is being executed is getting what he/she deserved for what he/she did.

Even if the one being executed is innocent and the guilty one is still free?

Perhaps you should read what I wrote. I said the one being executed that DESERVED what he/she received. Innocent people don't deserve the death penalty but guilty murderers do. Since I included that parameter, it means the person was guilty.

Pay attention.

 

[JoeB131]

There we have it. Another piece of shit gun hater that thinks because he believes something is stupid the rest of us should be subject to his beliefs.

I'd say since you hate the Constitution and are afraid to own a gun, it's not because you're tiny but because you're a *****. Because you're scared doesn't mean the rest of us should accommodate your cowardice.

Yeah, given how many of you guys lose your shit and start shooting people, it's a reasonable fear.

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

 

[Crixus]

Wow. Lots of anger there.

Here's the main reasons why we should join all the other civlized countries and abolish the death penalty-

1) Eventually, you are going to kill an innocent person by mistake.

2) Millions of dollars in resources are spent litigating DP cases, to the point most states can't carry out executions.

And that's about it.

Oh, yeah. Fetuses still aren't people and their pain receptors aren't even on when most abortions are performed, but youkeep getting upset about the medical waste.

1. America is not any of the other foreign countries. Dont like the death penalty go live in one of them. As for killing an innocent person, meh. Innocent people get killed by drunk drivers more often then accidentally getting juiced by a state.

2. Limit the appeals. Problem fixed!

As for the medical waste. Just like my views are my own, your views are YOUR own. Bet your glad your parents did not decied your were medical waste. Or maybe they did and that's why your so grumpy.

 

[Conservative65]

There we have it. Another piece of shit gun hater that thinks because he believes something is stupid the rest of us should be subject to his beliefs.

I'd say since you hate the Constitution and are afraid to own a gun, it's not because you're tiny but because you're a *****. Because you're scared doesn't mean the rest of us should accommodate your cowardice.

Yeah, given how many of you guys lose your shit and start shooting people, it's a reasonable fear.

There's no good reason for you to have a gun.

Actually, there is a good reason. In fact, more than one. I want guns and the Constitution says I have the right to have them if I want them. Don't like it, continue to be a ***** and be afraid of them while making excuses to hide your cowardice.

 

[JoeB131]

1. America is not any of the other foreign countries. Dont like the death penalty go live in one of them. As for killing an innocent person, meh. Innocent people get killed by drunk drivers more often then accidentally getting juiced by a state.

2. Limit the appeals. Problem fixed!

As for the medical waste. Just like my views are my own, your views are YOUR own. Bet your glad your parents did not decied your were medical waste. Or maybe they did and that's why your so grumpy.

You do realize attacking people's family's is against the rules, don't you?

Anyway, the problem with limiting appeals is that you increase the chances of making a mistake.

Rolando Cruz was a guy who was wrongfully convicted in Illinois. Only because of the appeals that were filed on his behalf did we finally get to the truth- that someone else did it, and that DuPage County was railroading him even though they knew he didn't do it.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, there is a good reason. In fact, more than one. I want guns and the Constitution says I have the right to have them if I want them. Don't like it, continue to be a ***** and be afraid of them while making excuses to hide your cowardice.

No, the constitution says we have the right to a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

So what are you going to do when the courts say you can't have them?