WOKE Loon DA Attempting To Stop Death Penalty Sentence

[protectionist]

Despite being given a death sentence for the brutal murder of an innocent man, the cold-blooded killer could get life imprisonment, if a far-left Los Angeles District Attorney gets his way. Isn't it bad enough that this dirtbag killed somebody ? - a father of a 12 year old girl, and then allegedly later attempted to intimidate and hurt witnesses before he went to trial.

And isn't it bad enough that the creep has been allowed to live for 30 years, since the killing in 1992 ? If things had been handled correctly, he would have been executed 25 years ago. What a waste of taxpayers' money, in addition to the risk that the killer might kill again.

Convicted Murderer Gets Help From “Woke” DA | NewsGlobal.com

newsglobal.com

 

[BULLDOG]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

Well said.

 

[Augustine_]

Despite being given a death sentence for the brutal murder of an innocent man, the cold-blooded killer could get life imprisonment, if a far-left Los Angeles District Attorney gets his way. Isn't it bad enough that this dirtbag killed somebody ? - a father of a 12 year old girl, and then allegedly later attempted to intimidate and hurt witnesses before he went to trial.

And isn't it bad enough that the creep has been allowed to live for 30 years, since the killing in 1992 ? If things had been handled correctly, he would have been executed 25 years ago. What a waste of taxpayers' money, in addition to the risk that the killer might kill again.

Convicted Murderer Gets Help From “Woke” DA | NewsGlobal.com

newsglobal.com

You spent years calling people soldier hating traitors when kids were murdered indiscriminately by the U.S. in other lands

 

[protectionist]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

You make 3 arguments here - all of them wrong.

1. There is absolutely no assurance that it is safe to lock up a killer, rather execute him. Criminal history is replete with examples of imprisoned killers, who went on to KILL AGAIN, the lives lost, caused by those who chose not to execute the killer. Examples available on request.

2. Do you think I haven't heard this idiotic "cheaper" talking point before ? I've been hearing it for 65 years, and it is just as dumb now as it was then. For your edification, if you execute someone after say 3 years of appeals, then you save all the money that would have had to be spent on feeding, clothing, housing, and medical/dental care for the killer for as much as 80 years.
The only reason why death penalty cases are expensive, is because moronic liberals drag them out on APPEALS for 30-35 years, thereby sustaining large costs for all those ongoing trial$$$$$$$. Answer ? >> DON'T DO THAT.... Duh!

Convicted killers should be given about 3 years of appeals and no more, and even that is risking the lives of everyone he will come in contact with, for 3 years.

3. The number of people who have been executed, who turned out to be innocent are very small compared to the number of people who have been killed by non-executed convicted killers. Secondly, most of that small number were convicted before the technologies of videos and DNA, which convictions now are much more sure, and only those should be death penalty cases.

I refuted your first 2 arguments in my 6th grade class, in 1957.

 

[protectionist]

You spent years calling people soldier hating traitors when kids were murdered indiscriminately by the U.S. in other lands

What the hell are you talking about ?

 

[Meathead]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

Far cheaper would be to give them a trial, once convicted and sentenced, an appeal to the state supremes then SCOTUS. Failing that, a bullet to the back of the head and flush the toilet. One year tops.

 

[Turtlesoup]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

Cheaper? Stop it. It is only cheaper because we allow violent criminals to abuse the court systems to drag out court cases costing taxpayers $$$$$.

We could curtail the appeals process and court process as well limiting those on death role to how much money they can cost taxpayers playing the court games. There is this supposedly law about swift justice (which doesn't mean 25 years of court cases that the taxpayers are forced to pay for.

In cases of guilty beyond all doubt (which is different than reasonable doubt)----the murderer should be put to death immediately. No drawn out cases and no wasting time debating whether being insane or a bad childhood whatever is a defense for such animals. Rabid is rabid.

 

[protectionist]

Cheaper? Stop it. It is only cheaper because we allow violent criminals to abuse the court systems to drag out court cases costing taxpayers $$$$$.

We could curtail the appeals process and court process as well limiting those on death role to how much money they can cost taxpayers playing the court games. There is this supposedly law about swift justice (which doesn't mean 25 years of court cases that the taxpayers are forced to pay for.

In cases of guilty beyond all doubt (which is different than reasonable doubt)----the murderer should be put to death immediately. No drawn out cases and no wasting time debating whether being insane or a bad childhood whatever is a defense for such animals. Rabid is rabid.

The reason why liberals blabbering these totally idiotic ideas, is because their liberal masters (university professors, leftist media, thank tanks) keep blabbering it to them, and that is all they know. They don't go to conservative media, and rarely ever hear the arguments that easily refute their really talking points.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The reason why liberals blabbering these totally idiotic ideas, is because their liberal masters (university professors, leftist media, thank tanks) keep blabbering it to them, and that is all they know. They don't go to conservative media, and rarely ever hear the arguments that easily refute their really talking points.

There's the deal. Another poster made the same point recently. They can't see evidence if they refuse to open their eyes.

 

[Blues Man]

Despite being given a death sentence for the brutal murder of an innocent man, the cold-blooded killer could get life imprisonment, if a far-left Los Angeles District Attorney gets his way. Isn't it bad enough that this dirtbag killed somebody ? - a father of a 12 year old girl, and then allegedly later attempted to intimidate and hurt witnesses before he went to trial.

And isn't it bad enough that the creep has been allowed to live for 30 years, since the killing in 1992 ? If things had been handled correctly, he would have been executed 25 years ago. What a waste of taxpayers' money, in addition to the risk that the killer might kill again.

Convicted Murderer Gets Help From “Woke” DA | NewsGlobal.com

newsglobal.com

CA doesn't execute people even if the death penalty is still on the books there

 

[surada]

You make 3 arguments here - all of them wrong.

1. There is absolutely no assurance that it is safe to lock up a killer, rather execute him. Criminal history is replete with examples of imprisoned killers, who went on to KILL AGAIN, the lives lost, caused by those who chose not to execute the killer. Examples available on request.

2. Do you think I haven't heard this idiotic "cheaper" talking point before ? I've been hearing it for 65 years, and it is just as dumb now as it was then. For your edification, if you execute someone after say 3 years of appeals, then you save all the money that would have had to be spent on feeding, clothing, housing, and medical/dental care for the killer for as much as 80 years.
The only reason why death penalty cases are expensive, is because moronic liberals drag them out on APPEALS for 30-35 years, thereby sustaining large costs for all those ongoing trial$$$$$$$. Answer ? >> DON'T DO THAT.... Duh!

Convicted killers should be given about 3 years of appeals and no more, and even that is risking the lives of everyone he will come in contact with, for 3 years.

3. The number of people who have been executed, who turned out to be innocent are very small compared to the number of people who have been killed by non-executed convicted killers. Secondly, most of that small number were convicted before the technologies of videos and DNA, which convictions now are much more sure, and only those should be death penalty cases.

I refuted your first 2 arguments in my 6th grade class, in 1957.

1957? So you knew it all by age ten.

 

[BULLDOG]

You make 3 arguments here - all of them wrong.

1. There is absolutely no assurance that it is safe to lock up a killer, rather execute him. Criminal history is replete with examples of imprisoned killers, who went on to KILL AGAIN, the lives lost, caused by those who chose not to execute the killer. Examples available on request.

2. Do you think I haven't heard this idiotic "cheaper" talking point before ? I've been hearing it for 65 years, and it is just as dumb now as it was then. For your edification, if you execute someone after say 3 years of appeals, then you save all the money that would have had to be spent on feeding, clothing, housing, and medical/dental care for the killer for as much as 80 years.
The only reason why death penalty cases are expensive, is because moronic liberals drag them out on APPEALS for 30-35 years, thereby sustaining large costs for all those ongoing trial$$$$$$$. Answer ? >> DON'T DO THAT.... Duh!

Convicted killers should be given about 3 years of appeals and no more, and even that is risking the lives of everyone he will come in contact with, for 3 years.

3. The number of people who have been executed, who turned out to be innocent are very small compared to the number of people who have been killed by non-executed convicted killers. Secondly, most of that small number were convicted before the technologies of videos and DNA, which convictions now are much more sure, and only those should be death penalty cases.

I refuted your first 2 arguments in my 6th grade class, in 1957.

I understand. Your logic is about what could be expected from a 6th grader.

 

[Rigby5]

You make 3 arguments here - all of them wrong.

1. There is absolutely no assurance that it is safe to lock up a killer, rather execute him. Criminal history is replete with examples of imprisoned killers, who went on to KILL AGAIN, the lives lost, caused by those who chose not to execute the killer. Examples available on request.

2. Do you think I haven't heard this idiotic "cheaper" talking point before ? I've been hearing it for 65 years, and it is just as dumb now as it was then. For your edification, if you execute someone after say 3 years of appeals, then you save all the money that would have had to be spent on feeding, clothing, housing, and medical/dental care for the killer for as much as 80 years.
The only reason why death penalty cases are expensive, is because moronic liberals drag them out on APPEALS for 30-35 years, thereby sustaining large costs for all those ongoing trial$$$$$$$. Answer ? >> DON'T DO THAT.... Duh!

Convicted killers should be given about 3 years of appeals and no more, and even that is risking the lives of everyone he will come in contact with, for 3 years.

3. The number of people who have been executed, who turned out to be innocent are very small compared to the number of people who have been killed by non-executed convicted killers. Secondly, most of that small number were convicted before the technologies of videos and DNA, which convictions now are much more sure, and only those should be death penalty cases.

I refuted your first 2 arguments in my 6th grade class, in 1957.

I don't think so.

1. The odds of a person killing again if their execution is prevented, is not large enough. Nor is it justified as a deterrent, since stats show instead that when the state executes, it teaches that killing is right, so murders increase.

2. The cost of executions is over 100 times that or life imprisonment. Limiting appeals to 3 years does not bring down cost that much, and is putting a price tag on life. But more important is where the authority to execute comes from? It can't come from our inherent right of defense, so it opens the door to any and all bureaucratic, arbitrary, abuses by a corrupt gov.

3. I have read that about 10% of those convicted are actually innocent. While we should be able to be more sure, most jurors will convict on only 51% of the evidence indicates guilt. I have been on over half a dozen juries, and they were very biased, indifferent, and subservient to the prosecutor and judge. It is actually rare for them to find anyone innocent, even when there was no real evidence.

 

[Rigby5]

What the hell are you talking about ?

Its is pointing out hypocrisy.
Its when one overly cares about one group of children, like show of the same race, nationality, etc., but then does not care about children of a different race, nationality, etc.
For example, with "Shock and Awe" in the illegal invasion of Iraq, we deliberately targeted civilian infrastructure, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
By bombing water, sanitation, electricity, etc., we caused massive deaths from heat, dehydration, disease, starvation, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

The reason why liberals blabbering these totally idiotic ideas, is because their liberal masters (university professors, leftist media, thank tanks) keep blabbering it to them, and that is all they know. They don't go to conservative media, and rarely ever hear the arguments that easily refute their really talking points.

No, it is impossible for a conservative to support capital punishment.
Any private individual can execute in immediate self defense if attackrd with threat of lethal force.
But gov does not and can not have any similar authorization, since the person is confined and no longer a deadly threat.
Where could such gov authorization for execution come from?
It can't be from existing delegated authority of other individuals, since we don't have that authority to execute when not in immediate defense from a lethal threat.
The only remaining authority justification could be if executions served the rights of all by acting as a strong deterrent against future potential murders.
But stats support no such claim.
Executions do not reduce murders, but actually tend to increase them by example.
Perps see executions, so then assume killing is ok, easy, and condoned by society.

A conservative has to be against gov executions because there is no way for we the people, who are the only source of legal authority, to delegate a power of executions that we do not ourselves have individually.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Unlike all of you, I have actually spoken with inmates sentenced to death. In addition, I am good friends with Vonda Pelto, the prison psychologist assigned to California's death row.

The percentage of those who are innocent on death row is practically nothing. It happens, but rarely and those errors are in very old cases. The question of whether the death penalty is warranted comes up in isolated cases of murder. Should Scott Peterson get death? He killed his wife. Is he a danger to the general public? Probably not.

Those that thrill kill should not only get the death penalty but should get it immediately. Appeals aren't necessary. Once a killer takes a life for the enjoyment it provides to them it is over. They cannot be rehabilitated, they cannot be changed or cured. Thinking that locking them up so they could think about what they did is the worst thing to do. They think of little else. They rerun every murder in their heads, remembering, savoring, imagining more victims. Take them out into the parking lot and put a bullet in their heads.

 

[jbrownson0831]

I don't think so.

1. The odds of a person killing again if their execution is prevented, is not large enough. Nor is it justified as a deterrent, since stats show instead that when the state executes, it teaches that killing is right, so murders increase.

2. The cost of executions is over 100 times that or life imprisonment. Limiting appeals to 3 years does not bring down cost that much, and is putting a price tag on life. But more important is where the authority to execute comes from? It can't come from our inherent right of defense, so it opens the door to any and all bureaucratic, arbitrary, abuses by a corrupt gov.

3. I have read that about 10% of those convicted are actually innocent. While we should be able to be more sure, most jurors will convict on only 51% of the evidence indicates guilt. I have been on over half a dozen juries, and they were very biased, indifferent, and subservient to the prosecutor and judge. It is actually rare for them to find anyone innocent, even when there was no real evidence.

Wow, No wonder the Dem controlled cities are rampant with violent crime.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It makes no sense to execute people. Yes, I agree that some criminals are so terrible till they deserve a slow painful death, but that isn't the only thing involved. We can safely keep him from society for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be cheaper to do that than to execute him. Also, we have killed people who later turned out to be innocent. I would rather let a murderer live a miserable life than to kill an innocent person. There was no doubt about the innocent people we already killed.

They don't live miserable lives.
Richard Speck killed 7 nurses in a spree. He is happy in prison. The state gave him breast implants so he could be desirable. He has all the sex he wants, drugs, and he's taken care of.

 

[BULLDOG]

Unlike all of you, I have actually spoken with inmates sentenced to death. In addition, I am good friends with Vonda Pelto, the prison psychologist assigned to California's death row.

The percentage of those who are innocent on death row is practically nothing. It happens, but rarely and those errors are in very old cases. The question of whether the death penalty is warranted comes up in isolated cases of murder. Should Scott Peterson get death? He killed his wife. Is he a danger to the general public? Probably not.

Those that thrill kill should not only get the death penalty but should get it immediately. Appeals aren't necessary. Once a killer takes a life for the enjoyment it provides to them it is over. They cannot be rehabilitated, they cannot be changed or cured. Thinking that locking them up so they could think about what they did is the worst thing to do. They think of little else. They rerun every murder in their heads, remembering, savoring, imagining more victims. Take them out into the parking lot and put a bullet in their heads.

It's not about how it effects them, but about what's best for us. Do you really want the responsibility of killing an innocent person? That's what we have been doing.