Philosophically, I don't have a problem with the concept of a judicial system that metes out death as a sentence in the most severe of criminal cases.

However, we have an elaborate appeals system (rightly or wrongly, I don't care) that costs a ton of fucking money. It costs more to kill them than to keep them alive, therefore I say keep them alive.

Totally against the death penalty.

I am also, for the most part, against whole-life tarifs without possibility of parole. Only in cases where the criminal can be shown to be too dangerous and where there is a likelihood of them remaining too dangerous can that be justified in my mind. As a way of protecting society rather than as a method of punishment.

To me, endless punishment without the hope of redemption/atonement seems pointless and cruel. And justice without compassion for the guilty is just vengeance.

I voted 25 years.

Though in truth I think that's too long a sentence. Given that there was no active intent to kill, I think a ten year sentence would be more appropriate. Still very harsh for something that was unintended, but that's by the by.

Not knowing the history of the 'thugs' I assumed that they were not doe eyed young pups who made a tragic error in judgement.

A life sentence in prison is not much different than turning your life over to FSM and living in a kitchen meditating on a spaghetti pot.

Capital murder carries the death penalty or life without parole in my state. Capital murder is premeditated or a homicide committed in association with one of the 5 inherently dangerous crimes. Manslaughter is homicide committed in the heat of the moment. Unintentional homicide, usually due to negligence, is involuntary manslaughter. Depraved heart murder is a life sentence. Our penal code does not have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder.

For the record, I voted 25 years with possibility of parole. Individuals convicted of murder here are segregated and locked down for 23 hours a day. 25 years locked in a small cage is a far worse punishment in my eyes vs death. There is also the cost. There is an automatic appeal process associated with capital convictions which runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, I think people can learn from their mistakes. After they've done their time, they might be able to be productive members of society.

I've seen an execution. That's what changed my mind

I think you just restored my faith in humanity.

I voted life in prison, but I really think it depends on the individual. Some people manage amazing things in jail when they've been given a long sentence. Others just get worse.

Hmmm...Maybe I should have picked 25 years then parole.

For Capital murder, I voted life. I think its a lot worse than death penalty, being locked up for the rest of your life. Plus, one mistake is one too many, I would not want that mistake to be me, or any of my family, so I would not want that to happen to someone else. I think they should have a chance at parole, but I don't think 25 years should be the max either. It depends on the individual involved, their reasons (what if they murdered an abusive hubby they didn't think they could get away from any other way?), and how they feel about their deed after its been done.

With the death penalty you are locked up for life, only it's shorter.

Oops, you are correct as alway Jesus!

There, is that more clear now?

(BTW, now that you are zombie, please don't eat my brains. I celebrated your day with margaritas and everything!)

Sarge, does your police department have any guidelines about when to call off high speed pursuits? My understanding is that high speed pursuits sometimes end in innocent people being injured, so some police forces will call off pursuits if they look like they are getting too dangerous. I don't know anything about the situation here, but it makes me wonder.

It's hard for me to say. I feel that execution is warranted in certain cases. But I also feel that there is entirely too much misconduct and hocus-pocus in such cases. I think the process should be different if the state wants to execute someone.

Allow me to suggest what I would do in MY country, should I ever get one.

The defendant is allowed to choose his legal team from any eligible attorneys in the country, whom are paid for by taxpayers. DNA evidence, if it exists, is mandatory. All evidence must be presented at trial, whether exculpatory or not. The jury is doubled from twelve to twenty four, selected at random from all adult citizens, who must be paid their regular wages for each day on the jury. No excuses will be accepted except in extreme hardship, such as the person is in hospital or some such. If the selectee has no wages for any reason they must be paid $100 a day. All must agree on the verdict.

The appeal is automatic and also taxpayer funded. The trial and sentence is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court for errors, misconduct and civil rights violations. Any new evidence may be introduced at this time. The Supreme court has one year to complete the review and either confirm the sentence or commute it to life imprisonment. They may not transmute a life sentence to death. All such trials are public and must be broadcast. No delays will be acceptable unless approved by the judge.

Once the death penalty has been approved, the defendant has 30 days to order their affairs and then the execution will be carried out. The execution shall be televised on Pay Per View, with proceeds going to a victim's relief fund.

I have no problem with the state executing a convicted criminal. I have a problem with the process being so flawed and drawn-out. While in my system there is no time limit to the trial, the appeal is limited to one year and mandatory. The accused is given every opportunity to defend themselves and there is no excuse for not having a proper attorney given that the state pays for his fees (which ought to be capped at a reasonable level). The reasons given for appealing a death sentence now are usually not based on the crime or trial, but with the method, or ineffective counsel (public defenders with no death penalty experience). The prosecutor always fields his best team, paid for by taxpayers. The defense (especially for poor people) is second-string at best. Rarely do you hear of the top law firms who take on death penalty cases with their best lawyers.

In my system, the defense gets the best lawyers they can select. Since there will be other factors I didn't mention (darn post limitations!) such as prosecutors not being immune from liability in misconduct cases, I think the state will hesitate to apply capital punishment in any but the most certain cases. I think I have biased the system in such a way that no one will be convicted soley on circumstantial evidence and unreliable eyewitness testimony.

That said, the way we as a nation apply the death penalty is so flawed that it might as well be abolished. It seems that every day I hear of another person sentenced to death being released due to various reasons that should have been caught much earlier. The same goes for various other crimes such as rape. We have a guy in Texas now who was in jail for 18 years before being exonerated. Under compensation guidelines, the state owes him something like 14 million dollars but they are balking at paying him due to some minor technicality in wording on his release paperwork. The original trial was flawed and the prosecutor was in possession of evidence that exonerated the defendant but purposely withheld it to get a conviction. The state convicted an innocent man, imprisoned him for 18 years, and now they refuse to compensate him according to their own rules AND refuse to hold that prosecutor liable for obvious misconduct.

In short, I believe that we, as citizens, have lost control over our own government and unless we wake up and do something fast, we are headed for a police state and a total loss of civil rights.

I am against it, as it is irreversible if a mistake is made, and because it can be used to eliminate inconvenient people (this is more a problem in my country than yours, though).

I would be for it if I could be shown a perfect legal system.

no pursuit involved in this situation. they had stolen the car and were "quickly" leaving the area when they wrecked. pursuit policies vary with different agencies. we won't pursue over a minor offense. felony pursuits, we'll drive till the wheels come off. We're lucky in that we can easily radio ahead to another agency to block the road or deploy spike strips. We also have a felony fleeing statute in my state

Wait. I am not sure I am understanding this right.

If a criminal runs, the police are to stop chasing them?