![]() |
Capital Murder Trial Starts Monday
We have a capital murder trial starting Monday from a 2008 homicide. I have 2 officers in my department that assisted the nearby town where it occurred, so they'll be witnesses.
Also last Friday, 2 local thugs driving a stolen car crashed head on into another vehicle, killing the driver. They bailed on foot and were latter captured. This is in the town that joins my city limits and they were running because they were wanted by my PD. These guys are facing depraved heart murder (hopefully). Getting to the point of this, how do you feel about the death penalty & why? I've witnessed an execution. |
I cannot bring myself to approve of it.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here's a photo of the wreck from last week
|
Quote:
|
life sentence, no parole.
|
I'm against the death penalty because if just one mistake is made, it's one mistake too many.
|
I am for the death penalty if there is no chance of a mistake being made. Or if it's Lindsey Lohan.
|
Well, obviously if it's Lindsay Lohan.
|
I am against the dealth penial. It is wrong. All life is precious in some way. to extinguish one life for another does not make sense...
Pam. |
Oh, I LOVE The Death Penis. It's the Death Penalty we're talking about here.
|
Depraved heart murder?
|
Quote:
If no death results, such acts would generally be defined as reckless endangerment and possibly other crimes, such as assault. [edit]Common law background The common law punishes unintentional homicide as murder if the defendant commits an act of gross recklessness. A classic example of depraved-heart murder under the common law is in the case Commonwealth v. Malone, where the court affirmed the second-degree murder conviction of a teenager for a death arising from a game of Russian roulette.[2] [edit]Under the Model Penal Code Depraved-heart murder is recognized in the Model Penal Code § 210.2(1)(b).[3] The Model Penal Code considers unintentional killing to constitute murder when the conduct of the defendant manifests "extreme indifference to the value of human life". |
Quote:
Pam. |
If killing is wrong then it's wrong.
No death penalty. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In spite of the fact that I do agree that there are some people who "just need killin'", I'm completely against state sanctioned murder, so I voted life without parole. |
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 |
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
(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. |
Quote:
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
|
Quote:
If a criminal runs, the police are to stop chasing them? |
we weigh the risk to innocent life versus the severity of the crime. There's many a time I have broken off a pursuit, then gone and kicked in the bastard's door with an arrest warrant after he had gone to bed thinking he got away scott free.
|
Quote:
|
I voted for the least punitive sentence that wasn't a joke (ie not turn the other cheek).
If there had been an "Other" that's where my vote would have been cast. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Armchair warrior, meet trained professional. Contrary to your internet fueled assumptions about public servants, we do actually know what we're doing. |
Quote:
In the absence of such a clear-cut distinction, any process that is fair to the accused will necessarily be expensive and difficult, and ultimately fallible anyway. I doubt that there is a humane system that is... "worth it". But then again, I don't value the benefit of executing someone very highly. |
Quote:
|
i am neither for or against the death penalty. on one hand, fry them, on the other by personal experience, life would truly suck. and i mean life. no parole. here in texas you are eligible for parole in something like 40 years. i myself was on a jury for a capital murder case. guy killed his own kid. we gave him life. there was a mitigating circumstance: his father was his grandfather. either way either sentence would suck. knowing that you are walking down the hall your last time not to return to your "house" ie: cell, knowing that you are about to die would be a very eerie feeling but at the same time a good feeling knowing that you will no longer be held in captivity. whereas if you were locked up for life, you go on for another 20 or even 30 years or however long it takes for you to naturally die. just the system needs to make sure that life really means life. no parole.
|
20 mph with blown tires? We'd probably would have done a pit manuver. Things vary in different situations and jurisdictions
|
BUMP
|
this is important people!
|
these are important people.
Please make sure you have subject verb agreement in your sentence construction. |
Grammer Nazi!
|
This is a demonstration of excellent leadership in State government...
Statesman Journal Alan Gustafson, (Salem, Ore.) Nov 22, 2011 Ore. governor halts execution, won't allow any while in office Quote:
|
I vote 25 years with rehab. Yet, if it can be demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what happens to other people: lock them behind bars till they die.
Death penalty is too serious for such a case. |
Here, we have a nice one running in the news: rape/murder of a girl by a minor (17).
After a psychiatric consult, the guy was placed by a judge in a school for difficult students after a few months in jail to await judgement about attempted rape (another case). That's where he met the girl he killed last week. The school wasn't aware of his situation until too late. He'll probably get something like 30 years with no parole for 22 years (that's the maximum for a minor). The attempted rape case will be judged but it won't add anything to his time: jail sentences are not cumulative in France. The main problem is that the judge did not see fit to warn the school principal about the situation. And it is raising quite a fuss. |
Not to make light of the girl's death, but I do think the school is trying to cover their ass a bit. The only thing the judge could have "warned" them about is that the student was awaiting judgement (i.e. not convicted yet) on an attempted rape case. Unless the psych eval showed that "this kid also has clearly homicidal tendencies," the school should have known all they could have known at that point by the kid's mere presence in this school for difficult students.
Maybe it's different in France, but here, the separate schools that a judge assigns you to go to are full of students with prior convictions, psychologists and social workers are standard members of the staff alongside the teachers, and the school knows darn well that they have to monitor students closely and expect horrific behavior from them at every given opportunity. I think the school fucked up and failed to protect this girl, and they're trying to claim it wasn't their fault because they couldn't have known this kid was a delinquent. |
The problem is that the school knew he was awaiting judgement but not that it was for attempted rape. It looks like they asked about it but got the answer that they didn't need to know.
And it is just a school for difficult students not a special school for young convicts. From what I was able to gather, the psyh report said he wasn't dangerous... |
The world over, rape itself isn't all that dangerous. Now MURDER, that's dangerous.
We don't want to insult a budding murderer/fledgling rapist by telling his new school he's just a RAPIST. It might hurt his self-esteem. Yes, as far as they knew, he was still just a RAPIST, and not so harmful to society. :headshake |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.