Capital punishment

[Pcdunn]

Hello Pat,

I was really shocked by that verdict. I thought for sure that the jury would go with the death penalty.

c.d.

Hi, c.d,

Most of us were surprised, too. They had the opportunity in an earlier phase of the sentencing to declare circumstances existed to exempt him from the death penalty, and did not. But it came down to needing a unamious vote, not a majority of 11 to 1.

Doesn't matter, in my opinion, as no one from those waiting on Death Row in Colorado has actually been put to death in a long time. Some are now due, it remains to be seen what will happen.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hello Barnflatwyngarde,

The point that I was making is that these people are not being executed for trivial offenses nor are their names being pulled randomly from the phone book. Yet, from reading your posts you seem to feel that it is the rest of society that is the guilty party and that somehow the nature of what they did should not enter into the decision. I simply disagree. I think society has a right to determine what is acceptable behavior and what behavior is so egregious and so beyond the pale that you have to pay the ultimate price for what you did.

I certainly am not "happy" about it but I am a member of that society and I certainly have no problem with it.

If you start a controversial thread where you ask for people's opinions you should not get upset when you get an opinion you disagree with.

c.d.

Hi CD!

Apologies if my post seemed a tad confrontational.
There is enough aggression on the boards at times, without anyone adding to it.
I take your point that when discussing such a controversial topic there is always a risk that feelings can run high.

I respect your right to hold the views you hold, but personally I feel that the death penalty demeans us as human beings.

I will sign off now to watch Scotland rugby team put up a valiant effort against Ireland, but ultimately fall short.

T'was ever thus!

[c.d.]

No problem here and no apologies necessary. Enjoy the game.

I will say however that your user name is a handful when typing. Can we shorten it somehow?

c.d.

[barnflatwyngarde]

No problem here and no apologies necessary. Enjoy the game.

I will say however that your user name is a handful when typing. Can we shorten it somehow?

c.d.

God only knows what was going through my head when I picked that particular username.

Apparently the user name you choose is yours for life, and according to admin, you can only change it if you have a "very good reason".

So it looks like I'm stuck with it, but as a Glaswegian I also answer to Jimmy,as do all the women in Glasgow.

[Sam Flynn]

I will say however that your user name [barnflatwyngarde] is a handful when typing. Can we shorten it somehow?

BFW, perhaps?

[barnflatwyngarde]

BFW, perhaps?

Yeah, I could live with that.

[Robert]

Well I've called you Barn in the past - hope that's OK.

[RockySullivan]

The justice system is hardly reliable...it's a bunch of people picked out of the phonebook who don't give a shot about being there. Add a bunch of corrupt policemen, DAs & judges and you haven't got much shot at a fair trial. Not really fair to put someone's life in the hands of peope who don't give a ****. At the same time a life sentence is pretty cruel and I might take the hangmans rope over spending my life in a box

You could smoke in a prison and I'd do my time just fine

[Wickerman]

As has been pointed out already, if 'Life in prison' meant 'Life', then there would be little cause to debate a death penalty.

On the other hand, how convinced are you (anybody) that DNA is so reliable that these so-called wrongly convicted prisoners are truly innocent?

If DNA evidence is so reliable, and so convincing, then why can't it be used to convict, and then impose the death sentence? - DNA can't be wrong, so I'm told.

So by our new logic, the reliance on DNA, we can safely impose the death penalty where DNA has been used to convict.

DNA evidence does work both ways.

[GUT]

Hello Pat,

I was really shocked by that verdict. I thought for sure that the jury would go with the death penalty.

c.d.

As was I.

However I suspect (and that's all it is) that his "disturbed" state if mind helped, they may have held that he was not insane but not really in control either (remember insane is actually a legal term with legal implications not a medical term).

[GUT]

As has been pointed out already, if 'Life in prison' meant 'Life', then there would be little cause to debate a death penalty.

On the other hand, how convinced are you (anybody) that DNA is so reliable that these so-called wrongly convicted prisoners are truly innocent?

If DNA evidence is so reliable, and so convincing, then why can't it be used to convict, and then impose the death sentence? - DNA can't be wrong, so I'm told.

So by our new logic, the reliance on DNA, we can safely impose the death penalty where DNA has been used to convict.

DNA evidence does work both ways.

There is more than DNA though, some were convicted by forensics tests that were later shown to be totally wrong, some convicted and later Rick solid alibis were found (fortunately when there had been no execution in the ones I'm thinking of).

And if DNA ID is so perfect I know a bloke with a shawl he'll sell you.

[GUT]

I will sign off now to watch Scotland rugby team put up a valiant effort against Ireland, but ultimately fall short.

T'was ever thus!

well not sure how Scotland went, but I thought we had a **** at lifting the Bledisloe but the damn All Blacks gave us a but of a lesson, what a surprise.

[Mayerling]

As has been pointed out already, if 'Life in prison' meant 'Life', then there would be little cause to debate a death penalty.

On the other hand, how convinced are you (anybody) that DNA is so reliable that these so-called wrongly convicted prisoners are truly innocent?

If DNA evidence is so reliable, and so convincing, then why can't it be used to convict, and then impose the death sentence? - DNA can't be wrong, so I'm told.

So by our new logic, the reliance on DNA, we can safely impose the death penalty where DNA has been used to convict.

DNA evidence does work both ways.

Actually DNA has been used in several cases dealing with guilt. If you recall material from the 1960 Hanratty case was subjected to DNA study at the insistence of the Hanratty family - and it blew up in their face because it confirmed James Hanratty was guilty in the "A 6" crime. As a result the same people denounced the DNA test, claiming interference or some purposeful deterioration of the material as the cause of what they did not wish to hear.

Also think of the antics of Ripperologists regarding Sickert's paintings or that shawl that was discussed last year.

That such results cause so much dissention should make us really question how accurate they are by themselves. Keep in mind we are only in the first generation of DNA students and users, which means mistakes can be and will be made.

Jeff

[GUT]

well not sure how Scotland went, but I thought we had a **** at lifting the Bledisloe but the damn All Blacks gave us a but of a lesson, what a surprise.

Not sure why my word was changed to **** but the word was "shot" must have been a typo.

[Sam Flynn]

Not sure why my word was changed to **** but the word was "shot" must have been a typo.

No shot, Sher****!