[valley]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

it takes so damn long to kill someone and the cost is so high and the families languish for years with no closure that I did see much social utility in it.

If the laws should be changed so that the waiting time was shorter, then this would not be an issue.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by valley

If the laws should be changed so that the waiting time was shorter, then this would not be an issue.

Yes, but then the chance of killing an innocent man increases. I understand the frustation--I don't have the perfect answer--and perhaps the best answer is a long tedious process where only the most eggregious scum bags are executed eventually such that the death penalty serves more as a bargaining chip for prosecutors then it does a device to give family members ultimate justice.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Not sure I understand what you are proposing?

simple; give death row inmates an option, stay or go.

stay means you stay on death row until your time comes, either by natural or anthropogenic causes.

go means you got two years of unlimited resources to prove your innocence. After those two years, if you have not proven it, off with you.

'unlimited' means 'within reason', of course. You can have a couple of dna tests run (as I mentioned in an earlier post, something like 24% of all retrials WITH dna testing have taken an honest man off of death row, but in each case, there was definitely enough evidence to warrant running the dna test; it's not that 24% of all death row inmates are there wrongly at all, it's just that some are), whatever else you need, appeals, whatever, but when those two years are up and you have failed to prove your innocence, off with you.

Obviously the first barrier is logistics. Never thought I'd say this, but there wouldn't be enough lawyers to handle the load, IF 100% of the inmates chose 'go'. But I think that the number that would choose that would be less than 10 or 15%.

hope that clears it up.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by valley

I dont like the whole talk of cost effectiveness when it comes to the death penalty. Money should never be put before justice. The government always seems to find the money they need when they deem its important enough so I dont see why it should be such a huge issue when it comes to the death penalty.

Bite your tongue valley--or get moonmist in here and I'll bite her tongue!!!

The criminal justice system would collapse if money were not considered--many criminals get off with lesser sentences due to plea bargaining--its a fact of life--a compromise we must deal with. We can't prosecute every suspect and the best way to coerce a plea is to offer something in exchange--usually that's allowing a plea to a lesser charge or a charge with an agreement to seek a lesser penalty.

I do agree with you that when it comes to the death penalty is should be less of an issue. That is if the DP has social utility and value, we should get rid of it because it costs less not to have it, unless the cost savings are massive--and they clearly aren't. And in fact getting rid of it might cost us more as I have discussed at length.

[valley]

Originally Posted by Mulderator

Yes, but then the chance of killing an innocent man increases.

not if its only done in cases where the person confesses, caught on tape etc..

I understand the frustation--I don't have the perfect answer--and perhaps the best answer is a long tedious process where only the most eggregious scum bags are executed eventually such that the death penalty serves more as a bargaining chip for prosecutors then it does a device to give family members ultimate justice.

its too bad it all has to be so darned complicated.

[wacor]

The beyond and doubt and send those to the front of the line is not workable. Who determines if they meet that criterion? The Scott Peterson case would be a prime example. There are plenty that would send him to the front of the line. I would not. Or us OJ.. Plenty think he was guilty as hell and got off due to a legal sideshow and if they could would put him to the front of the line.

This is idea would be almost like a 2nd trial to determine if they fit the criterion and while I understand the concept and agree with it I don't see it as workable.

Lock up the rotten ones for good and never let them out. Make sure no parole means no parole.

[valis]

Originally Posted by wacor

The beyond and doubt and send those to the front of the line is not workable. Who determines if they meet that criterion? The Scott Peterson case would be a prime example. There are plenty that would send him to the front of the line. I would not. Or us OJ.. Plenty think he was guilty as hell and got off due to a legal sideshow and if they could would put him to the front of the line.

This is idea would be almost like a 2nd trial to determine if they fit the criterion and while I understand the concept and agree with it I don't see it as workable.

Lock up the rotten ones for good and never let them out. Make sure no parole means no parole.

problem I got with that is I have no desire to be buying them 3 squares a day, and having them sue to get cigarettes and all that other crap. They have PROVEN themselves as non-viable members of society; why are we keeping them around?

Give me one good reason to keep someone around who is a drain on society. One.

In every way, they are a drain on society. We have to house them, feed them, clothe them, give them this and that, and when they are unhappy about something, they sue to be able to get it.

It's a load of mountain muffins; just be rid of them. They obviously wish to be no part of society.

Hell, I'm all for building a 20 square mile area in Alaska with 30 foot high concrete walls and a few heated trailers. Give them a pile of weapons and see how long they manage to maintain 'society'.

In a month the population would be cut in half, if not by three quarters. Guaranteed.

[valis]

okay, gang, gotta run. Watching a friends house who has no internet access, so won't be able to check again until monday, most likely.

hope you all have good weekends.

Chris, again, I am deeply saddened by your loss, and hope the trip goes as best as it can. Like it or not, you will be in my thoughts.

v

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by valis

Let me ask you this; are you still con? Or wavering a bit?

con.

but for reasons that do not serve in addressing this particular quandary

[hotskates]

Chris, after reading your post, its hard to come up with the right words. It makes me so sad. I can not imagine someone being this cruel. It still shocks me when these things happen and suddenly our lives are turned upside down. You and your family will be in my prayers. I will pray that you have peace and that God will surround your family with his comforting arms....especially in the next few weeks when the feelings are all so raw.

[Laura87]

I always wondered in respect to the death penalty, if I couldn't do it myself (kill the garbage) then how could I be for the death penalty. My daughter was held up a few weeks ago, by gunpoint. Made to lay, face down in a parking lot by two kids with guns.

If they killed her - I could kill them without a backwards glance.

I'm for it-the death penalty.

And I am so sorry for the horror your brother and family have to go through because of this.

[thingamajig]

I'm with Buff on this issue. I am against the death penalty but not for reasons stated here. I feel the circumstances awkward for a debate so I will be brief.

My condolences to you and your family Mulder and my condolences also extend to Bonni Nigro and hers.

Bonnie Nigro said that she loved Mulder like a daughter, and hoped the family would accept her remorse.

"My son's going to spend the rest of his life in jail," she said. "I don't know what else they want from me."

I will not give the link to this interview out for respect for your privacy. It gives too much away.

Originally Posted by Mulderator

You need to consider the issue of death penalty as a means to obtain a plea.

Since you've placed this up for debate, I will say that harsh penalties to extract a plea is nothing more than extortion. It stands in the way of due process.

Anger hidden within a quest for justice will burn you up inside. There can be no closure except that which you can find within yourself in the painful road to letting go.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...986531,00.html

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

I'm with Buff on this issue. I am against the death penalty but not for reasons stated here. I feel the circumstances awkward for a debate so I will be brief.

My condolences to you and your family Mulder and my condolences also extend to Bonni Nigro and hers.



I will not give the link to this interview out for respect for your privacy. It gives too much away.



Since you've placed this up for debate, I will say that harsh penalties to extract a plea is nothing more than extortion. It stands in the way of due process.

Anger hidden within a quest for justice will burn you up inside. There can be no closure except that which you can find within yourself in the painful road to letting go.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...986531,00.html

Classy post, Thingy. I think you know that you and I probably have different points of view on this, but you did a first class job, here. Maybe tomorrow or next week, I can debate Death Penalty, but for now, I can't help but think about Mulder, the family, and the grief they are going through.

Topics can carry a superficial/intellectual basis until... it affects one of our own.

[wacor]

The perps family should have nothing to do with how justice is served.

That goes right along with whether the costs involved should come into play.

[Fidelista]

Mulder my friend , I know how you must feel . Terrible news .
Like Laura has stated "I could kill them without a backwards glance" ---applies to me also , and your loss isn't even mine .
I see , know , there are people that are worthy of killing , not worthy of any mercy .
I could head shoot them easily ,,and sleep very well. I see them as animals with no conscience and no worth at all. If it were my family ? --the hatred would go beyond bounds , beyond rational killing . I would even take pleasure .
To honest , I am confused by this subject -- I don't want our rule of law based on my feelings for fear of abuse /injustice , but in my heart , for preservation of civilized society --I want these animals killed .
I really hate to hear this has happened to your family , and my heart goes out to you.
You are smart enough to deal with this , no question, but your job is to help family do the same .
Like I said , this subject is confusing to me for personal reasons , but --- I am truly sorry that this has happened to you and your family . your friend -- >f