|
|
Post by Goddess on Mar 11, 2006 12:15:06 GMT -5
I hate it when people throw logic into the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by KathyInArkansas on Mar 11, 2006 13:28:14 GMT -5
I hate it when people throw logic into the law. Yup, at first blush the ideal of letting the guilty son-of-a-bitch have his/her fair trial then hanging the bastard sounds like a good way to dispense justice...  it really isn't a good idea nor does it work nor would justice be dispensed. |
|
|
|
Post by KathyInArkansas on Mar 11, 2006 13:37:48 GMT -5
Tonya, Please the the article below: www.abanet.org/irr/hr/deathpen.htmlWouldn't you think that it is better that a guilty person slip through the muck than for an innocent person be executed or jailed for years? |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 11, 2006 16:55:57 GMT -5
"what about the delays in getting those on death row done away with? More defense attorney intervention....I presume. " Now you're really showing your ignorance, Tonya, or perhaps your bloodthirstiness. To hear you speak, one would think that defense attorneys merely intervene in the absence of any merit to their arguments or any proper purpose. I know, you don't have much respect for hard-working defense attorneys who are trying like hell to advocate for their clients, to hold the government to the highest standards before it kills people. There is a process, which takes some time. What's your hurry? Every effort should be made to get it right, because you cannot undo death. Even with all of the procedures in place, which you decry as taking too long, we get it wrong and an innocent person is put to death. But this is merely an inconvenient fact for Tonya. You are to be pitied. Pity me not, Reason. Pity the victim's family and friends who wait and wait and wait for the law to follow through with a death sentence. Pity the prosecuting attorneys who worked so hard to get a conviction, only to wait and wait and wait for the finale, if you will. And pity the taxpayers who fund this fiasco! If, IF the sentence was wrong, then new evidence SHOULD BE introduced, but not 10 years later. By then, a lot of the witnesses could have faint memory of the incident. IF the sentence was wrong, then pick up the ball again within a reasonable period of time, within 2 years I would consider reasonable. The death sentence should be carried out by the 5th year, max. And if it was wrong, then blame it on the system that takes too long to re-open the case. How long after a death penalty is determined should it take to finish the story? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 13, 2006 14:03:39 GMT -5
"IF the sentence was wrong, then new evidence SHOULD BE introduced, but not 10 years later." Tonya, do you REALLY believe that the defense would have evidence tending to exonerate the defendant and just sit on it for a few years?  |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 13, 2006 20:16:23 GMT -5
"IF the sentence was wrong, then new evidence SHOULD BE introduced, but not 10 years later." Tonya, do you REALLY believe that the defense would have evidence tending to exonerate the defendant and just sit on it for a few years? Didn't say that. I was referring to NEW evidence. Read the entire sentence Reason. 
Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 14, 2006 13:20:26 GMT -5
So if NEW evidence comes to light after a certain period of time, it should be inadmissible? After how long do you feel exculpatory evidence should be barred?
This is truly frightening, to know that there are people who would allow a provably-innocent person be executed, on the ground that the new evidence was found too late (yet still within the lifetime of the innocent condemned)!
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 14, 2006 13:22:20 GMT -5
Sorry, I re-read your earlier post. You said that new evidence that is found more than two years later shouldn't be admissible. I really should read more closely.
Two years.
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 15, 2006 3:38:14 GMT -5
TWO YEARS!!!! ?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 15, 2006 20:25:28 GMT -5
TWO YEARS!!!!? I said 2 years was reasonable, 5 years max. What will be proven 20 years from now that can't be proven within 5 years? Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by KathyInArkansas on Mar 15, 2006 22:33:21 GMT -5
TWO YEARS!!!!? I said 2 years was reasonable, 5 years max. What will be proven 20 years from now that can't be proven within 5 years? Tonya
Consider the people that DNA has proven innocent many years after their convictions. DNA use was extremely limited and not generally used many years ago. Two years or even five years would not have been much use then. In some of these cases it took many more years. Do you suggest that because the means to prevent a person from an unwarranted convicted did not exist 25 years ago, the means should not be used now? If that is your opinion, why is it thus? |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 15, 2006 23:51:13 GMT -5
I said 2 years was reasonable, 5 years max. What will be proven 20 years from now that can't be proven within 5 years? Tonya
Consider the people that DNA has proven innocent many years after their convictions. DNA use was extremely limited and not generally used many years ago. Two years or even five years would not have been much use then. In some of these cases it took many more years. Do you suggest that because the means to prevent a person from an unwarranted convicted did not exist 25 years ago, the means should not be used now? If that is your opinion, why is it thus?I'm all for DNA proof, Kathy. I'm just saying if it can't be proved within 5 years after a death penalty is given, then it's time for the convicted to meet his maker. As for the ones who are still, STILL SITTING ON DEATH ROW at the expense of taxpayers, my question is WHY?
Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by KathyInArkansas on Mar 16, 2006 7:13:39 GMT -5
Tonya,
Consider the people that DNA has proven innocent many years after their convictions. DNA use was extremely limited and not generally used many years ago. Two years or even five years would not have been much use then. In some of these cases it took many more years. Do you suggest that because the means to prevent a person from an unwarranted convicted did not exist 25 years ago, the means should not be used now? If that is your opinion, why is it thus? I'm all for DNA proof, Kathy. I'm just saying if it can't be proved within 5 years after a death penalty is given, then it's time for the convicted to meet his maker. As for the ones who are still, STILL SITTING ON DEATH ROW at the expense of taxpayers, my question is WHY?
Tonya Do you say this if it is later proven, even after five years, that they were not guilty even though convicted? I guess I just keep hoping that I am missing something in your posts. |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 16, 2006 13:57:39 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Kathy. Tonya's bloodthirst is clouding any sense of justice she might once have had.  |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 16, 2006 22:09:29 GMT -5
You're absolutely right, Kathy. Tonya's bloodthirst is clouding any sense of justice she might once have had. Any sense of justice I may have once had was a false sense when it comes to the death penalty. Care to tell me why this many are sitting on death row? Oh, Wait a minute. I was going to paste the death row inmates, but, guess what? The list exceeds the maximum amount of space allowable for a post. I'll post the link, but with this question............... What's the difference between life in prison and the death sentence if the death sentence is never carried out?  That's the point I've been trying to make and if you call me bloodthirsty you are calling all of the judges and jurors and prosecuting attorneys the same for sentencing the death penalty.
Where is the line drawn to serve "JUSTICE"? 30 years later?! BS!
www.dc.state.fl.us/activeinmates/deathrowroster.asp
Tonya |
|
