Posted on 09/07/2011 7:19:05 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
. Granted, if there is a deterrent effect, so much the better.
A subtle difference. But a an important difference.
Libs are prone to argue that there is no provable deterrent effect. My response is: So what? Even if there is no deterrent effect, the death penalty is still perfectly appropriate.
“Paint me a portrait of how this is supposed to work.”
A lot more like the Old Testament teachings and a lot less like the touchy feely crap coming out of the liberal definition of how to punish killers.
That was his shining moment.
After watching Casey Anthony set free (most likely because the state reached too far in asking for death and, thus, the jury balked) I think there should be a higher level of proof than reasonable doubt for the death penalty.
We now have so many forensic tools (security/video cameras, computer/phone record searches et. al. as well as that silver bullet known as DNA) that we should keep “Life” as is, but raise ‘Death’ to Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt.
Keep it in the quiver, but only pull it when sure.
Certainly Caylee Anthony would have found a greater degree of justice.
Come walk with me thru the penitentiary. I got your touchy-feely shit.
Would you have a problem executing Texas mass murder Major Nidal Hansan?
Most would not! A silver bullet would be too good. A lead bullet dipped in pig’s blood would be better....
I’d prefer to see him everyday in a seg unit. Delivering his chow and escorting him to a shower every other day.
I’d get to chip away at him for a long time.
What’s your plan?
He’s probably worried about some of his radical pals in DC’s socialist end of things. Texas will try them and fry them too, if they kill innocent people in Texas. You never know, Brian. Sometimes justice catches up to ya and the fat lady sings. :)
But there are 7000 capital cases waiting ~ or should be.
It was California that restricted the jury's choices too far in the OJ case.
Failure to deal with the actual situation regarding public information like who got charged what with which and did the jury have choices indicates you're not really up on this case.
We're not God; nor do we claim to be. We're Texans. Carla is in God's hands now. If you are going to say "vengeance is God's alone"; then we probably would be equally wrong to incarcerate someone as well. For are we not exacting vengeance (or to use your crude phrase: "getting our rocks off") if we try to apply a penalty?
I think you need to revisit "render unto Caesar..."
My question is, how many innocent men are rotting in Texas prisons because the DNA was never tested.
How about how many GUILTY guys are rotting in Texas jails and don't want their DNA tested because that's going to tie them to many other crimes?
It's almost impossible these days to rot in jail and not get your DNA tested for one reason or the other.
The trick is to KEEP IT FROM BEING ENTERED AS EVIDENCE in other cases!
Haven’t been there; don’t have your experience. But what I think I would feel is this:
“Here is one for your victims, for all the innocents that might be harmed if you ever get loose, for all the convicts that have share the prison with your murderous self, for all the guards that have to risk their lives to guard both us, and you and for all the taxpayers that have had to support your worthless self.” *Click*
Her status as a sinner, and mine, doesn’t come into it. Its just a little preventative maintenance on society and the human race.
BTW, the Bible explicitly endorses the Death Penalty.
We seem to agree that making sure DNA evidence gets tested is a good thing.
Just because the DNA evidence has not been tested doesn't mean there's been no action on the case...In several instances, men were tried, convicted, and sent to prison long before it's existence was even revealed to the defense. Ricardo Rachell's case comes to mind. In Gilbert Amezquita's case, the judge denied the defense's request to allow DNA evidence to be presented at court. Both these men were exonerated and freed after serving many years in TDCJ.
No problem with it at all. At the same time there are plenty of prisoners who don’t want their DNA tested. The ACLU will go to court to protect them from those tests.
Anybody facing the death penalty probably ought to let the prosecution take a DNA test.
You get down far enough it says: "At the trial 16 years ago, Skinner's lawyer did not ask that this evidence be tested, apparently fearing that DNA evidence would only incriminate his client further. But since then, Skinner and a new team of lawyers have tried to get access to the material for DNA testing."]
What that means is that THIS IS NOT NEW MATERIAL. 16 years ago the defense could ask for DNA tests ~ but they didn't lest their client get even more incriminated.
I have to laugh at that one LMAOROF and ROFLMAO ~ WOW. Guy was afraid of being further incriminated in a multiple axe murder situation.
Now that's hard to do I'll tell you!
Can you provide a link?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.