Death Penalty Gaining Support In Gubernatorial Race: Child Killers Would Be Eligible For Penalty

koat ^

[chance33_98]

Death Penalty Gaining Support In Gubernatorial Race
Child Killers Would Be Eligible For Penalty
Posted: 10:27 a.m. MDT September 27, 2002
Updated: 1:57 p.m. MDT September 27, 2002

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- -- Two candidates for governor said they would support a measure to expand New Mexico's death penalty to allow child killers to be executed.

Democratic state Sen. Mary Jane Garcia, of Dona Ana, said she'll sponsor a bill that would allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty in the slaying of a child under age 11.

Rep. John Sanchez and Democrat Bill Richardson, who are running for governor, said Thursday they'd support such a bill.

The Green Party's candidate for governor, David Bacon, has said he opposes the death penalty.

[chance33_98]

Insane that this is even debated.

[garbanzo]

Is there some sort of free pass for child killers in the law currently? If so, what idiots voted for it?

[chance33_98]

well, New Mexico was listed as dumbest state HERE well, not dumbest really but in the 'smartest' list of 50 states they were dead last...

[Schmedlap]

When I have faith in the intelligence of any 12 people or in the judgment of a judge, then I may support the death penalty.

[poet]

You got that right!

[Mo1]

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE. DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Imal]

Yeah, same here. There are plenty of sleazebags in our prisons that deserve a bullet to the head -- especially child molesters and child murderers, but I don't know of anyone infallible enough to do the job.

The large number of death row inmates recently released due to confessions by the actual killers and DNA evidence is proof positive that 12 people can be certain beyond a reasonable doubt of a person's guilt and STILL BE WRONG.

That's why I no longer support the death penalty. I would rather have a thousand David Westerfields rotting in prison for life than be responsible for the execution of an innocent man.

[goodieD]

thank you! if killing a child isn't good enough to merit death, for pete's sake, what is???

[goodieD]

The support for life of those sleazebags are coming out of my pocket too buddy! I don't want a dime more than necessary going to support human scum.. one bullet, one kill.

[Imal]

Yeah, I know the argument well. Prison reform is a whole 'nuther gigantic topic itself worthy of several threads. I have plenty of practical ideas about how to improve our prisons while dramatically reducing costs.

Before that happens, though, we'll need to disbar about ten million lawyers.

In the meantime, I still oppose trusting our legal system with the death penalty. Especially in light of how easily our courts are manipulated, both from outside and within.

It's not because I oppose the death penalty in principle -- I support it in principle, and I used to support it in practice. However, after about the 50th death row reversal based on DNA evidence, I lost confidence in the qualifications of courts the way they are currently run.

If that changes, I may change my opinion.

[chance33_98]

but I don't know of anyone infallible enough to do the job.

The large number of death row inmates recently released due to confessions by the actual killers and DNA evidence is proof positive

So if they have DNA proof and overwhelming evidence? I understand what your saying, but if DNA evidence can set people free cannot it not do the same with convicting? What if they were caught on tape (like the guy in Vegas years back caught on tape going into the women's restroom behind a little girl whom they found raped and murdered?).

I am all for being cautious in these matters, and just having circumstanial evidence should warrant life without parole to give the person a fighting chance - but some cases are pretty cut and dried.

The idea of the justice system is to weigh the evidence and mete out punishment based on the facts of the case - some cases may leave a tinge of doubt in someone, not even to set them free but enough to convict. In those cases I would say life: it says beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt - but for those cases where you have no doubt I think it prudent to have the option. Ted Bundy and Gacy come to mind.

What we need to do is have a boat load more education in our schools and not a bunch of socialist crap that they fill them with nowadays. It seems we have three classes of people in the justice system:
1. Innocent until proven guilty
2. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so maybe not really guilty but it looks like it.
3. Damn Guilty. DNA, Video with DNA, Tons of other evidence.

[Bogolyubski]

Like they're really going to be kept in prison for life - with no furloughs, no conjugal visits, etc.? You're dreaming. Honestly, the idea of using the force of law to take taxes from the victims' families to pay for the medical care, legal defense, education, and feeding of a person who has committed such as crime is more offensive than the very slim possibility that someone innocent may be executed. I might even go along with getting rid of the death penalty if there was nothing but unremitting punishment (i.e. forced, backbreaking labor) with no possibility of any kind of release - ever, if all of the criminal's assets were siezed, if the criminal's family was required to fund the medical care, etc. This whole campaign is part of the left's ongoing effort to destroy what little remains of a judicial system. In every nation where leftists have gotten rid of the death penalty, they promptly turned their considerable resources to getting rid of life in prison as a sentence. In Spain, the maximum time anyone will spend behind bars - no matter how heinous the crime - is 30 years. It's likely the same or worse in the rest of Euroland.

[chance33_98]

However, after about the 50th death row reversal based on DNA evidence, I lost confidence in the qualifications of courts the way they are currently run.

See my last post on this.

I agree with you on the need for serious reform, and our prisons could use a dose of it too. We put criminals in and then when their sentence is up we dump them back out into society with little transition help. I would rather spend some money and time helping them then have to pay to put them back in again and again. Saves us money in the long run.

We have turned our schools into 'indoctrination' centers, we could do the same with prisons. Educate, show them through education why what they did was wrong, and get them on the right track. For those that come back again, screw em. But for first time prison people get them help and rehabilitate them, give them a chance to make up for the wrongs they did. If they blow it again, they get nothing but a cold cell and some stale bread. Try it the easy way first, next time let them rot and maybe they will learn.

[chance33_98]

I might even go along with getting rid of the death penalty if there was nothing but unremitting punishment (i.e. forced, backbreaking labor) with no possibility of any kind of release - ever

It would not even have to be backbreaking - make them do something to produce money, all of which goes to victims and other areas (like to pay for their stay, so our taxes do not have to be used).

And how one might ask? Well, we spend billions a year having things manufactured overseas, give these jerks the same wages and let businesses use their labor instead of having someone in China doing the work. The money stays in the US, the inmates' checks are sent to the victims, and we get made in America stuff. ANY money they want for themselves could only be made by working overtime and the profits from the commisary would got to taxes to pay for the prison upkeep. Just my 2 cents :)

[HiTech RedNeck]

I agree. For capital cases the standard of proof needed to get an initial death sentence should be pushed way up.

Also, guilt in potential capital cases should be determined by a jury which has not been screened to remove objection to death penalty. Sentencing if convicted should be determined either by a jury which has been so screened, or by the judge, at the defendant's option. The reason is that juries which are screened to remove objection to death penalty are statistically more likely to convict anybody of anything. When "jury of one's peers" can be shaped any way the prosecution likes, that stultifies the constitional protection.

This would have the virtue of shorter average stays on death row (as appeals would tend to be no-brainers) and an almost total elimination of the post-conviction exonerations and commutations which bring scandal on the death penalty in the first place.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Like they're really going to be kept in prison for life - with no furloughs, no conjugal visits, etc.?

Last time I heard, US jails and prisons did not support conjugal visits. Has that changed? (Mexican prisons do.)

[Bogolyubski]

It has in California, probably in other states as well. One of the Manson gang has fathered kids whilst serving his life sentence. Tammy Bruce wrote a very good article on the issue in July. You can find it at FrontPageMag.com (David Horowitz's site). I think the title was "The Baisc Decency of the Death Penalty."

[cubreporter]

And children over eleven are not worthy to have their murderers get the death penalty? What a stupid thing to say by that woman. You murder, you pay. I don't care who it is.

[Tijeras_Slim]

well, New Mexico was listed as dumbest state HERE well, not dumbest really but in the 'smartest' list of 50 states they were dead last...

Be sure not to forget our DWI and home accident statistics! :-)

[goodieD]

If a person stands in front of you alone and says they did it, would you then be comfortable executing them?

[goodieD]

Woody Harrelson is the child of a convicted murderer, if that gives any insight into what kind of kids these guys turn out.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Oh, the pot advocate. Cool.

[goodieD]

among other things....."air bar" owner...gun toting leftist.. you know the type "I can own guns but you shouldn't be able to"

[HiTech RedNeck]

(a little tongue in cheek)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Pot advocate good. Gun grabber bad.

[goodieD]

actually at first I thought you were referring to me for some reason...

[HiTech RedNeck]

No. Woody.

[goodieD]

No Woody? Sounds like a job for Viagra...grin.

[garbanzo]

We put criminals in and then when their sentence is up we dump them back out into society with little transition help.

For some prisoners this would help - but in today's society right now, most prisoners are simply sociopaths who need to be locked up as long as possible.