CA Death Penalty Close to Collapse

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Amraann said:
We are not condoning killing "human beings" We are condoning killing sicko's that are far less then human and need to be eliminated.
The article is BS like it would be cheaper to house them all for life?

How about STOP housing them and kill them? There, financial problem solved!
Click to expand...

I was going to reply but Amraann said it better than I could. :clap::clap:
 
Amraann said:
We are not condoning killing "human beings" We are condoning killing sicko's that are far less then human and need to be eliminated.
The article is BS like it would be cheaper to house them all for life?

How about STOP housing them and kill them? There, financial problem solved!
Click to expand...

I think we say things like this to distance ourselves from the fact that we are killing another human being - one of our own, whether we like it or not. It makes it easier to think of them as monsters (and certainly, some of their behavior is monstrous) than to recognize that their behavior (rape, torture, murder) is as old as mankind itself - it is indelibly human, and so are they.
 
GlitchWizard said:
I have a book on the history of punishment that I started reading (got bored about 1/2 way through) but it talks about everything from the start and how everyone tinkers with it to "fix" it. The problem with fixing it, is that no two people view it the same way, so the idea of what is fixed is never going to come to pass. To one person, a bullet between the eyes fixes everything. To another, the idea that there is no such thing as beyond a reasonable doubt and to a third, all life is precious regardless of crime. As many people as there are, there are views.

(Kind of reminds me of telling my kid to clean her room. Her idea of "Done" and mine are VASTLY different animals!) :-)
Click to expand...

You are right about that. However, if nobody came together on anything ever, nothing would ever get done. People are able to solve problems when they want to. Like I said, if the system can't work with the DP, it can't work without it either. If a group can figure out a way to make one system work, they can figure out a way to make the other work. Humans have an extraordinary way of finding a way to do what they want to do no matter the circumstances. If the majority of the people wants the DP, then the govt. should be working for the people to deliver that. If the govt. is making the process too hard just to push it's own agenda, then there is a bigger problem. Then the govt. is authoritarian, which eventually leads to totalitarian, and that's no good for anybody.

I'll say it again. This case isn't about the morality of the death penalty. It's about the govt. underhandedly undermining the will of the people. If the people of California voted the DP down, this would be a non-issue with me. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't have to live there. :)
 
As long as we are compiling a "Don't ban the death penalty before we off (fill in the blank)" list, how about Richard Allen Davis, the scum who killed Polly Klaas? He is numero uno on my hit list. He was sentenced to death twelve years ago, yet he is no closer to his execution than he was the day the verdict was read. He is just floating through this dysfunctional system with absolutely nothing making his case move forward.
 
The reason that the courts are so backlogged is because of the mandatory appeals process. Cut down the number of appeals allowed. Most of the death row inmates know how to use the system to their advantage as they have mostly been in prison before and have accessed the law library. Certain things such as ineffective council shouldn't allow an automatic appeal. That's the issue with the appeals is that often times, the convicted do not have to show proof of what they are appealing in detail.
I do agree with allowing new DNA testing for those who seek it as there have been a number of cases where the conviction was overturned. However, I feel that should be the only appeal that they get.
I am a firm believer in the death penality, especially in regards to someone hurting a child.
I think that inmates in some places are coddled. They seperate the molesters and sex offenders from general population. I say, throw 'em general population. They'll get what they deserve.
 
snvoigt said:
Not before they off Scott Peterson........:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

HA! That was my first thought when I heard this story on the news- AFTER he's done then do what you will do with the rest of the inmates and LWOP...but not till he's done!
 
Dr. Doogie said:
As long as we are compiling a "Don't ban the death penalty before we off (fill in the blank)" list, how about Richard Allen Davis, the scum who killed Polly Klaas? He is numero uno on my hit list. He was sentenced to death twelve years ago, yet he is no closer to his execution than he was the day the verdict was read. He is just floating through this dysfunctional system with absolutely nothing making his case move forward.
Click to expand...

I'd add Ramon Salcido to the list - he's the first one that ever got me thinking that maybe the death penalty wasn't such a bad alternative after all. He's the one that killed his wife, several of her family and then took his little girls and slit their throats one by one and threw them away like garbage. One of them actually, amazingly survived. But he'd be right up there on my list with Peterson and Davis. Richard Ramirez would be there too but I think natural causes are gonna get him first...
 
Starryskye said:
The reason that the courts are so backlogged is because of the mandatory appeals process. Cut down the number of appeals allowed. Most of the death row inmates know how to use the system to their advantage as they have mostly been in prison before and have accessed the law library. Certain things such as ineffective council shouldn't allow an automatic appeal. That's the issue with the appeals is that often times, the convicted do not have to show proof of what they are appealing in detail.
I do agree with allowing new DNA testing for those who seek it as there have been a number of cases where the conviction was overturned. However, I feel that should be the only appeal that they get.
I am a firm believer in the death penality, especially in regards to someone hurting a child.
I think that inmates in some places are coddled. They seperate the molesters and sex offenders from general population. I say, throw 'em general population. They'll get what they deserve.
Click to expand...

Welcome, starryskye.
 
Starryskye said:
I think that inmates in some places are coddled. They seperate the molesters and sex offenders from general population. I say, throw 'em general population. They'll get what they deserve.
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap::woohoo: I agree with you 100%!
 
Grainne Dhu said:
I hope that California (and all the other death penalty states) abolish it. It is a barbaric thing and something that I hope we, as a nation, can rise above soon.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. :clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
Amraann said:
We are not condoning killing "human beings" We are condoning killing sicko's that are far less then human and need to be eliminated.
Click to expand...

This is a deeply troubling thing to read because it is exactly the same rationale that many murderers use: "it's okay to kill X, because X is less than human." X can be a prostitute, a drug addict, a black person, a Jewish person, etc.

It isn't true. Those who have committed terrible crimes are as human as I am. I don't believe in any tests for qualification to be considered human because history shows us that such tests are used in ways that I, for one, am resolutely opposed to. A person who has committed murder bleeds just as I do, they need food just as I do, they feel pain just as I do.

If I were to condone killing another human being that would make me no different from a murderer. Just because my weapon of choice is the state doesn't mean that my victim doesn't end up just as dead as the victim of a murderer.
 
Grainne Dhu said:
I think war is more akin to self defence than it is to the death penalty.

<snip>
Click to expand...

You are where I once was, when I was younger and more niave than I am now, if you believe that War is most often about self defense. There are some that were, but even they had petty, greedy flipsides.
 
**Originally Posted by Starryskye
I think that inmates in some places are coddled. They seperate the molesters and sex offenders from general population. I say, throw 'em general population. They'll get what they deserve.**


Especially in the West. In the East, the prison gangs are considered kind of... whimpy... to the gangs in the West. I have a couple pen pals in the gang that is being indicted right now in Nevada that I know for a fact TARGET molesters for all the numerous crimes they are being charged with. (murder, extortion, etc.) They are racist to every fiber of their being (insanely so, it's like they are completely brainwashed) but they also turn that same insanely wicked hatred toward molesters.

I'm not saying it is right - just saying it IS there.

The death penalty might not be a deterrant to murder, but if you only put molesters in general population and then published their daily torture... I think it would be quite a deterrant! (And make for some lively reality tv, as well.)
 
I find it ironic that the cost is used as an excuse by the very people that CAUSE the costs to go up by filing repeated appeals on behalf of the murderers, child rapists and other such deserving individuals.

Make no mistake - if they DO achieve their goal of no DP they will not stop. The next step is a redefinition of "Life in prison" to be a maximum of 25 years with a chance of early release, like in their beloved Europe. Then it will be to make prisons more comfortable for the prisoners. There is an agenda here - the belief that society should not punish, just separate people who "need additional care to get along with others".
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to redefine Life. Call it the death penalty, lock them up until they die.

I know you and I never agree on anything, but I think we could if we sat down over some coffee and evaluated what we could agree on. How about this... I am concerned about the families of the inmates and the COST of housing them, you are concerned with the inmates being alive instead of dead (and probably cost as well.)

How about we employ the same as some other countries where you are incarcerated for something bad and your FAMILY has to feed and clothe you. If you have no one who loves you enough to take care of you, you starve to death.

No major cost. The families will be responsible for their loved ones and those who are so awful that their families and friends do not exist... die. BUT - that is what the law would be and no one would actually be killing anyone, which would appease those right to life people who think no one should be killed. Die, yes, but be killed, no.

The only thing left are the people who believe it's cruel and inhumane to do that to someone. Fine. THEY can feed the ones with no family.

If YOU can conceed to this, I think there is hope for the rest of the world to agree, since I think you and I are usually opposite on the spectrum.

I'm way curious to hear what you think! :-)
 
I have read that it is costing California taxpayers over $100 million a year to keep the inmates on death row than it would in the general prison population. Since CA is facing a huge budget crisis, and since we have the very liberal 9th circus court of appeals, and since CA hasn't executed anyone in a few years because sticking a needle in an arm is "cruel and unusual" punishment, I have no objection to closing down the DP and moving all of 'em into the general population. If some of them get bumped off by other prisoners, oh well.
 
I find it ironic that the cost is used as an excuse by the very people that CAUSE the costs to go up by filing repeated appeals on behalf of the murderers, child rapists and other such deserving individuals.

Make no mistake - if they DO achieve their goal of no DP they will not stop. The next step is a redefinition of "Life in prison" to be a maximum of 25 years with a chance of early release, like in their beloved Europe. Then it will be to make prisons more comfortable for the prisoners. There is an agenda here - the belief that society should not punish, just separate people who "need additional care to get along with others".
Click to expand...
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
I find it ironic that the cost is used as an excuse by the very people that CAUSE the costs to go up by filing repeated appeals on behalf of the murderers, child rapists and other such deserving individuals.

Make no mistake - if they DO achieve their goal of no DP they will not stop. The next step is a redefinition of "Life in prison" to be a maximum of 25 years with a chance of early release, like in their beloved Europe. Then it will be to make prisons more comfortable for the prisoners. There is an agenda here - the belief that society should not punish, just separate people who "need additional care to get along with others".
Click to expand...
POST OF THE DAY ! :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
Pepper said:
I have read that it is costing California taxpayers over $100 million a year to keep the inmates on death row than it would in the general prison population. Since CA is facing a huge budget crisis, and since we have the very liberal 9th circus court of appeals, and since CA hasn't executed anyone in a few years because sticking a needle in an arm is "cruel and unusual" punishment, I have no objection to closing down the DP and moving all of 'em into the general population. If some of them get bumped off by other prisoners, oh well.
Click to expand...

If they just lined them up and actually got on with the executions it wouldnt cost so much and it would probably be a better deterrent too. I also dont think they should be "protected" from the general population. They put themselves there so they deserve everything they get
 
KatK said:
You are where I once was, when I was younger and more niave than I am now, if you believe that War is most often about self defense. There are some that were, but even they had petty, greedy flipsides.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more in terms of the individual soldiers on the battlefield. They usually have little to no options in avoiding the situation and once they are on the battlefield, what they are doing is more like self defence than the death penalty.

As for war on the meta level, I think that's a change that will have to come from below. I'm old enough to remember the 60's question "what would happen if they held a war and no one came?"

When most of the population starts to believe that there are no good reasons to deliberately kill other human beings, I think wars will become a thing of the past. Until then, greedy people will use whatever means they have available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 147 more.
Total: 360 (members: 148, guests: 212)

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
212
Total visitors
360
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,381
Messages
18,253,458
Members
234,648
Latest member
WhereTheWildThingsAre
Back
Top