Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #10

[wallyworld]

Admin closes the thread around 50 pages and starts a new one. Not sure why. But yeah, it was about 3-4 previous threads ago the car was identified

Tomorrow marks a week (? I think?) since Samantha’s phone was found…. Interesting vicpol have been very quiet since…. No doubt preparing their next moves….

I was reading about Greg Lyn and the High Country murders last night. Vicpol had him under surveillance for 12 months before making an arrest. Such a long time, but obviously necessary to gather enough evidence to have a watertight case.
Yes, it will be interesting to find out how this has all played out.

Just to clear up what may be a slight confusion due to cultural gaps between different nation's legal practices..'

The USA, and it's Public Defenders'.. well... if Galbally has been assigned to S, he is now, in all respects, a Public Defender. It's all in the billing process. Every Barrister, in Victoria , and all the other states, there is no special pool, it's every one, be he/she be busy or not, is required to be , at the call of the Bar, a Public Defender.

About the closest thing to a Barrister in the USA would be what is referred to as a Trial Attorney, .. at a guess.

All Barristers, and solicitors ( translation USA 'attorney' ) are officers of the court, and come under the courts direction.

A Barrister has legal standing internationally, an AU barrister can present a case in Dubai, Hongkong, etc., a solicitor does not.,

That's why there is the roster, every judicial season ( the judicial year is divvied up into 'seasons', where by some judges go on the Circuit around Victoria's big regional towns, dispensing judgement, and often a bit of sarcasm and wit as well ) And every Barrister in Victoria is on the roster.

Then, when a case comes up for the Supreme Court, a lottery is run and who's name pops out , is ON. They then don their horsehair wig and they become The Public Defender, versus The Public Prosecutor.

Is this the right way to go about things? that the taxpayer funds all this hoohaa? well. yes, I guess it is, because otherwise only the wealthy, who do not often get arrested for anything would be the only people able to access legal assistance. So it works out fine, and has done for 120 years, and no one has any plans to change it. It serves the community well, and no credence is given to the idea that everyone must pay for their own defence. In an ideal world, that may work, but in reality it does not, hence, this system.

I believe all of the countries that use the Westminster system of judgement ( mostly British commonwealth or ex commonwealth) and that system requires it. I understand in Britain, at the moment, access to legal help is delayed due to underfunding , this is a situation to be avoided in AU and usually, ,in all the states and territories , it is of quite a high standard, all things considered. I groan at coughing up for S, ( although I am in another state I stlll contribute ) but I would not have it any other way.

An unrepresented accused at the bar is a dangerous precedent for everyone, as I see it.

Sorry, EDIT ) .... all of this is on the assumption that Stephenson cannot pay for his own defence.. Only his financial circumstances , not his parents, would be taken into consideration, not many 22 yr olds would have the money for it.

However, any Barrister can and mostly does operate in the privately funded sphere, often for business, where the fee is a tax deduction! ( sneaky, huh ? )

Is a Public Defender the same as Legal Aid? If so would PS qualify for Legal Aid?

 

[Trooper]

I was reading about Greg Lyn and the High Country murders last night. Vicpol had him under surveillance for 12 months before making an arrest. Such a long time, but obviously necessary to gather enough evidence to have a watertight case.
Yes, it will be interesting to find out how this has all played out.

Is a Public Defender the same as Legal Aid? If so would PS qualify for Legal Aid?

(a) It is. That is the general term one can use. and ....

(b) probably. I would raise that probably to definitely , considering the outcome. ,

It is not just high profile matters that attract Legal Aid, your average bloke or woman in the street is just as eligible. It all depends on the actual case in hand. Not everyone who wants legal aid gets it. I got into a situation with a neighbor, my order of legal matter did not qualify. So I ponied up the cost. Legal Aid is an umbrella term, it covers a lot of what may seem to be obscure and nitpicky elements, but for the big stuff, it matters..

If the crime you are charged with has the potential to result in a prison term, of some duration, you are likely to get Legal Aid, generally speaking. Not every time, but generally, this is one of the criteria that goes towards the granting of it. There are other criteria, this would be a very long post, you can look it up, it is public knowledge. It's interesting, though., worth your time.

 

[sunspun]

One of the reasons why Australia does not have the death penalty in criminal matters ( it still has the death penalty on the books for treason , but it has never been exercised ) is 'truth' is a nebulous thing, in law.

The last time the death penalty was used , and it was in VIctoria, was in 1967 and the penalty was abolished in all states and territories in 1985... mainly because of one case that took place in Britain, back in the 1950's, where a young husband was executed for the murder of his wife, and baby, ,then it was found that the landlord of his tenement was busy killing other women as well as this mans wife. So.. a terrible , unfixable horrible death at the hands of the state had happened.

A case of truth most assuredly not winning in the case of Timothy Evans.

AU govts became increasingly uncomfortable about the whole business of state sanctioned death, since it was obvious that the justice system is not infallible. Which, they argued, it must be if people were to be executed in the name of the state. A clear case of recognising that sometimes 'truth' has fallen over, and actions taken cannot be reversed.

The death penalty for crime as a subject of debate often comes back up in Australian governance, but really, no AU Govt, Federal or State, is ever going to bring it back. Not in my lifetime, at least.

I've always had a problem with this reasoning against the death penalty, even though I'm anti-DP myself (as well as an American, and living in a DP state to boot). I mean, I think it's noble and admirable to realize that mistakes can be made and some innocent person might end up convicted of a horrible crime, and to take the DP off the table upon realizing and admitting that.

But here's my problem with that. I understand that a person (or a country) may be so averse to putting an innocent person to death that they decide to never allow that punishment as a possibility at all. OK, makes perfect sense. But what about a Life Sentence then? You're not OK w/DP because the system is fallible, but you're OK with locking up a possibly innocent person for the rest of their life?

It's admitted that the system unfortunately may sometimes convict an innocent person, so for that reason, there should be no death penalty. But leave the Life Sentence on the table even so. Like that's no big deal? Like that's not even possibly a WORSE punishment in many minds than the Death Penalty??

How can one be OK with a Life Sentence as a possible punishment if one has just admitted that there may sometimes be a wrongful conviction? But I understand, this isn't a helpful position to take or to point out, because where then does it end? Say you agree and remove the Life Sentence as well as the DP. Now I come along and say, but what about a 20 year sentence? You admit wrongful convictions happen, so no DP and no LS, but you're OK with taking away someone's freedom for 20 whole years of their life? Putting them behind bars for 2 decades, never leaving the confines of the prison for 20 whole years?? When they may be innocent? How could you??

So I know that doesn't work obviously. Because none of us would be OK with locking up an innocent person for any time at all, but that doesn't mean we can just abolish prison sentences as easily (?) as some have the DP.

... or could we?

Maybe we could. If there were something to replace it with that made more sense. But I don't know what that could be. I guess the only thing I can think of is something that comes with many different problems of its own, and it's something that's already been tried in the past. Just designate a whole land, separate from everyone else, for the criminals and only the criminals, let them live out their lives however they would, but it would be a life lived among criminals, with all the risks and dangers and unfairnesses inherent with that. Sound familiar? I don't know much about those early days of the land that is now Australia, but I gather it was something like that. And apparently, it didn't work, so there's that.

And besides, even if that system would work, then you'd have someone who isn't me this time come along and say, How could you? What if that were an innocent man who you've thrown into the lions' den and left him to fend for himself against bloodthirsty murderers and that ilk? Why, you might as well have sentenced him to death!

And there we've come full circle, so I'm back to where I started. But I guess we're stuck with what we've got til anything better comes along, if that ever happens.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

Unless he's doing a quiet high price cake fundraising in remand ??? But there is no Go Fund Me available for him !!!

The question is, do these cakes also come with the obligatory file too?

 

[HoneyBunOne]

I've always had a problem with this reasoning against the death penalty, even though I'm anti-DP myself (as well as an American, and living in a DP state to boot). I mean, I think it's noble and admirable to realize that mistakes can be made and some innocent person might end up convicted of a horrible crime, and to take the DP off the table upon realizing and admitting that.

But here's my problem with that. I understand that a person (or a country) may be so averse to putting an innocent person to death that they decide to never allow that punishment as a possibility at all. OK, makes perfect sense. But what about a Life Sentence then? You're not OK w/DP because the system is fallible, but you're OK with locking up a possibly innocent person for the rest of their life?

It's admitted that the system unfortunately may sometimes convict an innocent person, so for that reason, there should be no death penalty. But leave the Life Sentence on the table even so. Like that's no big deal? Like that's not even possibly a WORSE punishment in many minds than the Death Penalty??

How can one be OK with a Life Sentence as a possible punishment if one has just admitted that there may sometimes be a wrongful conviction? But I understand, this isn't a helpful position to take or to point out, because where then does it end? Say you agree and remove the Life Sentence as well as the DP. Now I come along and say, but what about a 20 year sentence? You admit wrongful convictions happen, so no DP and no LS, but you're OK with taking away someone's freedom for 20 whole years of their life? Putting them behind bars for 2 decades, never leaving the confines of the prison for 20 whole years?? When they may be innocent? How could you??

So I know that doesn't work obviously. Because none of us would be OK with locking up an innocent person for any time at all, but that doesn't mean we can just abolish prison sentences as easily (?) as some have the DP.

... or could we?

Maybe we could. If there were something to replace it with that made more sense. But I don't know what that could be. I guess the only thing I can think of is something that comes with many different problems of its own, and it's something that's already been tried in the past. Just designate a whole land, separate from everyone else, for the criminals and only the criminals, let them live out their lives however they would, but it would be a life lived among criminals, with all the risks and dangers and unfairnesses inherent with that. Sound familiar? I don't know much about those early days of the land that is now Australia, but I gather it was something like that. And apparently, it didn't work, so there's that.

And besides, even if that system would work, then you'd have someone who isn't me this time come along and say, How could you? What if that were an innocent man who you've thrown into the lions' den and left him to fend for himself against bloodthirsty murderers and that ilk? Why, you might as well have sentenced him to death!

And there we've come full circle, so I'm back to where I started. But I guess we're stuck with what we've got til anything better comes along, if that ever happens.

I think it comes down to 2 things.

A death penalty is a permanent, irreversible decision.

A life sentence can be appealed and can be overturned, with monetary compensation given for time served. New evidence can be discovered at any point in time while the prisoner is alive, as can new technology. Their innocence can then be proven, and freedom reinstated.

Don't forget, the prisoner HAS been found guilty, and you have to assume the judge or jury did their job successfully. While it can be a flawed system that doesn't always get it right, what logical, realistic alternative do we have?

 

[Scooby-Doo]

The question is, do these cakes also come with the obligatory file too?

Hidden in one of the big cakes

 

[drsleuth]

(a) It is. That is the general term one can use. and ....

(b) probably. I would raise that probably to definitely , considering the outcome. ,

It is not just high profile matters that attract Legal Aid, your average bloke or woman in the street is just as eligible. It all depends on the actual case in hand. Not everyone who wants legal aid gets it. I got into a situation with a neighbor, my order of legal matter did not qualify. So I ponied up the cost. Legal Aid is an umbrella term, it covers a lot of what may seem to be obscure and nitpicky elements, but for the big stuff, it matters..

If the crime you are charged with has the potential to result in a prison term, of some duration, you are likely to get Legal Aid, generally speaking. Not every time, but generally, this is one of the criteria that goes towards the granting of it. There are other criteria, this would be a very long post, you can look it up, it is public knowledge. It's interesting, though., worth your time.

I've been at local courts, when someone usually yells out in the corridors before the long list kicks off for the day " Anyone need legal Aid? " etc, just like a cattle call lol

 

[Trooper]

I've been at local courts, when someone usually yells out in the corridors before the long list kicks off for the day " Anyone need legal Aid? " etc, just like a cattle call lol

And that would be the local guy, also on a roster, like all local solicitors are, ( they get paid a decent retainer by the Govt.to do this ) who gives free legal advice to the town drunks, the speeding drivers, the wife slappers, the break and enter blokes, the warring neighbors.. .. local court is microcosm of a nation, and all the more eye opening for it.

On any given day, a solicitor dons his 'public defender' hat.. this type of public defending is not predicated on one's fiscal status, but is available to all and sundry, all day at the court. Another aspect of 'legal aid' ..

And it is most always very good value, too. If the solicitor feels it appropriate, he will appear for you when your number is called, and take your misery up to the magistrate in terms the magistrate wishes to be addressed... it works out fine for everyone, usually. Sometimes the local constabulary is the complainant in your case, and your new friend, the public defender, takes all this up to the copper in exquisite outrage on your behalf. ..

 

[SouthAussie]

Busy times for the Ballarat coppers, and for the court, both Magistrates and County, and then the Supreme Court will be prorogued in Ballarat for Lachlan Young , his next appearance is in July ( is no one chasing up his parents ? ) that would be a Summary , I think, and then onwards . Probably Rex. V Stephenson will begin after this one.

Don't know who his barrister is, either.

Lachlan is a picture of denseness , he got cross with his young girlfriend, Hannah, and decided to kill her, by beating and strangling her, then he got a bright idea (this was when Ballarat was swarming with detectives, inspectors, police dogs, police helicopters, Search and Rescue etc looking for Mrs Murphy, ) to put her body in her car, and drive it into the bush, and set it alight, and then go home and sit down and write suicide letters, etc. I kid you not. The police caught him about 8 hours into his life of a womankiller, alerted by the smoke.

So even though his crime was after Mrs Murphy's murder, his case will probably go before Stephensons, mainly because the schedule of hearings have been predicated that way.

Interesting times for Ballarat.

O/T

I heard on the radio news today that someone set up a fund raising account for Hannah's family. Then stole the entire $66,000. They have been arrested for theft.

imo

 

[BreakingNews]

I've always had a problem with this reasoning against the death penalty, even though I'm anti-DP myself (as well as an American, and living in a DP state to boot). I mean, I think it's noble and admirable to realize that mistakes can be made and some innocent person might end up convicted of a horrible crime, and to take the DP off the table upon realizing and admitting that.

But here's my problem with that. I understand that a person (or a country) may be so averse to putting an innocent person to death that they decide to never allow that punishment as a possibility at all. OK, makes perfect sense. But what about a Life Sentence then? You're not OK w/DP because the system is fallible, but you're OK with locking up a possibly innocent person for the rest of their life?

It's admitted that the system unfortunately may sometimes convict an innocent person, so for that reason, there should be no death penalty. But leave the Life Sentence on the table even so. Like that's no big deal? Like that's not even possibly a WORSE punishment in many minds than the Death Penalty??

How can one be OK with a Life Sentence as a possible punishment if one has just admitted that there may sometimes be a wrongful conviction? But I understand, this isn't a helpful position to take or to point out, because where then does it end? Say you agree and remove the Life Sentence as well as the DP. Now I come along and say, but what about a 20 year sentence? You admit wrongful convictions happen, so no DP and no LS, but you're OK with taking away someone's freedom for 20 whole years of their life? Putting them behind bars for 2 decades, never leaving the confines of the prison for 20 whole years?? When they may be innocent? How could you??

So I know that doesn't work obviously. Because none of us would be OK with locking up an innocent person for any time at all, but that doesn't mean we can just abolish prison sentences as easily (?) as some have the DP.

... or could we?

Maybe we could. If there were something to replace it with that made more sense. But I don't know what that could be. I guess the only thing I can think of is something that comes with many different problems of its own, and it's something that's already been tried in the past. Just designate a whole land, separate from everyone else, for the criminals and only the criminals, let them live out their lives however they would, but it would be a life lived among criminals, with all the risks and dangers and unfairnesses inherent with that. Sound familiar? I don't know much about those early days of the land that is now Australia, but I gather it was something like that. And apparently, it didn't work, so there's that.

And besides, even if that system would work, then you'd have someone who isn't me this time come along and say, How could you? What if that were an innocent man who you've thrown into the lions' den and left him to fend for himself against bloodthirsty murderers and that ilk? Why, you might as well have sentenced him to death!

And there we've come full circle, so I'm back to where I started. But I guess we're stuck with what we've got til anything better comes along, if that ever happens.

In Australia we generally don't lock people up for the term of their natural life. Life, doesn't mean their life. And Australia is big on human rights, hence we don't have the death penality.

 

[HoneyBunOne]

O/T

I heard on the radio news today that someone set up a fund raising account for Hannah's family. Then stole the entire $66,000. They have been arrested for theft.

imo

How low can you go? Totally despicable.
Ballarat and surrounds have been in the news for all the wrong reasons this year.

 

[jjleroche]

So my search history now has:

1. Carabine knife

2. Is water better to hide a body

3. Can phones, in a toolbox pick up signals in a mine shaft

4. Is it hard to dig with just a shovel

5. What can a AFP tech dog sniff

etc etc.

I think I need to balance it out with - I don't know um - fluffy kittens???

Excellent idea! (JMO)

 

[Eloise]

I've always had a problem with this reasoning against the death penalty, even though I'm anti-DP myself (as well as an American, and living in a DP state to boot). I mean, I think it's noble and admirable to realize that mistakes can be made and some innocent person might end up convicted of a horrible crime, and to take the DP off the table upon realizing and admitting that.

But here's my problem with that. I understand that a person (or a country) may be so averse to putting an innocent person to death that they decide to never allow that punishment as a possibility at all. OK, makes perfect sense. But what about a Life Sentence then? You're not OK w/DP because the system is fallible, but you're OK with locking up a possibly innocent person for the rest of their life?

It's admitted that the system unfortunately may sometimes convict an innocent person, so for that reason, there should be no death penalty. But leave the Life Sentence on the table even so. Like that's no big deal? Like that's not even possibly a WORSE punishment in many minds than the Death Penalty??

How can one be OK with a Life Sentence as a possible punishment if one has just admitted that there may sometimes be a wrongful conviction? But I understand, this isn't a helpful position to take or to point out, because where then does it end? Say you agree and remove the Life Sentence as well as the DP. Now I come along and say, but what about a 20 year sentence? You admit wrongful convictions happen, so no DP and no LS, but you're OK with taking away someone's freedom for 20 whole years of their life? Putting them behind bars for 2 decades, never leaving the confines of the prison for 20 whole years?? When they may be innocent? How could you??

So I know that doesn't work obviously. Because none of us would be OK with locking up an innocent person for any time at all, but that doesn't mean we can just abolish prison sentences as easily (?) as some have the DP.

... or could we?

Maybe we could. If there were something to replace it with that made more sense. But I don't know what that could be. I guess the only thing I can think of is something that comes with many different problems of its own, and it's something that's already been tried in the past. Just designate a whole land, separate from everyone else, for the criminals and only the criminals, let them live out their lives however they would, but it would be a life lived among criminals, with all the risks and dangers and unfairnesses inherent with that. Sound familiar? I don't know much about those early days of the land that is now Australia, but I gather it was something like that. And apparently, it didn't work, so there's that.

And besides, even if that system would work, then you'd have someone who isn't me this time come along and say, How could you? What if that were an innocent man who you've thrown into the lions' den and left him to fend for himself against bloodthirsty murderers and that ilk? Why, you might as well have sentenced him to death!

And there we've come full circle, so I'm back to where I started. But I guess we're stuck with what we've got til anything better comes along, if that ever happens.

you can reverse a life sentence. You can't reverse an execution. And while people who've never been to prison tend to say it'd be worse to be locked up forever and they'd choose death for themselves, that doesn't really explain why people actually sentenced to death tend to exhaust every last avenue of appeal, clemency etc to avoid it even if it means staying in prison forever

Also as stated by another poster, its actually pretty unusual to get a life sentence in Australia for murder anyway. Those tend to be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst, those with no prospects for rehabilitation whatsoever, etc. This can be pretty controversial because you do end up with people being released and recommitting crimes, however we tend to err on the side of believing people deserve second chances

 

[louisepiglet]

Major update on Samantha Murphy’s phone days after police discover it

Police found the mobile near Ballarat and 7NEWS now has new details.

7news.com.au

"Mr Galbally represented the late Catholic Cardinal George Pell who had his conviction for historic child abuse charges overturned by the High Court.

He has previously said he is not uncomfortable acting for individuals accused of the most serious crimes."

Interesting that Mr Galbally proudly represented George Pell, who has allegations against him dating back to the 1960s. Interesting that his current client attended the same school where George Pell is listed on the website as an "honoured Old Collegian".

I honestly cannot understand why the church would be willing to spend that amount of money to represent a lowly apprentice electrician who has a questionable past. Im sure members of the church who make donations would not be expecting the funds would be used in this manner.

 

[TootsieFootsie]

The church isn't representing him.

 

[Marg944]

Thanks Whatson, I didn't see the earlier post about the car... could have saved myself some time. 2014 DMAX I think

In much earlier posts one clever sleuther managed to decipher the number plates and then were able to find out the make and model. We worked out back then that his model of car did not have tracking built in.

You can see his number plate in this news video at about 1.44. Is tricky to decipher, and unfortunately I didn’t record what his number plate was.

Samantha Murphy's alleged killer's ute seized by police

www.9news.com.au

 

[louisepiglet]

I find it difficult to believe PS parents have moved out of state by choice. He is still their son and I would have thought at least one of his parents would have stayed in the vicinity to support him.

 

[Warshawski]

Just to clear up what may be a slight confusion due to cultural gaps between different nation's legal practices..'

The USA, and it's Public Defenders'.. well... if Galbally has been assigned to S, he is now, in all respects, a Public Defender. It's all in the billing process. Every Barrister, in Victoria , and all the other states, there is no special pool, it's every one, be he/she be busy or not, is required to be , at the call of the Bar, a Public Defender.

About the closest thing to a Barrister in the USA would be what is referred to as a Trial Attorney, .. at a guess.

All Barristers, and solicitors ( translation USA 'attorney' ) are officers of the court, and come under the courts direction.

A Barrister has legal standing internationally, an AU barrister can present a case in Dubai, Hongkong, etc., a solicitor does not.,

That's why there is the roster, every judicial season ( the judicial year is divvied up into 'seasons', where by some judges go on the Circuit around Victoria's big regional towns, dispensing judgement, and often a bit of sarcasm and wit as well ) And every Barrister in Victoria is on the roster.

Then, when a case comes up for the Supreme Court, a lottery is run and who's name pops out , is ON. They then don their horsehair wig and they become The Public Defender, versus The Public Prosecutor.

Is this the right way to go about things? that the taxpayer funds all this hoohaa? well. yes, I guess it is, because otherwise only the wealthy, who do not often get arrested for anything would be the only people able to access legal assistance. So it works out fine, and has done for 120 years, and no one has any plans to change it. It serves the community well, and no credence is given to the idea that everyone must pay for their own defence. In an ideal world, that may work, but in reality it does not, hence, this system.

I believe all of the countries that use the Westminster system of judgement ( mostly British commonwealth or ex commonwealth) and that system requires it. I understand in Britain, at the moment, access to legal help is delayed due to underfunding , this is a situation to be avoided in AU and usually, ,in all the states and territories , it is of quite a high standard, all things considered. I groan at coughing up for S, ( although I am in another state I stlll contribute ) but I would not have it any other way.

An unrepresented accused at the bar is a dangerous precedent for everyone, as I see it.

Sorry, EDIT ) .... all of this is on the assumption that Stephenson cannot pay for his own defence.. Only his financial circumstances , not his parents, would be taken into consideration, not many 22 yr olds would have the money for it.

However, any Barrister can and mostly does operate in the privately funded sphere, often for business, where the fee is a tax deduction! ( sneaky, huh ? )

Thank you for doing this Trooper, so clearly explained as always

 

[Rocket333]

Galbally & O’Bryan​

Defences of murder​

Depending on the facts of each case, a number of defences may be available to a person accused of murder. Our experienced criminal defence lawyerswill be able to assess your case and determine whether any legal defence is applicable. These might include:

• Self-defence;
• Duress;
• Sudden and extraordinary emergency;
• Automatism; or
• Provocation

Please note that the defence of provocation only applies to homicides committed prior to 23 November 2005.​

Should any of these defences be made out, or the prosecution fail to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be held criminally responsible.

Murder and Manslaughter Offences | Galbally & O’Bryan Lawyers, Melbourne

In Victoria, there are different offences that relate to the unlawful killing of another person. These include murder and manslaughter. If you or someone you know has been charged with one of these offences, it is imperative to seek legal advice. Contact our Galbally & O'Bryan's team of expert...

www.galballyobryan.com.au

 

[Warshawski]

I think it comes down to 2 things.

A death penalty is a permanent, irreversible decision.

A life sentence can be appealed and can be overturned, with monetary compensation given for time served. New evidence can be discovered at any point in time while the prisoner is alive, as can new technology. Their innocence can then be proven, and freedom reinstated.

Don't forget, the prisoner HAS been found guilty, and you have to assume the judge or jury did their job successfully. While it can be a flawed system that doesn't always get it right, what logical, realistic alternative do we have?

I’ll go out on a limb here and publicly state that I’ll advocate for the death penalty in SOME situations. There are vile, despicable crimes committed by people who imo have no right to expect to be treated as human beings going forward - and certainly not on my tax payer $.
I’ll also suggest that if we got a bit more real with what is ‘punishment’ so that it is a genuine deterrent, then a lot of these criminal activities may decrease…. as it is now, jail is a very safe & comfortable place for some people.

Just my own opinion ( please don’t throw anything too hard at me )