Brian Williams Death Penalty QUestion

[Ravi]

So the government is merely the contract killer told to kill by the "people"

That's one way of looking at it. I don't really separate "the people" from "the government" so in my opinion allowing the government to kill people is a huge overreach. Even if one could be 100% certain of guilt.

Then I guess we should all hold ourselves as responsible for the war crimes the left allege were commited by our government (we, the people) during the Bush administration

Yes, we should, actually. We all bear some guilt for allowing them to happen.

 

[Ravi]

Translation..

"oh shit...what a great point he made and now my back is against the wall...so I will now insert the old "government is by the people" to throw things off"

Listen up ...the point is that it is not the elected government making the decision...it is the jury of the defendants peers.

Juries are part of the judicial system, a system of government. They do not write laws, mandate punishments, etc. They simply, within governmental guidelines, decide guilt and if ALLOWED to by the GOVERNMENT assign punishment.

the government does not decide the death penalty.
It only ensures it is carried out.

Actually, the judge does. Who is part of the government.

 

[Jarhead]

Juries are part of the judicial system, a system of government. They do not write laws, mandate punishments, etc. They simply, within governmental guidelines, decide guilt and if ALLOWED to by the GOVERNMENT assign punishment.

the government does not decide the death penalty.
It only ensures it is carried out.

Actually, the judge does. Who is part of the government.

No.
The jury does.

 

[NGSamson]

Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center



How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed? | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

15 People Who Were Jailed and/or Executed, Then Found Innocent | Raw Justice

10 Convicts Presumed Innocent After Execution

All opinion from opposition groups. They had all there appeals, and all rights were considered. And notice the last one there, the word is "presumed" not "found" innocent. They were presumed innocent before there trial, and found guilty after. Its the law.

In the case of Willingham in TX the conviction was found to be unsupportable. Obviously mistakes were made.

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

By whom ?

08-21-92

Summary:
Two days before Christmas in 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. Willingham told authorities that the fire started while he and the children were asleep. An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid. His claims of heroic effort to save the girls were not borne out by his unscathed escape with little smoke in his lungs.

Cameron Todd Willingham #899

 

[Ravi]

the government does not decide the death penalty.
It only ensures it is carried out.

Actually, the judge does. Who is part of the government.

No.
The jury does.

Sometimes the jury does and sometimes the judge does. They are both part of the judicial system and therefore part of the government.

Now go a head and claim that serving on a jury is not part of the judicial system.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I think the death penalty needs to be addressed. I don't think we need to get rid of it, as I think there are cases out there where it should be done with. However, I think there needs to be an updating of it:

-The death penalty is unique among sentences, because of it's finality. If the wrong verdict is found (which does happen), there's no way of going back and correcting it. This is why I think we need to have the best evidence possible to sentence somebody to death, AKA-DNA. If there's no DNA evidence, but the case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt-lock them away forever. But if you don't make it so DNA evidence is required for the death penalty-some non-guilty people are still going to die. Sure it's not bullet-proof, but at least it would go a long way to making sure justice is properly served.

 

[NGSamson]

Carlos Deluna

354 F.3d 108: Carlos Luna, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Respondent, Appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

Ruben Cantu

http://www.bexar.org/da2/body_pages/morenocantuinvestigation.pdf

Larry Griffin

946 F.2d 1356: Larry Griffin, Appellant, v. Paul Delo, Appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

Joseph O'Dell

112 F.3d 773: Joseph R. O'dell, Iii, Plaintiff-appellee, v. J.d. Netherland, Sued in His Official Capacity As Warden Atmecklenburg Correctional Center, Defendant-appellant :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

David Spence

80 F.3d 989: David Wayne Spence, Petitioner-appellant, v. Gary L. Johnson, Director, Texas Department of Criminaljustice, Institutional Division, Respondent-appellee :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

Leo Jones

STATE V. LEO R. JONES :: December, 1995 :: New Jersey Supreme Court Decisions :: New Jersey Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

Gary Graham

Gary Lee Graham #648

Claude Jones

Claude Howard Jones #682

Cameron Willingham

Cameron Todd Willingham #899

Joe Arridy, sadly in 1936 it seems like this guy was wrongfully convicted, and put to death.

 

[Jarhead]

Actually, the judge does. Who is part of the government.

No.
The jury does.

Sometimes the jury does and sometimes the judge does. They are both part of the judicial system and therefore part of the government.

Now go a head and claim that serving on a jury is not part of the judicial system.

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

No.
The jury does.

Sometimes the jury does and sometimes the judge does. They are both part of the judicial system and therefore part of the government.

Now go a head and claim that serving on a jury is not part of the judicial system.

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

Government workers can (and do) serve on juries. Serving on a jury may not make you "a part of government" by default, however the government isn't immune from serving on a jury. I believe even Joe Biden showed up to jury duty a year ago, or so.

Also jury members are paid for by the government. They're paid by the government to do a job, and many times the government hires attorneys on their behalf to argue cases for them, in front of a jury. They also are required to follow the law, and NOT to interpret the law as they see fit-but how the lawmakers (government) sees fit.

While the individuals on one particular jury may not be "a part of government" themselves-a jury is an integral part of the judicial system (aka-government run system). That much cannot be debated.

 

[saveliberty]

Government employees show up for jury duty as private citizens. Fail.

 

[Ravi]

No.
The jury does.

Sometimes the jury does and sometimes the judge does. They are both part of the judicial system and therefore part of the government.

Now go a head and claim that serving on a jury is not part of the judicial system.

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

 

[pete]

Brian Williams showed his liberal disgust with capital punishment in Texas.

And was horrified when the audience applauded.

Perry's answer was awesome. He didn't give an inch.


Rick Perry Proud Of 234 Executions--Brian Williams Shocked Audience Applauds Deaths - YouTube


This is why Perry will eventually prevail over Romney and Obama. He doesn't back down from a fight.

and they all are wishing and hoping for an innocent man to be put to death so they can prove this or that ,,, whose worse?

 

[Ravi]

Government employees show up for jury duty as private citizens. Fail.

The next time you see a jury operating outside of the judicial system will be the first time.

 

[saveliberty]

You are being very Ravi today Ravi. Have fun.

 

[Jarhead]

Sometimes the jury does and sometimes the judge does. They are both part of the judicial system and therefore part of the government.

Now go a head and claim that serving on a jury is not part of the judicial system.

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judisical system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was weather or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playinmg semantics.

 

[Jarhead]

Government employees show up for jury duty as private citizens. Fail.

The next time you see a jury operating outside of the judicial system will be the first time.

the fact that you needed to resort to that shows how you are quite insecure with your position in the debate.

So lets make this a little more challenging for you.

Lets not use the word government becuase it makes things way too difficult for you.

Lets use the word "elected officials"

Now...who decides the guilt of a person...an elected official or a jury of non elected citizens?

 

[Jarhead]

Brian Williams showed his liberal disgust with capital punishment in Texas.

And was horrified when the audience applauded.

Perry's answer was awesome. He didn't give an inch.


Rick Perry Proud Of 234 Executions--Brian Williams Shocked Audience Applauds Deaths - YouTube


This is why Perry will eventually prevail over Romney and Obama. He doesn't back down from a fight.

and they all are wishing and hoping for an innocent man to be put to death so they can prove this or that ,,, whose worse?

That is assumption on your part.
And just as bad as those who assume that the right wanted the iraq war to turn for the worse when Obama came in.

 

[saveliberty]

I just saw Brian anchoring the news last night. Now he's up on a Death Penalty case? Seemed like a nice guy. Who knew.

 

[Ravi]

Government employees show up for jury duty as private citizens. Fail.

The next time you see a jury operating outside of the judicial system will be the first time.

the fact that you needed to resort to that shows how you are quite insecure with your position in the debate.

So lets make this a little more challenging for you.

Lets not use the word government becuase it makes things way too difficult for you.

Lets use the word "elected officials"

Now...who decides the guilt of a person...an elected official or a jury of non elected citizens?

The people, operating under the auspices of the government, operating as a government body, are deciding who lives and who dies.

That is wrong, imo. It is big government at its worst.

And to make it even worse, as pertains to the OP, the Governor has the final say.

 

[Valerie]

Now I get it. You dont like to debate.
]You like to orate and when you are backed into a corner, you like to pull shit out of your ass and pray it sticks.

Serving on a jury does not make you part of the government.

Now...enough of your fucking games...

You opted not to debate...that was your choice.

So nothing gained with you ONCE AGAIN.

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.