Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.
Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.
That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.
Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.
When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.
How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?
I have slammed this country every day for 25 years. Doesn't matter who is prez the american dream which dumb flag wavers bite hook line and sinker has never existed. Get over it. Dummies.
And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.
Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.
That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.
Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.
When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.
How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?
What inequity or injustice are you referring to? If you mean race, I already provided evidence that whites face the death penalty more than blacks. And if you look at the chart I provided earlier, and understand that black commit 53% of the murders, it's clear they are getting a better break than whites.
A few armed incidents do not a civil war make.Are you truly that naive?If Trump was somehow stopped from being President... there would be zero civil war. Trump supporters will just get on forums across the internet and cry about it.
There would be a civil war, without a doubt.
And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.
Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.
That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.
Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.
When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.
How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?
What inequity or injustice are you referring to? If you mean race, I already provided evidence that whites face the death penalty more than blacks. And if you look at the chart I provided earlier, and understand that black commit 53% of the murders, it's clear they are getting a better break than whites.
Whites face the death penalty more ONLY because they represent a much larger portion of the population. If you look at it proportionate to population blacks are much more likely to get the death penalty (as well as hispanics) for the same crime than a white person: The Death Penalty in Black and White: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides | Death Penalty Information Center
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
Death Penalty and Race
- A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
- A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.
- A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.
Poverty is also much more likely to guarantee a death sentence:
Poverty is a similar -- and often additional -- handicap. Because the lawyers provided to indigent defendants charged with capital crimes are so uniformly undertrained and undercompensated, the 90 percent of capitally charged defendants who lack the resources to retain a private attorney are virtually guaranteed a death sentence. Together, therefore, race and class function as an elephant on death's side of the sentencing scale.
When you have such gross inequities in the system, how can it be justice? It's not.
And you know this how? People sentenced to death in the 80's and 90's are still on death row.
Innocence: List of Those Freed From Death Row | Death Penalty Information Center
This list of exonerations includes people sentenced as late as 2013. Most have no DNA evidence. You don't have DNA evidence with every conviction. Your fast track system would have had them all killed before exoneration.
Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.
That's what ISIS does. Public executions to make a public point. Of course, they don't have the economic aspect. Maybe they should.
Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.
When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.
How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?
What inequity or injustice are you referring to? If you mean race, I already provided evidence that whites face the death penalty more than blacks. And if you look at the chart I provided earlier, and understand that black commit 53% of the murders, it's clear they are getting a better break than whites.
Whites face the death penalty more ONLY because they represent a much larger portion of the population. If you look at it proportionate to population blacks are much more likely to get the death penalty (as well as hispanics) for the same crime than a white person: The Death Penalty in Black and White: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides | Death Penalty Information Center
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
Death Penalty and Race
- A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
- A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.
- A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.
Poverty is also much more likely to guarantee a death sentence:
Poverty is a similar -- and often additional -- handicap. Because the lawyers provided to indigent defendants charged with capital crimes are so uniformly undertrained and undercompensated, the 90 percent of capitally charged defendants who lack the resources to retain a private attorney are virtually guaranteed a death sentence. Together, therefore, race and class function as an elephant on death's side of the sentencing scale.
When you have such gross inequities in the system, how can it be justice? It's not.
Percentage of the population is irrelevant unless the entire population faces the death penalty. What I'm talking about are those who commit the crime of murder.
In an equal society, if blacks commit 53% of the murders, we should have 53% of the death penalties handed to blacks. But we don't. More whites are sentenced to death than blacks based on the murders committed. Because blacks commit three times their population percentage of this country has nothing to do with race. There are just more black murderers than whites.
Again, let's look at the execution chart and remember that 45% of whites commit murders compared to 53% of blacks:
View attachment 102546
If there is inequity within the races of murderers, then certainly this chart shows the inequity of whites--not blacks. More whites who committed murder were executed than blacks that committed murder even though they commit over 7% more murders than whites.
I am not good at english ,who can do me a favor ,sent this letter to president donold trump,t can not ...You people will get one if you prevent Trump from being President.
Out of the 156 cases of exoneration, only two of them were more recent: 2011 and 2013. The rest were all years ago from the 70's, 80's, and 90's.
I don't believe in applying the death penalty unless there is empirical evidence that the subject did commit such a crime. By that I mean video, forensic science and of course DNA. I don't believe in giving executions to people based on eye witness or other unreliable evidence.
Well if you want the death penalty to be a deterrent, you have to provide such a deterrent. That's the idea of a public point.
When somebody uses a deadly weapon to commit a crime, they understand well in advance that using a weapon may involve death. Very few people use weapons with the expectation they will never need them. By witnessing an execution, or even knowing you could be dead in less than six months by committing the crime just may deter you enough from doing so.
How would you address the inequity and injustice in the way the death penalty is applied in the US? Or would that matter?
What inequity or injustice are you referring to? If you mean race, I already provided evidence that whites face the death penalty more than blacks. And if you look at the chart I provided earlier, and understand that black commit 53% of the murders, it's clear they are getting a better break than whites.
Whites face the death penalty more ONLY because they represent a much larger portion of the population. If you look at it proportionate to population blacks are much more likely to get the death penalty (as well as hispanics) for the same crime than a white person: The Death Penalty in Black and White: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides | Death Penalty Information Center
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
Death Penalty and Race
- A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
- A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.
- A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.
Poverty is also much more likely to guarantee a death sentence:
Poverty is a similar -- and often additional -- handicap. Because the lawyers provided to indigent defendants charged with capital crimes are so uniformly undertrained and undercompensated, the 90 percent of capitally charged defendants who lack the resources to retain a private attorney are virtually guaranteed a death sentence. Together, therefore, race and class function as an elephant on death's side of the sentencing scale.
When you have such gross inequities in the system, how can it be justice? It's not.
Percentage of the population is irrelevant unless the entire population faces the death penalty. What I'm talking about are those who commit the crime of murder.
In an equal society, if blacks commit 53% of the murders, we should have 53% of the death penalties handed to blacks. But we don't. More whites are sentenced to death than blacks based on the murders committed. Because blacks commit three times their population percentage of this country has nothing to do with race. There are just more black murderers than whites.
Again, let's look at the execution chart and remember that 45% of whites commit murders compared to 53% of blacks:
View attachment 102546
If there is inequity within the races of murderers, then certainly this chart shows the inequity of whites--not blacks. More whites who committed murder were executed than blacks that committed murder even though they commit over 7% more murders than whites.
Most murders committed by blacks are on black victims. The death penalty is RARELY given when the victim is black or hispanic or doesn't rate high (poor, no college degree, etc).
The Death Penalty For Black & White Murderers Reveals How Capital Punishment Is Part Of The Racial Problem
In all cases resulting in execution in the last 40 years, 75 percent of the victims were white, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Black people represent 15 percent of victims in death penalty cases, even though they are eight times more likely to be a homicide victim than white individuals, according to FiveThirtyEight's estimates.
Racism and the Execution Chamber
Unchecked by the judiciary, the death penalty's racial discrepancy survived and thrived. Eleven years after McCleskey, Baldus studied 667 homicides in Philadelphia between 1983 and 1993 and found that black defendants there were nearly four times likelier than white defendants to receive a death sentence for the same crimes. Racial disparities in crime rates aren't a factor in this because homicide, the predominant capital offense, is an overwhelmingly intra-racial crime. Federal statistics show that 84 percent of white victims and 93 percent of black victims between 1980 and 2008 were murdered by someone of the same race. But death-row statistics don't reflect those rates: Although roughly half of all U.S. homicide victims are black, more than three-quarters of victims of death-row defendants executed since 1976 were white.
and you know that how? have you been in the meetings with his lawyers as they set things up? You don't know shit. You just repeat what your far left handlers feed you. You are a parrot, nothing more.
The better question is why don't you know that?
because neither you or I have been in the meetings with his law team as they work this out. Did you ask this about the Kennedy fortune and businesses?
The very fact that there are both running the business and working on the transition is the conflict!
This is basic.
He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
The better question is why don't you know that?
because neither you or I have been in the meetings with his law team as they work this out. Did you ask this about the Kennedy fortune and businesses?
The very fact that there are both running the business and working on the transition is the conflict!
This is basic.
He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
Your problem is that you assume that everyone is as corrupt as the Clintons. There will be no conflicts of interests with Trump companies, relax.
Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of Putinmore left wing bullshit. Trump has created more American jobs in the last month than obozo did in 8 years.
There is no reason why the USA cannot have a good mutually beneficial relationship with Russia.
Straight up retarded post.
So you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
because neither you or I have been in the meetings with his law team as they work this out. Did you ask this about the Kennedy fortune and businesses?
The very fact that there are both running the business and working on the transition is the conflict!
This is basic.
He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
Your problem is that you assume that everyone is as corrupt as the Clintons. There will be no conflicts of interests with Trump companies, relax.
There already are.
The very fact that there are both running the business and working on the transition is the conflict!
This is basic.
He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
Your problem is that you assume that everyone is as corrupt as the Clintons. There will be no conflicts of interests with Trump companies, relax.
There already are.
List them. Then prove that the Trump legal team is not working to eliminate them.
Washington didn't give up the farm....He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
Your problem is that you assume that everyone is as corrupt as the Clintons. There will be no conflicts of interests with Trump companies, relax.
There already are.
List them. Then prove that the Trump legal team is not working to eliminate them.
The very fact that Trump has refused to personally divest himself of his holding is all that's needed.
He has not been sworn in yet. Relax, it will all be taken care of by inauguration day. He has a very capable legal team working on it.
Sure, after his business and the new cabinet have worked out a nice deal.
Your problem is that you assume that everyone is as corrupt as the Clintons. There will be no conflicts of interests with Trump companies, relax.
There already are.
List them. Then prove that the Trump legal team is not working to eliminate them.
The very fact that Trump has refused to personally divest himself of his holding is all that's needed.
Bush doubled the debt and the right didn't care. Reagan tripled the debt and the right didn't care.Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of PutinStraight up retarded post.
So you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
You do know Obama is POTUS...right?Bush doubled the debt and the right didn't care. Reagan tripled the debt and the right didn't care.Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of PutinSo you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
Bush doubled the debt and the right didn't care. Reagan tripled the debt and the right didn't care.Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of PutinSo you think Russia has to be our perpetual enemy? That we have nothing in common? That we should never work with them? That the cold war should be restarted?
Have you been to Russia? Do you know any Russian people? I have and do. They are just like us, have the same wants and desires. Putin is a leader who wants what it best for his country. In a few weeks we will also have such a leader. There is no reason why they cannot find common ground. No one trusted or respected Obama, he made the world a much more dangerous place. Peace through strength works.
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
You do know Obama is POTUS...right?Bush doubled the debt and the right didn't care. Reagan tripled the debt and the right didn't care.Obama wanted what was best for the country....so has every other PresidentDisgusting that you hold Trump up as the equivalent of Putin
equivalent is your word not mine. Putin is a KGB thug. Trump is a successful American businessman. There is no equivalency there. The equivalency is in that they both want what is best for their country. If we automatically make Russia an enemy rather than trying to find common ground with them, everyone loses.
We do not have to agree with a leader in order to work with him. The idea that we have to force our beliefs and culture on the rest of the world is one of the reasons we are so screwed up right now, and the reason for many of our stupid wasteful wars.
You are just too partisan to recognize it
So, creating racial unrest and tension was good for the country? Doubling the debt was good for the country? Denigrating cops and military was good for the country? Obozocare was good for the country? Cancelling the national day of prayer and holding a muslim prayer day was good for the country? Lying about Benghazi was good for the country?
YOU, are the one who is too partisan to see the truth.
