Nebraska abolishes death penalty

[Syriusly]

Typical Con, ignore the facts .. stay ignorant.

The FACT is simple. IF you kill the criminal he/she CANNOT re-commit. Dead people are quite passive.

The fact is- if you kill a person who was innocent of the crime, there is nothing you can do to unkill him.

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

 

[martybegan]

The FACT is simple. IF you kill the criminal he/she CANNOT re-commit. Dead people are quite passive.

The fact is- if you kill a person who was innocent of the crime, there is nothing you can do to unkill him.

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

 

[chikenwing]

The fact is- if you kill a person who was innocent of the crime, there is nothing you can do to unkill him.

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

So what if your guy hammering apart a bolder was innocent,as many have been on death row? It always rolls around to the other side of the coin.
With that there certainly are people that need to be locked away for ever.

 

[martybegan]

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

So what if your guy hammering apart a bolder was innocent,as many have been on death row? It always rolls around to the other side of the coin.
With that there certainly are people that need to be locked away for ever.

if you ask for perfection of a justice system, you are asking for no justice system.

 

[rightwinger]

The fact is- if you kill a person who was innocent of the crime, there is nothing you can do to unkill him.

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

How about we just force them to read USMB for 12 hours a day?

Isn't that worse than breaking bolders with a ball peen hammer?

 

[martybegan]

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

How about we just force them to read USMB for 12 hours a day?

Isn't that worse than breaking bolders with a ball peen hammer?

No, because most of them are psychopaths, they would probably enjoy it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The fact is- if you kill a person who was innocent of the crime, there is nothing you can do to unkill him.

and if he dies after 40 years in jail, that's better how?

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Even prison is better than death. Contrary to the brainless speculations that it's more cruel to lock someone up for life and they would prefer death, nearly all death row inmates would choose to live if they could. Life is precious, even a life in prison.

Still, the Innocence Project looks at all cases with merit, whether they are DP cases or not.

The fact that to some people, prison is better than death is exactly WHY we need the death penalty. To someone capable of not just murder, but a murder we see as deserving of a death sentence, is prison really all that much of a punishment?

And while they look at many cases, I bet they spend much more time on DP cases. Again, what of all those people who died innocent in prison after 40 years?

Your reasoning is impeccable. This issue is so hard because it's not a battle between good and evil, rather a disagreement between justice and mercy. Anyone who is truly guilty of murder has not been wronged in any way when his own life is forfeit. That's justice and easily perceivable. More imperceptible is that mercy is the better choice when we have that choice. In the modern day, we have the ability to lock someone up for life while feeding them and attending to their medical needs. That wasn't always the case, as in the past when food was less plentiful and prisoners could more easily escape....the best way to protect society was to kill them. Being that we now have different options, mercy ought to be our choice; giving a man a full lifetime to contemplate his crime and come to repentance before a just God. That's how I see it, though I respect your viewpoint as well.

 

[Syriusly]

Its not better. But if he is found to be innocent after 20 years in jail- he can be released- he couldn't be unkilled.

One example:

In the town of Ada, Oklahoma, Ron Williamson was going to be the next Mickey Mantle. But on his way to the Big Leagues, Ron stumbled, his dreams broken by drinking, drugs, and women. Then, on a winter night in 1982, not far from Ron’s home, a young cocktail waitress named Debra Sue Carter was savagely murdered. The investigation led nowhere. Until, on the flimsiest evidence, it led to Ron Williamson. The washed-up small-town hero was charged, tried, and sentenced to death—in a trial littered with lying witnesses and tainted evidence that would shatter a man’s already broken life, and let a true killer go free.

Impeccably researched, grippingly told, filled with eleventh-hour drama, John Grisham’s first work of nonfiction reads like a page-turning legal thriller. It is a book that will terrify anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence—a book no American can afford to miss.

In 1988, Williamson and Fritz were convicted of first-degree murder. Fritz received a life sentence. Williamson was sent to death row. It's where he would stay for 11 years until DNA evidence exonerated him — just five days before he was to be executed.

OK, but the question is if he just was sentenced to life would anyone care to review his case in such detail, or would he still be rotting in a cell?

Probably still in prison- but he would not have been executed- so he would have had a chance to have his sentenced reversed- you can't 'un-execute' someone. He was 8 days away from being executed when his sentence was put on hold.

Your question is a wierd one- because yes- ultimately he did get his sentence reversed because he was sentenced to death- and because a) there are automatic appeals to death penalty cases and b) a non-profit took interest in his case and fought on his behalf.

But those very safeguards are the safeguards that most supporters of the death penalty also oppose.

I am perfectly fine with it taking 20 years to execute someone if the appeals process requires it. What I do not support are appeals to format designed to question the death penalty itself, as opposed to appeals on merit.

I would agree to abolish the death penalty if the following punishment could be given to the worst cases. The convicted murderer would have to break up a boulder using a ball peen hammer. Once broken up, they would have to glue it back together. when they finish, they get another boulder. They don't work, they don't get fed.

There has to be a punishment beyond "3 hots and a cot" for the worst crimes.

So what if your guy hammering apart a bolder was innocent,as many have been on death row? It always rolls around to the other side of the coin.
With that there certainly are people that need to be locked away for ever.

if you ask for perfection of a justice system, you are asking for no justice system.

But we know that the justice system is not perfect.

Executing people ensures that the innocent will be executed- there is no recourse, no- un-execute.
Life in prison is justice- you are saying that without executions there is no justice system.

Life in prison provides the maximum combination of ensuring justice, while having the potential for reversing injustice.

 

[Porker]

Speaking of the death penalty...

What do they eat for their final meal? 15 ex-death row inmates last meals. (P.S. you have to click TWICE on next to bring up the description below the photo...dumb but necessary)

15 Real Death Row Requests That Will Send A Chill Down Your Spine - brainjet.com

 

[ChrisL]

Since I'm anti DP, this is good news to me. The death penalty is a waste of taxpayer money, innocent people most certainly have been executed in the past, and it is usually not a deterrent. The only thing it is really for is vengeance. Not that there is anything wrong with that as punishment for heinous crimes, but IMO the states should not be allowed to kill citizens under any circumstances. Police and prosecutors have been known to railroad the poor as well as the mentally deficient. There is also the issue of evidence tampering which has happened a few times in the past several years here in MA. Even with court-appointed lawyers, etc., the cards are always going to be stacked against the poor.

I am all for LWOP though. I'm also in favor of work programs or even maybe chain gang type situations (although that is probably not very viable nowadays).

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Speaking of the death penalty...

What do they eat for their final meal? 15 ex-death row inmates last meals. (P.S. you have to click TWICE on next to bring up the description below the photo...dumb but necessary)

15 Real Death Row Requests That Will Send A Chill Down Your Spine - brainjet.com

Too bad McVeigh just asked for ice cream. I was hoping he would go out after a huge rack of lamb or something. PETA wrote a letter to him on death row and asked him to go completely vegetarian to bring attention to their cause. McVeigh wrote a polite letter in return explaining his views and declining their request. So PETA, in true Leftist fashion, asked the warden to force McVeigh to eat a vegetarian meal for his last meal. They were told to fuck off in so many words.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you know that we are among one of the only 1st world countries that still uses the death penalty? That's right. We are amongst the ranks of Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea. Gosh, we should feel so proud . . .

Death Penalty Permitted

• Afghanistan
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bahamas
• Bahrain
• Bangladesh
• Barbados
• Belarus
• Belize
• Botswana
• Chad
• China (People's Republic)
• Comoros
• Congo (Democratic Republic)
• Cuba
• Dominica
• Egypt
• Equatorial Guinea
• Ethiopia
• Gambia
• Guatemala
• Guinea
• Guyana
• India
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Iraq
• Jamaica
• Japan
• Jordan
• Kuwait
• Lebanon

• Lesotho
• Libya
• Malaysia
• Nigeria
• North Korea
• Oman
• Pakistan
• Palestinian Authority
• Qatar
• St. Kitts and Nevis
• St. Lucia
• St. Vincent and the Grenadines
• Saudi Arabia
• Singapore
• Somalia
• South Sudan
• Sudan
• Syria
• Taiwan
• Thailand
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Uganda
• United Arab Emirates
• United States
• Vietnam
• Yemen
• Zimbabwe

Read more: The Death Penalty Worldwide The Death Penalty Worldwide

 

[zaangalewa]

Speaking of the death penalty...

What do they eat for their final meal? 15 ex-death row inmates last meals. (P.S. you have to click TWICE on next to bring up the description below the photo...dumb but necessary)

15 Real Death Row Requests That Will Send A Chill Down Your Spine - brainjet.com

In Nuremberg around 1700 A.D. a "malefitz-person" got three days before his execution the following meals:
1. noon meal: Soup with wine, 2 pound fish, 6 sausages, 6 rolls, 1/2 mug of wine.
1. evening meal: eggs with barley, a fried goose, 4 pounds marinated lamb, 6 rolls, 1 1/2 mug of wine.
2. noon meal: Cooked semolina, 4 pounds marinated veal, 10 pound breast of veal, salad with eggs, 6 rolls, 1 1/2 mug of wine
2. evening meal: 4 pound marinated saddle of veal, salad with eggs, 6 Pound roast pork, 6 rolls, 1 1/2 mug of wine
3. noon meal: eggs with barley, 3 fried pigeons or 2 chicken, 6 rolls, 1 1/2 mug of wine
3. evening meal: eggs with barley, 3 marinated chicken, a fried leg of veal, 6 rolls, 1 1/2 mug of wine

I ask myselve how someone was able to survive this. But we are progressing. Texas is today much more interested in the health of their victims of death penalty. They are dying hungry. By the way: is it true that Texanians are allowed now to carry in public a shrunken head in their holsters?

 

[Noomi]

Overriding the governor's veto, the Nebraska legislature voted 30 - 18 to abolish the death penalty. One of the most solidly red states in the country.

The law is retroactive, so all inmates on death row have automatically been re-sentenced to life without parole.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/nebraska-abolishes-death-penalty.html

Good for them. The death penalty is never the answer.

 

[pwjohn]

Oh boy, I know the state of Nebraska will be happy to support these scumbag murders for the rest of their natural lives with food, a nice cell and plenty of love and special care...including paying for all their medical needs even if it's transsexual surgery. Good decision you dumb bastards.

Executions are staggeringly more expensive than life without parole is.

BULLSHIT!! That's NOTHING more than another global warming claim .

Nope your wrong ,its more costly to kill,this has been proven time and time again.

You're clinging to false economics like a bible thumper clinging to their bible.

Lawyers are never gonna leave that kind of money sitting on the table.