Now we're talking- Wyoming to bring back the Firing Squad

[JoeB131]

153 innocent people?

Over how many decades?

One is too many.

And how many of those decades before either the Civil Rights movement or newer technologies such as DNA testing or without adequate legal resources put at the disposal of the accused?

Actually, all of those were AFTER the DP was re-instituted in the 1970's.

If you take extra time to ensure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, with respect to procedure, during the course of the trial, and if these are documented and certified properly, then you dramatically reduce (1) the number of wrongful convictions and (2) the length of the appeals process.

This isn't a matter of crossing T's and dotting I's. This is just a case where the system got it wrong.

Rolando Cruz was convicted TWICE for the murder of Jeanine Niccarico. TWICE. His case proceeded through the court system for nearly a decade before the DuPage Country Sheriff's Police FINALLY admitted he hadn't confessed. Even after DNA evidence proved Brian Dugan killed Jeanine, they STILL tried to make the case that Cruz and Dugan, who didn't know each other and never met, were co-conspirators.

 

[sealybobo]

Here... Here.....

Hats off the fine state of Wyoming.. Next, maybe Texas can knock the dust off 'Old Sparky'

-Geaux
==============

Wyoming Considers Firing Squad as Death-Row Backup
Problems With Supply of Injection Drugs Spur Lawmakers to Seek an Alternative

ENLARGE
By
DAN FROSCH
Updated Jan. 25, 2015 8:00 p.m. ET

Problems with the supply of lethal-injection drugs have spurred Wyoming lawmakers to consider a backup method of executing death-row inmates: the firing squad.

Wyoming Considers Firing Squad as Death-Row Backup - WSJ

Better than lethal injection

 

[Kondor3]

...One is too many...

Agreed.

We disagree with respect to whether that constitutes the basis for discontinuing the practice.

...Actually, all of those were AFTER the DP was re-instituted in the 1970's...

OK... over a span of 40-ish years, then. 153/40 = 4 (rounded up) per year. Out of how many executions total during that time frame? That would give us a percentage, anyway.

A percentage that could rightfully be called the 'Pre-Reformation Percentage'... prior to an overhaul and standardizing of the processes leading up to capital punishment.

...This isn't a matter of crossing T's and dotting I's. This is just a case where the system got it wrong...

Translation: Reforming and standardizing processes and ensuring everyone has adequate legal access and that convictions and sentencing are consistent across the board; a quality-control issue, really, in the context of everything of a legal nature that happens prior to conviction, sentencing and execution - fewer bad convictions, fewer appeals.

...Rolando Cruz was convicted TWICE for the murder of Jeanine Niccarico. TWICE. His case proceeded through the court system for nearly a decade before the DuPage Country Sheriff's Police FINALLY admitted he hadn't confessed. Even after DNA evidence proved Brian Dugan killed Jeanine, they STILL tried to make the case that Cruz and Dugan, who didn't know each other and never met, were co-conspirators.

Yep. There are bad cops. There are bad prosecutors. There are bad juries. There are bad judges. There are bad defense attorneys. There are bad appellate resources. But most of those alleged killers are far worse people, and, they have killed others. You make an excellent argument for vast and sweeping reforms in the trial of such matters.

 

[JFK_USA]

How about just being bored to death with libtard whining?

Yeah I mean how dare libtards cruelty of the death penalty. I mean what do they think we are as a country? A country that bans cruel and unusual punishment in their constitution? Crazy thoughts

The founding fathers of the US didn't ban the death penalty. Thus you can't say the 8th Amendment intended to ban it. Appealing to the Constitution as an argument against the death penalty, is a flawed argument. This moral appeal to the Constitution is also flawed because not all of us here are American don't don't base our morality on it.

The Founding Fathers thought black people were 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, should we not allow that as well? Times change. The ideals of the Constitution were put into place by the Founding Fathers because they understood that times change and we needed a governing document that would withstand the test of time and banning cruel and unusual punishment was one of them. The Founding Fathers didn't approve the death penalty either. And it's not a moral appeal, it's directly in the 8th amendment.

"Nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Pretty clear cut to me to kill someone as a government entity that has no human emotions because the entity itself is not human.

 

[JFK_USA]

Only as the post-conviction Apples Process is currently configured. Streamline the process, standardize and reduce the time-line and you dramatically reduce the costs.

This can be done as a part of the reforms hinted-at earlier, designed to ensure that all capital cases have adequate access to legal resources, etc.

Guy, the process we have now STILL Managed to nearly execute 153 innocent people. I can't imagine a "Streamlined" process getting it any better.

153 innocent people?

Over how many decades?

And how many of those decades before either the Civil Rights movement or newer technologies such as DNA testing or without adequate legal resources put at the disposal of the accused?

If you take extra time to ensure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, with respect to procedure, during the course of the trial, and if these are documented and certified properly, then you dramatically reduce (1) the number of wrongful convictions and (2) the length of the appeals process.

Win-win.

But that's the problem, the prosecution doesn't do that. And only 20% of convictions are overturned by DNA for Death Row inmates. And the death row inmates that were released this year, they waited a average of 30 YEARS to be freed. "Streamlining" the process will lead to more innocent people being killed by the state. That's not right.

 

[JFK_USA]

But most of those alleged killers are far worse people, and, they have killed others.

So because someone is accused of murder means they MUST be horrible people and they have killed others? You're a special kind of stupid aren't you?

 

[Kondor3]

Only as the post-conviction Apples Process is currently configured. Streamline the process, standardize and reduce the time-line and you dramatically reduce the costs.

This can be done as a part of the reforms hinted-at earlier, designed to ensure that all capital cases have adequate access to legal resources, etc.

Guy, the process we have now STILL Managed to nearly execute 153 innocent people. I can't imagine a "Streamlined" process getting it any better.

153 innocent people?

Over how many decades?

And how many of those decades before either the Civil Rights movement or newer technologies such as DNA testing or without adequate legal resources put at the disposal of the accused?

If you take extra time to ensure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed, with respect to procedure, during the course of the trial, and if these are documented and certified properly, then you dramatically reduce (1) the number of wrongful convictions and (2) the length of the appeals process.

Win-win.

But that's the problem, the prosecution doesn't do that. And only 20% of convictions are overturned by DNA for Death Row inmates. And the death row inmates that were released this year, they waited a average of 30 YEARS to be freed. "Streamlining" the process will lead to more innocent people being killed by the state. That's not right.

You streamline the process AND ensure far fewer innocent people are killed by the State, by upping the quality-control and legal-resources-for-defendants factors on the front-end, in every aspect of the time line between arrest and sentencing, including mandatory judicial review, outside the sentencing jurisdiction, prior-to and after sentencing.

 

[Kondor3]

But most of those alleged killers are far worse people, and, they have killed others.

So because someone is accused of murder means they MUST be horrible people and they have killed others? You're a special kind of stupid aren't you?

Don't strain yourself trying to be clever here. And, yes, goddamned right, most of those scum are far, far worse than an occasional bad judge or prosecutor. Or do you believe that murderers are superior to a bad egg with a law-license?

 

[Steinlight]

Actually. You are completely wrong. The case was moved by the la superior court, not the prosecution. So that idea that the prosecution petitioned to move the case because of Rodney King is something you entirely pulled out of your ass.

Actually, that was in Darden's book. But never mind, continue on your racist rant.

He got off because the case was moved to a primarily non white area where the jury pool was favorable. He didn't get of because he was rich. But because he was black.

Again, black people from that neighborhood convict other black people every day.

NOw, was this jury more inclined to give OJ a pass because he was a celebrity? Um. Yeah. But putting on cops who lied or making OJ Try to put on gloves that were obviously too small for him didn't help.

This is born out in the stats at the time that showed the racial divide on whether he was innocent or guilty. He would have been convicted by a white jury, despite his money, you admit this. Thus you concede the point it was about race not money.

The people who were polled didn't hear the evidence.

Honestly, you are a cartoon, when you run out of arguments, you call me a racist. You stupid fucking leftist clown. You are a joke and so typical.

GIL GARCETTI drew widespread derision over the loss by his office of the murder case against football Hall-of-Famer O.J. Simpson. However, what is generally regarded as a mammoth blunder by him and the prime cause of the defeat—trying the case in downtown Los Angeles rather than in Santa Monica—was not a decision he made.

The Los Angeles Superior Court, not Garcetti, decided where the case would be tried.

So say Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Robert M. Mallano, who was the Superior Court’s presiding judge in 1994 when the prosecution was launched, and retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Cecil J. Mills, who was then supervising judge of the criminal courts.

“Gil Garcetti took a lot of heat over something that was not his doing,” Mills says.

Trying the O.J. Simpson Case in Terrain Hostile to Prosecution It Wasn t Garcetti s Fault

That is a logical fallacy. Just because black juries convict black suspects, doesn't negate that that jury let him off because he was black, and that opinion on the case was divided by racial lines, and that jury racial composition effected the verdict. This isn't up for debate, this is just a fact. You are lying to everyone here and to yourself if you say otherwise.

What evidence is the public(the majority, including most Whites) who thinks OJ is guilty, not privy to? It has all been borne out and it is all known. So your claim that those who think OJ is guilty don't know the facts of the case, which were borne out in the 24/7 media coverage of the case and there after, is patently absurd and doesn't hold up.

 

[Steinlight]

How about just being bored to death with libtard whining?

Yeah I mean how dare libtards cruelty of the death penalty. I mean what do they think we are as a country? A country that bans cruel and unusual punishment in their constitution? Crazy thoughts

The founding fathers of the US didn't ban the death penalty. Thus you can't say the 8th Amendment intended to ban it. Appealing to the Constitution as an argument against the death penalty, is a flawed argument. This moral appeal to the Constitution is also flawed because not all of us here are American don't don't base our morality on it.

The Founding Fathers thought black people were 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, should we not allow that as well? Times change. The ideals of the Constitution were put into place by the Founding Fathers because they understood that times change and we needed a governing document that would withstand the test of time and banning cruel and unusual punishment was one of them. The Founding Fathers didn't approve the death penalty either. And it's not a moral appeal, it's directly in the 8th amendment.

"Nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted." Pretty clear cut to me to kill someone as a government entity that has no human emotions because the entity itself is not human.

I knew this would be your response before you even said it, I can read you idiots like a book.

The 3/5ths compromise was initiated by northern abolitionists at the Convention who wanted to prevent the pro slavery South from counting black slaves as full people to get more representatives in the house, thus more votes, and thus keep slavery in law in perpetuity. I am not even an American, I am European, and I know this, you uneducated dunce.

The issue here isn't whether to follow your Founders to a tee, I don't agree with much of what they did, beginning with breaking from Great Britain and breaking from Monarchy and tradition. The issue here is that you cited the US Constitution as showing the death penalty as cruel an unusual. There is no case law or tradition stemming from the intent of your Founders to show that is the interpretation of the 8th Amendment. And there is no equivalence between that and the 3/5ths Compromise. You are conflating interpretation of the Constitution with amending it. But your example of amending the 3/5ths clause proves my point, short of passing a Federal law banning the death penalty, or amending the Constitution with a new amendment, there is no legal basis for your claim the death penalty is unconstitutional.

 

[JoeB131]

OK... over a span of 40-ish years, then. 153/40 = 4 (rounded up) per year. Out of how many executions total during that time frame? That would give us a percentage, anyway.

A percentage that could rightfully be called the 'Pre-Reformation Percentage'... prior to an overhaul and standardizing of the processes leading up to capital punishment.

I already established that we've only carried out 1398 executions since 1976. So really, for every nine we finally get to a gurney, we have one who never should have been there to start with.

Would you buy a car which blows up one out of ten times? Would you go to a doctor who loses ten percent of his patients?

Translation: Reforming and standardizing processes and ensuring everyone has adequate legal access and that convictions and sentencing are consistent across the board; a quality-control issue, really, in the context of everything of a legal nature that happens prior to conviction, sentencing and execution - fewer bad convictions, fewer appeals.

Okay, but until we get there, we shouldn't execute ANYONE. It will be a long wait.

Yep. There are bad cops. There are bad prosecutors. There are bad juries. There are bad judges. There are bad defense attorneys. There are bad appellate resources. But most of those alleged killers are far worse people, and, they have killed others. You make an excellent argument for vast and sweeping reforms in the trial of such matters.

The key thing here is "alledged". 153 of them didn't do what they were accused of. You see, I don't think you CAN fix all the problems with 100% of certainty. Not as long as you have human beings in the mix. So given that, you should never, ever have a penalty that cannot be undone once carried out.

On top of that, it has no deterrent value and is ridiculously expensive.

 

[Politico]

I always thought hanging was the best method to execute criminals. A firing squad has a certain sense of honor to it, and could extend said honor onto a criminal that does not deserve it.

So I'm still not seeing how we show that killing is wrong by killing people... but that's okay.

Killing people who kill other people is not wrong.

 

[Geaux4it]

I always thought hanging was the best method to execute criminals. A firing squad has a certain sense of honor to it, and could extend said honor onto a criminal that does not deserve it.

So I'm still not seeing how we show that killing is wrong by killing people... but that's okay.

Killing people who kill other people is not wrong.

Indeed- An eye for and eye, tooth for tooth.

Strict and draconian punishment must be implemented to create change in crime. You don't see much crime where countries apply appropriate penalties for theft, robbery, etc. See a few thugs walking around with no hands and feet sends a powerful message to those would be criminals on society.

Come after my guns once you start lopping off hands and feet, then we can talk

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

That is a logical fallacy. Just because black juries convict black suspects, doesn't negate that that jury let him off because he was black, and that opinion on the case was divided by racial lines, and that jury racial composition effected the verdict. This isn't up for debate, this is just a fact. You are lying to everyone here and to yourself if you say otherwise.

What evidence is the public(the majority, including most Whites) who thinks OJ is guilty, not privy to? It has all been borne out and it is all known. So your claim that those who think OJ is guilty don't know the facts of the case, which were borne out in the 24/7 media coverage of the case and there after, is patently absurd and doesn't hold up.

First, Garcetti didn't really fight the venue issue. Darden and Clark both complained he gave in too easily.

Second, I agree there is a racial divide. We don't live in a world where the police routinely pull you over for "Driving While Black" or have less respect for your constitutional rights.

So all these lawyers had to do was show that maybe these cops had it out for OJ, that maybe they were less than honest. Maybe they were "Testi-lying".

ANd it was more than enough to hang your hat on.

You see, the standard in our courts is not "I think he did it". The standard is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

So when you find out Furhman said the N-word a bunch of times when he lied on the stand about doing it, when you find out that the gloves they insisted up and down didn't fit on O.J.'s hands. When Dr. Fung insisted that he collected all the evidence and there was videotape of his interns collecting it.

A trial is often a contest of "Who has the better lawyer". The jurors didn't like Clark, who they saw as a scheming woman trying to bring a black man down, and they didn't like Darden, who they saw as an Uncle Tom. Yet Garcetti picked these two idiots to be politically correct.

Which, bringing us back to the point, is that usualy, it works the other way. You have really good prosecutors taking on overworked, underpaid and inexperienced public defenders, and then we wonder why we have so many cases of people being sent to Death Row for crimes someone else did.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed- An eye for and eye, tooth for tooth.

Strict and draconian punishment must be implemented to create change in crime. You don't see much crime where countries apply appropriate penalties for theft, robbery, etc. See a few thugs walking around with no hands and feet sends a powerful message to those would be criminals on society.

Come after my guns once you start lopping off hands and feet, then we can talk

Guy, why is it when you usually talk about those kinds of countries, you whine about their barbarism, but when it comes to this issue, man, you just pine to live there.

Here's the thing. Western Europe- No death penalty, limited or no private gun ownership, and they only lock up tens of thousands instead of milions like we do.

And they have much lower murder rates than we do.

 

[Meathead]

Perhaps there should be a range of executions. Lethal injections all the way to being drawn and quartered for the very worst.

 

[Geaux4it]

Indeed- An eye for and eye, tooth for tooth.

Strict and draconian punishment must be implemented to create change in crime. You don't see much crime where countries apply appropriate penalties for theft, robbery, etc. See a few thugs walking around with no hands and feet sends a powerful message to those would be criminals on society.

Come after my guns once you start lopping off hands and feet, then we can talk

Guy, why is it when you usually talk about those kinds of countries, you whine about their barbarism, but when it comes to this issue, man, you just pine to live there.

Here's the thing. Western Europe- No death penalty, limited or no private gun ownership, and they only lock up tens of thousands instead of milions like we do.

And they have much lower murder rates than we do.

And here in the US we can cut off hands and feet and then law abiding gun owners carry on. No need to ban the gun when you apply logical deterrents

I betcha it would work.

If we don't want to stop crime, then fine. Hard to steal with no hands.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Indeed- An eye for and eye, tooth for tooth.

Strict and draconian punishment must be implemented to create change in crime. You don't see much crime where countries apply appropriate penalties for theft, robbery, etc. See a few thugs walking around with no hands and feet sends a powerful message to those would be criminals on society.

Come after my guns once you start lopping off hands and feet, then we can talk

Guy, why is it when you usually talk about those kinds of countries, you whine about their barbarism, but when it comes to this issue, man, you just pine to live there.

Here's the thing. Western Europe- No death penalty, limited or no private gun ownership, and they only lock up tens of thousands instead of milions like we do.

And they have much lower murder rates than we do.

And they don't have a failed diversity experiment like the US does. They only allow muslims to chop heads off.

You know, if my ancestors knew it was going to turn out this bad in America, they would of picked the cotton themselves

Just saying

-Geaux

 

[JoeB131]

And here in the US we can cut off hands and feet and then law abiding gun owners carry on. No need to ban the gun when you apply logical deterrents

I betcha it would work.

If we don't want to stop crime, then fine. Hard to steal with no hands.

My days of thinking you are a psychopath are definitely coming to a middle.

 

[Geaux4it]

And here in the US we can cut off hands and feet and then law abiding gun owners carry on. No need to ban the gun when you apply logical deterrents

I betcha it would work.

If we don't want to stop crime, then fine. Hard to steal with no hands.

My days of thinking you are a psychopath are definitely coming to a middle.

???