# The Death Penalty: A Friendly Discussion About Government Power



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

I would like to have a friendly discussion about the death penalty, why some people oppose it and why some people are in favor. All I ask is that people remain civil and respect each other persons right to believe whatever they like on the subject.

I personally am opposed to the death penalty because I think that while their may or may not be an actual benefit to a free society (opinions on that are all over the place), the death penalty in the hands of a tyrannical government is a very, very bad thing. 

I ask myself, "Do I trust my government to do the right thing?"

My answer is "No, I do not trust my government. At all. I do not trust it to be fair, I do not trust it to be honest, and I do not trust it to be impartial. I do not trust it in any way, shape or form".

Since I would not trust my government to, say, consistently pick up my garbage or deliver my mail, or keep my roads in good repair or provide good medical care to our brave veterans who have earned it or (I could go on for days listing examples of government inadequacies) why on Earth would I trust the government to kill people.

I look at the facts, and the facts are that states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than the ones that don't, so the argument of "deterrent" is not in any way compelling... 

I also look at the large number of people exonerated for serious crimes where later DNA evidence positively cleared them... and honestly, that's an issue.

Additionally, with all of the safeguards the government has in place, it costs anywhere from three to ten times more to execute somebody than it does to confine them for life. Feel free to look this up on your own, I've done it several times and frankly am not interested in doing it again, I already know it to be true. If you doubt it, then please feel free to do your own research.

This all sums up, for me, why I would rather abolish the death penalty. Take guys like the Boston bomber, and put his ass in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. Stick him in a cage, all by himself, and let him rot, alone, for the next 40-50 years until he dies. THAT is punishment.

I probably would have a different view if it were an effective deterrent, if it were less expensive than lifetime confinement, and if I could actually trust the government... especially in cases where the person both admits that they did it, and the evidence all points to that person like in Boston. 

In a case like that guy, I really don't care if they kill him or not. He did it, he's a monster, there is zero chance this is a government put-up job, etc... the only thing that stops me from supporting it is "yes, but do I REALLY think it's a good idea that a socialist state like Massachusetts gets to kill people?" I just don't trust them, at all... so, no.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

On the flip side, why would I want to be forced to pay taxes to feed, clothe, house someone who's crimes against fellow citizens are so vile that it is not reasonable to release them back into society? Unfortunately not everyone is savable to become a productive upstanding citizen and the world is a better place without them. The death penalty will never be the deterrent one would hope, but it will deter some and If it needs to be a public circus to work, so be it.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

The case is being tried here, but, it is not a state case. The feds are the ones who tried and found that bastard guilty on all 30 counts.
Don't judge all of us here in this state by the actions of those libturds in the Boston area.
As an example to all future islimest terrorist, he should be allowed to be eaten alive by a group of pigs.
The same punnishment should be provided to all other islimic jihadist.
For those i support the death penalty 110%.
Furthermore, they ought to execute all those still held at Gitmo.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

The current state of the death penalty, where it is still used, is a joke. You can thank lawyers for that. With all the appeals and "deal cutting" that goes on the entire judicial system is a joke. I fully support the death penalty if we could get it back to the way it was meant to be. If those stats about it being a deterrent are correct it is only because of the joke it's become.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

While I consider a lot of points to be valid, Salt-N-Pepper, I have a few reasons why in general I oppose the death penalty. Coming from Illinois, the cost of appeals, etc. was more than ridiculous and of course we had a whole bunch of death-row inmates who were later exonerated by DNA. Can't say that I know much about other states. However, there are times when I think the death penalty is called for.
BTW if death penalties were outlawed and a government decided to crack down on its citizenry, I feel they would just re-introduce capitol punishment.


----------



## just mike (Jun 25, 2014)

Several years back I would have been all for the death penalty, eye for an eye and all that. Now I have reservations. There have been so many things come to light about prosecutors not releasing evidence that would have questioned guilt, CSI techs that falsify evidence and even the vaunted FBI is under fire for manufacturing evidence in criminal cases. Too much corruption in our Government has put the entire penal system nationwide in a bad light with all sorts of people being charged with crimes because they don't toe the government line both by the Federal and state police.


----------



## Therussianbear (Dec 22, 2012)

It's been a good item for many years,and I find nothing today that makes me want to change it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

There are reasons for the death penalty. First and foremost is deterrence. Clearly, that notion is out the window. The other reason is retribution. For the same reasons deterrence is out the window, so is retribution. For those who have to live with the actions of those who are worthy of death, the ordeal is dragged on and on with each passing year and each appeal. There would be better closure were the guilty convicted and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and sent to a prison that would insure all the niceties of life that were deprived of the victim be deprived of the convicted.

First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Denton for President!!!


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

I'd say bring back Issac Parker and George Maledon. Remember for most of his time on the bench there was no court from which the guilty could appeal


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Mish said:


> Denton for President!!!


bring back the girlie ninja


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

SARGE7402 said:


> bring back the girlie ninja


What are you going to do for me? 
(this avatar is perfect for me)


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Camel923 said:


> On the flip side, why would I want to be forced to pay taxes to feed, clothe, house someone who's crimes against fellow citizens are so vile that it is not reasonable to release them back into society? Unfortunately not everyone is savable to become a productive upstanding citizen and the world is a better place without them. The death penalty will never be the deterrent one would hope, but it will deter some and If it needs to be a public circus to work, so be it.


I usually agree at least in spirit with most positions Camel has, . . . this one is an exception.

If a person is convicted of a heinous crime, . . . put em in, . . . weld the door shut, . . . feed em, . . . and take reasonable care of them while they live.

BUT, . . . if evidence comes up that exhonerates that person, . . . you can then apologize, . . . let em out, . . . send em on their way, . . . for what ever little bit of life they have left to enjoy.

Digging em up after a needle in the arm, . . . doesn't work no matter how innocent they were.

I don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else, . . . but I can go for this one on the idea that we will never again fry an innocent, . . . records show constantly that we have and can still do that today, . . . multitudinous times over and over and over and over.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

In Illinois they said the average cost of death penalty appeals was $5+ million as a opposed to $50 grand a year for life imprisonment. Imprisonment was still cheaper.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> I usually agree at least in spirit with most positions Camel has, . . . this one is an exception.
> 
> If a person is convicted of a heinous crime, . . . put em in, . . . weld the door shut, . . . feed em, . . . and take reasonable care of them while they live.
> 
> ...


what about the marathon bomber where he said he did it


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't trust the courts, the lawyers, the judges or the uneducated jurors to make good decisions because they are based on assumptions that everything presented is true.
Fingerprints, for example, can be manipulated to "match" the ten to twenty points of many different people. DNA can be matched with a percentage ratio that could convict the wrong person. Forensic workups can be manipulated or faked to make a case where there is no case. I witness reports are never accurate accounts of what really happened. Videos can be manipulated to "highlight" something that would otherwise have little significance.

All of this is why the jurors must decide how much they trust the chain of evidence, the validity of the evidence and at the same time decide if the law itself is relevant or lawful. 

It is not that I don't believe in capital punishment, I do, but the courts are wrong too many times to make the price of one innocent worth the risk.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

dwight55 said:


> I usually agree at least in spirit with most positions Camel has, . . . this one is an exception.
> 
> If a person is convicted of a heinous crime, . . . put em in, . . . weld the door shut, . . . feed em, . . . and take reasonable care of them while they live.
> 
> ...


what it it was your five year old daughter that this 300 pound thug raped.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Denton said:


> First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.


Death penalty for all lawyers? Oh hell yes


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Why don't we have these people doing hard labor?!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

That would take away jobs for the government employees - and their unions don't like competition.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> I'd say bring back Issac Parker and George Maledon. Remember for most of his time on the bench there was no court from which the guilty could appeal


You really, honest to goodness trust your government THAT much? I mean, you REALLY trust the US Governement, the various state governments, the prosecuters who's carrers are advanced by each scalp they take, and the whole law enforcement system THAT much?

I don't.

Most cops are good. most prosecutors are relatively honest. most judges are fair, most juries are not biased, and most trials end fairly. Most of the people in prison and on death row are actually guilty.

The key word to all of this is "most". Most does not mean all. I, for one, don't think that getting "most" capital punishment cases right is good enough, and I for one don't trust the government's innate fairness.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> I'd say bring back Issac Parker and George Maledon. Remember for most of his time on the bench there was no court from which the guilty could appeal


The Paper


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Did someone mention kill all lawyers?:violent:


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> I'd say bring back Issac Parker and George Maledon. Remember for most of his time on the bench there was no court from which the guilty could appeal


Parker tried 344 capital cases, convicting 160. Only 79 actually swung, the rest died of natural causes, were pardoned or they appealed their cases.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

The death penalty's deterrent aspect has only come into question over the past century or so.
The pleas for less cruel executions have paved the way for Mr. Murderer to drift off to dreamland while his heart stops beating.
Screw that.
Did he afford such luxury in death to his victim? Why should he deserve better?

Bring back the public hanging, no shroud.
Let the people, good and bad alike, *SEE* what it means to commit the worst of offenses.
The bad would know the consequences of criminal action and the good would know the consequences of their call for justice.
No more blind decisions.

Watching a man die a painful death is a sobering experience for all in observance.
It is harsh, but I believe it is necessary.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> You really, honest to goodness trust your government THAT much? I mean, you REALLY trust the US Governement, the various state governments, the prosecuters who's carrers are advanced by each scalp they take, and the whole law enforcement system THAT much?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> ...


I guess you don't trust yourself to make the decision if you were on a jury.

The government is made up of your fellow citizens. not some bunch of iranians or mullahs


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

The problem with the death penalty is that it takes a lifetime to carry out.
That, of course, is because of the lawyers and all the money in appeals.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

I can't accept that this is a "do you trust *them* enough" argument.
We are all fallible humans.
Even if we had the absolute best of intentions, the least selfish, the most incorruptible people running things, they would still make a few mistakes.
I have accepted the fact that innocent men have been put to death. These loses, while tragic, do not stand to undermine the whole system. They are few, and far between.

If your argument is that you don't trust them, then where does that trust begin?
If you don't trust them to sentence a man to death, do you trust them to give him a fair trial?
If you don't trust them to give him a fair trial, do you trust them to hold him in prison until his court date?
If you don't trust them to hold him, do you trust them to arrest him?
If you don't trust them to arrest him, do you trust them to catch any criminals?

Your acceptance of trust starts somewhere. So it isn't a trust issue. It's a personal belief issue.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

SARGE7402 said:


> what about the marathon bomber where he said he did it


While there have been idiots who will confess to crime for their 15 minutes of fame, the bomber was decent enough to fess up. I think we should give him a break and only use two pound of bacon in the pan with him when we fry him.
If the guy is going to confess, we should at least honor his wish to die.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> I guess you don't trust yourself to make the decision if you were on a jury.
> 
> The government is made up of your fellow citizens. not some bunch of iranians or mullahs


Would you trust me, knowing what you know about me, to determine whether you should live or die?


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> I can't accept that this is a "do you trust *them* enough" argument.
> We are all fallible humans.
> Even if we had the absolute best of intentions, the least selfish, the most incorruptible people running things, they would still make a few mistakes.
> I have accepted the fact that innocent men have been put to death. These loses, while tragic, do not stand to undermine the whole system. They are few, and far between.
> ...


Do I trust the fairness of our justice system? No.
Do I trust that everybody gets a fair trial? No.
Do I trust them to hold a man in prison until his court date? That depends on if he's let out on bail. 
Do I trust them to arrest him? Again, that depends on if they arrest the right person.

Let me tell you a brief story. I live in North Missouri. I'm not too far from a town named Skidmore. Google it, then ask me how trustworthy I should be.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Would you trust me, knowing what you know about me, to determine whether you should live or die?


Wrong question. Do I trust our current legal system? Yes, with all of it's checks and balances, yes.

You personally? Probably not as far as I can throw you.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

So you have a full trust issue of the entire system because you don't trust humans.
Fair enough, but that extends far beyond the scope of whether the death penalty is valid or not.
Your trust issues would affect every single aspect of your life.
Using it as an argument against just one aspect isn't a very strong argument.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> Do I trust the fairness of our justice system? No.
> Do I trust that everybody gets a fair trial? No.
> Do I trust them to hold a man in prison until his court date? That depends on if he's let out on bail.
> Do I trust them to arrest him? Again, that depends on if they arrest the right person.
> ...


If you're talking about a murder that took place over 30 years ago, you're living in the past.

Might want to fast forward to 2015.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Scenario:

It’s Sunday, Your at home with your five year old playing in the front yard.

You look out the window and see Joe Schluckatelly draw a pistol and shoot your five year old thru the head dead.

You rush out side with your pistol and aim it at him. He looks at you, drops his gun, raises his hands and smiles.

What do you do?

I don’t care what your answer is. Just be truthful to yourself.

Ask again why victims relatives want the perps hung, shot, electrocuted or injected.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

S&P, trusting you is not up to the one on trial, that is up to the attorney's.
The one on trial has no say so


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> I guess you don't trust yourself to make the decision if you were on a jury.
> 
> The government is made up of your fellow citizens. not some bunch of iranians or mullahs


You had better take a close look at the US Gov. and o'slimer's appointees,
Take a closer look at the executive branch, it is crawling islimist who are tied to the muslime brotherhood. 
All are spawn from the crescent moon.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I believe that murderers should be hung. Publicly. 

The death penalty should be used when there is no question of guilt. Damning evidence or confession.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Where to begin? In the interest of brevity I will say that I have arrested a woman who tied her 6 year old daughter to a post, beat her for months, made her wallow in her own filth and finally burned her so that the screams were too loud for the neighbors to bear. I interviewed a pedophile who had lists with children's names and beside each name was what he planned to do to them. I have looked into the eyes of man who brutally mangled and murdered an 8 month old baby for crying too loudly and I hunted down and arrested a man for carving open a 5 year old girl and hanging her on a fence so the last thing she saw was her mother dying. 

Pure evil is among us. These monsters have been vomited forth onto the Earth for no other reason than to make innocent people suffer. The death penalty is, in my opinion just extermination. No different in my mind than killing a black widow in your baby's crib. They are unfit to draw breath on this planet.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Thanks CSI.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

DNA was not available years ago. It is now and has over turned some verdicts. Now that it is available going forward, that would help add some certainty. As pointed out juries must think. There will always potential dishonesty on all sides of a court case. I can not in good consciousness give a pass to everyone convicted of a heinous crime. Occasionally we need to rid ourselves of vermin. Call it revenge, a cold streak, what ever. It is just the way I view it. If you intentionally take a life you give up a life, yours. Look at the cop that shot the motorist in SC in the back. Look at the evil jihadi in Boston. Some one drunk behind the wheel. People are dead, what are the circumstances and what is fair. Punishment needs to fit the crime.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I have a problem with the "COST" of certain things...

Like the cost of an appeal - those attorneys (the government ones) are paid the same no matter what they are working on and doing this is part of their job

Like when they say the war in IRAQ cost XXXXX.. the military is getting paid if they are at war or peace (yes they get an extra $155 a month in a combat zone, the planes still fly etc... Yes we are using more ammo and fuel but some of that would be used for training anyway

OK - NOW to the death penalty - I am opposed to it UNLESS there is a video or some hard evidence of guilt... where the mother, father, son, daughter of the accused could say yep they are guilty... Where there is NO need for debate. 

The thought of killing an innocent person is horrible.. so much so that if an attorney or police officer falsifies evidence that causes it to happen they should be found guilty of murder and subject to the same penalty.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SARGE7402 said:


> Wrong question. Do I trust our current legal system? Yes, with all of it's checks and balances, yes.
> 
> You personally? Probably not as far as I can throw you.


You would SERIOUSLY want me on your jury if you were facing the death penalty, because I absolutely would not vote in favor of it. In the punishment phase of the trial, of course. In the guilt phase, I would be just like everybody else, but I am opposed to the death penalty.

I don't trust any random person on the internet, it would be foolish to. IMHO.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> So you have a full trust issue of the entire system because you don't trust humans.
> Fair enough, but that extends far beyond the scope of whether the death penalty is valid or not.
> Your trust issues would affect every single aspect of your life.
> Using it as an argument against just one aspect isn't a very strong argument.


In my area in the last 10 years or so we have had two sheriffs out of the 6 counties around here arrested and charged with felonies and convicted, we have had a deputy in a third department arrested and convicted for selling stuff out of the evidence locker on eBay, which broke the chain of evidence for EVERYTHING in that locker causing a BUNCH of cases (including at least one child molestation case) to be dismissed. One of the sheriffs was actually taking prisoners out of jail and taking them to the next county over and partying with them at a bar. I kid you not.

We had another murder case where an ex-cop shot and killed his neighbor over a dispute as to whether a county road was open. I dunno, perhaps it is just me, but I am feeling a lack of confidence in the system.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

In case you guys think I am just "greening" ya, check it out:

Schuyler County sheriff arrested, facing five felony charges : News : HeartlandConnection.com

Clark County sheriff resigns - The Daily Gate City, Keokuk, Iowa: Home

Heartland deputy canned; criminal investigation underway : News : HeartlandConnection.com

Basically, that's most of the law enforcement departments in this part of the state. Arrested. I dunno, not confidence inspiring.


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

A dead offender can't be a repeat offender ( Ted Nugent)


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Why is the Ft Hood still alive ?


----------



## Gunner's Mate (Aug 13, 2013)

Irrefutable evidence should get you a trip straight to hell


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

SARGE7402 said:


> what about the marathon bomber where he said he did it


Light'em if you got'em.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

Non discriminate mass murder of innocent children & women. Only thing I can think of that comes close to as horrific is Jeffrey Dahmer.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> The death penalty's deterrent aspect has only come into question over the past century or so.
> The pleas for less cruel executions have paved the way for Mr. Murderer to drift off to dreamland while his heart stops beating.
> Screw that.
> Did he afford such luxury in death to his victim? Why should he deserve better?
> ...


I agree. Make the death penelty something to fear rather then a simple injection and then off to sleep while beforehand spending 15 or 20 years going through the appeal process with three meals a day and all the reading material you want. Plus being seperated from population. Cruel and inhumane? Please. These guys are mostly animals and didn't provide the people they killed and slaughtered humane treatment. Convicted, two appeals within the first two years of conviction, ( one state appeal and one federal ) put to death by firing squade, hanging, or electrucution, within a month of the final appeal being upheld. Next low life up!


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

csi-tech said:


> Where to begin? In the interest of brevity I will say that I have arrested a woman who tied her 6 year old daughter to a post, beat her for months, made her wallow in her own filth and finally burned her so that the screams were too loud for the neighbors to bear. I interviewed a pedophile who had lists with children's names and beside each name was what he planned to do to them. I have looked into the eyes of man who brutally mangled and murdered an 8 month old baby for crying too loudly and I hunted down and arrested a man for carving open a 5 year old girl and hanging her on a fence so the last thing she saw was her mother dying.
> 
> Pure evil is among us. These monsters have been vomited forth onto the Earth for no other reason than to make innocent people suffer. The death penalty is, in my opinion just extermination. No different in my mind than killing a black widow in your baby's crib. They are unfit to draw breath on this planet.


I'll add that any death penalty conviction be carried out immediately upon sentencing. None of this waiting around 20 years crap.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> You would SERIOUSLY want me on your jury if you were facing the death penalty, because I absolutely would not vote in favor of it. In the punishment phase of the trial, of course. In the guilt phase, I would be just like everybody else, but I am opposed to the death penalty.
> 
> I don't trust any random person on the internet, it would be foolish to. IMHO.


Then you have absolutely no business being on a jury involving a capital offense. The death penalty is the law. As a juror it is not your place to interject emotion or legislate morality. The jury instructions are clear. If the case merits a death sentence under the definition of the law (ie: shocks the conscience or is particularly heinous or vile in nature) it is your duty to vote in favor of it. If there are clear and compelling reasons based solely on the _merits_ of the case at hand why a death sentence is not warranted, you don't.

I don't like Roe vs. Wade but it is the law and it has survived many legal challenges. If I were on a jury to convict an abortionist for murder, despite my opposition to it, I would not. It is the law.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> Then you have absolutely no business being on a jury involving a capital offense. The death penalty is the law. As a juror it is not your place to interject emotion or legislate morality. The jury instructions are clear. If the case merits a death sentence under the definition of the law (ie: shocks the conscience or is particularly heinous or vile in nature) it is your duty to vote in favor of it. If there are clear and compelling reasons based solely on the _merits_ of the case at hand why a death sentence is not warranted, you don't.
> 
> I don't like Roe vs. Wade but it is the law and it has survived many legal challenges. If I were on a jury to convict an abortionist for murder, despite my opposition to it, I would not. It is the law.


You are correct, I don't have any business being on such a jury. I also would be excluded within the first 5 questions during the jury selection process...


----------



## Piratesailor (Nov 9, 2012)

21cent solution. Save the tax dollars and get it over with.


----------



## Mish (Nov 5, 2013)

Slippy said:


> I'll add that any death penalty conviction be carried out immediately upon sentencing. None of this waiting around 20 years crap.


Ahhhhhhh!!! I don't trust my government enough for that kind of thing. That would make it way too easy to off people.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Slippy said:


> I'll add that any death penalty conviction be carried out immediately upon sentencing. None of this waiting around 20 years crap.


OK, let's say your son is arrested in Birmingham, AL. He is tried by a local prosecutor who is a Muslim (there are several) in front of a federal judge who also is a Muslim (there is one). Your son states that he is framed, but evidence (run through the FBI labs that have come recently under fire for breaking every rule in the chain of evidence book) says he's guilty. The jury, following the instructions of the judge, finds him guilty. He is dragged out of the courtroom, kneeled over and shot in the back of the head.

Is this fiction? The only "fiction" part of the story is the execution. There really are Muslim prosecutors and a Muslim federal judge (Obama appointee) in Birmingham, who really does give jury instructions. The FBI lab is still "recovering" from the scandal that showed they offered falsified evidence and testimony in over 10,000 cases. A decade after the scandal started, case are STILL being overturned because of false evidence.

Call me paranoid if you like, but 10,000+ is a LOT of felony convictions with falsified or bad evidence.

I personally have no problems with the religion of any prosecutors or judges, I don't think it matters myself... but a lot of folks around here do... so I was just pulling up an actual example of what could happen.

Would you still support having your son's head exploded by a bullet with no chance of appeal?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> OK, let's say your son is arrested in Birmingham, AL. He is tried by a local prosecutor who is a Muslim (there are several) in front of a federal judge who also is a Muslim (there is one). Your son states that he is framed, but evidence (run through the FBI labs that have come recently under fire for breaking every rule in the chain of evidence book) says he's guilty. The jury, following the instructions of the judge, finds him guilty. He is dragged out of the courtroom, kneeled over and shot in the back of the head.
> 
> Is this fiction? The only "fiction" part of the story is the execution. There really are Muslim prosecutors and a Muslim federal judge (Obama appointee) in Birmingham, who really does give jury instructions. The FBI lab is still "recovering" from the scandal that showed they offered falsified evidence and testimony in over 10,000 cases. A decade after the scandal started, case are STILL being overturned because of false evidence.
> 
> ...


This is riddled with bias... :nonchalance:


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

I just had a thought looking at the title of this thread. It says "A discussion on governments power" pertaining to the death penalty. The government does have the power to arrest and prosecute. But it doesn't have the power to put someone to death. That power is given to the people. You are triad by a jury of your peers and those same peers determine if you ultimately get the death penalty. So all this worry about the gov. having too much power in this instance is for not.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> This is riddled with bias... :nonchalance:


Of course it is, it's an example. Of bias.

I personally couldn't care less about the religion of anybody involved, even a little, I am just trying to illustrate that bias without any chance of appeal is a really, really bad idea.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> I just had a thought looking at the title of this thread. It says "A discussion on governments power" pertaining to the death penalty. The government does have the power to arrest and prosecute. But it doesn't have the power to put someone to death. That power is given to the people. You are triad by a jury of your peers and those same peers determine if you ultimately get the death penalty. So all this worry about the gov. having too much power in this instance is for not.


That, sir, is an excellent observation.

I will note that there have been efforts to minimize this in the recent past:

To wit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502012.html


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

Politically I think it should exist as an option for convicts to take Ex. A life out of false conviction and being forced to live as a felon for life.


Personally I would want it exercised if I was ever wrongly convicted. People shouldn't be forced to live in a world of injustice. It is more humane than dehumanizing someone and striping their rights.


You know people with kids may want to live for their kids or other love.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Salt-N-Pepper said:


> That, sir, is an excellent observation.
> 
> I will note that there have been efforts to minimize this in the recent past:
> 
> To wit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102502012.html


You can certainly argue making those changes aren't a good idea but to me this conversation is about what the gov. can do not what they may be able to do in the future. Plus from what I read there it still requires a jury to put someone to death, they're just trying to make the number of jurors smaller. To me 12 is a pretty arbitrary number. Could be 7 could be 21. The other stuff in that article was about expanding the Patriot Act but that is a whole other discussion.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

deleted


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Sasquatch said:


> The other stuff in that article was about expanding the Patriot Act but that is a whole other discussion.


Yes, it is, and one worth having in a different thread. Good observation, sir.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Mish said:


> Ahhhhhhh!!! I don't trust my government enough for that kind of thing. That would make it way too easy to off people.


 they already do-they just don't advertise it, of course you have to be jacking with their cash flow or something.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

salt-n-pepper said:


> you would seriously want me on your jury if you were facing the death penalty, because i absolutely would not vote in favor of it. In the punishment phase of the trial, of course. In the guilt phase, i would be just like everybody else, but i am opposed to the death penalty.
> 
> I don't trust any random person on the internet, it would be foolish to. Imho.


During jury selection you would be told that it was a death sentence case.
You are required to give an honest opinion on your ability to find as such, if needed.
If you would decline, you would be passed over.
Those are not exactly random jurors you would be facing, but ones agreed to by both side after questioning.
I never served on one, no defense lawyer would allow a LEO even retired on the jury.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

SOCOM42 said:


> During jury selection you would be told that it was a death sentence case.
> You are required to give an honest opinion on your ability to find as such, if needed.
> If you would decline, you would be passed over.
> Those are not exactly random jurors you would be facing, but ones agreed to by both side after questioning.
> I never served on one, no defense lawyer would allow a LEO even retired on the jury.


That's what I meant earlier that I would be out in the first 5 questions. That and other reasons.


----------

