Woodier will love it!

...because the key to gaining knowledge is understanding.

They shoot horses, don't they?..

One filthy word: Lawyers.

A good many lawyers have made very profitible careers keeping scum on death row and out of the death chamber.

There are also a good many probably well-meaning people out there who want to force their particular "value system" onto the rest of us through protest and law suits aimed at protecting vicious murderers at the expense of their victims.

Tom

I don't buy the notion that capital punishment has no deterent value--it's bound to deter some people who assess that they will get executed if they murder someone, so they walk away. It is not a reliable deterrent, and it costs an inordinate amount to administer. It also carries the problem that one cannot release a wrongly-convicted person from the death penalty.

It clearly does not deter terrorists, however. In general, I disfavor capital punishment because the defendant/convict is already neutralized (unless the prison guards are incompetent or crooked), and I see no reason for a civil society to lower itself to that level for the sake of revenge, or for the sake of deterrence, since it clearly also fails to deter a lot of murderers, and carries the other defects I noted. I do consider death appropriate in the case of terrorists because they are waging war against our society, commit atrocities in the process, and while in prison can act as a rallying point to fellow travelers who choose to secure hostages to gain the convicted terrorits' release. A dead terrorist is a far less compelling subject for hostage exchange.

In the meantime, I have no sympathy for anyone shooting at the cops. (What's the lastest?--some car thief shot at the SF cops, then there was a car chase, and they shot him dead when he stopped, even though his mother (not there) seems to think he was surrendering to the cops when they plugged him. Law suit, $100M. They do not want me on that jury.)

Mark Schynert

Procedure includes the constitutions of the United States and the several states, as well as attendant statutes. Review of constitutionality is also often mandatory under state laws for death sentences. Revoking these laws would solve that problem, of course. Nor is it helped by DAs and cops who do not cross every 't' and dot every 'i' in murder cases. We've got that guy Scott Peterson out here who may be guilty as sin, but the local cops did such a poor job of keeping a lid on the case that they got themselves venue-changed and have created major reasonable-doubt problems. It's not about whether he did it or not--the jury will have to decide that. It's how much tougher the case becomes and how much longer and more expensive the process is.

Mark Schynert

I'd have to deliver an entire course on constitutional law and criminal procedure to fully explain it, and frankly, I'm not up to it. The upshot is that as this country has evolved, so have all the laws that govern it--some of it by constitutional amendment, some by judicial interpretation, some by statute law. For example, at one time, if you shot someone to death in a duel in California, the sentence was less than that for 2nd degree murder. There is no separate crime of homicide-by-dueling here now; it would probably be death-penalty fodder.

So why have judicial interpretation? Whatever happened to strict construction? Ain't no such thing. Almost every judge that gets to the appellate level gets there because they are good at interpreting the 'holes' in the law that the legislature didn't (and couldn't) spell out. They may seem to be strict constructionists on one thing, but they're always flaming revisionists on something else. It all depends on their prespective and the legal arguments that make sense to them.

Mark Schynert

Eh, once they're dead, I couldn't care less how the scraps are treated. Good luck though, getting more than 20% of the membership of Congress to be so cavalier. regardless of party, they'd be too scared about osing the next election.

Mark Schynert

Okay, I'll throw it back to you. Why should we pay for a lifetime of care for any habitual criminal, even if he hasn't killed anyone? Plenty of people have been sentenced to what amounts to life in prison under Three Strikes provisions, without committing homicide.

Mark Schynert

It did not. You imputed that meaning all on your own.

When has Mr. Wolfowitz ever advocated wanton murder?

Put them to useful work. Stop listening to the bleeding heart social reformers and put prisoners to work. Make them have to contribute to the society they have wronged and make them work for privileges. Feed, clothe and house them (the basic human needs), then let them work their way up to a 'reasonable' standard of living - it may give them a sense of achievment and purpose. We just need some politicians with balls. If that isn't an oxymoron.

RobG

Then an injustice was done, obviously.

They're not comitting 'murder', which is the unjustified taking of human life.

a human being.

That's not the legal definition of 'murder'.

And tough luck on the injustly killed? Poor bastard. He'll be happy to know that it was found to be unjust.

Who or what justifies the taking of life, even of an accused crim? What the accused may (or may not) have done in no way justifies *the State* in perpetuating the killing. Combat or self-defence is a different matter, just in case it gets brought up.

killing of a human being.

Maybe not the 'legal' definition, but it is the 'moral' definition. At least to us here in the 'civilised' West.

Al, I guess we'll never get to agree on this, so let's not get too hot under the collars about it. I'm just glad that I live in a country that has no capital punishment laws anymore. But if it did, it wouldn't prevent me from killing someone if I really wanted them dead. I'd just be a lot more careful about it.

RobG

Which,the last time I checked was 'homicide, absent justification, excuse or mitigation.' Under the law, an incorrect decision made with due care that results in the death of a person is excused and therefore not murder, though it might be actionable as wrongful death in a civil court. Only a conspiracy to wrongfully convict and execute would qualify as judicial murder.

Mark Schynert

Oh, so now the US isn't 'civilised'. I see.

I'm not hot under the collar. I only get that way when I'm subjected to an ad hominem attack and you don't engage in that kind of crap.

It's not so simple here in the US. Most capital punishment is carried out by the individual states and the US Supreme Court has upheld their right to do so meaning that a federal law banning executions is highly unlikely. AFAIK US states have far more autonomy than do their Australian counterparts.

I have come to think of it as the "removal of a proven threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I expect to be able to step out my front door and conduct my business and personal affairs free from harm from criminals of either domestic or foreign origin. Those expectations grow out of an agreement made between me as a US citizen and the US government at all levels, L/S/F. When crime does come my way, I agree to make a forthright attempt to refrain from shooting on sight any known pickpockets, carjackers, ass grabbers, muggers, serial killers and terrorists that approach me in any way. In return I expect the government to take the responsibility to establish and enforce a system of laws and punishment in which they mete out equitable justice (in place of my draconian outlook on violent crime prevention), when these known asswipes attempt to dip into mine or anyone else's till.... again... and again... and again...

Usama Bin Laden = death penalty Bitch that killed her 3 kids and stuffed them under the bed last week = death penalty Bitch that smashed her kids heads in with rocks = death penalty Bitch that drowned all her kids and then laid them out on the bed = death penalty Bitch that drove her car off into the lake drowning her two boys = death penalty Bitch that murdered a a pregnant woman, cut out her baby and claimed to be the mother = death penalty Sniper scum in DC/Maryland area, copycat a-hole in Ohio = death penalty

Man that blew away the pedophile murderer of his son as he was taken by police threw the airport terminal = clemency.... pardon... whatever it takes to send that man home ASAP. If the system is so quick to protect criminals behind a shield of "not guilty by reason of insanity", the victims should have "innocent by reasons of sufficient justification" as a get out of jail free card.

Now the US can either stick with the way it is done today or it can go back to the way it used to get taken care of. The old ways means a lot of lawyers will be selling you vacuum cleaners and you siding on the phone during supper time.

WmB

To reply, get the HECK out of there snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net