And not only that but it takes way to long for the execution to actually occure.
If the accussed criminal has a right to a speedy trial,then why doesn't the family of the dead person have a right to a speedy execustion?
I agree. I think the procedure should be as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
I agree. I think the procedure should be as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
Meh, I don't know about that. We do have a system of appeals for a reason. There might have been suppressed evidence in the initial court case that could help exonerate the accused, so I'd be for ONE appeal. The appeals process we have today is nuts. So are tactics like firing attorneys the day before a new trial is to begin, etc.
I'd be OK with giving the condemned 90 days to build a new case to prove their innocence. If they lose that case, they're executed within the following week. Or if they choose not to appeal, they're executed within one week following their 90 day reprieve.
__________________
__________________
February is PALIN-FREE month. Whatever you do, don't mention Sarah Palin's name. Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin Sarah Palin.
Going back to the prevention issue, think back to the days where car-jacking was new and and quickly becoming all the rage. Lawmakers stepped in and set mandatory 30 year penalties and now how often do you hear of a car-jacking?
All the time. You are not in the right place for car jacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azvoiceman
Once the criminal element realizes that robbing certain establishments is more often than not going to end up in a gun battle by trained and armed employees I think they may start looking at other enterprises.
Nope, I would say you are wrong there. You are assuming crime is a choice, like they woke up, ate breakfast, and decided it was time to rob someone. Very rarely, if ever is that how crime works out. It will only be a further reason to shoot first, ask questions later.
I'm not saying they don't choose their lot, they do, but crime is typically a last resort, one where your life no longer means much to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by azvoiceman
As someone else stated earlier we are not using the death penalty often enough, I agree and would like to see more of us encouraging our lawmakers to push for legislation for that in a wide variety of crimes.
When the thugs realize we are no longer mucking around and mean business, we might just have a safer Country.
No, we have dead criminals.
Don't be naive in this, this is about removing filth from our culture, this is not a gentle dissuasion from a life of crime.
The death penalty is not an argument against crime, it is a punishment for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
Definitely, the death penalty is not used enough.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bamataco
And not only that but it takes way to long for the execution to actually occure.
If the accussed criminal has a right to a speedy trial,then why doesn't the family of the dead person have a right to a speedy execustion?
The family has no rights in the proceedings, it's the victim whose rights were violated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YelloJeep
I agree. I think the procedure should be as soon as they walk out of the courtroom.
The family has no rights in the proceedings, it's the victim whose rights were violated.
Yes it is actually the victims rights. But in death penalty cases the victim is no longer around. And I feel that the family of the victim should in fact be considered. They should have closure. The way things are now the family of the victim might in many cases pass away before the convicted criminal.
The family has no rights in the proceedings, it's the victim whose rights were violated.
Yes it is actually the victims rights. But in death penalty cases the victim is no longer around. And I feel that the family of the victim should in fact be considered. They should have closure. The way things are now the family of the victim might in many cases pass away before the convicted criminal.
That's why the State prosecutes. The family is considered, but as for having rights to end the life of another on a time table they feel appropriate, I'm going to say that should never be a right.
Closure? Closure is knowing the State did it's job in the prosecution of the offender.
If you are looking for blood debt to be settled, that's Vendetta, and that's not justice.
Well Funetical, we'll have to agree to disagree. For the last several years, Phoenix, AZ has led the nation in car theft, but not at gunpoint, merely the traditional means.
I searched for, but could not find, any articles or instances of a gun store being robbed at gun point, and that bears out that the knowledge of an armed staff has a positive effect on crime reduction.
I don't think I'm being naive, merely relying on previous history that reflects a lower percentage of criminal activity where stiffer penalties are invoked.
So, I guess we can both have our opinions, because in as much as you or I hope, we probably can't change our Legislators and Justices minds or current practices.
The first thing that should be done is to change the law so that those who are committing crimes have NO right or ability to sue ANYONE if the actions occur during the commission of a crime. That does not mean that if someone was to do something to the criminal that they would be exempt from criminal charges, just civil. If the person is defending themselves from a criminal attack, they should also be exempt from all criminal charges though, but it would need to be proven.
In the case of people being armed to defend against criminals, there are a limited number of criminal and for each criminal removed from the gene pool, it is less likely that that crimes will occur. It will never go away, but if the risks to the criminal are too high, they will do something which does not put their life at risk, perhaps breaking into places when people are not at home, but at least then the victims don't have their lives in the same risk as an armed robbery.
What most people don't get is that when a criminal steals from you they are actually taking part of your life. You have limited time in life and you have worked to get items. That time can not be replaced. Even if you buy insurance, you had to pay for the insurance and that takes money, which means your time and part of your life. If the criminals don't want to take the risk of getting killed, then they should look into a new line of work.
While some say that the taking of a life, a criminal's life, is not worth it, I say otherwise. You have a right to protect your life AND property, but unfortunately people are not allowed to do that in many locations in this country.
Well Funetical, we'll have to agree to disagree. For the last several years, Phoenix, AZ has led the nation in car theft, but not at gunpoint, merely the traditional means.
I searched for, but could not find, any articles or instances of a gun store being robbed at gun point, and that bears out that the knowledge of an armed staff has a positive effect on crime reduction.
I don't think I'm being naive, merely relying on previous history that reflect a lower percentage of criminal activity where stiffer penalties are invoked.
So, I guess we can both have our opinions, because as much as you or I hope, we probably can't change our Legislators and Justices minds or current practices.
Linear Mode
