Arkansas hurries to execute convicts before drugs expire

[overthere]

47 minutes ago, Omni said:

She plea  bargained her sentence down. It happens, in this case to get to Paul Bernardo.  

And she lied substantially about her role to get that deal.  Soon after, the Crown knew for certain that she had lied, because they found incontrovertible video/audio evidence of her role.  She knew of this evidence since she had been the camera operator and hid the tapes in her home.  I find it utterly disgusting that the prosecutors did not immediately void the deal, since telling all the truth is always a bedrock of the deal itself.  She richly deserves the same sentence as Bernardo. which at very minimum is life without parole.

[Omni]

1 minute ago, overthere said:

And she lied substantially about her role to get that deal.  Soon after, the Crown knew for certain that she had lied, because they found incontrovertible video/audio evidence of her role.  She knew of this evidence since she had been the camera operator and hid the tapes in her home.  I find it utterly disgusting that the prosecutors did not immediately void the deal, since telling all the truth is always a bedrock of the deal itself.  She richly deserves the same sentence as Bernardo. which at very minimum is life without parole.

The Crown made a bad deal and realized it after the tapes were found, but concluded they had to stick to it otherwise who would trust their deal the next time they see a need to make one.

[Michael Hardner]

Not to drift into the Bernardo trial, the issue was whether 25 years was punishment.  It's a given that some can do less time under the plea bargain system.

 

(Also to note again that the mods are hiding many fewer posts than before, and asking all of you to watch for thread drift on your own, thanks.)

[Hal 9000]

11 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Not to drift into the Bernardo trial, the issue was whether 25 years was punishment.  It's a given that some can do less time under the plea bargain system.

 

(Also to note again that the mods are hiding many fewer posts than before, and asking all of you to watch for thread drift on your own, thanks.)

So, would 10 years for strangling 3 people including your own sister be enough punishment?  Actually, that was a rhetorical question, anything less than the death penalty for Karla Homalka is a travesty.  Same goes these POS's that are being executed in the USA.  There is nothing wrong with making the decision (based on 100% certainty) that a person has overstayed their time on earth.

[Omni]

28 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

based on 100% certainty) that a person has overstayed their time on earth.

And who do you think has the authority to make that decision? Especially with all the errors lawyers/judges/juries have made.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

1) So, would 10 years for strangling 3 people including your own sister be enough punishment?  

2) Actually, that was a rhetorical question, anything less than the death penalty for Karla Homalka is a travesty.  

1) Obviously not, but that's why we don't ask the families of victims to mete out punishment.

2) I'm against the death penalty but the system will always have elements that you and I don't agree with, and yes it will fail sometimes.  That's a necessary part of any system - ie. failure.

 

[Hal 9000]

6 hours ago, Omni said:

And who do you think has the authority to make that decision? Especially with all the errors lawyers/judges/juries have made.

A jury of their peers - of course!

[Omni]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

A jury of their peers - of course!

not in Canada. Lets keep it that way.

[taxme]

On 4/30/2017 at 4:11 PM, Michael Hardner said:

And you are presented with facts, which you promptly forget or ignore.  Then you post this.

Your so-called facts conflict with my so-called facts. I said that I do I believe that it has to be a lot cheaper to execute someone than keep them in jail for 20-40 years. Keeping someone in jail for say 30 years will cost the taxpayer's millions. It cannot cost that much to execute someone. But believe what you read, and so will I. 

[taxme]

On 4/30/2017 at 4:10 PM, Michael Hardner said:

You already were presented with the evidence above which you seemed to acknowledge, at least in terms of recognizing "the high cost" ( Your words. )

Do you forget these things ?  I have noticed you do this in the past, and it makes it difficult to get a discussion going much less invest trust in it.

 

On 5/2/2017 at 4:58 PM, Hal 9000 said:

Why would we want to rehabilitate a murderer and put them back into the public?  They're murderers!  What ever happened to punishment for your crimes?  Am I still allowed to say punishment or does that make me a fascist hate monger?

It makes you a non-liberal. Liberals are the fascists intolerant bigots. It would appear as though liberals love murderers. 

[Omni]

20 minutes ago, taxme said:

Your so-called facts conflict with my so-called facts. I said that I do I believe that it has to be a lot cheaper to execute someone than keep them in jail for 20-40 years. Keeping someone in jail for say 30 years will cost the taxpayer's millions. It cannot cost that much to execute someone. But believe what you read, and so will I. 

A little actual research will show you that, for instance. the cost of a death penalty trial will be about double of a non death penalty case. After that the average case of housing a death penalty inmate will be around 90k/year more. You add up the years and the costs of the appeals process, you will find it is immensely more expensive to eventually kill an inmate. And is the possibility of being sentenced to death a deterrent to murderers, not a bit.

[taxme]

On 5/7/2017 at 11:02 AM, Omni said:

A little actual research will show you that, for instance. the cost of a death penalty trial will be about double of a non death penalty case. After that the average case of housing a death penalty inmate will be around 90k/year more. You add up the years and the costs of the appeals process, you will find it is immensely more expensive to eventually kill an inmate. And is the possibility of being sentenced to death a deterrent to murderers, not a bit.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the death penalty will make sure that the murderer does not do it again. They will have to pay for the taking of someone else's life. It may even deter and save the life of someone from being murdered. Hey, you never know.  

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the death penalty will make sure that the murderer does not do it again. They will have to pay for the taking of someone else's life. It may even deter and save the life of someone from being murdered. Hey, you never know.  

It's not a maybe yes or maybe no. It's statistically a fact that states with the death penalty have higher homicide rates than those without it.