Originally Posted by George

Hopefully DNA will cut down on that. A more shocking story came out of Texas a while back. At least one Prosecutor was knowingly convicting innocent people. Seemed to have the attitude that any prosecutor could convict the guilty, but it takes a Real Prosecutor to convict the innocent.

Unfortunately George, Antonin "hang'em high" Scalia disagrees:

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable".

In other words: Its not unconsitutional to execute an innocent person. Which if we accept the following as true, begs the followup question: If the innocent can be legally executed, why have a US constitution at all?

The cost of execution. That seems to be a Liberal tactic. Death Penalty, nuclear power plants, ect obstruct things in Court & then point out that the cost is now through the roof.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Unfortunately George, Antonin "hang'em high" Scalia disagrees:

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable".

In other words: Its not unconsitutional to execute an innocent person. Which if we accept the following as true, begs the followup question: If the innocent can be legally executed, why have a US constitution at all?

Yes, that one of those legal pitfalls, they're legally not innocent. If a person has been tried & convicted there sometimes is/was no legal avenue beyond a common since precedent by a Judge to pull an newly found innocent off of the sentence. Guess it has come up when DNA evidence began to be introduced. OOPs! double post.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Unfortunately George, Antonin "hang'em high" Scalia disagrees:

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable".

In other words: Its not unconsitutional to execute an innocent person. Which if we accept the following as true, begs the followup question: If the innocent can be legally executed, why have a US constitution at all?

That answers its self. The Constitution is what makes it legal to execute an innocent. With out the Constitution some liberal nut job might argue it is illegal to execute someone who is innocent.

And they put you on jury duty? Great...

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

And they put you on jury duty? Great...

Yes. Probably makes as much sense as North Caolina determining that a life sentence isn't.

"Warren is among some 20 murderers and rapists scheduled to be set free from North Carolina prisons this month after state courts agreed that a decades-old law defined life sentences as only 80 years long. Good conduct credits allow for earlier release."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pb...WS01/910170328

Nice, changing topics now are we?
I believe we were talking about the death penalty. A bit off topic but related to John Allen Mohammed's execution anyway.
The "life" penalty would be a different discussion unless you want to broaden this into a "fallacies of the legal system regarding punishment" thread which will probably warrant a new thread altogether.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Nice, changing topics now are we?
I believe we were talking about the death penalty. A bit off topic but related to John Allen Mohammed's execution anyway.
The "life" penalty would be a different discussion unless you want to broaden this into a "fallacies of the legal system regarding punishment" thread which will probably warrant a new thread altogether.

Not sure it is off topic. People advocating eliminating the death penalty need to inform as to what will replace it.

People against the death penalty spend their time crying and weeping over the possibility that one in 50,000 death penalty cases might be wrong.

The man in the article I used in my previous post was:
"Warren was originally sentenced to death for the slaying of Leo Jack Clark, 62, a nursing home resident whose body was found in an abandoned office building near the railroad tracks on Feb. 4, 1975."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pb...WS01/910170328

He ended up having to be retried during the period the death penalty was not available and so was sentenced to life in prison. Neither sentence is being enforced. He is not coming out on parole he was not eligible for parole.

He has "served his sentence".
80 years= life
80 years minus automatic time off for "good behavior" equals time served.
He comes out when he is 61.

He beat and invalid to death for $18.00.

Since his original sentence was death tell me how the article does not relate to the topic? Read the article!

13th, I realize your only purpose is to argue with me as you have all ready stated your support for the death penalty. But if you are going to argue at least don't be so limp wristed about it.

Post 10 13th Redneck:
"Actually the death penalty is pretty effective in fighting drugs in Malaysia so you can't discount it entirely.
But finally, no BS about a second chance, rehab or any of that other nonsense."

Post 13 13th Redneck:
"Should happen more often."

May be you should just go back to your masturbating.

Post 63 13th redneck:
"Well I guess I can use a little mental masturbation."

Originally Posted by Chukpike

The man in the article I used in my previous post was:
"Warren was originally sentenced to death for the slaying of Leo Jack Clark, 62, a nursing home resident whose body was found in an abandoned office building near the railroad tracks on Feb. 4, 1975."

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pb...WS01/910170328

He ended up having to be retried during the period the death penalty was not available and so was sentenced to life in prison. Neither sentence is being enforced. He is not coming out on parole he was not eligible for parole.

He has "served his sentence".
80 years= life
80 years minus automatic time off for "good behavior" equals time served.
He comes out when he is 61.

He beat and invalid to death for $18.00.

Since his original sentence was death tell me how the article does not relate to the topic? Read the article!

Cry me a river.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Cry me a river.

Here you can cry for this murderer, his death penalty was restored by the US Supreme Court:
"The Supreme Court today for the third time reversed the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and restored a death sentence for a California murderer who bludgeoned and killed a young woman in 1981 to steal a stereo from her house."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6693923.story

"However, the justices said such testimony would not likely have swayed the jury to spare Belmontes. They also said they "simply cannot comprehend the assertion by the Court of Appeals that this case did not involve 'needless suffering.' " The victim, Steacy McConnell, had "her skull crushed by 15 to 20 blows from a steel dumbbell bar" at the hands of Fernando Belmontes, the defendant. She fought "a desperate struggle for life" but died hours later, the court said."

Go ahead 13th cry for this guy, show your compassionate side.
I have all ready shown you are a hypocrite. Advocating the death penalty until you decided you wanted to argue with me.