My argument for the death penalty...

[Hopper]

This will (if it has not already, and it probably has) inevitably lead to the execution of someone... who shouldn't be executed on Eighth Amendment grounds.

Eighth Amendment grounds, I tellya! Who knew that Kicky wuzzn't just some run-of-the-mill bottom feeder, but actually the most brilliant legal scholar who ever lived!? He knows more about constitutional law than every Supreme Court Justice who ever lived! They don't even know that, da chumps.

 

[Hopper]

From what I hear-tell, in some states, Virginia, for example, the average delay between sentencing and execution is only about 5 years. To the best of my knowledge, Virginia has never been found to have violated any constitutional prohibitions as a result of it's refusal to drag it's feet, as demanded by death penalty abolitionists.

 

[Hopper]

"A legal precedent in the United States was created after the U.S. Supreme Court case Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). It ruled that executing the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. Daryl Atkins had been involved in a murder and robbery. He was "mildly mentally retarded" and had an IQ of 59. The ruling did stay the executions of several people on death row. Atkins was later judged to have an IQ of over 70 and remains on death row in Virginia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Virginia

"...a jury in Virginia decided in July 2005 that Atkins was intelligent enough to be executed...making him competent to be put to death under Virginia law."

But at least they got a stay, and another jury trial, no less, out of the (mis)representation of his IQ level. That's a victory in it's own right!

 

[Hopper]

There's always hope, especially when ya got some state judges in your camp, ya know?

"...in January 2008, Circuit Court Judge Prentis Smiley...ruled to commute Atkins' sentence to life in prison...On June 4, 2009, the Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision authored by Chief Justice Leroy R. Hassell, Sr., ruled that neither mandamus nor prohibition were available to overturn the court's decision to commute the sentence."

Well, more delay at least. After the jury trial, yet another trial on the IQ issue, well, that and/or any other issue which a judge raises, authorized or not, I guess. So, yet another VICTORY!

As I understand this, the trial judge, who "was to conduct a trial solely on the matter of whether Atkins was or was not retarded," commuted the sentence on the basis of some unrelated and unproved allegations which, "if true," would have raised questions about the fairness of the original trial. The Virginia supreme court evidently believed that the procedural means used to challenge this action (mandamus and prohibition) were "unavailable." Pass enough procedural crap, and there will always be some loophole, I spoze.

Ya gotta wonder...if the judge thought that there were some questions about the guy's guilt, why did he give him life in prison? Mebbe he don't really care about unjust convictions, he just doesn't like the death penalty, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia

 

[VINYLONE]

I think what we disagree on, though, is the procedural implication of those points. "Streamlining" the judicial appeals process for those on death row (which is a euphamism for eliminating part of the appeals process) conflicts with the positive effects of these programs or court rulings by cutting short the amount of time they have to operate. This will (if it has not already, and it probably has) inevitably lead to the execution of someone who was in fact innocent or the execution of one who shouldn't be executed on Eighth Amendment grounds. Consequently, I see arguments for streamlining the process in the name of financial savings as an argument for killing people to save money. When the cost of keeping those people alive is really incredibly minimal, that rings as barbaric.

To the extent that we're discussing the appeals process, this is irrelevant. I was merely bringing it up because it affects my subjective answer to the question of whether the appeals process should be indefinite. One could clearly interpret opposition to the death penalty as an advocation of an indefinite appeals process because as long as the appeals process continues the person is not put to death.

I'm sorry, I thought I had answered your question. I oppose any caps on the number of appeals proceedings in capital cases because it will inevitably lead to wrongful deaths. I am more comfortable with finality in instances where lives are not at stake and the later discovery of errors can at least be compensated in some way (even if cash is hardly real compensation).

Interesting. I definitely don't have the background when it comes to how appeals work. I mean, how many appeals is one person allowed currently? And I don't necessarily agree with the idea that I want to "streamline" anything...and I definitely don't agree with the idea that "streamlining" means doing away with "parts of the process."

So you don't believe in the death penalty...fine.

And indefinite appeals. Ok.

 

[Scat]

If your argument is that you want me to treat you like an eight-year-old going forward, I'll happily oblige.

This is already how you treat people.

In any event, I've conceded that I'm a prick. So you win that one.

Sadly, you're proud of this.

 

[Hopper]

Misinformation.

The inclusion of the felony murder rule into the aggravated murder statute also means that many unintentional deaths that occur incident to the commission of another crime could also trigger the death penalty.

But thanks for telling us what you learned from watching Law and Order re-runs on A&E.

Marcus, for what it's worth, if wiki is right, then Kicky must be wrong about this: "many unintentional deaths...could also trigger the death penalty."

"Accordingly, the Court had previously found that the death penalty was inappropriate for those convicted of felony murder who neither themselves killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia

Maybe Kicky has been watchin too much TV, eh? Good thang Kicky aint no prosecutor, or else he might be be enforcin Utah laws in an unconstitutional manner.

 

[Hopper]

Oh, and I'm not responding to Hopper... He's been on the ignore list for the better part of a week or so and I honestly don't know what he's saying. I regard that as a public service to everyone who would otherwise be subjected to the result.

He's right about one thing, I spect. He done us all a public service by ignorin my posts. He woulda done gone plumb hawgwild with pages of vindicative pettiness in this here thread alone if he knowwed that anyone was suggesting he could be mistaken, ya know?

 

[sirkickyass]

This is already how you treat people.

No. I'm far more forgiving of eight-year-olds. Turns out they're eight and don't know anything.

Sadly, you're proud of this.

I wouldn't say proud. I've come to recognize that I phrase things caustically from time to time, particularly when I find whatever I'm responding to annoying for some reason. I accept that this makes me a prick. I'm not going to be caustic and claim to be totally innocent of others thinking I'm a jerk as a result.

But seriously, if what you're mad about is that I said you got your legal knowledge from Law and Order reruns, I think it might be time to grow some thicker skin. By the standards of the internet, and even some of the discussion in this very thread, that's hardly particularly vicious.

 

[TroutBum]

You're such a prick.

 

[Hopper]

My own damn self, if I wuz gunna characterize Kicky's behavior by reference to genitalia, it wouldn't be masculine genitalia, know what I'm sayin?

 

[Scat]

No. I'm far more forgiving of eight-year-olds. Turns out they're eight and don't know anything.

I wouldn't say proud. I've come to recognize that I phrase things caustically from time to time, particularly when I find whatever I'm responding to annoying for some reason. I accept that this makes me a prick. I'm not going to be caustic and claim to be totally innocent of others thinking I'm a jerk as a result.

But seriously, if what you're mad about is that I said you got your legal knowledge from Law and Order reruns, I think it might be time to grow some thicker skin. By the standards of the internet, and even some of the discussion in this very thread, that's hardly particularly vicious.

It's not that mean or vicious. It just gets tiresome.

I'll make no more mention of it. You are who you are and seem to be fine with it.

 

[Hopper]

Funny thang about a punk, eh, Marcus? Just when everybuddy and they brother is thinkin: "Jeez, could that punk git any more punkier, ya figure? I mean, like, would that even be possible, ya think!?," that's when the punk is tellin his self: "Boy, now they all know how BAD I is, sho nuff!!"

Edit: This post wuz kinda in response to your post, there, eh, Marcus, but now ya done went and deleted most of it. How's come? I thought ya kinda hit the nail on the head, ya know?

 

[prodigy]

wow I never though i'd be the creator of the largest thread in the new jazzfanz history..pats self on back

 

[Hopper]

wow I never though i'd be the creator of the largest thread in the new jazzfanz history..pats self on back

Not for long, eh, Prod? Just wait until me and One Brow gits goin good. I gotz a list of over 10,000 names Imma gunna call him--one post at a time.

 

[moevillini]

Not that anybody cares, but what is the question here? Is the argument about the death penalty itself, or the means of the execution? Just wondering.

Personally, I support the death penalty in theory, but less so in practice. I also believe assisted suicide should be legalized in certain situations. It's just knowing where and how to draw the line that tends to confound me.

 

[Hopper]

Mo, it wuz the means, but now it's more just about the DP. Well, kinda, enywaze. Even more it's about the posters postin. That would include you, of course, so, to stay on topic, lemme ax ya:

Ya wanna do a jug a wine wit me!?

 

[sirkickyass]

Marcus, for what it's worth, if wiki is right, then Kicky must be wrong about this: "many unintentional deaths...could also trigger the death penalty."

"Accordingly, the Court had previously found that the death penalty was inappropriate for those convicted of felony murder who neither themselves killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkins_v._Virginia

Maybe Kicky has been watchin too much TV, eh? Good thang Kicky aint no prosecutor, or else he might be be enforcin Utah laws in an unconstitutional manner.

I (probably foolishly) expanded this post. Aint is incorrect.

Rather than get into the merits of the actual cases with him, and thus invite seven or eight replies to himself about the issue, I will refer him to the wiki pages which explain why, in light of Enmund, the death penalty can still apply in felony murder cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tison_v._Arizona

This case modified Enmund, and concludes that the death penalty can apply to felony murder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_and_the_death_penalty

This page provides a more global view of the subject.

I would say that I await aint to take a single sentence out of context and horribly misinterpret it, but I probably won't see it.

 

[Hopper]

From wiki: "under Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), the death penalty may be imposed on someone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life."

Good to hear, eh, Kick!?! The facts of the Tison case, as set forth by the US Supreme Court:

"Petitioner brothers, along with other members of their family, planned and effected the escape of their father from prison where he was serving a life sentence for having killed a guard during a previous escape. Petitioners entered the prison with a chest filled with guns, armed their father and another convicted murderer, later helped to abduct, detain, and rob a family of four, and watched their father and the other convict murder the members of that family with shotguns. Although they both later stated that they were surprised by the shooting, neither petitioner made any effort to help the victims, but drove away in the victims' car with the rest of the escape party."

https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=481&invol=137

Under them there circumstances, who wuddn't agree to smoke they sorry ***, I ax ya?

 

[Hopper]

I spoze alla yawl DP abolitionists thank Gawd this criminal wasn't given the DP for his first escape and killin, eh? Would have saved all them later deaths, but, like, who cares, eh? Them victims wuzznt even criminals, who are the one's we should spend 24/7 worryin about protectin, not the families they later waste.