• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Conn. man's trial to open in fatal home invasion

nick1985

nick1985

Lifer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39134752/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Props to the prosecutors:

"Both defendants have offered to plead guilty in exchange for life sentences, but prosecutors, seeking the death penalty for both, pushed for trials, defense attorneys said, forcing the state to revisit the unsettling crime and its lone survivor to relive it in the courtroom."


:thumbsup:


This is one of the worst crimes I have ever read about. I cannot imagine being beaten, raped, and burnt alive. These guys are fucking animals and deserve to be treated as such. The death penalty is too painless for these pieces of shit.
 
The ringleader of the two hoarded his medication and tried to commit suicide last year. Unfortunately for us CT taxpayers, he failed.
 
A horribly heinous crime and also an almost senseless crime. Job one is to get these sick, sad, and sorry pieces of human crud off the street and forever keep them off the street. So the rest of us are safer.

That job is now accomplished, and we really need the penalty of life imprisonment without any hope of parole.

But in terms of punishments, what is worse, instant death or a long lingering life in prison? I might argue that life imprisonment, at least for me, would be the worst alternative in terms of a punishment.

But then again, we could also argue in terms of which punishment is cheaper for the State to administer? Sure it may cost maybe a million dollars or more to feed, house, and keep a prisoner alive for say three decades, but with our current justice system
that million dollar mark will be hit with the trial itself. Add in the appeals, add in the fact that it often takes a decade or more to exhaust those appeals, and the practical reality is that the taxpayers will pay more not less if the prosecutor seeks and obtains the death sentence.

But in the case of such a heinous crime, there is a certain wishful thinking for having that instant garbage removal. And as soon as the jury comes in with a guilty verdict with a death penalty, the miscreant(s) can be taken to the nearest State sanctioned location to carry out the sentence.

But we need the enabling legislation first.

The other point to mention is that many crimes are equally or even more heinous, but somehow we imprison or execute the wrong person while the real perps get away. And even though, in this particular case, it very much looks like we have the actual perps, the standard to convict is still beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe its time to have two standards, retain the beyond a reasonable doubt one but add in a with a total certainty standard. So we can prohibit the death penalty for the lesser beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
 
hmmm. Story said the guy tried to kill himself and wanted to plead guilty but his lawyers stopped him. So if he wants to die why do you want to kill him? He should stay in prison forever. I think that's the worst punishment.
 
It has taken more than three years for this case to come to trial, that's insane. It shows how our legal system has gone completely overboard in its worship of the rights of the accused, while utterly disregarding the victims of criminals. The sad fact is that even if these two animals are sentenced to death they will probably never be executed. Since the death penalty was restored in Connecticut there has only been a single execution, that of serial killer Michael Ross, and that was only because he voluntarily dropped his appeals. The death penalty in this country, especially in states like CT, is a joke.
 
Lemon law said:
A horribly heinous crime and also an almost senseless crime. Job one is to get these sick, sad, and sorry pieces of human crud off the street and forever keep them off the street. So the rest of us are safer.

That job is now accomplished, and we really need the penalty of life imprisonment without any hope of parole.

But in terms of punishments, what is worse, instant death or a long lingering life in prison? I might argue that life imprisonment, at least for me, would be the worst alternative in terms of a punishment.

But then again, we could also argue in terms of which punishment is cheaper for the State to administer? Sure it may cost maybe a million dollars or more to feed, house, and keep a prisoner alive for say three decades, but with our current justice system
that million dollar mark will be hit with the trial itself. Add in the appeals, add in the fact that it often takes a decade or more to exhaust those appeals, and the practical reality is that the taxpayers will pay more not less if the prosecutor seeks and obtains the death sentence.

But in the case of such a heinous crime, there is a certain wishful thinking for having that instant garbage removal. And as soon as the jury comes in with a guilty verdict with a death penalty, the miscreant(s) can be taken to the nearest State sanctioned location to carry out the sentence.

But we need the enabling legislation first.

The other point to mention is that many crimes are equally or even more heinous, but somehow we imprison or execute the wrong person while the real perps get away. And even though, in this particular case, it very much looks like we have the actual perps, the standard to convict is still beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe its time to have two standards, retain the beyond a reasonable doubt one but add in a with a total certainty standard. So we can prohibit the death penalty for the lesser beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
Click to expand...

No matter how much these animals hate the thought of being locked up for life, there would be days where they enjoyed something, be it only an hour in the sun. In general population there would be many enjoyable moments, surrounded by their peers. Kill them. Even if it takes a billion dollars, it's worth it.

The other thing - as Dukakis proved, there is no life sentence which is liberal-proof. On death row they stand a good chance even in Connecticut of never walking free, whereas life without parole in a liberal state could well mean work release, hardship release, humanitarian passes, or whatever other liberal nonsense can be dreamed up to not hold criminals accountable. Even the most liberal politician will think twice about releasing death row inmates, so even if they die of old age it's worth it.
 
werepossum said:
No matter how much these animals hate the thought of being locked up for life, there would be days where they enjoyed something, be it only an hour in the sun. In general population there would be many enjoyable moments, surrounded by their peers. Kill them. Even if it takes a billion dollars, it's worth it.

The other thing - as Dukakis proved, there is no life sentence which is liberal-proof. On death row they stand a good chance even in Connecticut of never walking free, whereas life without parole in a liberal state could well mean work release, hardship release, humanitarian passes, or whatever other liberal nonsense can be dreamed up to not hold criminals accountable. Even the most liberal politician will think twice about releasing death row inmates, so even if they die of old age it's worth it.
Click to expand...

You realize your view for a criminal justice system is remarkably similar to countries like North Korea, China, and Cuba. Where the conviction of someone accused is more important than upholding their rights as a defendent. You're one of those people who always espouses small government, well it doesn't get much bigger government than allowing the state to choose who lives and who dies. It's sad that conservatives consider human rights to be a liberal issue only.

I'm personally against the death penalty. I do however think the rights of the surviving victim, in this case the husband, should be considered an his input should be taken into account. If he preferred the guaranteed conviction and life in prison, ok. If he preferred the death penalty, that's taken into consideration. In this case the victim said he was glad to hear the names of his family in court. So I'm in favor of his rights as a surviving victim (or relative of a victim should no survivors exist) and letting them go to trial.
 
I guess it's probably best that some of you are not with the power to either decide or administer punishments in these matters. You apparently have no qualms with the state using "cruel and unusual punishment" if the crime is sufficiently heinous and malevolent.
 
zsdersw said:
I guess it's probably best that some of you are not with the power to either decide or administer punishments in these matters. You apparently have no qualms with the state using "cruel and unusual punishment" if the crime is sufficiently heinous and malevolent.
Click to expand...

That depends if you think capital punishment is cruel or unusual, which I do not.
 
zsdersw said:
I guess it's probably best that some of you are not with the power to either decide or administer punishments in these matters. You apparently have no qualms with the state using "cruel and unusual punishment" if the crime is sufficiently heinous and malevolent.
Click to expand...


Eye for an eye is not cruel or unusual IMO. Killing someone for stealing is cruel and unusual.
 
I think a worse fate would be solitary for life. Never see another living soul for as long as he lives. death is the easy way out. brick him in and just feed him once a day through a slot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top