Good/bad idea?

[AFB]

After you are initally sentenced to death, you have a maximum of 3 years to appeal before you are put to death. No stays of executions, nothing.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: AFB
After you are initally sentenced to death, you have a maximum of 3 years to appeal before you are put to death. No stays of executions, nothing.

Justice moves way to slow....

I am mostly against the death penalty...except to punish....serial killers, and child murderers...

I dont think the death penalty is a deterent....but some evil bastards gots to go...

 

[Aimster]

I think they should be locked up in a hole for 10 years covered with bugs.
Then killed.

 

[arsbanned]

😀 On its face the proposal makes sense, but I would be hesitant due to the prevalence of false convictions.

 

[loic2003]

Originally posted by: AFB
After you are initally sentenced to death, you have a maximum of 3 years to appeal before you are put to death. No stays of executions, nothing.

If you were wrongly convicted and put on death row would you want a time limit on how long you have to find evidence to prove your innocence?

 

[themroc]

It's a stupid proposal for many reasons. The first that comes to mind is that it utterly violates an individual's right to a fair trial by imposing a silly, arbitrary time limit. It's not going to be practical, because it isn't constitutional (i.e., it isn't legal). It's a barbaric, stupid idea.

 

[conjur]

Isn't the point of the death penalty to act as a deterrent against violent crime? If so, the death penalty is a miserable failure as such and the costs involved in keeping someone on death row and the legal costs involved, too, are, imo, reason enough to eliminate the death penalty.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think they should be locked up in a hole for 10 years covered with bugs.
Then killed.

I think overpopulation is the real culprit, if we all have less children there will be less crime.
Answer to all these problems: one child policy

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think they should be locked up in a hole for 10 years covered with bugs.
Then killed.

HAHA, yeah. I guess what happened in Abu Graib you have no problem with? 😛

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur
Isn't the point of the death penalty to act as a deterrent against violent crime? If so, the death penalty is a miserable failure as such and the costs involved in keeping someone on death row and the legal costs involved, too, are, imo, reason enough to eliminate the death penalty.

agreed......

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: Aimster
I think they should be locked up in a hole for 10 years covered with bugs.
Then killed.

I think overpopulation is the real culprit, if we all have less children there will be less crime.
Answer to all these problems: one child policy

Go back to whatever cave you crawled out of...

 

[arsbanned]

Why? Does the free exchange of ideas offend you? Your attack seems unjustified and shrill.

 

[ciba]

Even as conservative as I am, I voted bad idea.

I think execution after three years unless an appeal is FILED is reasonable. Your questions was a little bit too vague to say "yes"

As to the appeal, I think there should be a distinction as to if the appeal is filed on fact or on law.

 

[SuperTool]

Last time I checked the USSC is the only court created in the Constitution. So for a convicted person to have his constitutional rights, he should be able to appeal all the way to USSC.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: AFB
After you are initally sentenced to death, you have a maximum of 3 years to appeal before you are put to death. No stays of executions, nothing.

I know, let's limit the time period that big corporations can delay legal actions against them. If a suit has not been brought to trial, and completed, within three years of the initial lawsuit, the defending side loses.

Seriously though, do you realize how many people on death row have been vindicated and released after 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years on death row? I guess we'd just kill the suckers under your system.

 

[jimkyser]

Well, then Texas would have executed Randall Adams. See, he was convicted of murdering a Dallas Police Officer and sentenced to death (later commuted to life). But he didn't do it. He wasn't even there. But the actual murderer was the State's star witness. See, the 'witness' wasn't yet 18 and couldn't be executed under the the laws in effect in Texas at the time. But poor Randall WAS an adult and so he got railroaded. This was even though the prosecution knew that the 'witness' had stolen the car, the 'witness' had stolen the gun and the 'witness' had had several run-ins with the law. By the way the 'witness' is currently serving time in CA (I think) for another murder. Had he been tried and convicted of the murder of the Dallas Police Officer he wouldn't have been able to kill again.

Rent this movie: The Thin Blue Line

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096257/

Because of this movie the State had to reconsider their position and eventually released Randall Adams. Under your rules he would have been long dead.

But do you care?

 

[mhillary]

I am with you