That's your opinion of justice but Dr Petit has a different opinion and in this case his is the only one that really matters. Both offered to plead guilty in exchange for life but Dr Petit is willing to subject himself to the trials so he doesn't believe that justice will be served by them spending the rest
of their lives in prison. Dont you think his opinion should count for something?
just say it's the opposite scenario where the victims family don't support state sanctioned murder and there's a real chance the offenders could be sentenced to death. do you think their opinion should count for something?
just say it's the opposite scenario where the victims family don't support state sanctioned murder and there's a real chance the offenders could be sentenced to death. do you think their opinion should count for something?
Absolutely and I would fully support that if they so chose, I have no right to question a victims family decision in these matters.
just say it's the opposite scenario where the victims family don't support state sanctioned murder and there's a real chance the offenders could be sentenced to death. do you think their opinion should count for something?
Absolutely and I would fully support that if they so chose, I have no right to question a victims family decision in these matters.
while i agree the victims families are free to campaign for or against the death penalty, i don't believe that they should be able to decide the offenders fate.
i think it's important that if they want to, the victims family should be able to tell the court, the jury and the accused, how the death of their loved one has impacted on their lives. they should be able to express these feelings by way of a victim impact statement and make it clear that the person killed is not just a 'name in court' to them. they were actually someone very precious to them. i absolutely i support that.
ultimately though, justice should be based on the actions of the perpetrator. not the feelings of the victims.
i probably should mention that justice to me will never include state sanctioned murder.
just say it's the opposite scenario where the victims family don't support state sanctioned murder and there's a real chance the offenders could be sentenced to death. do you think their opinion should count for something?
Absolutely and I would fully support that if they so chose, I have no right to question a victims family decision in these matters.
while i agree the victims families are free to campaign for or against the death penalty, i don't believe that they should be able to decide the offenders fate.
i think it's important that if they want to, the victims family should be able to tell the court, the jury and the accused, how the death of their loved one has impacted on their lives. they should be able to express these feelings by way of a victim impact statement and make it clear that the person killed is not just a 'name in court' to them. they were actually someone very precious to them. i absolutely i support that.
ultimately though, justice should be based on the actions of the perpetrator. not the feelings of the victims.
i probably should mention that justice to me will never include state sanctioned murder.
I forget where but in at least one country the family of the victim is allowed to carry out the execution,
I saw some video footage of this in a place called the museum of death...pretty gory stuff..the family was pissed at this guy to say the least.
People that are saying that life in prison is pure torture......you do realize that some inmates (not the majority, but there are some) actually grow to enjoy being in prison? Especially ones with mental issues.
...
I think that's a good thing. That way, they won't try to escape. I just don't want crazy killers out in the parking lots I cross.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I think I may have a win/win proposal for everyone.
The prosecutors can propose that they will not go after the death penalty provided the defendants plead guilty and have to spend their life sentences in the Peruvian jail that Vandersloot is holed up in . . . but they must stay in the general population. The State of Connecticut can supplement the confinement costs to Peru, which should be dramatically lower then what it would cost them in-house.
If both governments came to an agreement, would anyone be opposed to this plan?
I think I may have a win/win proposal for everyone.
The prosecutors can propose that they will not go after the death penalty provided the defendants plead guilty and have to spend their life sentences in the Peruvian jail that Vandersloot is holed up in . . . but they must stay in the general population. The State of Connecticut can supplement the confinement costs to Peru, which should be dramatically lower then what it would cost them in-house.
If both governments came to an agreement, would anyone be opposed to this plan?
Check out this website. It tells about many, many people who were convicted of horrible crimes and did many years of time and then were found to be innocent.
Check out this website. It tells about many, many people who were convicted of horrible crimes and did many years of time and then were found to be innocent.
Comments
Absolutely and I would fully support that if they so chose, I have no right to question a victims family decision in these matters.
i think it's important that if they want to, the victims family should be able to tell the court, the jury and the accused, how the death of their loved one has impacted on their lives. they should be able to express these feelings by way of a victim impact statement and make it clear that the person killed is not just a 'name in court' to them. they were actually someone very precious to them. i absolutely i support that.
ultimately though, justice should be based on the actions of the perpetrator. not the feelings of the victims.
i probably should mention that justice to me will never include state sanctioned murder.
I forget where but in at least one country the family of the victim is allowed to carry out the execution,
I saw some video footage of this in a place called the museum of death...pretty gory stuff..the family was pissed at this guy to say the least.
Godfather.
I think that's a good thing. That way, they won't try to escape. I just don't want crazy killers out in the parking lots I cross.
Hail, Hail!!!
The prosecutors can propose that they will not go after the death penalty provided the defendants plead guilty and have to spend their life sentences in the Peruvian jail that Vandersloot is holed up in . . . but they must stay in the general population. The State of Connecticut can supplement the confinement costs to Peru, which should be dramatically lower then what it would cost them in-house.
If both governments came to an agreement, would anyone be opposed to this plan?
:thumbup:
Godfather.
Check out this website. It tells about many, many people who were convicted of horrible crimes and did many years of time and then were found to be innocent.
Also, check out the documentary After Innocence.