I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
And I'm in agreement with you.
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
And I'm in agreement with you.
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
but you just finished saying this:
"I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences"
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
I love the fact victims families can face accusers and tell them what they feel. I also agree that some sentences are too light. 30 years for premeditated murder!!!!! Life wo possibility of parole. Okay we freinds again???
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
And I'm in agreement with you.
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
but you just finished saying this:
"I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences"
I should have had a qualifying statement to what I said: however, given our consistently weak sentencing history... I can accept them if they are the only thing that pushes our courts to determine sentences that aren't laughable.
I would prefer the courts of our land to do the job we need them to do without pleading on the part of victims.
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
I love the fact victims families can face accusers and tell them what they feel. I also agree that some sentences are too light. 30 years for premeditated murder!!!!! Life wo possibility of parole. Okay we freinds again???
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
And I'm in agreement with you.
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
but you just finished saying this:
"I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences"
I should have had a qualifying statement to what I said: however, given our consistently weak sentencing history... I can accept them if they are the only thing that pushes our courts to determine sentences that aren't laughable.
I would prefer the courts of our land to do the job we need them to do without pleading on the part of victims.
well, we absolutely agree on lenient sentencing issues in Canada.
I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.
I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.
Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
And I'm in agreement with you.
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
but you just finished saying this:
"I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences"
I should have had a qualifying statement to what I said: however, given our consistently weak sentencing history... I can accept them if they are the only thing that pushes our courts to determine sentences that aren't laughable.
I would prefer the courts of our land to do the job we need them to do without pleading on the part of victims.
well, we absolutely agree on lenient sentencing issues in Canada.
I know we do.
I understand fully we only differ with regards to what we feel is an appropriate punishment for some crimes- makes for good discussion though!
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
yeah, I suppose....it's really difficult for me to put myself in their shoes....I mean, your Mom is your Mom, I suppose even if she had your Dad killed. But jesus, the conflicting emotions surrounding that would be horrendous.
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal. )
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal. )
I saw a story the other day where there was this mother, daughter, and then her daughter's black boyfriend committed murder. The mother orchestrated the murder of her husband, the daughter's dad. She manipulated her daughter and her black BF into helping her, and all three of them ended up beating him to death, as a team, and dumped the body. The mother got some prison time, and the daughter got some prison time, and the black boyfriend got life in prison without a chance of parole.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal. )
Wouldn't be my last meal.
I agree with you that there's something fundamentally wrong with the actual murderer receiving a lesser sentence.
I saw a story the other were there was this mother, daughter, and then her daughter's black boyfriend. The mother orchestrated the murder of her husband, the daughter's dad. She manipulated her daughter and her black BF into helping her, and all three of them ended up beating him to death, as a team, and dumped the body. The mother got some prison time, and the daughter got some prison time, and the black boyfriend got life in prison without a chance of parole.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
There seem to be so many cases where one person takes a plea deal and testifies against the others involved. Prosecutors always rave about how much money the taxpayers saved by avoiding so many trials but there's no consistency to the sentences.
Many years ago there was a notorious murder case where I live. You can read the details here: http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/233-Jeffrey-Dillingham.htm. I know there was a lot of discussion at the time about the differences in the sentences. Like I said above, it seems like kind of a crap shoot.
I live in the state where we seem to have no qualms about executing people. I can't tell that it makes any difference in crime rates and I feel sure that innocent people have been executed. We also have the highest number of death row exonerations. Sometimes someone is executed and it doesn't seem to bother me (Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad) but most of the time I can't see much point in it.
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal. )
I agree with you that there's something fundamentally wrong with the actual murderer receiving a lesser sentence.
Passive Aggressive deterrent to future wanabee plotters? Murderers already are missing vital parts of their brain it is the plotters who are the smart ones who get others to do the dirty work.
can't imagine being one of the kids. I wouldn't have imagined they'd be on their mom's side, after she had their dad killed.
I can see it. If anyone was going to forgive their mother... it would be her kids regardless of the fact it was their father who's life she took.
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal. )
I agree with you that there's something fundamentally wrong with the actual murderer receiving a lesser sentence.
Passive Aggressive deterrent to future wanabee plotters? Murderers already are missing vital parts of their brain it is the plotters who are the smart ones who get others to do the dirty work.
after thinking about it, when you have organized crime, for example, the mob boss who organized and ordered the thugs to get their hands dirty are the ones that should get the most time, not the guys on the front lines doing the deed. there is an extra level of intent there, scheming if you will, to get others to do it. I would have to agree that the conspirator should receive a harsher penalty than the perpetrator.
HFD, I would agree that in those circumstances those directing the crime should experience at least the same consequences as those enacting it, particularly if it is done for profit. It doesn't sound to me as if this woman is in that category.
I wonder how many men in Georgia killed their wives that year? How many of them got the death penalty for it?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
the person committing murder does so out of choice. They don't have to do it, if their get involved in a pathetic mob style family set up that is their problem. The person who pulls the trigger should pay the biggest penalty of all.
The case of the Glossip one which is lingering ever closer to a terrible ending today is a joke. The united states are the punchline, and judging from what I have been reading across the globe their execution of a man in those circumstances is being looked upon most disparagingly.
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
The man who killed gets to continue breathing because he could cut a deal. The man who protested his innocence and refused a deal because he maintains his innocence stops breathing. Yep, a joke, and a pretty shitty one at that.
HFD, I would agree that in those circumstances those directing the crime should experience at least the same consequences as those enacting it, particularly if it is done for profit. It doesn't sound to me as if this woman is in that category.
I wonder how many men in Georgia killed their wives that year? How many of them got the death penalty for it?
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
Pretty sad.
BUT WE NEED US SOME VENGEANCE.
not to worry its only some guys life they don't know or give a flying fuck about. Its more important to maintain face.....
Ali Mohammed Bagir al-Nimr faces imminent execution for crimes he allegedly committed when he was just 17 years old. The evidence against him? A forced “confession” under torture.
Ali Mohammed Bagir al-Nimr faces imminent execution for crimes he allegedly committed when he was just 17 years old. The evidence against him? A forced “confession” under torture.
the person committing murder does so out of choice. They don't have to do it, if their get involved in a pathetic mob style family set up that is their problem. The person who pulls the trigger should pay the biggest penalty of all.
The case of the Glossip one which is lingering ever closer to a terrible ending today is a joke. The united states are the punchline, and judging from what I have been reading across the globe their execution of a man in those circumstances is being looked upon most disparagingly.
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
The man who killed gets to continue breathing because he could cut a deal. The man who protested his innocence and refused a deal because he maintains his innocence stops breathing. Yep, a joke, and a pretty shitty one at that.
I completely agree with your assessment of the Glossip situation. it's disgusting.
however, don't you think the instigator/manipulator of the crime deserves at LEAST the same punishment as the murderer themselves? I disagree with the death penalty in all cases, but I think that the person hiring the hit is just as guilty as the hitman themselves.
Ali Mohammed Bagir al-Nimr faces imminent execution for crimes he allegedly committed when he was just 17 years old. The evidence against him? A forced “confession” under torture.
the person committing murder does so out of choice. They don't have to do it, if their get involved in a pathetic mob style family set up that is their problem. The person who pulls the trigger should pay the biggest penalty of all.
The case of the Glossip one which is lingering ever closer to a terrible ending today is a joke. The united states are the punchline, and judging from what I have been reading across the globe their execution of a man in those circumstances is being looked upon most disparagingly.
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
The man who killed gets to continue breathing because he could cut a deal. The man who protested his innocence and refused a deal because he maintains his innocence stops breathing. Yep, a joke, and a pretty shitty one at that.
I completely agree with your assessment of the Glossip situation. it's disgusting.
however, don't you think the instigator/manipulator of the crime deserves at LEAST the same punishment as the murderer themselves? I disagree with the death penalty in all cases, but I think that the person hiring the hit is just as guilty as the hitman themselves.
I think to request the killing of any person or the paying another to do so is utterly abhorrent, repulsive and disgusting. But to me it isn't the same crime. It deserves a severe punishment. But I believe that generally speaking (there will always be cases with unique facts that will shake this reasoning) the person who commits the murder is the one who should be dealt with the harshest. They do so out of choice, be it a drug dependence, greed or being a psychopathic scumbag, or possibly because they have to out of some bizarre loyalty to a superior.....whatever it is they end a life and in my eyes they should pay the price.
This rationale perhaps doesn't work in cases that involve coercion, brutality within the organisation and forced participation but in the Glossip or kissenger style cases that's where I am
Comments
I'm just adding that justice is hardly ever served though and if victim impact statements can assist motivating the courts to act with a heavier hand in at least some of the trials we experience... I'm not going to object.
"I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences"
www.headstonesband.com
I would prefer the courts of our land to do the job we need them to do without pleading on the part of victims.
www.headstonesband.com
I understand fully we only differ with regards to what we feel is an appropriate punishment for some crimes- makes for good discussion though!
Anyone care?
or is it only that it's making headlines that people know this name now http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/crime/judge-denies-stay-of-georgia-womans-execution/ar-AAeSMxP?li=AAadgLE&ocid=mailsignoutmd
https://www.themarshallproject.org/next-to-die
www.headstonesband.com
They are still angry- advocating for a life sentence- but don't want to see her executed. The conditions surrounding this murder aren't of the depraved variety: it's not a case I would seek a death sentence.
I wonder what the parents of the husband wish for?
www.headstonesband.com
I don't know anything about this case except what I've read in the last day or so, but it does bring up one of the things about the death penalty that bothers the hell out of me. The person who actually committed the murder received a life sentence while the plotter received the death penalty. When parties are tried separately, it's like a crap shoot when it comes to their punishment.
(Note: Read the article for what she requested for her last meal.
I agree with you that there's something fundamentally wrong with the actual murderer receiving a lesser sentence.
There seem to be so many cases where one person takes a plea deal and testifies against the others involved. Prosecutors always rave about how much money the taxpayers saved by avoiding so many trials but there's no consistency to the sentences.
Many years ago there was a notorious murder case where I live. You can read the details here: http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/233-Jeffrey-Dillingham.htm. I know there was a lot of discussion at the time about the differences in the sentences. Like I said above, it seems like kind of a crap shoot.
I live in the state where we seem to have no qualms about executing people. I can't tell that it makes any difference in crime rates and I feel sure that innocent people have been executed. We also have the highest number of death row exonerations. Sometimes someone is executed and it doesn't seem to bother me (Timothy McVeigh, John Allen Muhammad) but most of the time I can't see much point in it.
That one slipped by me.
Murderers already are missing vital parts of their brain it is the plotters who are the smart ones who get others to do the dirty work.
My last meal would be one anchovy pizza.
www.headstonesband.com
I wonder how many men in Georgia killed their wives that year? How many of them got the death penalty for it?
The case of the Glossip one which is lingering ever closer to a terrible ending today is a joke. The united states are the punchline, and judging from what I have been reading across the globe their execution of a man in those circumstances is being looked upon most disparagingly.
The fact that the appeal court voted 3.2 and made comments about doubtful and tenous evidence, and couldn't agree unanimously should in my mind be enough to say we shouldn't do this. But no, they intend to plod along, ignoring the two dissenting judges and cut the prison bill a little.
The man who killed gets to continue breathing because he could cut a deal. The man who protested his innocence and refused a deal because he maintains his innocence stops breathing. Yep, a joke, and a pretty shitty one at that.
Reason #79 why DP is wrong.
BUT WE NEED US SOME VENGEANCE.
Ali Mohammed Bagir al-Nimr faces imminent execution for crimes he allegedly committed when he was just 17 years old. The evidence against him? A forced “confession” under torture.
http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1770&ea.campaign.id=42650
however, don't you think the instigator/manipulator of the crime deserves at LEAST the same punishment as the murderer themselves? I disagree with the death penalty in all cases, but I think that the person hiring the hit is just as guilty as the hitman themselves.
www.headstonesband.com
This rationale perhaps doesn't work in cases that involve coercion, brutality within the organisation and forced participation but in the Glossip or kissenger style cases that's where I am