Federal Government Reinstates Death Penalty in Federal Prison System

Bentleyspop

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1154402547173646336?s=19

brianlux

Sadly, no surprise there.

tempo_n_groove

I do personally think there are people who's crimes they've committed make them unfit to live, but if our judicial system can not find a way to execute a criminal swiftly without the shadow of a doubt then it's pointless.

Meltdown99

Good.  Why keep murdering scum alive.  The worlds overpopulated, why waste resources on losers.

oftenreading

Meltdown99 said:

Good.  Why keep murdering scum alive.  The worlds overpopulated, why waste resources on losers.

There is a distressing tendency to execute the wrong person, unfortunately. 

Among other arguments against the DP.  

mickeyrat

so this being the new policy, many of the arguments that have wound their way through state courts into the federal appellate system have raised the injection drugs as unconstitutional as well as the foriegn manufacturers of these drugs refusing to sell for this purpose.

What is proposed then? A shielding of compound pharmacys personnel like in some states? Same with physicians who participate? Or some other method?

Spiritual_Chaos

More proof of the US being nothing less than a developing country without a democratic backbone.

OnWis97

I have a long history of being pro death penalty. And there are plenty of people I don't think deserve to live.  Two things turned me: a) I don't believe for a second that you can possibly use the death penalty with any regularity and not kill an innocent person and b) the way it's applied vis a vis race and income.

The more time goes on, the more I feel like it also helps feed a bloodthirst, of sorts...people that bask in the idea of inmates being beaten and raped is awesome and they lose their minds if they find out they were able to watch the Super Bowl.

And now, at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise...not promising.

oftenreading

OnWis97 said:

I have a long history of being pro death penalty. And there are plenty of people I don't think deserve to live.  Two things turned me: a) I don't believe for a second that you can possibly use the death penalty with any regularity and not kill an innocent person and b) the way it's applied vis a vis race and income.

The more time goes on, the more I feel like it also helps feed a bloodthirst, of sorts...people that bask in the idea of inmates being beaten and raped is awesome and they lose their minds if they find out they were able to watch the Super Bowl.

And now, at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise...not promising.

I agree with all of your points except the first two sentences. 

cincybearcat

oftenreading said:

OnWis97 said:

I have a long history of being pro death penalty. And there are plenty of people I don't think deserve to live.  Two things turned me: a) I don't believe for a second that you can possibly use the death penalty with any regularity and not kill an innocent person and b) the way it's applied vis a vis race and income.

The more time goes on, the more I feel like it also helps feed a bloodthirst, of sorts...people that bask in the idea of inmates being beaten and raped is awesome and they lose their minds if they find out they were able to watch the Super Bowl.

And now, at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise...not promising.

I agree with all of your points except the first two sentences. 

I agree with all your points except your first sentence.

j/k

Im for a death penalty in extreme and rare cases. So I guess I’m moving to Brazil.

mcgruff10

cincybearcat said:

oftenreading said:

OnWis97 said:

I have a long history of being pro death penalty. And there are plenty of people I don't think deserve to live.  Two things turned me: a) I don't believe for a second that you can possibly use the death penalty with any regularity and not kill an innocent person and b) the way it's applied vis a vis race and income.

The more time goes on, the more I feel like it also helps feed a bloodthirst, of sorts...people that bask in the idea of inmates being beaten and raped is awesome and they lose their minds if they find out they were able to watch the Super Bowl.

And now, at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise...not promising.

I agree with all of your points except the first two sentences. 

I agree with all your points except your first sentence.

j/k

Im for a death penalty in extreme and rare cases. So I guess I’m moving to Brazil.

Agreed.  Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey dahamer, yeah bye bye. 

Renfield

Revenge is not the answer.

F Me In The Brain

OnWis97 said:

I have a long history of being pro death penalty. And there are plenty of people I don't think deserve to live.  Two things turned me: a) I don't believe for a second that you can possibly use the death penalty with any regularity and not kill an innocent person and b) the way it's applied vis a vis race and income.

The more time goes on, the more I feel like it also helps feed a bloodthirst, of sorts...people that bask in the idea of inmates being beaten and raped is awesome and they lose their minds if they find out they were able to watch the Super Bowl.

And now, at a time when authoritarianism is on the rise...not promising.

Some good points.

Hi!

I’m not in favor of the death penalty because they’re too many instances of people being wrongly accused and convicted.

“It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. “
I believe this.

Ledbetterman10

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

eddiec

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

Without trying to sound callous, was the family of the officer compensated by the state? 
Edit: If the guard had been killed outside the prison, and the man was sentenced to life, then it's justice?

Renfield

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

“For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it's up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die.”

“Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. ... However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.”

mickeyrat

Renfield said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

“For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it's up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die.”

“Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. ... However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.”

and be unanimous in this serious decision.

Renfield

mickeyrat said:

Renfield said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

“For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it's up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die.”

“Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. ... However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.”

and be unanimous in this serious decision.

Correct. And I just learned this - Oregon is the only state that permits convictions, for criminal felonies other than murder, on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote of the jury.

Ledbetterman10

Renfield said:

mickeyrat said:

Renfield said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

I'm for the death penalty but prosecutors and judges can't be too cavalier about it. It should only be considered in murder cases of absolute certainty. I'm talking multiple eye-witnesses and video evidence. There's just too many wrongful convictions out there. 

There was a case in Pennsylvania about two years ago where the defendant deserved the death penalty more than anyone I've ever seen, but didn't get it. He was already serving a life-sentence for 1st-degree murder, and while in prison, he managed to jump a corrections office and stabbed him over 200 times, obviously killing him. He was convicted, and the death penalty was on the table. But strangely, it was left to the jurors to decide his sentence instead of the judge. Is this common? I thought sentencing is almost always up to the judge. Anyway, all 12 jurors had to vote yes for the death penalty to occur, and of course, one person voted no. So this guy that was already serving a life-sentence for murder was given another life-sentence. That's not justice. 

“For example, in capital punishment cases (death penalty cases) in some states, judges are not permitted to impose the death penalty and it's up to a jury to decide whether a convicted criminal should be sentenced to die.”

“Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. ... However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.”

and be unanimous in this serious decision.

Correct. And I just learned this - Oregon is the only state that permits convictions, for criminal felonies other than murder, on a 10-2 or 11-1 vote of the jury.

Never knew that either. I like it. 

I've always kinda wished there were professional jurors. People  that go through law school and trained to properly carry out a judge's instructions. I guess it goes against the "jury of your peers" notion, but as we all know, a lot of our peers are morons. 

HughFreakingDillon

gee, how surprising that the racist fuck in office and his POS AG wants to kill more minorities. shocker. 

maybe next he's going to attempt to retry the central park 5.