Death penalty

You should go to Germany and drive. https://qz.com/525160/the-autobahn-doesnt-have-speed-limits-germans-think-its-time-to-change-that/

I've seen 75 in New Mexico, but only on the interstate. Elsewhere, it's 70. As you imply, though, we take that as more a suggestion than a limit.

Just by the way, we also have signs telling us to slow down because of "Trucks Turning" Well, of course trucks turn. So do cars, if you want to get picky.

Sorry for the digression.

It seems to me that those who are against the Death penalty have more sympathy for the criminals than they do the victims.

I would support changes to which crimes and evidence is used in death penalty cases. With modern day technology we should be able to meet certain standards of evidence that is reliable. Video and other technology evidence (cell phones, toll booth or other automatic payment tags), DNA and even multiple eye witness accounts. Maybe even as a final confirmation of guilt prior to the execution, you can have a full retesting and review of all evidence.

Outside of Denver metro it's 75 and varies between 55-65 depending on where you are in the city.

No. We just don’t justify killing for any reason other than war or self defense. Killing a killer is the same crime in civil law is wrong. Trial by jury can arrive at the wrong verdict.

As I noted, you have more care for the perpetrators of crimes than you do for their victims.

Baldimo didn't show an ounce of pity or concern for the children murdered in Florida. Instead he used it as an excuse to post a load of pictures of guns that get him all hot and sweaty.

Getting all moist at the prospect of killing people is a far cry from actual concern for the victims of crime.

You would be wrong, I have a son who is a senior and graduates in a few months, I'm closer to this then you are.


I've posted no pictures, I've asked the difference between 2 different rifles and not a single one of you anti-guns twits has been able to tell me why one should be banned over the other. Don't confuse your lack of understanding of what was asked for any sort of "hot and sweaty" pictures posted by someone else.


Your are projecting again you pervert.

I hate that word.

Yes I definitely agree but only if they are definitely the guilty ones who intentionally murdered or seriously injured an innocent person. The current CP system in America seems to have a lot of loopholes where innocent people are put to death, not good at all.

A study shows that one in eight jury verdicts are wrong. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html
Once a jury arrives at a guilty verdict and sentences the defendant to life in prison or death, there's very little chance that the victim will get justice.

There was an incident in Michigan a couple years ago where a prisoner serving life in prison for multiple counts of first degree murder escaped, kidnapped a driver, and forced her to take him to Indiana (where she escaped from him and contacted the police, who then recaptured him).

He says he is innocent of the murder charges and escaped because no one is listening to his pleas of innocence.

I can't tell if he is innocent or not. It is quite plausible that he is guilty. But it is also possible that he is innocent and was set up as a fall guy.

Since his recapture they've kept him in a supermax cell and no one (other than me) has bothered to wonder if he really is innocent.

I'm not sure if there is anything new to find in the case, but I'd be a bit more comfortable with it if someone did some more investigating just to make sure the jury got the right result.

In an ideal world we would hope that only direct substantial evidence is the main ruling in the courtroom.
But in the real world the rulings also include witness evidence, hearsay evidence, documental evidence, circumstantial evidence, demonstrative evidence, expert evidence or even corrupted evidence etc etc, so its not at all surprising that 1 in eight jury verdicts are wrong

Morals are what you do when people are looking. Ethics are what you do when they aren't. Inherently, every one would agree moralistically, capital punishment is right. An eye for an eye. A killing for a killing.

Ethically, is is wrong. As a civilized society evolves, killing for the sake of killing without a purpose isn't considered a higher purpose. Victim's rights would have the claim of Justice whereas criminals would have the claim to Rehabilitation.

So Moral Justice has no claim when killing another human is at stake. Now the question becomes, who would volunteer to be lethally injected if it meant they would be vindicated of their crime? Does righteousness have a place in any Society?

Wars claim lives but they are called righteous. Drive by shootings aren't righteous because innocent lives are taken. Who decides what represents a higher purpose?

We do.

We get to decide what is moral versus what is ethical. Therefore, my vote is to let live.

Inherently, I strongly disagree--morally and ethically. You may be believe that an eye for an eye is right. I don't.

We aren't in the time of the Old Testament. Anyhow, the whole point of the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth thing is that a punishment should be proportionate, i.e. if someone destroys your eye or tooth you don't destroy their whole body. Furthermore, who decides what is proportionate and just is not a tribal elder or "God", in countries which have the rule of law it is the democratically elected legislature and the independent judiciary.

I was a jury member in a rape-murder case in Santa Clara County some years ago. There were no witnesses, but only circumstantial evidence. The body was found in a dry creek in Gilroy, and a man found the body. The defendant, a young man, was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence, and is now serving a life term in prison. The circumstantial evidence? A bay leaf in the trunk of the car he used. It was from that dry creek in Gilroy, and the parks supervisor identified all the bay trees in Gilroy. Also, his brother said his brother looked nervous, and kept looking out of the window to see if the police was going to show up. His brother also said, it was unusual for his brother to wash the car, but that's what he did on the day of the crime. All circumstantial evidence. This was several decades ago, but it was the second longest trial in Santa Clara County, and it was three weeks long.

I am not saying this guy is innocent, but it reminds of several cases in the UK where there was strong pressure to "nail someone". We pay lip service to the notion that it is better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is imprisoned or worse, but that's not how it works, is it?

In the case I mentioned a couple posts up where the guy had briefly escaped from prison, four people were robbed and murdered in a house. They were killed with three different guns.

The guy in question had one of the murder weapons in his possession when he was arrested. No other physical evidence linking him and the crime.

There were three other people who were indisputably participants in the crime. All three say that this guy carried out all of the murders by himself. These three served a few years in prison but did not get charged with the murders.

So, maybe this guy committed the murders and used multiple guns because he thought it would fool people into not thinking it was him.

Or maybe these other three people committed the murders and conspired to accuse an innocent person in order to escape blame themselves.

I guess if a shady acquaintance wants to give you a free gun you should think long and hard before accepting it.

Resolution of crimes is a toss up between doing the best you can forensics, and being aware of the rules for evidence, with an eye on an annual budget for service .Many of these crimes require expenditure of heavy funds in order to compile piles of indesputable forensic evidence which , even after its all done and agreed to for admissability, is still circumstantial.
I recall one case where my team was hired in forensic geology and botany. e were asked to locate and date a buried tool used in a murder.(It was a van that was buried and lay that way for about 15 years)

e located it using geophysics, then the police agency hired a forensic anthropologist and assigned criminologists to learn everything about the the truck and its association w the crime and murders under investigation. We were then re assigned to have our biologist work with a university botanist to determine what time in the year was the vehicle buried (from pollen analyses). Later we gathered up county wide planning aerial photos that were flown every 3 years. The site, after mapping and surveying was covered in sequential air-photos for about 15 years so we had several overlapping routes of evidence that this was, indeed, the site where a crime tool was disposed.
After all this was done all the circumstantial evidence was tossed out because the cops arrived at selecting the candidate burial sites by unconstitutional means. The guys walked, and one of em was shot down in subsequent crimes in which he took part, the second guy was arrested on another major crime and confessed and was sent to do time as a "career criminal" under Pa's early version of "three strikes" and the third guy seemed to have disappeared from view forever.

At the time, the case involved about 2 million dollars of investigation and case prep, (witnesses, evidence, chains of custody etc). This was in the 80's, DNA was not mature and was only being proposed in a few cases due to the prevailing Frey decision about scientific evidence. Daubert and Rule 702 largely superseded Frye but that wasnt till the mid 90's .