Equal Protection and Equality

I believe in both and Due Process:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...ince-2010?lite

She's been on death row for roughly sixteen years. The appeals system is ridiculous. Murderers, rapists and child molesters should get a fair trial and then they should be put to death. The whole thing shouldn't take more than a few months. It's not uncommon for inmates to be on death row for twenty plus years. The record is thirty three years.

"Teresa Lewis, became the 12th woman put to death since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 allowed capital punishment to resume. In that same time, 1,309 men have been executed."


That's just not fair to women.

She is also suspected ( but never charged and convicted) of two similar torture kills....the woman should have been executed years ago.

BTW, Dallas County DA Craig Watkins is up for re-election.....he will likely have a Democrat challenger. Watkins was the DA in the McCarthy trial....It wouldn't be politically prudent for Watkins to agree with the plea for leniency...

I think he has done a pretty good job....but we will see.

McCarthy was the former wife of a founder of the New Black Panther party? Interesting.

She's been on death row for roughly sixteen years. The appeals system is ridiculous. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Like I wrote. I believe in Due Process.

Too many innocent people are convicted.

I'm relatively certain if it were your ass ...

.... you would want "more time" for the appeal. Just speculating.

Not in this case. No one is claiming she is innocent. If she was Watkins would be making a strong case. He has been out in the front of reversing guilty convictions of innocents.

"Teresa Lewis, became the 12th woman put to death since the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 allowed capital punishment to resume. In that same time, 1,309 men have been executed."


That's just not fair to women. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Sounds like affirmative action should apply. Where's the ACLU? Why isn't NOW complaining?

Like I wrote. I believe in Due Process.

Too many innocent people are convicted.

I'm relatively certain if it were your ass ...

.... you would want "more time" for the appeal. Just speculating. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If I was a murdering scumbag on death row I'm sure I'd want to be able to appeal until I died of old age. If pigs had wings, I assume they'd fly.

I don't think due process requires that people should be able to appeal a verdict for frivolous reasons.

The death penalty is always a thorny issue. One one hand, I agree that there are people who are simply irredeemable and society is better off with them gone. The problem is of course, determining who those people are and how we can avoid having the innocent be executed.

We all know that proving guilt (at least on this level) is generally very difficult to prove definitively, which compounds the difficulty of the problem.

I don't think due process requires that people should be able to appeal a verdict for frivolous reasons. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The "problem" and challenge is to get everyone to agree on ....

.. what are "frivolous reasons"!


Some call the 4th and 5th amendments "legal technicalities" and some are "deemed" guilty before a "verdict." Then others receive a "guilty verdict," but did not commit the crime as charged in the indictment. Look at the accusations and conclusions ("verdicts") rendered on this board. More than likely each and everyone is "qualified" to serve on a jury. Would you want them on yours?

Even in 2013 I would scrutinize a black female "getting" the death penalty. If there were ANY REASON, frivolous or otherwise, I would want each one carefully and independently examined to assure that ALL OF THEM OR ANY OF THEM may have resulted in an erroneous decision of either guilt or punishment.... FOR ANYONE! If 16 months or 16 years. "Who cares?"

The "problem" and challenge is to get everyone to agree on ....

.. what are "frivolous reasons"!


Some call the 4th and 5th amendments "legal technicalities" and some are "deemed" guilty before a "verdict." Then others receive a "guilty verdict," but did not commit the crime as charged in the indictment. Look at the accusations and conclusions ("verdicts") rendered on this board. More than likely each and everyone is "qualified" to serve on a jury. Would you want them on yours?

Even in 2013 I would scrutinize a black female "getting" the death penalty. If there were ANY REASON, frivolous or otherwise, I would want each one carefully and independently examined to assure that ALL OF THEM OR ANY OF THEM may have resulted in an erroneous decision of either guilt or punishment.... FOR ANYONE! If 16 months or 16 years. "Who cares?" Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who cares, or as Hillary says, "What difference does it make?"

I care. Justice delayed is justice denied. If murderers can expect to appeal a guilty verdict for decades, it destroys the deterrent effect of the death penalty. People need to understand that if they choose to murder, rape or molest children they will be put death, and it won't be at some far distant date; it will be soon.

If murderers can expect to appeal a guilty verdict for decades, it destroys the deterrent effect of the death penalty. People need to understand that if they choose to murder, rape or molest children they will be put death, and it won't be at some far distant date; it will be soon. Originally Posted by joe bloe

If anyone actually believes the death penalty is a deterrent, then they are not familiar with the elements that are necessary to be proven to allow someone to "earn" the privilege of being put to death by his or her fellow citizens.

I do not believe it is a deterrent. Any more than I believe my garbage disposal keeps the foot from rotting.

As far as I am concerned the death penalty is our society's garbage disposal that eliminates the "warehousing" of stinking, diseased, rotten elements from our society, than we believe cannot be redeemed and/or remade into a well-meaning and contributing member of our society and for whom we do not want to spend our tax dollars to maintain any longer.

Having said that, I do believe that whatever it takes we should be certain that the person we are about to exterminate IS one of the "stinking, diseased, rotten elements from our society, than we believe cannot be redeemed and/or remade into a well-meaning and contributing member of our society and for whom we do not want to spend our tax dollars" AND he or she committed the crime for which he or she deserves that label and treatement.

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is referring to victims.

If anyone actually believes the death penalty is a deterrent, then they are not familiar with the elements that are necessary to be proven to allow someone to "earn" the privilege of being put to death by his or her fellow citizens.

I do not believe it is a deterrent. Any more than I believe my garbage disposal keeps the foot from rotting.

As far as I am concerned the death penalty is our society's garbage disposal that eliminates the "warehousing" of stinking, diseased, rotten elements from our society, than we believe cannot be redeemed and/or remade into a well-meaning and contributing member of our society and for whom we do not want to spend our tax dollars to maintain any longer.

Having said that, I do believe that whatever it takes we should be certain that the person we are about to exterminate IS one of the "stinking, diseased, rotten elements from our society, than we believe cannot be redeemed and/or remade into a well-meaning and contributing member of our society and for whom we do not want to spend our tax dollars" AND he or she committed the crime for which he or she deserves that label and treatement.

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is referring to victims. Originally Posted by LexusLover

So what's your point? Do the victims of crime not deserve justice? In it's current form the death penalty is much less of a deterrent than it should be. If we executed scumbags in an average of one year instead of twelve years, the death penalty might be a lot more effective as a detterent.

The law doesn't require certainty in proving guilt. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's the best standard. If certainty was the standard in a criminal case, we'd never convict anyone of anything.

There's a principal in criminal law called Blackstone's Formulation that states: "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." I think that's a good guideline. We should require a high standard for proving guilt even if that occationally causes a guilty person to go free. But Blackstone didn't say better that a thousand guilty escape; he said ten.

In it's current form the death penalty is much less of a deterrent than it should be.....

The law doesn't require certainty in proving guilt.....

There's a principal in criminal law .... Originally Posted by joe bloe

What's YOUR point?

Here's what I posted in the OP:

"Equal Protection and Equality ... I believe in both and Due Process"

A long time ago I had a fine lady and human being tell me when I informed her that the man who killed her son was killed himself that she was sad for his family because she knew how they felt right then. She cried for them, and I expect for her loss, too.

Most "victims" who have a sense of balance and perspective feel the same. That is why we often see close family members of a deceased express the opinion they do not want the "actor" to die also, and some even testify against the death penalty.

Retribution and vengeance are not noble motivations, and ought not to be the basis for the death penalty. Killing the perpetrator of their suffering really doesn't bring "closure" either, it only ignites old feelings of sadness and eventually remorse.

Please do not "lecture" me on criminal law and principles of law.