The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

There are nothing but victims here but the death penalty has no place in a modern criminal justice system. The death penalty brutalises society and breeds contempt for human life.

We cannot mourn Sean's death by wishing for more death. I know lots of folks won't agree but a justice system should not be based on vengence

I was just kidding.

BadgerKing wrote:There are nothing but victims here but the death penalty has no place in a modern criminal justice system. The death penalty brutalises society and breeds contempt for human life.

We cannot mourn Sean's death by wishing for more death. I know lots of folks won't agree but a justice system should not be based on vengence

Commission of a felony should not be an entitlement to a free ride for the defendant on the collective backs of tax-paying citizens. I wouldn't say that vengeance is a motive. If vengeance were a motive, people would take the law into their own hands. Vengeance, or a call for vengeance indicates that the crime is personal. In most cases, it is not.

If the victim had been anyone other than a Washington Redskins player, the odds are that we would not even be discussing the case on this message board. For every Sean Taylor, there are a thousand other victims of similar crimes that we aren't discussing.

The issue of the death penalty, and one's opinion on the subject, should not be arbitrarily dependent on the victim. One should either be for Capital Punishment or against Capital Punishment. There is no middle ground.

My personal position is that the current justice system is not such that a defendant accused of a capital crime can both pay restitution to the family of the victim and pay the expenses involved in keeping the defendant alive. Therefore, the burden of paying for the defendant's actions falls to those of us who have done nothing criminal. Our only recourse is in tax evasion, never a good idea, or in the commission of a felony, so that we, too, can sponge off the backs of upstanding citizens. While I am not advocating either option, where is the Justice in our bearing the financial burden of the criminal justice system? We pay for the public defender and all legal fees, we pay for the court costs, we pay for the jurors, we pay for the appeals, we pay for the city, county, state and / or federal prison expenses. In, short, we pay for the actions of someone too stupid to live.
And our legal system calls it "Justice."

GSPODS wrote

The issue of the death penalty, and one's opinion on the subject, should not be arbitrarily dependent on the victim. One should either be for Capital Punishment or against Capital Punishment. There is no middle ground.

I totally agree with you on this.

I may not agree with your final position but I admire your well reasoned and eloquent arguement

BadgerKing wrote:There are nothing but victims here

What a STUPID comment. In what possible way is a group of 4 people who break into someone's house at night to steal his stuff with guns and blow him away a "victim?" Oh, we didn't know you were here in YOUR house! Oh, we didn't know your wife and kid would be here in YOUR house! Oh, we have these guns? Don't know why we brought them, we had no idea when we brought guns to commit a crime that it could suddenly become a bad situation. Oops, we're aiming them at you! What a mistake!?! Oops, I pulled the trigger, crap, I didn't mean to do that. Now run, run, hide. In what possible way are these victims?

And if you read the thread I share your anti-death penalty view. It is in my view stupid arguments like this that kill the anti-death penalty drive because you end up making us all, including people who actually live in the real world and recognize they are horrible people who deserve whatever they get, look like fairies in wonderland. You are right when you argue against the death penalty for society. Then STOP! Victims? You make me gag and I agree with your position on the death penalty! You will never, ever change anyone's mind who is for it by arguing the scum are victims. They stop listening right there because it in fact a stupid statement.

I am for the death penalty.

I have a question for those who know more than I. I have heard of 17yo being charged as an adult if it fits the crime. I would say this is one of those cases. He knew what he was doing, if he didn't really want to kill anyone he would have taken an un loaded gun. But he didn't. IF that wasn't ST, what if a 17yo faced the murder with the gun in that house... Would the 17yo have shot a 17yo, or would he have said, "no wait I can't shoot you, you're too young". He still would have shot.

Some, say its like beating a child to teach him not to hit. (Which I agree with this, you don't beat a child) But killing someone, because they killed someone makes sense. First they don’t deserve to live. But more than that, you don't give them the Death penalty to teach the murder a lesson. IMO you give the death penalty to let the rest of society know that we aren't going to take those kinds of things lightly, and give them a "live for free" pass in the pen.

The problem lawyers have is Judges. It isn't that all lawyers fail to grasp the obvious, although some do. It is that lawyers have to work within the laws as written. Any attempts to skirt the law, even if those attempts are in the interest of "Justice", can result in a mistrial or a bench ruling vacating the entire case, including the sentencing.

That's a load, G man. A disproportionate amount of "law' guiding trial procedures, evidence, procedure... is CASE LAW... you know as well as I what that means... it is the creation of lawyers, for lawyers, by lawyers. It's about procedure, not justice, winning, not truth. Judges, for some reason, are all lawyers (a restriction that I do not understand, and do not believe passes Constitutional muster), so their interests also lie in perpetuating the status quo.

Miranda is an excellent example of such a manufactured law. Who wrote it? Not the Congress. Nor does it show in the Constitution. It is no more than an excuse to release criminals. (I'm certain that the recidivistic purse snatcher, on his 92nd arrest, knows Miranda as well as the cop... but don't forget to read it.) Again, it's not about justice. It's not about truth. It's about winning. You know it. I know it.

[/quote]

HardDawg

You can't sentence a minor to death! Its that simple. I'm as angry as anyone.

Why not? He was "man" enough to pull the trigger.

Life is prison IS worse than death!!!!

If that's true, why aren't more murderers begging for the death penalty?

Countertrey wrote:

The problem lawyers have is Judges. It isn't that all lawyers fail to grasp the obvious, although some do. It is that lawyers have to work within the laws as written. Any attempts to skirt the law, even if those attempts are in the interest of "Justice", can result in a mistrial or a bench ruling vacating the entire case, including the sentencing.

That's a load, G man. A disproportionate amount of "law' guiding trial procedures, evidence, procedure... is CASE LAW... you know as well as I what that means... it is the creation of lawyers, for lawyers, by lawyers. It's about procedure, not justice, winning, not truth. Judges, for some reason, are all lawyers (a restriction that I do not understand, and do not believe passes Constitutional muster), so their interests also lie in perpetuating the status quo.

Miranda is an excellent example of such a manufactured law. Who wrote it? Not the Congress. Nor does it show in the Constitution. It is no more than an excuse to release criminals. (I'm certain that the recidivistic purse snatcher, on his 92nd arrest, knows Miranda as well as the cop... but don't forget to read it.) Again, it's not about justice. It's not about truth. It's about winning. You know it. I know it.

[/quote]

Case law sets precedence, provided the case which set the precendence is in an equal or greater court than the one in which the pending case is being tried. Precendence does not mean that any particular judge is required to follow precedence. Judges are notorious for setting their own precedence, which unfortunately, is perfectly within their legal description.
Only when a law specifically mandates minimums or maximums or particular actions does a judge have no leeway for interpretation. And interpretation is what has caused all of the problems we currently face, in government, politics and the Justice system.

Laws should be written to say what they mean and to mean what they say. If a law is flawed as written, the law should be re-written. There should be no room for interpretation.

The court system looks for the most expeditious way of resolving cases, which means judges often request or force arbitrations and settlements in lieu of filling their dockets years in advance. The court system is over-burdened. As a result, every case is about expeditious resolution. We can blame the "right to speedy trial" law but even with that law in place, a court is reluctant to move cases around. So, a case with a higher priority doesn't necessarily get moved ahead of cases with lesser priority. Politics plays a role in exactly how expeditious a trial is. And so does the media.

How the justice system was intended to work, and how the justice system actually works are as different as book law and trial law. I reiterate, there are reasons why I have avoided the fields of criminal prosecution and criminal defense. It's all a game. The lawyers are ripping into each other in court and in the hearings and conferences, but they also have lunch together and schedule tee times together and have each other's families and children over on weekends.

The entire system is a big, steaming crock of crap.

As far as this case is concerned, the Prosecutor cannot prove a conspiracy or collusion with regard to the shooting. The Prosecutor can prove conspiracy and collusion with regard to the burglary.

A lot of members want to argue that simply possessing the weapon shows intent. It doesn't. I carry concealed weapons. It doesn't mean that when I carry them into the bank it is with the intention of holding up the bank. The prosecutor simply can't prove the other defendants were aware of the gun, and the defense attorneys would not allow the other defendants to incriminate themselves by admitting they were aware of the weapon, let alone admitting they were aware the weapon was loaded or would be used.

Any attempt to prove a criminal charge without sufficient facts in evidence to support the charge will be tossed out of court. And once jeopardy has attached, which is at the arraignment, the case cannot be re-tried. Jeopardy has already attached for all four defendants. A guilty verdict for 1st Degree Murder is preferable to a Mistrial, Acquittal or any other outcome.

While I personally think all four should die and slow and painful death, and I mean excrutiatingly slow and excrutiatingly painful, I understand why the case is being tried as it is.

GSPODS wrote:A lot of members want to argue that simply possessing the weapon shows intent. It doesn't. I carry concealed weapons. It doesn't mean that when I carry them into the bank it is with the intention of holding up the bank.

But if you DO hold up the bank and kill someone.... Thats two different issues, 1st difference) you didn't pull the gun out, but in ST's case they did. 2nd difference) you didn't hold up the bank, but in ST's case the were there to rob the place. 3rd difference) YOU DIDN'T SHOOT SOMEONE. That is a bad example. Carring a loaded gun while breaking into a house, is totally different than just carring one around with a license to conceal.

BnGhog wrote:

GSPODS wrote:A lot of members want to argue that simply possessing the weapon shows intent. It doesn't. I carry concealed weapons. It doesn't mean that when I carry them into the bank it is with the intention of holding up the bank.

But if you DO hold up the bank and kill someone.... Thats two different issues, 1st difference) you didn't pull the gun out, but in ST's case they did. 2nd difference) you didn't hold up the bank, but in ST's case the were there to rob the place. 3rd difference) YOU DIDN'T SHOOT SOMEONE. That is a bad example. Carring a loaded gun while breaking into a house, is totally different than just carring one around with a license to conceal.

None of that changes the fact that simply carrying a weapon does not prove intent. Supposing I did use one of my concelaed weapons inside the bank. Supposing the reason was that while I was in line, someone came in and attempted to hold up the place. Does the simple fact that I had the weapon, and the fact that I used the weapon mean that I entered the bank with the inention of using the weapon?

You can't assume anything in a court of law. And the Prosecutor has to convince twelve stupid people known as a jury, and one additional stupid person known as a judge, of each and every count of the indictment.
It doesn't matter what you know or think you know. It only matters what you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 13 stupid people. And you can only prove anything with hard evidence or corroborated testimony.
There is no hard evidence the defendant intended to use the gun.
There is no hard evidence the other defendants knew about the gun.
There is hard evidence three defendants did not shoot a gun.
There is no corroborating testimony that any of the defendants conspired to or were in collusion with each other with regards to the shooting.
There is concrete evidence the defendants conspired to burglarize the residence.
There is concrete evidence that another crime took place during the commission of the burglary.
The two above facts alone elevate the charge from burglary to aggravated burglary.
A few days later, the aggravated burglary charge was elevated to 1st Degree Murder.
To elevate the charge to Aggravated or Pre-meditated 1st Degree Murder, the Prosecutor has to prove the defendants each possessed the "mens rea", the mental state, the "guilty mind" to have intended both the burglary and the shooting.

In a criminal court, Intent is everything. The Prosecution has to prove the level of intent meets the level of the charge(s) in the indictment. If anyone can legally prove the 17 year-old defendant possessed the intent to kill Sean Taylor, send your proof to the Prosecutor. It doesn't exist. And that is why the 17 year-old is not being tried as an adult for Capital Murder.

None of that changes the fact that simply carrying a weapon does not prove intent.

And, that is true, again, only because the members of the soul-less criminal bar have made it so. Your arguement is circular. "simply carrying a weapon does not constitute intent because it is simply carrying."

Any REASONABLE person would know that a gun has but one purpose, and having the gun to facilitate the commission of a felony would have only one explaination.

There was once a time, in most states, where a murder during the commission of many major crimes constituted capital murder. There is plenty of precedence. Intent can be assumed from the possession of the weapon. Why else did they have it?

I know state laws vary, bur I've read about cases when a murder committed during an armed robbery was considered to be premeditated.

Countertrey wrote:

None of that changes the fact that simply carrying a weapon does not prove intent.

And, that is true, again, only because the members of the soul-less criminal bar have made it so. Your arguement is circular. "simply carrying a weapon does not constitute intent because it is simply carrying."

Any REASONABLE person would know that a gun has but one purpose, and having the gun to facilitate the commission of a felony would have only one explaination.

There was once a time, in most states, where a murder during the commission of many major crimes constituted capital murder. There is plenty of precedence. Intent can be assumed from the possession of the weapon. Why else did they have it?

Legally, intent cannot be assumed. In fact, nothing can be assumed.
Does the law make sense? No.

We are on the same page. The bottom line issue is that it is next to impossible to convince a jury that a 17 year old should be sentenced to death. It doesn't matter what the crime is. The punishment will not fit the crime when the defendant is 17 and the crime is a capital offense.

Does the system suck? Maybe. Then again, maybe it blows. Maybe it does both. I'm personally all for public executions where the punishment is worse than the crime. Punishment is not a deterrent to crime because of life imprisonment. If extremely slow and excrutuatingly painful and torturous public death were the punishment, it might be a deterrent.

In my opinion, it was pre-meditated. Maybe not far in advance, but in advance, nontheless. The other guys tried to get Rivera to leave, but he said he was going to go back to the room. This shows pre-meditation, even if only by a few seconds.

JansenFan wrote:In my opinion, it was pre-meditated. Maybe not far in advance, but in advance, nontheless. The other guys tried to get Rivera to leave, but he said he was going to go back to the room. This shows pre-meditation, even if only by a few seconds.

To me the pre-meditation in this case is walking into someone else's house with a loaded gun and using it. Period. They pre-meditated the break in and pre-meditated what would happen if someone were home. In what possible way was it not pre-meditated when they planned a robbery with loaded guns? Obviously guns they were willing to use? I realize you're arguing for pre-meditation, JansenFan, I'm only saying I don't see the few seconds as relevant, it was already pre-meditated.

Now in my view that pre-meditation should warrant life in prison w/o parole. I used to be for the death penalty until I worked in Europe. The two questions Europeans constantly asked me were about guns and the death penalty. On guns, I ended up taking a stronger position in favor of freedom. I am totally lost how when someone can walk on places like college campuses with guns the Left's solution is to make even more sure that when they do no one will be armed and they can start blowing people away with no worries. In terms of death penalty, I decided they were right. It's better to lock them up and throw away the key. I think we should target getting criminals off the street and keeping them off and stop focusing on retribution.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

JansenFan wrote:In my opinion, it was pre-meditated. Maybe not far in advance, but in advance, nontheless. The other guys tried to get Rivera to leave, but he said he was going to go back to the room. This shows pre-meditation, even if only by a few seconds.

To me the pre-meditation in this case is walking into someone else's house with a loaded gun and using it. Period. They pre-meditated the break in and pre-meditated what would happen if someone were home. In what possible way was it not pre-meditated when they planned a robbery with loaded guns? Obviously guns they were willing to use? I realize you're arguing for pre-meditation, JansenFan, I'm only saying I don't see the few seconds as relevant, it was already pre-meditated.

Now in my view that pre-meditation should warrant life in prison w/o parole. I used to be for the death penalty until I worked in Europe. The two questions Europeans constantly asked me were about guns and the death penalty. On guns, I ended up taking a stronger position in favor of freedom. I am totally lost how when someone can walk on places like college campuses with guns the Left's solution is to make even more sure that when they do no one will be armed and they can start blowing people away with no worries. In terms of death penalty, I decided they were right. It's better to lock them up and throw away the key. I think we should target getting criminals off the street and stop focusing on retribution.

If they were under 18 at the time of the crime, the Supreme Court, in its supreme detachment from reality, has ruled that they can't be executed. As for life without parole, how would you like to be a prison guard & have to deal with a large number of extremely violent sociopaths & have no way to punish them?

yupchagee wrote:If they were under 18 at the time of the crime, the Supreme Court, in its supreme detachment from reality, has ruled that they can't be executed.

Even though I oppose the death penalty, I totally agree. There is no basis for the Supreme Court to have made that ruling. I actually believe we should follow the law which is why I believe the death penalty which I oppose and abortion which I support are State issues, not Federal. Not the first time nor the last the Supreme Court will make law unfortunately.

yupchagee wrote:As for life without parole, how would you like to be a prison guard & have to deal with a large number of extremely violent sociopaths & have no way to punish them?

You lost me on this. I don't want to be a prison guard at all. How could I answer this? And I don't know what you mean by "have no way to punish them." Can't they throw them in the hole, that sort of thing like any other prisoner?

Countertrey wrote:HardDawg

You can't sentence a minor to death! Its that simple. I'm as angry as anyone.

Why not? He was "man" enough to pull the trigger.

Life is prison IS worse than death!!!!

If that's true, why aren't more murderers begging for the death penalty?

I won't tell you how I know this to be true...Trust me when I tell you....Ciao

a lot of people who have life sentencs commit suicide while they are in jail.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

yupchagee wrote:If they were under 18 at the time of the crime, the Supreme Court, in its supreme detachment from reality, has ruled that they can't be executed.

Even though I oppose the death penalty, I totally agree. There is no basis for the Supreme Court to have made that ruling. I actually believe we should follow the law which is why I believe the death penalty which I oppose and abortion which I support are State issues, not Federal. Not the first time nor the last the Supreme Court will make law unfortunately.

yupchagee wrote:As for life without parole, how would you like to be a prison guard & have to deal with a large number of extremely violent sociopaths & have no way to punish them?

You lost me on this. I don't want to be a prison guard at all. How could I answer this? And I don't know what you mean by "have no way to punish them." Can't they throw them in the hole, that sort of thing like any other prisoner?

Many don't care if they are placed in solitary confinement. I didn't mean to suggest that you wanted to be or should be a prison guard, just to try to put yourself in their place. These violent sociopaths are very hard to control, presenting a danger to guards & other inmates. I am convinced that there are many cases where capital punishment is the only way to protect others.

Kazooskinsfan wrote

What a STUPID comment"

Well nice to have a balanced argument, I bet I make you made enough to kill! I do think there are nothing but victims, true murdered victims and victims of poverty and social deprevation. I know I am a bleeding heart liberal but if a society thinks its better than a killer because it puts him in a small room in front of an audience and kills him with legal process! then the society is flat our crazy. The state has no business killing its own citizens. I love the USA because it formed itself to escape tyranny and hanging societies like my country in the past. The USA should be the model for civilized society not in the same place as China!

BadgerKing wrote:Kazooskinsfan wrote

What a STUPID comment"

Well nice to have a balanced argument, I bet I make you made enough to kill! I do think there are nothing but victims, true murdered victims and victims of poverty and social deprevation. I know I am a bleeding heart liberal but if a society thinks its better than a killer because it puts him in a small room in front of an audience and kills him with legal process! then the society is flat our crazy. The state has no business killing its own citizens. I love the USA because it formed itself to escape tyranny and hanging societies like my country in the past. The USA should be the model for civilized society not in the same place as China!

"Do unto others have you would have themdo unto you."

Well, they've done to others....

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

BadgerKing wrote:There are nothing but victims here

What a STUPID comment. In what possible way is a group of 4 people who break into someone's house at night to steal his stuff with guns and blow him away a "victim?" Oh, we didn't know you were here in YOUR house! Oh, we didn't know your wife and kid would be here in YOUR house! Oh, we have these guns? Don't know why we brought them, we had no idea when we brought guns to commit a crime that it could suddenly become a bad situation. Oops, we're aiming them at you! What a mistake!?! Oops, I pulled the trigger, crap, I didn't mean to do that. Now run, run, hide. In what possible way are these victims?

<snip> Victims? You make me gag and I agree with your position on the death penalty! You will never, ever change anyone's mind who is for it by arguing the scum are victims. They stop listening right there because it in fact a stupid statement.

BadgerKing wrote:

kaz wrote:What a STUPID comment"

Well nice to have a balanced argument, I bet I make you made enough to kill! I do think there are nothing but victims, true murdered victims and victims of poverty and social deprevation. I know I am a bleeding heart liberal but if a society thinks its better than a killer because it puts him in a small room in front of an audience and kills him with legal process! then the society is flat our crazy. The state has no business killing its own citizens. I love the USA because it formed itself to escape tyranny and hanging societies like my country in the past. The USA should be the model for civilized society not in the same place as China!

A balanced argument? Balanced between four scum who broke into someone's house with guns to steal his stuff and murdered him in cold blood and someone who was murdered for going to bed in his own home? You write off the break in and murder of innocent people as being "victimized" by poverty and social deprivation? I write it off as greed and moral depravity.

There is no virtue is failure to post reality. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your "balance" anyway. And BTW, your post doesn't make me "mad" at all. Sadly I'm not even shocked anymore. It is just a post of low moral fiber and dearth of ethical responsiblity that sadly has become an all too common cop out of the Left. We are all the same, we all want the same things. When we screw up or commit acts of evil in the end it's society's fault, not our own.

One question for you. You call yourself a "bleeding heart liberal." Since you consider society to be the root of all evil and responsible for everything bad that happens in this country, why are you a self described bleeding heart liberal who wants to grow government power making society responsible for everything in our lives? Isn't that making the devil God? Think about it.