Andrew Brannan clemency denied

[Gasser64]

It actually does, though.

which is of course absolutely unnecessary

trial, conviction, hanging in the morning. 1800's style. They didnt have millions for that shit

[YALE]

Link to somewhere that I can educate myself further?

This board does a good job of parsing the issue. You will (of course) have to wade through the bullshit.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

which is of course absolutely unnecessary

trial, conviction, hanging in the morning. 1800's style. They didnt have millions for that shit

I am not actually sure where to begin. Maybe Blackstone's formula. Are you familiar with it?

[robray5.0]

This board does a good job of parsing the issue. You will (of course) have to wade through the bullshit.

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002000

I am not actually sure where to begin. Maybe Blackstone's formula. Are you familiar with it?

I clicked on that link, and if it's true, about the cost of executing someone, I'm truly shocked at the cost. Hard to believe it costs that much money to stick a needle in someone's arm.

[YALE]

I clicked on that link, and if it's true, about the cost of executing someone, I'm truly shocked at the cost. Hard to believe it costs that much money to stick a needle in someone's arm.

That is not the sole cost involved. Keep reading, and take your time. Get a feel for the whole picture.

[4king]

I've read somewhere that the young deputy had been reprimanded in the days leading up to this incident for using excessive force. This probably had something to do with his hesitation.
But anytime you have someone with combat knowledge and a rifle and all you have is a pistol, it probably won't end well for you unless you get very lucky. The deputy should have emptied his mag into this guy the minute he grabbed the rifle.

I remember the same story, I also remember that the deputy knew the guy, the deputy was technically off duty and knew he was having problems

[Binky]

I remember the same story, I also remember that the deputy knew the guy, the deputy was technically off duty and knew he was having problems

Thats a new perspective - Lunatic murders friend

[Gasser64]

I am not actually sure where to begin. Maybe Blackstone's formula. Are you familiar with it?

Oh please do begin. Did you miss the part where I said he received a fair trial? I was referring to a trial in the U.S where he had that right. Barring the proving of real psychics, I dont know how you expect to proceed otherwise. We still do it this way to this very day. Its just that now, instead of "well, looks like its the rope for you" its "well, looks like its 30 years of free room and board all at the expense of innocent people who have committed no crime, for you". Due to the modern and much more scientific process i would allow for up to 1 year of free room and board. But then, of course, the rope. Specifically the rope, due to its low cost to the taxpayers and reusability.

[YALE]

Oh please do begin. Did you miss the part where I said he received a fair trial? I was referring to a trial in the U.S where he had that right. Barring the proving of real psychics, I dont know how you expect to proceed otherwise. We still do it this way to this very day. Its just that now, instead of "well, looks like its the rope for you" its "well, looks like its 30 years of free room and board all at the expense of innocent people who have committed no crime, for you". Due to the modern and much more scientific process i would allow for up to 1 year of free room and board. But then, of course, the rope. Specifically the rope, due to its low cost to the taxpayers and reusability.

You're still missing that it isn't the housing or execution that's expensive. It's the trial itself. Again (and if I need to repeat this bit again, just say so), the trial alone is far more expensive in a death penalty case than both the trial and expense of housing an inmate are in a life in prison case. Believe it or not, that is due to a change in appellate law designed to clean up an appeals system where convicts could request new appeals on different grounds until they ran out of technicalities, and process to exploit. Now, when a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, they're preloading all the costs of an appeal. They only have one opportunity to fight the appeal after a conviction, so they leave no stone unturned.

Also, Blackstone's ratio is not just about fairness and impartiality in a trial, it is also a standard of evidence for bringing a trial forward in the first place.

[ceyko]

Aw shit, I might be learning somethings in this thread. Damn it.

[Gasser64]

You're still missing that it isn't the housing or execution that's expensive. It's the trial itself. Again (and if I need to repeat this bit again, just say so), the trial alone is far more expensive in a death penalty case than both the trial and expense of housing an inmate are in a life in prison case. Believe it or not, that is due to a change in appellate law designed to clean up an appeals system where convicts could request new appeals on different grounds until they ran out of technicalities, and process to exploit. Now, when a prosecutor seeks the death penalty, they're preloading all the costs of an appeal. They only have one opportunity to fight the appeal after a conviction, so they leave no stone unturned.

Also, Blackstone's ratio is not just about fairness and impartiality in a trial, it is also a standard of evidence for bringing a trial forward in the first place.

You're still missing the part where I said thats all government waste. Needless, unnecessary, and can and should go the way of the dodo. Again, see the year 1850. How much do you think it cost back then, for the prosecutor to seek the death penalty? I guess the whole town had better hang itself because now they're going to starve! Do you believe that somehow there is good reason for all of that expense? Looking at what they spend it on, not even close.

[YALE]

You're still missing the part where I said thats all government waste. Needless, unnecessary, and can and should go the way of the dodo. Again, see the year 1850. How much do you think it cost back then, for the prosecutor to seek the death penalty? I guess the whole town had better hang itself because now they're going to starve! Do you believe that somehow there is good reason for all of that expense? Looking at what they spend it on, not even close.

You're moving the goalpost. We have the ability to collect far more accurate evidence than we could then, and if we used the standards available in 1850, we'd kill and imprison a lot of innocent people. Evidence supports that we did just that. Would you like that if you were facing a trial?

[Gasser64]

Sorry about moving th goalpost. I should have been more clear in my first post.

But these are the things which come to mind, I can't help that. I did say that I'm perfectly fine with allowing up to a year for other evidence to surface, appeals, and etc, within reason.

Do you think it should cost $10k for a DNA test? Just because it can? Just because "its an important matter, this is going to be in court!!" I think we both know about the massive government waste and that the courts are no exception. And I think we both know there is no reason for these outrageous costs. So what happens in 100 years? At the rate these expenses have increased, a trial will cost trillions. Like everything else this full retard government does, it needs to be reigned in..

And so, the death penalty could cost a lot less, and we could execute a lot more people a lot faster. Really get down to business in removing the criminal element.

[YALE]

Sorry about moving th goalpost. I should have been more clear in my first post.

But these are the things which come to mind, I can't help that. I did say that I'm perfectly fine with allowing up to a year for other evidence to surface, appeals, and etc, within reason.

Do you think it should cost $10k for a DNA test? Just because it can? Just because "its an important matter, this is going to be in court!!" I think we both know about the massive government waste and that the courts are no exception. And I think we both know there is no reason for these outrageous costs. So what happens in 100 years? At the rate these expenses have increased, a trial will cost trillions. Like everything else this full retard government does, it needs to be reigned in..

And so, the death penalty could cost a lot less, and we could execute a lot more people a lot faster. Really get down to business in removing the criminal element.

You can't remove the criminal element by killing it off. I'm not even going to pick this feverish nonsense apart. Just know that everything you said was wrong. Take it apart piece by piece, and remember the opposite.

[Gasser64]

You can't remove the criminal element by killing it off. I'm not even going to pick this feverish nonsense apart. Just know that everything you said was wrong. Take it apart piece by piece, and remember the opposite.

Cause death isn't permanent or anything. Lol, just lol


I'm sure you'd eliminate the death penalty completely, and house these POSs' forever. Tuck them in at night, give em a nice little kiss on the forehead.

[YALE]

Cause death isn't permanent or anything. Lol, just lol


I'm sure you'd eliminate the death penalty completely, and house these POSs' forever. Tuck them in at night, give em a nice little kiss on the forehead.

Death doesn't stop new people from choosing crime. It's an issue of opportunity cost.