Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

Death Row Inmate's death penalty over ridden when it was shown prosecutors unconstitutionally barred

who's talking here?

zolotiyeruki 1
Hiro Protagonist 1
Work in Progress 4
Joe Blow 1
sheddy 3
Emperor of Kingwood 3
AMDG 10
fuzz81 3

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

SCOTUS ruled in favor of death roe inmate Timothy Foster 7 ? 1 - he will now have to get a new trial.

In addition to the routine, but relatively rare circumstance where death row inmates are proved not guilty, this is a much more common but equally valid argument against the death penalty. That is, that it is unfairly applied. In this case, and in other studies, it has been shown where prosecutors unconstitutionally went out of their way to exclude blacks from juries.

Yet once again, the only completely valid reason for the death penalty is for vengeance. It is not preventative, it is costly, arbitrary, often unfairly enforced, and more than occasionally in error. It is also becoming more and more cruel as drug companies refuse to allow their products to be used. See some recent executions in Oklahoma.

Is vengeance really a good enough reason to continue this practice ?? 

fuzz81 --- 1 years ago -

Good job SCOTUS.

Many here will be outraged at this, sadly. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 1 years ago -

In this case, getting a new trial and being not guilty are two different things. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

In this case, getting a new trial and being not guilty are two different things.

absolutely - never said he was innocent. 

sheddy --- 1 years ago -

I was on a jury. The guy was guilty. They played 911 tapes from several different people involved while crime was being committed and it proved that he was guilty. There were four blacks, 3 women and 1 man, and two of the women said they knew he was guilty, but just couldn't be responsible for sending another black man to jail. I would not have had a problem sending anyone who I felt was guilty to prison. That trial last a day at least longer than needed. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

Sheddy - is your point that blacks should be actively excluded from juries?? 

sheddy --- 1 years ago -

No, I'm not. The women were so sweet, but if I was trying a case I'd be concerned. Neither one had to be on the jury. The judge asked repeatedly if anyone has a problem sentencing him if he was guilty. They didn't get up and leave. They knew what the trial was about and his charges. After the OJ trial, blacks were saying it didn't matter if he was guilty, enough blacks had been sent to jail who were innocent, so finding him innocent was fair. I guess it's that I've only heard comments about race from blacks. 

fuzz81 --- 1 years ago -

Wow 

sheddy --- 1 years ago -

Like I said, I would have never given it a thought before I was on that jury. I assumed that once the evidence was given, we would vote and decide his innocence or guilt. To have not one, but two people say they couldn't find him guilty because he was black floored us all.They admitted they thought he was guilty. What made it worse to me, was that the victims were black, too. 

zolotiyeruki (Wizard) --- 1 years ago -

Yet once again, the only completely valid reason for the death penalty is for vengeance. It is not preventative, it is costly, arbitrary, often unfairly enforced, and more than occasionally in error. It is also becoming more and more cruel as drug companies refuse to allow their products to be used. See some recent executions in Oklahoma.
May I offer a few counterpoints to your objections?
1) not preventative--if it were practiced more often, it would serve better as a deterrent.
2) costly - the high cost comes not from the execution itself, but from years of appeal after appeal after appeal. Also, life in prison is expensive.
3) more and more cruel - I don't think it has to be. Just bring back the firing squad. Quick and painless.

As for your objections about unfair enforcement and done in error, you may be correct, but that's an indictment of the police, not the manner of punishment. 

Joe Blow --- 1 years ago -

1) not preventative--if it were practiced more often, it would serve better as a deterrent.
2) costly - the high cost comes not from the execution itself, but from years of appeal after appeal after appeal. Also, life in prison is expensive.
3) more and more cruel - I don't think it has to be. Just bring back the firing squad. Quick and painless.

As for your objections about unfair enforcement and done in error, you may be correct, but that's an indictment of the police, not the manner of punishment.



1. I don't know if it would be a better deterrent. Those that are going to kill someone don't seem to even consider the consequences in my opinion. Life in prison should be a deterrent but it isn't.

2. Agreed, cost of those appeals is expensive HOWEVER it has been proven that it's cheaper to keep 'em in prison than to kill them. So life without parole should be the standard. No/less appeals like death sentencing.

3. No comment.

Whether or not it is an indictment of the police is unimportant. Just the fact that is a reality is enough of a reason to end this type of punishment. If only one innocent man is killed, it is sickening. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

an indictment of the police, not the manner of punishment.

Not sure it makes much of a difference to the folks getting killed.

The real issue is, it is a human system, and it will always be subject to human errors, and human prejudices.

The point was, is the only real benefit - vengeance worth living with the "humanness" of the system.

My opinion is no. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

Joe beat me to the other issues -

however it has been well studied - and the death penalty has never been a deterrent to violent crime. That is just a fact. 

fuzz81 --- 1 years ago -

Correct 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 1 years ago -

and the death penalty has never been a deterrent to violent crime. That is just a fact.

How would anyone know? 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

the fact is, that after extensive study, no one has found any evidence that the death penalty is has any deterrent effect. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 1 years ago -

the fact is, that after extensive study, no one has found any evidence that the death penalty is has any deterrent effect.

...and there's no evidence that it doesn't have any deterrent effect. 

Work in Progress --- 1 years ago -

The death penalty establishes that human life is sacred and that to take it in cold blood is more heinous than all other crime.

We don't give the death penalty for stealing a car. We give it for stealing a life.

My fear is that removing the death penalty is another step towards removing all cultural and societal recognition of the sanctity of life.

You can argue that steps must be taken in order to ensure that innocents do not receive the death penalty, and I will listen. That is a worthy goal.

But the removal of it all together makes the human worth no more than property in the eyes of our legal system. That is problematic. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

and there's no evidence that it doesn't have any deterrent effect.

Well if there is, no study looking for it has found it yet. There well could be unicorns hiding in some jungle somewhere - but it is not reasonable to believe so. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

My fear is that removing the death penalty is another step towards removing all cultural and societal recognition of the sanctity of life.

My fear is that by taking life solely for vengeance we further reduce the sanctity of life. 

Work in Progress --- 1 years ago -

Vengeance or Justice?

We want our government to deliver justice, it is a blessing from God to keep a cap on sin. Murder is intolerable in any society. It is just that murderers forfeit their own life when they have stolen another. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

WIP - that is the main point of the O/P. The death penalty, as implemented by fallible men, is at its heart un-just.

It unjustly kills a few who are innocent.

It unjustly kills the poor and disadvantages disproportionally.

It is unjustly arbitrary in what murders do or do not get capital punishment.

In it practice, in 2016, despite all efforts for it not to be, it is unjust in many ways. And the core reason for the injustice is un-fixable - it is a human institution and by definition will always be imperfect. 

Work in Progress --- 1 years ago -

But you implicate the entire justice system in that. Should we throw it all out?

Jesus will be the perfect judge. But in order not to live in chaos now, that the gospel may be preached, we have been given the gift of government to help us contain our sin, lest we mutually destruct.

One worry I do have, while we are on the subject, is not that the death penalty will be abolished, but that it will be expanded to include things other than murder. I would not support that. But I've seen rhetoric to that effect. Not from politicians, yet. But from the populace. That is frightening to think about. 

AMDG --- 1 years ago -

But you implicate the entire justice system in that. Should we throw it all out?

No - but we shouldn't kill so imperfectly. See your first post on the sanctity of life. 

Hiro Protagonist --- 1 years ago -

My fear is that removing the death penalty is another step towards removing all cultural and societal recognition of the sanctity of life.


This statement couldn't be any more ironic. 

Work in Progress --- 1 years ago -

Hiro, only to one who doesn't think it through.

I prefer "paradox." You will find that it is true. 

page 1
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground