U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas argue death penalty for child rapists

[SlowwHand]

The ideal, certainly, would be that the dp option never be needed. Only a madman would want an accusation only to be used as the deciding factor.

I'll point out again, that while so many dwell on the number of executions in Texas, they don't dwell on Texas leading the nation in overturned convictions based on new DNA techniques.
That's the part that usually ends up irritating me. Ignoring the good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I'll point out again, that while so many dwell on the number of executions in Texas, they don't dwell on Texas leading the nation in overturned convictions based on new DNA techniques.
That's the part that usually ends up irritating me. Ignoring the good.

Um... I'm sure I'll regret bringing this up... but isn't that a BAD thing? That indicates that so many of these convictions were wrong and without DNA evidence, a lot of innocent people would have died?

Also, you'd think that the state with the most number of executions and people on death row would, naturally, have the most number of convictions overturned based on DNA evidence, right?

[SlowwHand]

A) You can't make that assumption. Eye witnesses, for example, suck.

B)Ditto. Texas is making the effort on their own. No one is forcing them to review.

I'm just saying, effort is being made.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
All I have to say is that Democracy and human rights wise the US peaked in the 70's, after that you guys have been going downhill.

The DP is barbaric and unnesecary in a civilised society.
/Starts listneing to Rule Britannia/

You liked it when we were weak and dithering, eh? Or was it Nixon that you liked?

I'm against the DP because I think the judicial system is currently (and may always be) too flawed for me to be comfortable with the finality of the DP. There's no taking it back, and it's evident that many mistakes have been made, and are being made. In the (theoretical) case of a murderer or even a child rapist, who we knew with 100% certainty was guilty, I see no problem with removing that person from society, permanently, and not wishing to feed, clothe, and otherwise babysit the ****er for the rest of his or her life. Feel free to call me a barbarian despot whilst you hum the tune of Empire, of course.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian


You liked it when we were weak and dithering, eh?

Originally posted by Arrian


Or was it Nixon that you liked?

Only Nixon could go to China.

[Winston]

California has the largest number of inmates under sentence of death, not Texas.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Arrian

I'm against the DP because I think the judicial system is currently (and may always be) too flawed for me to be comfortable with the finality of the DP. There's no taking it back, and it's evident that many mistakes have been made, and are being made. In the (theoretical) case of a murderer or even a child rapist, who we knew with 100% certainty was guilty, I see no problem with removing that person from society, permanently, and not wishing to feed, clothe, and otherwise babysit the ****er for the rest of his or her life. Feel free to call me a barbarian despot whilst you hum the tune of Empire, of course.

-Arrian

That is a concern of mine as well. But my primary objection is giving the state the right to kill its own citizens. We in Europe have had some bad experience with this during the 40's...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Still, one would hope that the SCOTUS would slap the LA prosecution in any event for its misconduct.

One would hope that the Court would confine itself tothe issue at hand rather than venture into areas not in its purview.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
One would hope that the Court would confine itself tothe issue at hand rather than venture into areas not in its purview.

A violation of constitutional rights is within their purview.

[DinoDoc]

Except he's not appealing that.