NC Penguin

Any thoughts about the following information below?

I wonder how many juveniles this will remove from various states's Death Rows?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~
March 1, 2005

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that sentencing juvenile offenders to death is unconstitutional.

"Today, the Court repudiated the misguided idea that the United States can pledge to leave no child behind while simultaneously exiling children to the death chamber. Now, the US can proudly remove its name from the embarrassing list of human rights violators that includes China, Iran, and Pakistan-nations that still execute juvenile offenders. It can take pride in knowing that it is now in the company of the honorable nations that abandoned this antiquated practice years ago."

- Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA
A special thanks to all Amnesty International activists who contributed to this victory!

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception as it is the ultimate denial of human rights, and we will continue to demand unconditionally its worldwide abolition.

tony126

I think it is a sound move although the death penalty will always be an emotive issue.

AdobePinon

Oh yes, tell that to our great Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, who's thinking of running for president. The NM house just passed a bill to eliminate the death penalty (BTW, NM has 'legally' killed one person in the last 45 years), and now it's milling around in the Senate. If the bill makes it to Bill's desk, does he...

Manc

0 in Michigan

NC Penguin

Sounds like a "damned if you, damned if you don't" scenario...



NC Penguin

waxwabbit

In connection with the thread about juveniles and the death penalty, I was just wondering what the general opinion on the death penalty was.

I am thinking perhaps being Brits maybe we sway differently to the US opinion, then again maybe not.


I am AGAINST the death penalty

anotherlimey

I think it's justified only when there are multiple murders (i.e. a serial killer) and there is no doubt that the defendant is guilty.

-tom

Franklin

Lets explain this properly, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that cases like that involving the sniper Lee Malvo who committed separate multiple murders of mothers and fathers can not face the death penalty even though Malvo is now an adult.

Imho, the death penalty should not be allowed on adults who committed a single murder while they were under 18 years of age. However, in cases of serial killers, where there were several separate murders as with Lee Malvo, I think the ultimate sanction should be an option available to the state court and hence to the people of the state where the multiple murders of innocent mothers and fathers like those carried out by Lee Malvo. That swine shot and shot and shot again, and used a very high power rifle with bullets of the type that did enormous damage to the victim. In one murder, Lee Malvo blew off much of the face of a harmless woman (at Home Depot, about 2.5 miles from where I live). The husband and family of that poor woman have to endure each day the memories of that day, enshrined in the 911 tape where the husband pleaded for help and was overwhelmed when he looked into what was left of his wife's face. Imho, when the public are terrified by monsters like Lee Malvo the death penalty should be available once the monster is an adult. Lee Malvo helped terrorize a community for weeks on end. It was a horrible experience and there were countless victims beyond those actually murdered, all of us who lived in the DC metro area were very nervous of shopping and doing normal things like visiting a gas station or a shopping center.

The US S. Ct. has reversed itself and imho in so doing made a mistake, but that is the law of the land now, and must be respected and strictly followed.

Franklin

The last time I looked there was a strong majority among the UK public for the death penalty, the MPs voted based on their own viewpoint and not the majority view of their constituents. I am only in favor of the death penalty where the evidence is overwhelming that a particularly heinous act was committed; while eye-witness testimony can be enough to support a life sentence, the evidence must be much stronger than eye-witness testimony and must include objective evidence such as DNA combined with a time-fix that puts the alleged killer at the place of the crime when it happened. Absent such overwhelming evidence I am against a death penalty, the evidence must be much higher than "beyond reasonable doubt", the bar should be set, imho, at "no residual doubt".

fatbrit

snowbunny

Thank God for the decision. Bit late to revive those already executed.

Isn't it odd that conservatives, who say that government screws everything up, are usually the biggest advocates for the death penalty? If the government screws up the arrest/conviction, bit hard to say "sorry mate" after the person is dead. So... what, conservatives want the private sector to handle it? TrialsRUs? Fundamentalist vigilantes for hire?

fatbrit

Generally, though the left are pro capital punishment, anti abortion, while Dems are vice versa. Neither stance taken together really makes much moral sense to me.

ImHere

Is that a "no" vote then?

Personally I say mass murderers should be done away with...why should the tax payer have to pay for scum like Myra Hindley and Ian Bradley for the rest of their pathetic, useless, lives? Shoot em and throw their shitbag corpes on the landfill site to rot with all the rest of the rubbish.

fatbrit

The financial argument is that the death penalty is actually more expensive for the taxpayer than life in prison.

http://www.cybervillage.com/ocs/penalty.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...c=4&s=sherrill

http://users.rcn.com/mwood/deathpen.html#Costs

ImHere

This may be true or not, however the public satisfaction of watching a self confessed multiple child murderer swing would be worth the added cost, don't you think?

And isn't most of the added cost infact the massive legal bill required to get the scumbag in case to the execution chamber? Perhaps the "incentive" to the lawyers to keep costs low could be the losing sides lawyers get to have a go in the chamber as well if they go over a set cost?