posted on April 29, 2001 07:55:31 PM new
I called the cop who threw a mommy in jail for not wearing her seatbelt an a**hole.
Anyway, to get back to the topic at hand -- McVeigh's "rights" include nothing more and nothing less then what is in the Constitution. Those rights are yours and mine. They include[d] a presumption of innocence until his guilt was proven in court to the satisfaction of a jury, and all the due process entitled to everyone.
Now, what if he was innocent? Don't you think it would have been in all of our best interests for him to have been exonerated? That could only have happened, of course, if due process was followed.
posted on April 29, 2001 08:00:42 PM new
krs- "...those who would silence him know that they should be standing beside him." do you mean that those who would silence his freedom of speech know that they should be defending his rights? obviously they would not. you are questioning the "bloodlust" here but then refer to "the polls" in a vague way. do you feel that the polls are a way to deal with violent criminals or are you saying that sarcastically? do you feel that neither is a solution and that life imprisonment is the right thing?
posted on April 29, 2001 08:19:47 PM new
we don't know if the death penalty is a deterrent and we are quite sure that at some time an innocent person was put to death. however, if a person of sound mind(?) is found guilty of murdering someone they should not be allowed to live. i think that the danger of parole(an imperfect process at best) or escape and the subsequent chance of another murder is at least as likely as an innocent person being executed.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:25:03 PM new
Many have posted concern about the victim's families. These stories illustrate how executions affect families.
posted on April 29, 2001 09:38:46 PM newWhy the officer is an a**hole:
To get the full flavor - make it stench - of the conduct that the majority said passed muster of the Fourth Amendment, the dissenting opinion of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is required reading. Some highlights:
The cop, Officer Michael Barton Turek, pulled over Gail Atwater, who was doing 15 m.p.h. on an empty street near her home in Lago Vista. He was "loud and accusatory" from the outset. Atwater's two kids were "terrified and hysterical." Yet when she asked him to lower his voice because he was scaring the children, he responded by jabbing his finger in her face and saying, "You're going to jail."
She asked if she could at least take her kids to a friend's house down the street; Turek said he would take them to jail. Only other kids on the block stopped that music: They got an adult to take the young aiders and abettors home.
"With the children gone," O'Connor wrote, "Officer Turek handcuffed Ms. Atwater with her hands behind her back, placed her in the police car, and drove to the police station. Ironically, Turek did not secure Atwater in a seat belt for the drive. At the station, she was forced to remove her shoes, relinquish her possessions and wait in a holding cell for about an hour."
A judge finally released her when she posted bond. When she returned to the scene of the arrest, her car had been towed. Eventually she paid the maximum "sentence," a $50 fine, and she and her husband sued Turek and the city on the grounds they had violated her constitutional rights to be free of "unreasonable searches and seizures" as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
As Justice O'Connor notes, Atwater's 3-year-old son was "very, very, very traumatized. He has to see a child psychologist regularly, who reported that the boy felt very guilty that he couldn't stop this horrible thing . . . both he and his sister are now terrified at the sight of any police car."
Although this was taken from an op-ed piece, one which I agree with, you can focus on the exact words of Justice O'Connor, quoted, who is quite familiar with the case at hand.
--------------------------------------------
How Mind4you implied that due process isn't important:
1) The above scenario i.e. arrest and detainment for a minor traffic violation doesn't concern you as an erosion of our rights. "As far as the arrest in Texas for not having the children in seatbelts. Some stupid parents need to be arrested for that."
Perhaps that will have to happen to you for you to appreciate the absurdity and outrageousness of that scenario.
2) criminals past acts of crime are not allowed to be brought up, in future criminal acts trials? You know, I too, don't like the law, when I think of this.
That speaks for itself.
Hope that helps.
[ edited by jamesoblivion on Apr 29, 2001 09:40 PM ]
posted on April 30, 2001 02:31:59 AM new
Since 1996 Eighty-Seven people have been proven innocent by DNA evidence of crimes that they had been convicted of committing and released to freedom.
Eleven of those had been sentenced to death.
posted on April 30, 2001 02:52:44 AM new
mint4you,
You said:
"Why would a person who was wrongfully convicted ONCE, be guilty of all future crimes? I said criminal histories, please note the plural usage"
Umm, how many make a history, in your view? By the following it seems that even one would do:
"I also did not say they were guilty,just the perception of guilt is more easily reached. Do you honestly think if a person has a mug sheet, they are assumed innocent of all crimes? Hardly. If they are even near where a crime has been committed, they are in hot water"
So, again, you would convict a person because of a past record, plurality doesn't matter except to strengthen that conviction, right?
Also, you have said that:
"As far as "shed" blood,I shed some of mine for these freedoms you now enjoy, please do not assume I will sign them away so easily. Even though I did that for you, my family, and all citizens of this country".
I wonder if you could shed some light on this statement? Have you fought in any of this nation's wars? If so, which one and in what capacity?
posted on April 30, 2001 04:40:08 AM new
krs- your info on the DNA/release facts sounds about right. i remember reading something about that. i don't remember the source, do you? do you know of any statistics on escapees/parolees commiting a second murder? are you for life imprisonment and against the death penalty under any circumstances?
posted on April 30, 2001 04:50:05 AM new
That number came out of my Sunday paper yesterday. California has just begun a limited requirement that available DNA information be accessed in review of past convictions. That data was part of the discussion of the impact of the new requirement.
posted on April 30, 2001 06:41:28 AM new
There have been a lot of interesting points brought out here. A few stand out for me.
One poster doesn't understand why the death penalty might be wrong to a person who believes abortion is ok. Please realize that there are people who do not think a 10 week fetus is a human, with rights and priveleges. This is why we have brains - to come to our own conclusions based on the facts presented to us.
Another poster asked how many proponents of the death penalty considered themselves compassionate Christians. I may have read the intent of that post incorrectly, but one does not have to be Christian to have compassion.
The recent Not-so-Supreme court ruling. In any profession, there are good and bad. In many small towns, all that is required to be a cop is a HS education and a firearms test. The recent decision gives the bad cops more latitude to be the power hungry morons they'd hoped police work would let them be. Good cops will stay good cops, you and I will just have less protection from the morons.
One poster pointed out that if murder is wrong, and the death penalty is murder, it too is wrong - i.e. one wrong doesn't correct another. However, if you think of society as a system or an organism, you might think of the death penalty as a way to remove a corrupted piece of that organism. Much like having cancerous cells removed so the organism can continue to thrive.
posted on April 30, 2001 10:33:39 AM new
Since you've chosen not to challenge my assertion that you do not hold due process of law to be of import I'll continue to assume that you don't.
posted on April 30, 2001 10:43:43 AM new
Everyone..
Please follow the Community Guidelines and address the topic and not each other. Rudeness and/or name-calling will put your posting privileges in jeopardy.
posted on April 30, 2001 12:03:15 PM new
mint4you,
No, it does not. The prior convictions would affect sentencing after subsequent conviction but are not to be used, in any way, to affect conviction in the instance case. That's the law.
You haven't answered my question above concerning your claim of having shed your blood for these rights which you now would deny.
posted on April 30, 2001 12:05:47 PM new
I am in favor of the death penalty. No, it is not a deterrent--but it does ensure that someone like McVeigh will be permanently removed. Especially when "life" isn't "life" when you figure in parole. As anyone who has ever had to put down a pet can tell you, lethal injection is a peaceful way to go (I've had several mortally ill pets simply go to sleep in my arms).
Why should society pay for the yearly upkeep of such a cold blooded killer? And it is laughable to hold up Christianity as a high-minded "moral" guide when Christians have such a bloody history themselves & one has only to read the Bible to find many examples of their God exhorting the destruction of others or passages demanding the violent punishment of transgressors...
posted on April 30, 2001 12:15:05 PM newPut a person with a criminal past next to Mr. Joe Clean in a police lineup, and see who gets looked at more closely?
Geez...
What do you think happens during a police line-up? You think each person tells their life story?
posted on April 30, 2001 12:18:44 PM new
I'm not sure how I feel about the death penalty. At different times in my life I've been pro and con. No doubt if my child or husband were murdered I would want the ultimate revenge. I am sorry for McVeigh's parents. I can't forget that he was someone's baby...someone's child...someone's hopes and dreams...just as were his victims in Oklahoma City, and I can't imagine the terrible pain of the victim's families. I guess he must pay for his crimes, but what curdles my blood is the people who seem to want to rejoice in his death, that wish it to be torturous, painful, and drawn out. Those that WOULD take pleasure in another's pain. I just can't handle that. In my eyes, it makes these people no better than he is. The law says he must pay the ultimate price for his crime. But I will never rejoice and celebrate another human being's death.
posted on April 30, 2001 12:19:06 PM new
In a police line-up, the suspect (who may be clean as a whistle) simply stands next to people already in custody who resemble the witness or victim's description.
This topic is 6 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new
