https://news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-death-row-inmate-writes-letter-life-152637993--abc-news.html
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
https://news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-death-row-inmate-writes-letter-life-152637993--abc-news.html
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
https://news.yahoo.com/north-carolina-death-row-inmate-writes-letter-life-152637993--abc-news.html
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
My counter suggestion is to spend the day, no spend two hours in a living room of the victims' family. I suggest the prison cell is much prettier.
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
My counter suggestion is to spend the day, no spend two hours in a living room of the victims' family. I suggest the prison cell is much prettier.
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
Why do some of us spend energy worrying about the mass murderers feelings?
Thats one of our biggest problems that exacerbates the problem exponentially.
Always a good idea to quote the mentally unstable for 'proof' of your point.
My suggestion to spend a day in a death row ward. It isn't pretty.
Why do some of us spend energy worrying about the mass murderers feelings?
Thats one of our biggest problems that exacerbates the problem exponentially.
You 'created' the 'problem' that exists in this thread when you suggested that convicted criminals be afforded less rights.
You never did quite respond to how these rights should be reduced. Instead, you suggested they be afforded one appeal.Let me explain why that doesn't work.
The appeal process is both state and federal. Murder is a state charge, but one has federally protected and state protected rights. A convicted criminal must exhaust all state remedies before addressing any federal one. That is the reason that those convicted may actually have numerous appeals (state appellate court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court, Supreme Court). Unless you are going to deny one his/her constitutional rights, you simply cannot circumvent the right to challenge a conviction.
You 'created' the 'problem' that exists in this thread when you suggested that convicted criminals be afforded less rights.
You never did quite respond to how these rights should be reduced. Instead, you suggested they be afforded one appeal.Let me explain why that doesn't work.
The appeal process is both state and federal. Murder is a state charge, but one has federally protected and state protected rights. A convicted criminal must exhaust all state remedies before addressing any federal one. That is the reason that those convicted may actually have numerous appeals (state appellate court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court, Supreme Court). Unless you are going to deny one his/her constitutional rights, you simply cannot circumvent the right to challenge a conviction.
You 'created' the 'problem' that exists in this thread when you suggested that convicted criminals be afforded less rights.
You never did quite respond to how these rights should be reduced. Instead, you suggested they be afforded one appeal.Let me explain why that doesn't work.
The appeal process is both state and federal. Murder is a state charge, but one has federally protected and state protected rights. A convicted criminal must exhaust all state remedies before addressing any federal one. That is the reason that those convicted may actually have numerous appeals (state appellate court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court, Supreme Court). Unless you are going to deny one his/her constitutional rights, you simply cannot circumvent the right to challenge a conviction.
Why does it take 40 years for our effed up judicial system to run though this process?
My point is the system is not reasonable and for the money we spend on housing death row inmates we could enhance the system to be much more efficient while still seeing the really really really really really guilty ones flatline.
You 'created' the 'problem' that exists in this thread when you suggested that convicted criminals be afforded less rights.
You never did quite respond to how these rights should be reduced. Instead, you suggested they be afforded one appeal.Let me explain why that doesn't work.
The appeal process is both state and federal. Murder is a state charge, but one has federally protected and state protected rights. A convicted criminal must exhaust all state remedies before addressing any federal one. That is the reason that those convicted may actually have numerous appeals (state appellate court, state supreme court, federal district court, federal circuit court, Supreme Court). Unless you are going to deny one his/her constitutional rights, you simply cannot circumvent the right to challenge a conviction.
Why does it take 40 years for our effed up judicial system to run though this process?
My point is the system is not reasonable and for the money we spend on housing death row inmates we could enhance the system to be much more efficient while still seeing the really really really really really guilty ones flatline.
The current way our law enforcement gathers evidence these days there should be FAR less people that are in the innocent category.
A truly independant appeal body could look at each case and in two days decide if any other appeals are necessary.
The current way our law enforcement gathers evidence these days there should be FAR less people that are in the innocent category.
A truly independant appeal body could look at each case and in two days decide if any other appeals are necessary.
Agreed.
We need true criminal justice reform but the problem is joe taxpayer(s) want nothing to do with the cost of actual reform, unless of course it involves no prison time for those with drug addictions. If that were to happen, we would have plenty of prison space for the real offenders.
Agreed.
We need true criminal justice reform but the problem is joe taxpayer(s) want nothing to do with the cost of actual reform, unless of course it involves no prison time for those with drug addictions. If that were to happen, we would have plenty of prison space for the real offenders.
Why does it take 40 years for our effed up judicial system to run though this process?
My point is the system is not reasonable and for the money we spend on housing death row inmates we could enhance the system to be much more efficient while still seeing the really really really really really guilty ones flatline.
Many reasons. One being the continued cutbacks in the judicial budget. Another being the time it takes to issue decisions, obtain transcripts, file for new appeals, etc.
I would imagine the money spent on housing death row inmates is less than you think. Outside of the appeal process, the cost is likely less than for other inmates (max security generally have more walls, less libraries, less common rooms which equal less security.
Why does it take 40 years for our effed up judicial system to run though this process?
My point is the system is not reasonable and for the money we spend on housing death row inmates we could enhance the system to be much more efficient while still seeing the really really really really really guilty ones flatline.
Many reasons. One being the continued cutbacks in the judicial budget. Another being the time it takes to issue decisions, obtain transcripts, file for new appeals, etc.
I would imagine the money spent on housing death row inmates is less than you think. Outside of the appeal process, the cost is likely less than for other inmates (max security generally have more walls, less libraries, less common rooms which equal less security.
The current way our law enforcement gathers evidence these days there should be FAR less people that are in the innocent category.
A truly independant appeal body could look at each case and in two days decide if any other appeals are necessary.
There is. It is called an appellate court. The Supreme Court being the final arbitrator as to whether the appellate court did their job.
Do you even want to know how many cases the Supreme Court said they did not? Here is your hint...whatever you guess, the number will be much higher.
The current way our law enforcement gathers evidence these days there should be FAR less people that are in the innocent category.
A truly independant appeal body could look at each case and in two days decide if any other appeals are necessary.
There is. It is called an appellate court. The Supreme Court being the final arbitrator as to whether the appellate court did their job.
Do you even want to know how many cases the Supreme Court said they did not? Here is your hint...whatever you guess, the number will be much higher.
'sup!
I am not for legalization of drugs, per se. But I am also not for sending someone to prison for possession of a usable amount of drugs either.
I am for legalization of marijuana. I have changed my position on that. Even though most states make it a civil offense with no jail time, they backdoor it with incarceration when the person cannot pay the fine.
'sup!
I am not for legalization of drugs, per se. But I am also not for sending someone to prison for possession of a usable amount of drugs either.
I am for legalization of marijuana. I have changed my position on that. Even though most states make it a civil offense with no jail time, they backdoor it with incarceration when the person cannot pay the fine.
'sup!
I am not for legalization of drugs, per se. But I am also not for sending someone to prison for possession of a usable amount of drugs either.
I am for legalization of marijuana. I have changed my position on that. Even though most states make it a civil offense with no jail time, they backdoor it with incarceration when the person cannot pay the fine.
'sup!
I am not for legalization of drugs, per se. But I am also not for sending someone to prison for possession of a usable amount of drugs either.
I am for legalization of marijuana. I have changed my position on that. Even though most states make it a civil offense with no jail time, they backdoor it with incarceration when the person cannot pay the fine.
There is. It is called an appellate court. The Supreme Court being the final arbitrator as to whether the appellate court did their job.
Do you even want to know how many cases the Supreme Court said they did not? Here is your hint...whatever you guess, the number will be much higher.
So do you really believe this process cannot be streamlined?
There is. It is called an appellate court. The Supreme Court being the final arbitrator as to whether the appellate court did their job.
Do you even want to know how many cases the Supreme Court said they did not? Here is your hint...whatever you guess, the number will be much higher.
So do you really believe this process cannot be streamlined?
Not at all.
Let's remember (or research) why prohibition ended?
It was simple. It wasn't because alcohol was determined to be good or even because it was a violation of rights. Rather it was because the enforcement became more problematic than the perceived 'evil' of alcohol.
That is where I currently find marijuana prohibition. We know it offers medical benefits so there is some basis for legality. We know it also offers benefits to those who are at latter stages of life due to cancer and other horrible conditions so there are more basis for legality.
Punishing those who use simply clogs the system, as prohibition did. People are going to jail because they cannot pay the fines associated with using. It makes no sense.
I continue opposition to trafficking to children or to money laundering assciated with selling. I am in favor of laws that restrict the use of marijuana and operation of vehicles, etc. same as alcohol.
But it is time for an end to draconian laws that simply harm those that either have a use for it or cannot afford to pay the costs of the consequences, which I am not convinced outweigh the costs of regulation.
Not at all.
Let's remember (or research) why prohibition ended?
It was simple. It wasn't because alcohol was determined to be good or even because it was a violation of rights. Rather it was because the enforcement became more problematic than the perceived 'evil' of alcohol.
That is where I currently find marijuana prohibition. We know it offers medical benefits so there is some basis for legality. We know it also offers benefits to those who are at latter stages of life due to cancer and other horrible conditions so there are more basis for legality.
Punishing those who use simply clogs the system, as prohibition did. People are going to jail because they cannot pay the fines associated with using. It makes no sense.
I continue opposition to trafficking to children or to money laundering assciated with selling. I am in favor of laws that restrict the use of marijuana and operation of vehicles, etc. same as alcohol.
But it is time for an end to draconian laws that simply harm those that either have a use for it or cannot afford to pay the costs of the consequences, which I am not convinced outweigh the costs of regulation.
Not at all.
Let's remember (or research) why prohibition ended?
It was simple. It wasn't because alcohol was determined to be good or even because it was a violation of rights. Rather it was because the enforcement became more problematic than the perceived 'evil' of alcohol.
That is where I currently find marijuana prohibition. We know it offers medical benefits so there is some basis for legality. We know it also offers benefits to those who are at latter stages of life due to cancer and other horrible conditions so there are more basis for legality.
Punishing those who use simply clogs the system, as prohibition did. People are going to jail because they cannot pay the fines associated with using. It makes no sense.
I continue opposition to trafficking to children or to money laundering assciated with selling. I am in favor of laws that restrict the use of marijuana and operation of vehicles, etc. same as alcohol.
But it is time for an end to draconian laws that simply harm those that either have a use for it or cannot afford to pay the costs of the consequences, which I am not convinced outweigh the costs of regulation.
Not at all.
Let's remember (or research) why prohibition ended?
It was simple. It wasn't because alcohol was determined to be good or even because it was a violation of rights. Rather it was because the enforcement became more problematic than the perceived 'evil' of alcohol.
That is where I currently find marijuana prohibition. We know it offers medical benefits so there is some basis for legality. We know it also offers benefits to those who are at latter stages of life due to cancer and other horrible conditions so there are more basis for legality.
Punishing those who use simply clogs the system, as prohibition did. People are going to jail because they cannot pay the fines associated with using. It makes no sense.
I continue opposition to trafficking to children or to money laundering assciated with selling. I am in favor of laws that restrict the use of marijuana and operation of vehicles, etc. same as alcohol.
But it is time for an end to draconian laws that simply harm those that either have a use for it or cannot afford to pay the costs of the consequences, which I am not convinced outweigh the costs of regulation.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.