posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 02:48 AM
Originally posted by edsinger
We I meant the right to a speedy trial. So the taxpayer should have to pay for multiple appeals etc etc and it takes 20 years? No, that is a waste of
recourses and should be shortened considerably.
I know exactly what you meant, edsinger. It seems however, you're completely missing the point of what I'm
saying. In death penalty-cases,
increase in time and cost of administering criminal justice can't be avoided without abandoning the procedural safeguards and constitutional rights
which the courts are - and should be - requiring. The reasons for the radical increase in time and cost spent includes empaneling the jury and the
fact that post-conviction appeals are considerably more frequent in capital cases.
I do not think that is the case, now these 'animals' know that there is no way they will be killed for their crimes until way later. If they
knew they could die in days or weeks it would change the attitude for 'some' not all but some yes.
I have yet to see you present a rational argument and/or evidence to support why you think that is the case. Fact is that evidence show an
in homicide in states where the death penalty is utilized. It simply doesn't make any sense that this would dramatically change by
suddenly dismissing the constitutional rights of suspects and ignoring what safeguards are needed to avoid executing innocents (of which we have
numerous examples) in favor of speedier convictions and executions.
I agree, there is no reason to argue the death penalty with me, I believe in its virtues.
I was advising you to educate yourself on this issue and read through what's already been covered. Do so, and I'll be more than happy to have at
least a somewhat meaningful discussion with you.
[edit on 17-4-2005 by Durden]