Cops May Face Death Penalty In Post-Katrina Shootings - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357545]Well if we were so orderly and civil then why are people still raping and killing each other?[/QUOTE] It's not as common as you might think

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357533]If it's a death penalty case, the jury knows. What is so hard to understand about that? The jury knows what they're convicting the defendant of.[/QUOTE] Yes, but there are a variety of sentencing options that go along with what they're convicting someone of. They convict on the charge, not the sentencing. I want a link to this information, because no one else here agrees with you, not even people who are normally on your side of the issue.

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;23357551]It's not as common as you might think[/QUOTE] But my point is, people still do it.

Ragy, it's safe to say that you're wrong in implying that the intended sentence (in this case capital punishment) is decided upon before the case has been heard. Can we please just fucking get on with our lives?

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357596]But my point is, people still do it.[/QUOTE] Still not justification for state-sanctioned killings. If you're going decry the continued killing and mistreatment of our own kind, it's better to take a firm stand against it than to enshrine it within our own systems of civilization.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357596]But my point is, people still do it.[/QUOTE] You also have to take into account the fact that with our massive intelligence, we also have the ability to hate, and be prejudiced.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury[/url] "The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 284 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge (in a capital punishment trial by jury) decide between life or death sentences, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses, although this has not [B]yet occurred in an actual trial.[/B]" Now please shut the fuck up, you've been proven wrong.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357596]But my point is, people still do it.[/QUOTE] and that's why we have the justice system. [editline]01:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;23357628][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury[/URL] "The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 284 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge (in a capital punishment trial by jury) decide between life or death sentences, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses, although this has not [B]yet occurred in an actual trial.[/B]" Now please shut the fuck up, you've been proven wrong.[/QUOTE] still decides whether or not someone lives or dies.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357630]still decides whether or not someone lives or dies.[/QUOTE] I think you need to read it again. If a judge ever overturns a jury's decision, his career is over.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357672]I think you need to read it again.[/QUOTE] [quote]The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses[/quote] still in essence has the power to rule life or death.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357630]and that's why we have the justice system.[/QUOTE] Well I think they're doing a piss-poor job on a count of people still breaking laws.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357698]still in essence has the power to rule life or death.[/QUOTE] It has [B]never[/B] been done before, because judges know not to do it. The public would cause chaos and he would never be a judge again. The public and jury has more power than the judge. The judge is more of a ref is court, not the big overall decider. [QUOTE=Ragy;23356788]Do you really think a judge in a murder case would overturn the jury? He may be able to, but what would that make his public appearance look like? That would be his last case.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357715]Well I think they're doing a piss-poor job on a count of people still breaking laws.[/QUOTE] do you have brain damage. how exactly do you prevent someone from doing a crime. do you read their minds.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357781]do you have brain damage. how exactly do you prevent someone from doing a crime. do you read their minds.[/QUOTE] Put a chip in everyone's brain that paralyzes them whenever they do anything bad

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357628][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury[/url] "The practice generally was that the jury rules only on questions of facts on guilt; setting the penalty was reserved for the judge. This has been changed by rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court such as in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 284 (2002), which found Arizona's practice, having the judge (in a capital punishment trial by jury) decide between life or death sentences, to be unconstitutional, and reserved that decision for the jury. The judge can, however, overrule the jury and reduce the penalty from death to life if he or she chooses, although this has not [B]yet occurred in an actual trial.[/B]" Now please shut the fuck up, you've been proven wrong.[/QUOTE] Antonin Scalia disagrees with the un-sourced Wikipedia interpretation of Ring v. Arizona: "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. [b]Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so"[/b]

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357781]do you have brain damage. how exactly do you prevent someone from doing a crime. do you read their minds.[/QUOTE] No, you can't prevent someone from doing a crime, and that's my point.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357781]do you have brain damage. how exactly do you prevent someone from doing a crime. do you read their minds.[/QUOTE] Helping criminals is a great idea as most of them go right back into prison, but it's just not possible with serious cases and with the amount of prisoners. The cost of it would be insane.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23357806]Antonin Scalia disagrees with the un-sourced Wikipedia interpretation of Ring v. Arizona: "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. [b]Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so"[/b][/QUOTE] Well it isn't like what you just said is sourced

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357839]No, you can't prevent someone from doing a crime, and that's my point.[/QUOTE] soooo that means we should give up the justice system all together because there will always be crime? are you some anarchistic 13 year old, what the fuck is wrong with you.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23357806]Antonin Scalia disagrees with the un-sourced Wikipedia interpretation of Ring v. Arizona: "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer's company, the unfortunate fact is that today's judgment has nothing to do with jury sentencing. What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. [b]Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so"[/b][/QUOTE] Who is Antonin Scalia? So you're now using peoples opinions against the stated law? Source?

As I was saying, idiots talking out their asses. [editline]05:31PM[/editline] Mah auto-merge!

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357866]Who is Antonin Scalia? So you're now using peoples opinions against the stated law? Source?[/QUOTE] He's a conservative Supreme Court justice appointed by Reagan. :downs:

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357866]Who is Antonin Scalia? So you're now using peoples opinions against the stated law? Source?[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZC.html[/url] Uh, gee, only a Supreme Court justice. Your ignorance and laziness is fucking astounding.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23357865]soooo that means we should give up the justice system all together because there will always be crime? are you some anarchistic 13 year old, what the fuck is wrong with you.[/QUOTE] Well gee, our current justice system doesn't STOP people from committing crimes, so yeah, i'd say reevaluate it, I've always felt an eye-for-an-eye punishment system was a good way to go.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23357950][url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZC.html[/url] Uh, gee, only a Supreme Court justice.[/QUOTE] Ok, so what if she disagrees with the law? That proves nothing. [editline]05:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23357950]Your ignorance and laziness is fucking astounding.[/QUOTE] Haha calling me ignorant when you just got the shit beaten out of you. Haha Someones mad.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357971]Ok, so what if she disagrees with the law? That proves nothing.[/QUOTE] He was stating that in his concurrence to the very same case that the person writing the wikipedia article was misinterpreting.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357965]Well gee, our current justice system doesn't STOP people from committing crimes, so yeah, i'd say reevaluate it, I've always felt an eye-for-an-eye punishment system was a good way to go.[/QUOTE] it's not the job of the justice system to stop crime, it's to serve justice to people who have already broken the law. eye for an eye is a fucking terrible way for justice, do you honestly think that's better than what we have.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23357971]Ok, so what if [B]she[/B] disagrees with the law? That proves nothing.[/QUOTE] Oh god, I'm laughing too hard to put thoughts together. [img]http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/files/2007/10/antonin_scalia-photograph1.jpg[/img] Playboy centerfold amirite?

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23357839]No, you can't prevent someone from doing a crime, and that's my point.[/QUOTE] This. Seems like the judicial system doesn't do anything besides slap the criminals on the wrist and throw them to jail. That won't stop them from doing crimes. What WOULD stop people from doing crimes is the old Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth method.

[QUOTE=killz2much;23358004]This. Seems like the judicial system doesn't do anything besides slap the criminals on the wrist and throw them to jail. That won't stop them from doing crimes. What WOULD stop people from doing crimes is the old Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth method.[/QUOTE] Actually, countries that focus on rehabilitating offenders and giving them relatively good prison conditions (Norway, I'm looking at you) have notably lower recidivism rates than the US.