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

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;23358220]Can you please explain why? The way I see it, no one would want to do anything, because if they're caught the same thing would happen to them. They rape? They get raped or something. They murder? They die They steal? They get something of equal sentimental or money value stolen.[/QUOTE] you can already die from committing murder. tons of people still do it, you know why? people are stupid.

[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;23358101]Putting people in prison for less time costs more money? Putting fewer people in prison costs more money?[/QUOTE] Less time causes people to go right back in, costing money for trials and layers and nicer prisons cost tons of money.

[QUOTE=Combine_dumb;23358236]So what if it's bloodthirsty, it would solve a lot. What do you think wars do[/QUOTE] sigh [editline]01:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=killz2much;23358237]And if people kill, do they deserve to walk again after serving time in prison? If they take a life, they should have their life taken.[/QUOTE] sigh

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358209]In denial too. More evidence? I gave you the evidence you wanted and now your want more. O.K. then, since you're in denial. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_v._Arizona[/url] [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZS.html[/url] [url]http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_01_488/[/url] [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=01-488&friend=nytimes[/url] [url]http://www.nacdl.org/sl_docs.nsf/freeform/DeathPenalty_Ring?OpenDocument[/url] How much more do you need?[/QUOTE] You just cited Ring v Arizona five times, in which Scalia said the thing I quoted. That's not additional evidence, that's just citing my quote. [editline]01:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;23358255]Less time causes people to go right back in, costing money for trials and layers and nicer prisons cost tons of money.[/QUOTE] No it doesn't. Yes these things cost money. So get rid of the people who don't need to be there, get rid of the nonviolent drug offenders, that's a good chunk of the prison populations.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358269]You just cited Ring v Arizona five times, in which Scalia said the thing I quoted. That's not additional evidence, that's just citing my quote.[/QUOTE] [img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3390182310_f86c82cb95.jpg[/img] [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]"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lambadvanced;23358220]Can you please explain why? The way I see it, no one would want to do anything, because if they're caught the same thing would happen to them. They rape? They get raped or something. They murder? They die They steal? They get something of equal sentimental or money value stolen.[/QUOTE] Being locked up in prison is a pretty equal punishment, it's just more generic and easier to pull off. One could argue we still are on an eye for an eye system. I know that a lot of you guys like to imagine prison as "not bad cause they're not dead" but yeah it actually kind of sucks ass and you don't want to go there.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358269]You just cited Ring v Arizona five times, in which Scalia said the thing I quoted. That's not additional evidence, that's just citing my quote. [editline]01:48PM[/editline] No it doesn't. Yes these things cost money. So get rid of the people who don't need to be there, get rid of the nonviolent drug offenders, that's a good chunk of the prison populations.[/QUOTE] You can't get rid of people because their crimes are less serious, law is law.

[QUOTE=bravehat;23355262]How the fuck is that harsh? They should be killed with fucking garrot wire as a punishment.[/QUOTE] And that makes us better? Right by torturing them because they took a life. That is real justice. They're forfeiting their lives, that is the ultimate punishment.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358320]You can't get rid of people because their crimes are less serious, law is law.[/QUOTE] that's why repealing that law would be beneficial. An unrelated issue, but politicians are never willing to accept that certain issues cause other issues.

[QUOTE=MR-X;23358328]And that makes us better? Right by torturing them because they took a life. That is real justice. They're forfeiting their lives, that is the ultimate punishment.[/QUOTE] It's not so much as torturing, there really isn't no pain unless the an old technique.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358298][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3390182310_f86c82cb95.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Yes, and then you used the wikipedia quote which is baseless based on the presiding opinion of the court as said here by Justice Scalia: "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. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so–by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase. There is really no way in which Justice Breyer can travel with the happy band that reaches today’s result unless he says yes to Apprendi." [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZC.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Mexican;23358357]that's why repealing that law would be beneficial. An unrelated issue, but politicians are never willing to accept that certain issues cause other issues.[/QUOTE] If the law was repealed, then it could be done, but it's not. That's why it would never work. Can't go against law.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358320]You can't get rid of people because their crimes are less serious, law is law.[/QUOTE] Yes you can, that's called probation, and the law needs to be reformed, that's what we're talking about here. Prison reform is law reform, and getting rid of non-violent drug offenders from the prisons is a good thing in prison reform, as evidenced by the Scandinavian countries.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358369]Yes, and then you used the wikipedia quote which is baseless based on the presiding opinion of the court as said here by Justice Scalia: "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. Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so–by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase. There is really no way in which Justice Breyer can travel with the happy band that reaches today’s result unless he says yes to Apprendi." [url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-488.ZC.html[/url][/QUOTE] That quote only further proves my point. In serious cases where someone has killed multiple people, that my friend is a aggravating factor. You don't know what you're really posting do you? [editline]05:55PM[/editline] Just give up already, you got the shit beaten out of you.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358425]That quote only further proves my point. In serious cases where someone has killed multiple people, that my friend is a aggravating factor. You don't know what you're really posting do you?[/QUOTE] Yes which allows the judge to make the determination. This means the judge can only make the decision after the jury finds the aggravating factors. I do realize it is a weakening of my position, and that this recent case does place more power in the jury in these cases. Just you are misinterpreting it as this case allowing the jury full discretion in sentencing.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358509]Yes which allows the judge to make the determination. This means the judge can only make the decision after the jury finds the aggravating factors. I do realize it is a weakening of my position, and that this recent case does place more power in the jury in these cases. Just you are misinterpreting it as this case allowing the jury full discretion in sentencing.[/QUOTE] No, you've got it backwards. The jury can only decide a capital punishment case if there are aggravating factors involved. Such as brutality raping someone, murdering, etc... The judge still can overrule, but not one has ever done it, because on a judges part it is absolutely stupid.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358567]No, you've got it backwards. The jury can only decide a capital punishment case if there are aggravating factors involved. Such as brutality raping someone, murdering, etc... The judge still can overrule, but not one has ever done it, because on a judges part it absolutely stupid.[/QUOTE] doesn't matter if they haven't done it. they still have that power.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358567]The judge still can overrule, but not one has ever done it, because on a judges part it is absolutely stupid.[/QUOTE] source please

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyAlt;23358584]doesn't matter if they haven't done it. they still have that power.[/QUOTE] A power which not one judge will [B]ever[/B] dare to use. You got to understand that someone who is a judge has worked his [B]whole[/B] life to get where he is. Do you seriously think a judge would throw away his whole career to change a case? [editline]06:02PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721v2;23358627]source please[/QUOTE] Lolwut. I've posted it multiple times and you haven't seen it?

oh look: [url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-rejects-death-sentence-in-durangos-steakhouse-murder/784693[/url] [editline]02:03PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;23358629]Lolwut. I've posted it multiple times and you haven't seen it?[/QUOTE] you said that judges have NEVER overruled a jury oh look - [url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-rejects-death-sentence-in-durangos-steakhouse-murder/784693[/url]

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358567]No, you've got it backwards. The jury can only decide a capital punishment case if there are aggravating factors involved. Such as brutality raping someone, murdering, etc... The judge still can overrule, but not one has ever done it, because on a judges part it is absolutely stupid.[/QUOTE] "Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so–by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase" Aggravating factor determination is what would lead to a sentencing recomendation of the death penalty, this allows the judge to still say yes or no, some states allow the jury to say yes, and Scalia is saying that states can also still allow the judge to to hand down a capital sentence as well, providing the aggravating factors are determined in the guilt-phase. From JDK's article, as well: "Judges are required to give a jury recommendation great weight in making their decision on death sentences, and they usually follow the jury's advice. But not always"

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;23358648]oh look: [url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-rejects-death-sentence-in-durangos-steakhouse-murder/784693[/url] [editline]02:03PM[/editline] you said that judges have NEVER overruled a jury oh look - [url]http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-rejects-death-sentence-in-durangos-steakhouse-murder/784693[/url][/QUOTE] I can't seem to find not even one reliable news source with the same story.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358794]I can't seem to find not even one reliable news source with the same story.[/QUOTE] So a well-regarded local newspaper isn't enough for you on a local story? However, when some guy who writes a wikipedia article misinterprets a SCOTUS decision that affects the entire country you take it and run with it, using it to declare pompously that you're "beaten the shit out of us." Really now? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times[/url]

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358679]"Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so–by requiring a prior jury finding of aggravating factor in the sentencing phase or, more simply, by placing the aggravating-factor determination (where it logically belongs anyway) in the guilt phase" Aggravating factor determination is what would lead to a sentencing recomendation of the death penalty, this allows the judge to still say yes or no, some states allow the jury to say yes, and Scalia is saying that states can also still allow the judge to to hand down a capital sentence as well, providing the aggravating factors are determined in the guilt-phase.[/QUOTE] You still have it confused. All it says is that the jury has to find aggravation factors to support their recommendation of capital punishment. If the jury can, the judge has no say.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23358988]You still have it confused. All it says is that the jury has to find aggravation factors to support their recommendation of capital punishment. If the jury can, the judge has no say.[/QUOTE] "Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so" That is explicit in that state can leave the life-or-death decision in the judge's hands, they simply just have to have the jury find some factors to allow the judge to make the determination. That is about the most explicit SCOTUS ruling I've seen in a long time.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23358972]So a well-regarded local newspaper isn't enough for you on a local story? However, when some guy who writes a wikipedia article misinterprets a SCOTUS decision that affects the entire country you take it and run with it, using it to declare pompously that you're "beaten the shit out of us." Really now? [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times[/url][/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is highly visited each day is more correct than some random local newspaper publishing a story which I can't find anything more of. [editline]06:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359017]"Those States that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so" That is explicit in that state can leave the life-or-death decision in the judge's hands, they simply just have to have the jury find some factors to allow the judge to make the determination. That is about the most explicit SCOTUS ruling I've seen in a long time.[/QUOTE] "What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that [B]an aggravating factor existed[/B]," Justice Antonin Scalia said in a concurring opinion. Aggravating factors are those related to a crime that legally justify the imposition of a more severe penalty. Do you not understand what the article is saying? You're still in denial. [B]IF[/B] the jury can find aggravating factors [B]THEY CAN[/B] (the jury) increase the punishment to capital punishment.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359027]I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is highly visited each day is more correct than some random local newspaper publishing a story which I can't find anything more of.[/QUOTE] Not in one sentence on a low-priority article which has no source to back up its claims. You can't find anything more of because no one except you gives a shit about what a judge on the Sixth Appeals circut court of Florida did. Did you even look at the link? The St. Petersburg Times is a well respected local newspaper with a long history. [editline]02:24PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;23359027]I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is highly visited each day is more correct than some random local newspaper publishing a story which I can't find anything more of. [editline]06:21PM[/editline] "What today's decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that [B]an aggravating factor existed[/B]," Justice Antonin Scalia said in a concurring opinion. Aggravating factors are those related to a crime that legally justify the imposition of a more severe penalty. Do you not understand what the article is saying? You're still in denial. [B]IF[/B] the jury can find aggravating factors [B]THEY CAN[/B] (the jury) increase the punishment to capital punishment.[/QUOTE] Where are you getting that second part? The first part is okay, but these aggrivating facts are found in the guilt-phase (normal trial proceedings) which are considered by the jury in their sentencing RECOMMENDATIONS. Which are read over by the judge in the sentencing determination. The ruling gives the juries a greater power in their recommendation, as-in the jury can stop the judge from being able to rule it a capital case if they find no aggravating factors, but the judge still has final say over life and death.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359075]Not in one sentence on a low-priority article which has no source to back up its claims. You can't find anything more of because no one except you gives a shit about what a judge on the Sixth Appeals circut court of Florida did. Did you even look at the link? The St. Petersburg Times is a well respected local newspaper with a long history.[/QUOTE] Oh wow, a Sixth Appeals circuit court judge. The jury had already convicted the defendant of capital punishment, of course the guy got another trail as that's what convicted capital punishment felons get if requested. All that shows is he got another trial and got his sentence removed. It's an appeal trial. [editline]06:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359075]Not in one sentence on a low-priority article which has no source to back up its claims. You can't find anything more of because no one except you gives a shit about what a judge on the Sixth Appeals circut court of Florida did. Did you even look at the link? The St. Petersburg Times is a well respected local newspaper with a long history. [editline]02:24PM[/editline] Where are you getting that second part? The first part is okay, but these aggrivating facts are found in the guilt-phase (normal trial proceedings) which are considered by the jury in their sentencing RECOMMENDATIONS. Which are read over by the judge in the sentencing determination. The ruling gives the juries a greater power in their recommendation, as-in the jury can stop the judge from being able to rule it a capital case if they find no aggravating factors, but the judge still has final say over life and death.[/QUOTE] The judge does, but understand not one judge has [B]ever[/B] done it.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359155]Oh wow, a Sixth Appeals circuit court judge. The jury had already convicted the defendant of capital punishment, of course the guy got another trail as that's what convicted capital punishment felons get if requested. All that shows is he got another trial and got his sentence removed. It's an appeal.[/QUOTE] This wasn't on appeal if you would read the article, she's just a judge of the appeals court. "Ley's decision will spare the family from years of appeals that are afforded to people sentenced to death row. Saintil will get some appeals, but not nearly as many as death row inmates." See? Not an appeal, this was the original sentencing. [editline]02:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ragy;23359155]Oh wow, a Sixth Appeals circuit court judge. The jury had already convicted the defendant of capital punishment, of course the guy got another trail as that's what convicted capital punishment felons get if requested. All that shows is he got another trial and got his sentence removed. It's an appeal trial. [editline]06:25PM[/editline] The judge does, but understand not one judge has [B]ever[/B] done it.[/QUOTE] Give me a reasonable source that says that, a law website or something, not one sentence from an unsourced wikipedia article. We have a case right here saying a judge has done it and not on an appeal.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359027]I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is highly visited each day is more correct than some random local newspaper publishing a story which I can't find anything more of.[/QUOTE] very wrong