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

[QUOTE=killz2much;23358123]I could. If someone rapes, chop his balls off. Bastard won't be horny any more.[/QUOTE] You should be a stand up comedian

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359221]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.[/QUOTE] I still can't find any more information on this article, there's not enough to say what really happen, there is absolutely nothing else on this. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359221]Give me a reasonable source that says that, a law website or something, not one sentence from an unsourced wikipedia article.[/QUOTE] There's tons including CNN and other sites which reported the decisions of the supreme court quote for quote. Google it. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359221]We have a case right here saying a judge has done it and not on an appeal.[/QUOTE] A case that I can't find nothing more about. Don't you think that a murder which involves "stabbed and cut more than 40 times, including six deep gashes to his neck that Ley described as some of the "most gruesome and disturbing" she had ever seen" would get more news? This article is complete bullshit if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359478]I still can't find any more information on this article, there's not enough to say what really happen, there is absolutely nothing else on this. There's tons including CNN and other sites which reported the decisions of the supreme court quote for quote. Google it. A case that I can't find nothing more about. Don't you think that a murder which involves "stabbed and cut more than 40 times, including six deep gashes to his neck that Ley described as some of the "most gruesome and disturbing" she had ever seen" would get more news? This article is complete bullshit if you ask me.[/QUOTE] So a newspaper that has won more than five Pulitzer prizes is going to risk its reputation on one article and for what? I'm not arguing with the SCOTUS decision, didn't we reach an agreement on that? In that the judge still has life and death power over cases, but now the jury controls that power more strictly than before, as a result of the aggravating factors being required to have been found in the guilt-phase of a trial. I am asking for a more reliable source that says no judge has ever overturned a jury's decision. I gave you contravening evidence from a reliable newspaper.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359572]So a newspaper that has won more than five Pulitzer prizes is going to risk its reputation on one article and for what?[/QUOTE] Prizes are good and all, but there is nothing else on this to make a reasonable and correct decision of the trial. As much as I want to argue about it, I can't find anything else on it. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359572]I'm not arguing with the SCOTUS decision, didn't we reach an agreement on that? In that the judge still has life and death power over cases, but now the jury controls that power more strictly than before, as a result of the aggravating factors being required to have been found in the guilt-phase of a trial.[/QUOTE] A judge can not impose the death penalty, never. The jury has to find aggravating factors and then they can impose capital punishment. A judge may be able to change the sentence, but this argument was about whether the government or jury sentences capital punishment. We have enough evidence that states the jury does, not the government. [editline]06:51PM[/editline] A judge can only change the capital punishment sentence to life. Not the other way around.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359793]Prizes are good and all, but there is nothing else on this to make a reasonable and correct decision of the trial. As much as I want to argue about it, I can't find anything else on it. A judge can not impose the death penalty, never. The jury has to find aggravating factors and then they can impose capital punishment. A judge may be able to change the sentence, but this argument was about whether the government or jury sentences capital punishment. We have enough evidence that states the jury does, not the government. [editline]06:51PM[/editline] A judge can only change the capital punishment sentence to life. Not the other way around.[/QUOTE] you have provided absolutely no evidence on that except the misinterpretation of the decision in the SCOTUS case. "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer’s company, the unfortunate fact is that today’s judgment has [b]nothing to do with jury sentencing[/b]. What today’s decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. " [editline]02:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359914]you have provided absolutely no evidence on that except the misinterpretation of the decision in the SCOTUS case. "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer’s company, the unfortunate fact is that today’s judgment has [b]nothing to do with jury sentencing[/b]. What today’s decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. "[/QUOTE] Justice Breyer says this, which Scalia disagrees with: "...And I conclude that the Eighth Amendment requires individual jurors to make, and to take responsibility for, a decision to sentence a person to death."

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359914]you have provided absolutely no evidence on that except the misinterpretation of the decision in the SCOTUS case. "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer’s company, the unfortunate fact is that today’s judgment has [b]nothing to do with jury sentencing[/b]. What today’s decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. "[/QUOTE] Yea, it says that in order to have capital punishment the jury must find aggravating factors to support it. It means it's up to the jury to decide. The judge will support capital punishment, but it cannot become a final charge unless the jury believes there is aggravating factors that contribute to it. [editline]06:58PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23359914]you have provided absolutely no evidence on that except the misinterpretation of the decision in the SCOTUS case. "While I am, as always, pleased to travel in Justice Breyer’s company, the unfortunate fact is that today’s judgment has [b]nothing to do with jury sentencing[/b]. What today’s decision says is that the jury must find the existence of the fact that an aggravating factor existed. " [editline]02:57PM[/editline] Justice Breyer says this, which Scalia disagrees with: "...And I conclude that the Eighth Amendment requires individual jurors to make, and to take responsibility for, a decision to sentence a person to death."[/QUOTE] Yea, it supports the eighth amendment which states the government (or state?) can't impose cruel punishment, so they have to leave it up to the jury. [editline]07:01PM[/editline] Before it was up to the judge to find aggravating factors, they changed that role to the jury, because it follows the eighth amendment.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23359998]Yea, it says that in order to have capital punishment the jury must find aggravating factors to support it. It means it's up to the jury to decide. The judge will support capital punishment, but it cannot become a final charge unless the jury believes there is aggravating factors that contribute to it. [editline]06:58PM[/editline] Yea, it supports the eighth amendment which states the government (or state?) can't impose cruel punishment, so they have to leave it up to the jury. [editline]07:01PM[/editline] Before it was up to the judge to find aggravating factors, they changed that role to the jury, because it follows the eighth amendment.[/QUOTE] Aggravating factors can be found without intent to sentence to death, however, they just contribute to it, they have to be presented in the guil-phase, but they are not a willful extension of the jury's (limited) right to sentence criminals.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23360143]Aggravating factors can be found without intent to sentence to death, however, they just contribute to it, they have to be presented in the guil-phase, but they are not a willful extension of the jury's (limited) right to sentence criminals.[/QUOTE] Aggravating factors can be found in almost any case. I understand it's a bit confusing, because the jury doesn't actually decide capital punishment in the prior phase. After the evidence has been shown in trial, the jury gets to decide if that evidence supports aggravating factors, which in return supports capital punishment. Before the judge had to make the decision if it supported aggravating factors which by trial process was against the eighth amendment, because the government was giving cruel punishment. Now it's the people who decide capital punishment.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23360329]Aggravating factors can be found in almost any case. I understand it's a bit confusing, because the jury doesn't actually decide capital punishment in the prior phase. After the evidence has been shows in trial, the jury gets to decide if that evidence supports aggravating factors, which in return supports capital punishment.[/QUOTE] I think the judge can rule that factors are aggravating as well, but this restricts it to discovery in the guilt-phase. Before, a judge was able to consider new evidence in the determination. Still not good enough, and even a majority of a jury shouldn't be able to decide life and death, but that's an untenable argument because it's strictly a moral one.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23360370]I think the judge can rule that factors are aggravating as well, but this restricts it to discovery in the guilt-phase. Before, a judge was able to consider new evidence in the determination. Still not good enough, and even a majority of a jury shouldn't be able to decide life and death, but that's an untenable argument because it's strictly a moral one.[/QUOTE] A discovery for evidence much be admitted by the judge and time must be given to the defendant or prosecutor. You can't run into a court with new evidence like they do in movies, you would be put in jail. New evidence is treated like any other evidence. The majority of a jury does have the right to decide life or death, because no matter what it can't be done by the judge. [editline]07:19PM[/editline] A judge [B]can't[/B] decide to charge someone with capital punishment, it's really that simple.

They deserve it

[QUOTE=Ragy;23360480]A discovery for evidence much be admitted by the judge and time must be given to the defendant or prosecutor. You can't run into a court with new evidence like they do in movies, you would be put in jail. New evidence is treated like any other evidence. The majority of a jury does have the right to decide life or death, because no matter what it can't be done by the judge. [editline]07:19PM[/editline] A judge [B]can't[/B] decide to charge someone with capital punishment, it's really that simple.[/QUOTE] But it seems like according to this, he can as long as the aggravating factors are there. If you have a law source that says otherwise, I'll beleive you. You missed my point to the second, in that the jury or the judge shouldn't have the ability to, not that they don't, and that's a moral argument that isn't worth getting into because no one will budge on that.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;23355421]Because the Justice System is completely black and white, right? It's not like they could be sent to prison for life or anything, nope. It's either death or freedom :downs:[/QUOTE] In my America!? Give me law abiding citizens or hand out death to them as if it was condoms!

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23360604]But it seems like according to this, he can as long as the aggravating factors are there. If you have a law source that says otherwise, I'll beleive you.[/QUOTE] I don't really get what you're saying here. If you mean the judge can support capital punishment, yes he can. The jury has the final say. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23360604]You missed my point to the second, in that the jury or the judge shouldn't have the ability to, not that they don't, and that's a moral argument that isn't worth getting into because no one will budge on that.[/QUOTE] Then who should have the decision. To me, having a jury of his own peers seems more correct.

[QUOTE=Ragy;23360829]I don't really get what you're saying here. If you mean the judge can support capital punishment, yes he can. The jury has the final say. Then who should have the decision. To me, having a jury of his own peers seems more correct.[/QUOTE] I mean that the judge can, as long as the aggravating factors are there, make the final call. No one should, there shouldn't be a death penalty. It isn't needed.

[QUOTE=Kagrenak;23361784]I mean that the judge can, as long as the aggravating factors are there, make the final call.[/QUOTE] Didn't I just disprove this? The supreme court ruled it's not the judges position to decide, it's the jury's. You're back in denial. [QUOTE=Kagrenak;23361784]No one should, there shouldn't be a death penalty. It isn't needed.[/QUOTE] Lets not get this started again.

About time police officers got a fair punishment.

As usual...lets kill to show killing is wrong herp derp