US to execute Nobel Peace prize nominee

[SIGbastard]

Wow, i didn't think you could get any stupider. But you surprise me everytime you make a new post in the political forum.

Why do you have to insult someone instead of just saying their opinion is dumb on this matter?

 

[MrWhite]

Why do you have to insult someone instead of just saying their opinion is dumb on this matter?

Walk away man... just step back and let gh0st and Sparta duke it out in a war of flame... watch man... isn't it pretty? the way it lights up the sky n' all...

 

[bliink]

How 'bout you all walk away before everyone gets their legs broke? ok?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Let him off.

If someone murders me don't let them off, have them executed. I don't understand how you could possibly say to let him off (if you're not being sarcastic here)

 

[CptStern]

Nobel peace prize or not, do the crime, do the time (or in this case, do the death)
I am not 100% sure if hes guilty, but I have faith in the system.

now that's just lip service ..if you believe there's a chance he may be innocent then it stands to reason that the system failed him

The only reason some seem to have any doubt about his guilt is because he did so much sucking up to make amends.

that's just not true ..I've already stated that he can rot in jail if guilty

Killers can feel remorse, just because they try to make amends doesn't mean they should escape punishment for what they have done.

so if he was convicted in another state that didnt have capital punishment you'd feel he had escaped justice by not getting the death sentence?

If he was just another uneducated gang banger noone would care if he was going to be executed after 24 years on death row.

that's immaterial because his execution would get little to no media coverage but personally I dont care about his noble prize nomination (only in regards to proving he has been rehabituated) capital punishment is the bigger issue here

Personally, I agree with you that he should just keel over from old age, I hear that executions are quite expensive anyhow,

it's not the execution that's expensive (it is but it's not the bulk of the cost) it's the 24 years in death row waiting to be executed that's so expensive.

but on principle I have to disagree. Justice has to be carried out, people have waited longer to be executed but it will be done.

how is justice being served when it is taking away what the justice system is supposed to be about: rehabilitation. This is not rehabilitation it's retribution

 

[SIGbastard]

how is justice being served when it is taking away what the justice system is supposed to be about: rehabilitation. This is not rehabilitation it's retribution

If he hasn't admitted guilt how can you consider him rehabilitated?

 

[Direwolf]

Another factor in the case is the outright severity of the crime. Rehabilitation has been the cornerstone idea of the justice system for a while now, but does that idea still apply to a four time murderer? Are there some crimes you can't make up for, especially when they are repeated again and again?

 

[CptStern]

If he hasn't admitted guilt how can you consider him rehabilitated?

he has maintained in the 24 years that he is innocent ...what if he really is innocent?

 

[Teta_Bonita]

if they're still alive ....26 years have passed since the s ..he's done his time, to kill him now is useless and proves to the public that rehabilitation is meaningless in the eyes of the law

I thought that the law was meant for the prevention of the crime, not the rehabilitation of the criminal.

 

[VictimOfScience]

In the case of a Death Sentence being handed down by a court, rehabilitation is not seen as an option. If it were, then a lesser sentence would be given, but in cases of multiple homicides and, in this man's case the founding of one of the most infamously violent and detrimental-to-society gangs in this country, the court saw no chance of rehabilitation. 24 years later, we see that they may have been a little hasty in their judgement since he seems mightily rehabilitated, but the ruling will still hold unless Arnold has anything to say about it, thus showing the weakness of such a system.

Here are some more bits that demonstrate why this system is a mistake:

The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The study by The Times also found that homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting to many experts that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.

Since 1973, 121 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.

According to state and federal records obtained by The Los Angeles Times, maintaining the California death penalty system costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. This figure does not count the millions more spent on court costs to prosecute capital cases. The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers have paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars for each of the state's 11 executions, and that it costs $90,000 more a year to house one inmate on death row, where each person has a private cell and extra guards, than in general prison population. This additional cost per prisoner adds up to $57.5 million in annual spending.

Go to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org if you want to find out more information.

 

[SIGbastard]

he has maintained in the 24 years that he is innocent ...what if he really is innocent?

I think you'll find lots of prisoners maintain their innocence. They may really be, but if they aren't they certainly were never truly rehabilitated.

 

[CptStern]

I think you'll find lots of prisoners maintain their innocence. They may really be, but if they aren't they certainly were never truly rehabilitated.

well be that as it may, he could be truely telling the truth, but regardless of the whether he is or not his rehabitulation seems to be genuine

 

[JellyWorld]

Well that's what the pardon is for isn't it?

 

[CptStern]

it's up to ah-nold ...and I have no confidence he'd do the right thing

 

[T.H.C.138]

I thought that the law was meant for the prevention of the crime, not the rehabilitation of the criminal.

thank you!!!

the way some people act we may as well say, "well if only Hitler was alive so we could rehab him..."

its sooo easy to say "I'm sorry and it will never happen again" but what if because of you (founding a gang) that thing you won't do again..well it keeps on happening..

maybe if people actually followed through with a punishment (not cable,free meals,etc.) crime wouldn't be so rampant..

how many of you would do something that the last guy that did it got his head on a fence post? or drawn and quartered?

that is why we had/have the death penalty..that is why prison guards should be allowed to crack skulls when needed...

like a little kid who never gets punished..they keep on doing wrong because nobody teaches them a lesson..

prison is harsh...but mostly inmate vs. inmate...mostly..

and besides we don't allow excuses or "take backs" when someone breaks forum rules,right? no matter why they did it?

why should real life society be any different with its laws?

many people I or someone I know has talked to say that you aren't a MAN until you get locked up...sheer genius..glorification of criminality...hooray for the future


now IF it can be proved he did not found a gang..kill 4 people etc.,fine let him go..examples still should be made of others on death row..isn't manson still alive?

crime should not pay with big record deals or movie of the week celeb status...JMO...flame on...

 

[CptStern]

so then why release anyone out of prison? if someone does a crime and pays the price and spends 10 years in jail ...the hope is that after doing his time, he's rehabilitated enough that he wont be back

 

[T.H.C.138]

murderers,rapists and pedos should not have the option of release...

petty criminals? serve time..let go..

big punishment for big crimes..

you take a life intentionally = loss of your rights..

simple as a pimple (not really but I wish it was)

say you graffiti some stores or whatever, thats a itty bitty crime compared with killing or raping..so slap on the wrist for tagging..something worse for rape/murder

again this is JMO...flame on

 

[Absinthe]

If someone murders me don't let them off, have them executed. I don't understand how you could possibly say to let him off (if you're not being sarcastic here)

I'm not fan of execution. So, no sarcasm here. If you want to keep him in prison without parole, that seems like a better idea.

 

[Absinthe]

and besides we don't allow excuses or "take backs" when someone breaks forum rules,right? no matter why they did it?

Except in this instance we are talking about life as opposed to the petty ability to post. What a ****ing stupid example.

 

[gh0st]

Wow, i didn't think you could get any stupider. But you surprise me everytime you make a new post in the political forum.

good job attacking the person not the argument. in fact does anyone in this thread have an argument? he was proven guilty in a trial by his peers and sentanced to death. whether he's won any awards is irrelevant. whether he was a crypt or a blood or a communist makes no difference. he was convicted of murdering 4 people. i dont even know why this story is important.

 

[MrWhite]

good job attacking the person not the argument.

Oh can it you hypocrite, you attack people and ignore thire arguments all the time

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm not fan of execution. So, no sarcasm here. If you want to keep him in prison without parole, that seems like a better idea.

Oh well that would be okay too. I support the death penalty but with particular uses about it. However I thought you meant let him off as in let him go. Which is why I was like.. what..?

 

[CptStern]

good job attacking the person not the argument. in fact does anyone in this thread have an argument? he was proven guilty in a trial by his peers and sentanced to death. .

again had you read the article you'd know that that was one of his complaints: no black people on the jury

 

[SIGbastard]

well be that as it may, he could be truely telling the truth, but regardless of the whether he is or not his rehabitulation seems to be genuine

I'd have to say if he isn't telling the truth he was never rehabilitated he's just playing nice for a while.

 

[Zeus]

good job attacking the person not the argument. in fact does anyone in this thread have an argument? he was proven guilty in a trial by his peers and sentanced to death. whether he's won any awards is irrelevant. whether he was a crypt or a blood or a communist makes no difference. he was convicted of murdering 4 people. i dont even know why this story is important.

Yeah that is true and the facts, he murdered 4 guys..Im not sure what theyll do to him and really there's nothing I can do about it..so we'll just see what happens

btw its crip

 

[gh0st]

sorry typo, there was even the right spelling before in this thread.

again had you read the article you'd know that that was one of his complaints: no black people on the jury

yeah the white mans out to get him. thats even more stupid. criminals dont get to choose who their jurors are... if they did, we wouldnt have any guilty people now would we?

 

[Direwolf]

They seem to claim that the judge prevented black people from getting on the jury. If theres any validity to that who knows.

 

[staticprimer]

I'd have to say if he isn't telling the truth he was never rehabilitated he's just playing nice for a while.

24 years is a long time for 'just playing nice for a while'.

 

[Absinthe]

I'd have to say if he isn't telling the truth he was never rehabilitated he's just playing nice for a while.

Can we all come to the conclusion that this is something we'll never know for certain and that it's pointless to pursue this line of discussion any further?

 

[Absinthe]

yeah the white mans out to get him. thats even more stupid.

It does sort of matter. There is such a thing as racial bias.

 

[Kangy]

Red: Rehabilitated? Well, Now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means.
Parole official: Well, it means that you're ready to rejoin society.
Red: I know what you think it means, sonny. To me it's just a made up word; a politician's word. So young fellas like yourself can wear a suit, and tie, and have a job. What do you really want to know? Am I sorry for what I did?
Parole official: Well, are you?
Red: There's not a day goes by I don't feel regret. Not because I'm in here, or because you think I should. I look back on the way I was then, a young, stupid kid who committed that terrible crime. I want to talk to him. I want to try and talk some sense to him, tell him the way things are. But I can't. That kid's long gone and this old man is all that's left. I got to live with that. Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time. Because to tell you the truth, I don't give a shit.


Just a quote, not an opinion, but the best quote for this situation, anyhoo. Seriously, people, THINK about people here, as opposed to their crimes, and it'll really open some eyes.

 

[OCybrManO]

yeah the white mans out to get him. thats even more stupid. criminals dont get to choose who their jurors are... if they did, we wouldnt have any guilty people now would we?

Remember the timeline here. This was in the late 70s... about ten years after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Race was still a big issue in many areas in the 70s. Even a decade later, Reagan still vetoed the Civil Rights Restoration Act... and still after that, the first Bush fought against the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (finally giving up after two years). Then, in 1992 there was the Rodney King incident. Also, just this year, the ringleader of the Mississippi civil rights murders (from 1964) was finally convicted of manslaughter. During the trial, the former mayor of the city provided an alibi for him and stated that the KKK was merely a "peaceful organization." So, racism isn't exactly ancient history.

 

[CptStern]

yeah the white mans out to get him. thats even more stupid. criminals dont get to choose who their jurors are... if they did, we wouldnt have any guilty people now would we?

from the 6th amendment to the constitution:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury..."

the current interpretation:

"Another factor in determining the impartiality of the jury is the nature of the panel, or venire, from which the jurors are selected. Venires must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group and that the underrepresentation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process.


in other words he has a right to be tried by a jury of his peers

 

[gh0st]

they are impartial just because they are white?

so they would be partial if they were black. alright... wow.

jurors are either randomly selected or chosen (in big cases) by the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney (correct me ifi'm wrong, i'm not lawyer). just because there arent just the perfect amount of black people on a jury does not mean its impartial. thats reverse racism at its best and itrs sickening.

 

[Sparta]

good job attacking the person not the argument. in fact does anyone in this thread have an argument? he was proven guilty in a trial by his peers and sentanced to death. whether he's won any awards is irrelevant. whether he was a crypt or a blood or a communist makes no difference. he was convicted of murdering 4 people. i dont even know why this story is important.

Actually, if you were smart enough, you would've figured out that was both an attack on you, and the argument.

Does that spell it out for you? Or do you need these?

 

[CptStern]

they are impartial just because they are white?

so they would be partial if they were black. alright... wow.

jurors are either randomly selected or chosen (in big cases) by the prosecuting attorney and defense attorney (correct me ifi'm wrong, i'm not lawyer). just because there arent just the perfect amount of black people on a jury does not mean its impartial. thats reverse racism at its best and itrs sickening.

"must represent a fair cross-section of the community; the defendant may establish that the requirement was violated by showing that the allegedly excluded group is a "distinctive" one in the community, that the representation of such a group in venires is unreasonable and unfair in regard to the number of persons belonging to such a group and that the underrepresentation is caused by a systematic exclusion in the selection process

 

[Milkman]

how is justice being served when it is taking away what the justice system is supposed to be about: rehabilitation. This is not rehabilitation it's retribution

I personally feel that the judicial system's job is to execute punishment. Rehabilitation is not their job, and why would it be?

 

[gh0st]

sigh you'll never understand stern. why dont you go lobby arnold to pardon your nobel peace prize nominee... what a real heart of gold he has.

 

[SIGbastard]

Can we all come to the conclusion that this is something we'll never know for certain and that it's pointless to pursue this line of discussion any further?

Your missing a huge point. He was found guilty. Since he was found guilty they will not consider him rehabilitated unless he admits guilt. The system is not set up for people to say "hey maybe he really is innocent, I mean he keeps saying so gosh darnit." The only way he will be considered rehabilitated is if he does admit guilt. His only other way out is to be found innocent and it isn't going to happen. That's besides the point. If he was sentenced with the death penalty they shouldn't change that because of good behavior. That would be incredibly stupid IMHO.

 

[Absinthe]

Your missing a huge point. He was found guilty. Since he was found guilty they will not consider him rehabilitated unless he admits guilt. The system is not set up for people to say "hey maybe he really is innocent, I mean he keeps saying so gosh darnit." The only way he will be considered rehabilitated is if he does admit guilt. His only other way out is to be found innocent and it isn't going to happen.

That's completely irrelevant. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's innocent, he's innocent. We don't know for sure either way and we know that he is maintaining his innocence, lying or not. So it's a moot point.

I was always under the impression that this discussion should be based the current situation and what steps should be taken from this point.