The legal system is broken until you need those appeals- if one can pay the legal bills. Justice moves slowly- would you speed it up?
On May 19, 3:43 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> wrote: > In my opinion the appeals process is a part of the broken judicial system. > Not that a person shouldn't be allowed appeals when new evidence comes up. > But lawyers can tie up the courts for years with appeals that should never > be allowed. No matter how ridiculous an appeal is the court still has to > hear it. > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > Yep I think that the cost of appeals is proably what helps whack the > > overall cost up. > > > But you take a strange stance here for a person who has previously > > said that you disagree with the dealth penalty because you can't trust > > the judicial system to get it right. > > > Now you say that the appeals process should be scrapped in certian > > cases, isn't that a little bit contradictory? > > > On May 19, 4:29 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I notice that the cost of lifetime imprisonment is folded into the cost > > of > > > the death penalty in cases where it's overturned. I would guess that this > > > probably counts for a large portion of the money attributed to overall > > cost. > > > > In addition, I don't know how it is in other countries but in the US > > > convicts can stall the death penalty almost indefinitely with appeals. > > This > > > also adds huge costs. In cases where the evidence is incontrovertible I > > > think the appeals process should be constrained to mitigate costs. > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > This from one source: > > > > >http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-pena. > > .. > > > > > And to counteract any bias from this source: > > > > > This from Fox?! > > > > >http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-s. > > .. > > > > > Myself I'm not sure, so as I say the jury is still outon this > > > > question as far as I'm concerend. > > > > > On May 19, 2:41 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > I don't know what the current cost is but 10 years ago the cost of > > > > housing > > > > > an inmate was over $50,000 a year. Assuming a 40 year life sentence > > that > > > > > would be over 2 million. I'm pretty sure you can kill someone for > > less. > > > > > Hell, I'd do it for half that... > > > > > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:41 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry Chuck totaly missed this one: > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that > > killer. > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings. > > > > > > > So does life in prision. > > > > > > The jury is still out on that one as to cost re lifes imprisioment > > and > > > > > > cost of the dealth penalty. > > > > > > For that single indivdual yes. > > > > > > > On May 19, 1:12 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:23 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why should we not? > > > > > > > > Why should we not what? > > > > > > > > > Should we instead make our selfs guilty of the same behaviour > > that > > > > > > > > seems universal reprehensabile? Should we then sink to that > > level > > > > > > > > ourselves? Two wrongs don't make a right and all that. > > > > > > > > My original point was that life is cheap. We don't kill because > > it's > > > > > > right > > > > > > > or wrong. We kill for expediency. > > > > > > > > > The point is to maintian that moral superiority. If a man > > steals > > > > from > > > > > > > > me, can I then steal from him? Wouldn't that make me also a > > theif? > > > > > > > > Personally I don't claim any kind of superiority - moral or > > > > otherwise. If > > > > > > > somebody steals from me I'll try to steal back my property and > > > > possibly > > > > > > > anything else that happens to be lying around. I may even give > > the > > > > guy a > > > > > > > punch in the nose on the way out the door. If you want to call me > > a > > > > thief > > > > > > > for it go ahead. > > > > > > > > > revenge killings as we know only lead to further revenge > > killings. > > > > We > > > > > > > > have here in the UK a growing youth gang problem, with kids > > killing > > > > > > > > other kids for slights imagined or otherwise, and then in turn > > the > > > > > > > > other gang of kids killing members of the ther other gang. Is > > that > > > > > > > > right, it is the correct behaviour? > > > > > > > > This just leads into the whole argument - is war right or wrong. > > Is > > > > it > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > for a street gang to retaliate when it's territory is breached by > > a > > > > rival > > > > > > > gang? If no then why is it right for nations to do the same > > thing? > > > > > > > > > Killing a killer makes no logical sense. > > > > > > > > I disagree. Killing a killer has value. > > > > > > > > It removes a threat from society. > > > > > > > It frees up resources needed to protect the society from that > > killer. > > > > > > > It provides a deterrent against other killings.- Hide quoted text > > - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
