14 reported dead, 20 injured in shooting at Dark Night Rises showing.

[Foxi4]

Sorry, i misread what you were saying. But in cases like you're describing the process usually is much swifter and less costly, but those cases where the evidence is incontrovertible are very rare. People have been exonerated after being given the death sentence; if it wasn't for the time between the sentence and the execution they would have been murdered for a crime they didn't commit, and no matter how rare those instances are as well they cannot just be dismissed for the sake of saving money.

In such cases the Death Penalty is rarely, if ever, used. There's Life Imprisonment for those cases with shreads of doubt, and it's easy to distinguish the ones with and without a shadow of a doubt.

If you're suggesting to implement a system where you can execute a criminal immediately after conviction, even if it's "obvious", there is going to be a LOT of abuse.

The system fails a lot as it is. Don't make it even more exploitable.

The system fails the other way around too. Meet O.J Simpson - the guy who killed his wife and her lover, got away with it and practically admitted it in his autobiography.

Not being able to take a person to court once the highest authority found said person not guilty even after new evidence surfaces is another cancer on your judicial system you should take care of, but I digress. My point is - no system is perfect, but some are more efficient than others. Yours isn't efficient - it costs too much, it overcrowds your prisons and it's filled with procedures that are not always necessary.

I'm not saying that a Death Penalty should be carried out due to circumstancial evidence. I'm saying that when there is no doubt, there is also no reason at all to wait.

 

[Actinopterygian Melospiza]

Sorry, i misread what you were saying. But in cases like you're describing the process usually is much swifter and less costly, but those cases where the evidence is incontrovertible are very rare. People have been exonerated after being given the death sentence; if it wasn't for the time between the sentence and the execution they would have been murdered for a crime they didn't commit, and no matter how rare those instances are as well they cannot just be dismissed for the sake of saving money.

In such cases the Death Penalty is rarely, if ever, used. There's Life Imprisonment for those cases with shreads of doubt, and it's easy to distinguish the ones with and without a shadow of a doubt.

No, it's easy for a case to appear as though it was perpetrated by the accused without a shadow of a doubt. Cases were the evidence is actually incontrovertible almost never happen. I've taken a forensic science class and one of the main things we learned about is evidence can be misconstrued by prosecutors to the point that even a completely innocent man's words can be used to condemn him.

 

[Foxi4]

Sorry, i misread what you were saying. But in cases like you're describing the process usually is much swifter and less costly, but those cases where the evidence is incontrovertible are very rare. People have been exonerated after being given the death sentence; if it wasn't for the time between the sentence and the execution they would have been murdered for a crime they didn't commit, and no matter how rare those instances are as well they cannot just be dismissed for the sake of saving money.

In such cases the Death Penalty is rarely, if ever, used. There's Life Imprisonment for those cases with shreads of doubt, and it's easy to distinguish the ones with and without a shadow of a doubt.

No, it's easy for a case to appear as though it was perpetrated by the accused without a shadow of a doubt. Cases were the evidence is actually incontrovertible almost never happen. I've taken a forensic science class and one of the main things we learned about is evidence can be misconstrued by prosecutors to the point that even a completely innocent man's words can be used to condemn him.

I'm not saying that it can't, I'm saying that the convoluted system you currently use is not working correctly and needs to be revamped to speed up proceedings, case closed. We may stand on two oposite sides of the barricade, but we both very well realize that your Judicial system simply isn't performing anymore.

 

[Actinopterygian Melospiza]

Sorry, i misread what you were saying. But in cases like you're describing the process usually is much swifter and less costly, but those cases where the evidence is incontrovertible are very rare. People have been exonerated after being given the death sentence; if it wasn't for the time between the sentence and the execution they would have been murdered for a crime they didn't commit, and no matter how rare those instances are as well they cannot just be dismissed for the sake of saving money.

In such cases the Death Penalty is rarely, if ever, used. There's Life Imprisonment for those cases with shreads of doubt, and it's easy to distinguish the ones with and without a shadow of a doubt.

No, it's easy for a case to appear as though it was perpetrated by the accused without a shadow of a doubt. Cases were the evidence is actually incontrovertible almost never happen. I've taken a forensic science class and one of the main things we learned about is evidence can be misconstrued by prosecutors to the point that even a completely innocent man's words can be used to condemn him.

I'm not saying that it can't, I'm saying that the convoluted system you currently use is not working correctly and needs to be revamped to speed up proceedings, case closed. We may stand on two oposite sides of the barricade, but we both very well realize that your Judicial system simply isn't performing anymore.

Ok, yeah, I certainly can agree that the US legal system is pretty awful and needs to be changed

edit: I think I was just a bit confused at what you were getting at the whole time, sorry about that

 

[Foxi4]

Ok, yeah, I certainly can agree that the US legal system is pretty awful and needs to be changed

Please read my earlier posts in this thread - I said that the choice between Death Penalty and Life Imprisonment should be up to the sentenced offender, however Life Imprisonment would also mean that the offender is supposed to work for his own living within the prison walls, otherwise no commodities and minimal quality food rations await.

I hate to think that prisons all around the world (we're speaking civilized countries here) are funding paid vacation to criminals - it's not bed and breakfast, it's supposed to be punishment, and left and right I hear complaints coming from inmates, some of them ridiculous, such as "our break room has no DVD player, my family keeps on sending me movies that I can't watch!". I mean, really? That's a valid complaint? In reply, I would hand the guy a shovel and show him what space-time continuum means in practice - digging a hole from Point A till Midnight.

 

[Alexander_86]

in Denver they have death penalty?

 

[Foxi4]

in Denver they have death penalty?

Yes, we probably wouldn't be discussing it so feverently if they haven't.

 

[Mangofett]

The system fails the other way around too. Meet O.J Simpson - the guy who killed his wife and her lover, got away with it and practically admitted it in his autobiography.

Not being able to take a person to court once the highest authority found said person not guilty even after new evidence surfaces is another cancer on your judicial system you should take care of, but I digress. My point is - no system is perfect, but some are more efficient than others. Yours isn't efficient - it costs too much, it overcrowds your prisons and it's filled with procedures that are not always necessary.

I'm not saying that a Death Penalty should be carried out due to circumstancial evidence. I'm saying that when there is no doubt, there is also no reason at all to wait.

I understand, but it's just not going to be plausible to do that in actuality. Who gets to decide what "no doubt" means? The same jury that acquitted OJ? Like you said, the system isn't perfect and what you're suggesting is a recipe for abuse.

"Not being able to take a person to court once the highest authority found said person not guilty even after new evidence surfaces" this was one of the reforms that America did back when it declared it's independence from Britain. If you have a system with double jeopardy, it's going to be abused, no matter how you implement it

I agree with you that reforms to the system need to be made, but I disagree strongly with your suggestions on how due to the above. Other developed countries with more efficient judicial systems don't even have a death penalty.

 

[Alexander_86]

Right I just wanted to know cuz no idea of that place. thanks.

 

[Actinopterygian Melospiza]

I would hand the guy a shovel and show him what space-time continuum means in practice - digging a hole from Point A till Midnight.

lol, and that actually made me laugh out loud, I'm not just contributing to the overuse of the term "lol" because I chucked on the inside

 

[Foxi4]

Err, should probably quote posts, this was from page 11...

I understand, but it's just not going to be plausible to do that in actuality. Who gets to decide what "no doubt" means? The same jury that acquitted OJ? Like you said, the system isn't perfect and what you're suggesting is a recipe for abuse.

"Not being able to take a person to court once the highest authority found said person not guilty even after new evidence surfaces" this was one of the reforms that America did back when it declared it's independence from Britain. If you have a system with double jeopardy, it's going to be abused, no matter how you implement it

Sure sweetie-plums. When new evidence surfaces, the case not only deserves but should be re-opened, wheras nowadays the only instance when a case can be re-opened like this, avoiding double jeopardy, is when the persecutor finds sufficient evidence to change the category of the offense, for example from "attempted murder" to "murder" when the victim dies in the hospital and such.

As for the first part - "no doubt" means "we caught you on camera, the whole town square saw you, you were arrested during the shooting, you sort of can't defend yourself - choose, death or life of hard work". Like I said, re-read my posts, I'm talking about an implementation of the Death Penalty that I previously proposed while you think about the implementation used during the French Revolution.

 

[reshx]

Yeah , i heard that a friend of mine was a victim in this incident .... she is in the hospital

 

[exangel]

The system fails the other way around too. Meet O.J Simpson - the guy who killed his wife and her lover, got away with it and practically admitted it in his autobiography.

Not being able to take a person to court once the highest authority found said person not guilty even after new evidence surfaces is another cancer on your judicial system you should take care of, but I digress. My point is - no system is perfect, but some are more efficient than others. Yours isn't efficient - it costs too much, it overcrowds your prisons and it's filled with procedures that are not always necessary.

I'm not saying that a Death Penalty should be carried out due to circumstancial evidence. I'm saying that when there is no doubt, there is also no reason at all to wait.

I understand, but it's just not going to be plausible to do that in actuality. Who gets to decide what "no doubt" means? The same jury that acquitted OJ? Like you said, the system isn't perfect and what you're suggesting is a recipe for abuse.

I'd say a guilty plea, would be a start. Insanity category (mental defect, etc) pleas are an admission of guilt, and whether consideration for imprisonment or execution is given should be up to the jury. Usually with guidelines in place based on precedent.
"No doubt" would really have to do with what kind of defense is in place if there is a not guilty plea in the first place.

(A regular guilty plea would not go through the same extensive court processes, that should be obvious.)

edit:

Yeah , i heard that a friend of mine was a victim in this incident .... she is in the hospital

I am so sorry to hear that, my sympathies.

 

[Zetta_x]

Lets start with the guy who did the shooting.

Death penalty with immediate death or not? Is it too expensive to kill him in a week or keep him alive for the rest of his life?

 

[exangel]

I hope he just pleas guilty and gets multiple life sentences, knowing that losing a court battle would quite likely put him in death row. The gravity of his crime would surely put him in a federal prison and he probably won't fare well, even if he does live long.
I personally think that the entire country would be better off if he just pleas guilty, so that no sensation comes of the trial, and the victims don't have go through the trauma of aiding prosecution.


..Honestly I think the guy should be executed immediately but realistically speaking that isn't the answer.

 

[AngryGreek766]

fry him, he shot at children. We dont need vermin like that on this planet.

 

[AceWarhead]

fry him, he shot at children. We dont need vermin like that on this planet.

Once again, by doing/thinking this stuff, you are no better than him. You're fighting fire with fire, essentially.

 

[Zetta_x]

To be honest, I would like to study his mind =(

 

[RemixDeluxe]

http://news.blogs.cn...eople/?on.cnn=3

{At least 12 people were killed and another 58 wounded when a gunman opened fire during an early Friday morning screening of the new Batman movie at an Aurora, Colorado, theater, Police Chief Dan Oates told reporters. (Earlier, police said 14 were dead and 38 wounded.)
The heavily armed suspect has been identified as James Holmes, a 24-year-old Aurora resident who had been a doctoral student at the University of Colorado. He was arrested without putting up a fight at the theater moments after police arrived, Oates said.
Chaos broke out during the showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at the Century Aurora 16 theater when the shooting began, police and witnesses said. A man told CNN affiliate KUSA that people were confused when the shooting started because many believed the sound of gunfire was coming from the movie.
According to Oates, Holmes' apartment housed a device with "incendiary devices, some chemical elements linked together with all kinds of wires."

I hope for the most part the wounded are ok. Noone deserved to have this happened to him. Certainly wouldnt wish this on my worst enemy.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

Had a friend who was in the theater when this happened. Scared the living shit out of her, she says she'll never go to another movie ever again.