Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (19463)	10/27/2004 2:45:03 PM
From: Oral Roberts	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

I approve of the death penalty. I don't know the cases and I'm not a lawyer but I'm not too sure I am happy about a guy in DC overriding the guys on the ground at the scene. I would have to know more and will do some reading but I am not thrilled by what little I see. Your link by the way is not found.

To: Suma who wrote (19463)	10/27/2004 3:27:55 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Sorry, Suma, but neither the attorney general nor the prosecutors who work for him "impose" the death penalty - or any other sentence, for that matter. Juries do that. If they don't think the accused is guilty or that his or her crimes warrant the death penalty, there is nothing Ashcroft or a US Attorney can do about it. Now, as for "seeking" the death penalty or not, Ashcroft IS the AG - he IS the boss of all US Attorneys, subject only to the laws of the land and, secondarily, to the policies of his boss, the President.

To: Suma who wrote (19463)	10/27/2004 11:44:23 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

During the 1998 Wye negotiations, President Clinton supported Israel's refusal to release imprisoned terrorists because he was "haunted" by the fact that a murderer he once pardoned then killed again, according to Reuters (December 9, 1998). In November 1979, Clinton--then governor of Arkansas--pardoned imprisoned murderer James Surridge because Surridge had terminal cancer. After being released, Surridge murdered a pizza shop owner in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. Then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament: "We sat there at Wye...and President Clinton said: 'I understand you because when I was governor of Arkansas, they pressured me to release a murderer and I released him under public pressure and after that he murdered again.' And he said, 'I understand that you refuse to release murderers'. And thus we agreed." zoa.org In 1966 McDuff had been sentenced to death for killing three teenagers, but due to a Supreme Court ruling against the use of capital punishment, escaped execution. After serving time he was released. He then murdered a number of people before being captured and imprisoned again. ............................................................. Around 1 in 10 convicted murderers will murder again when released. Of the 2,575 prisoners sentenced to death in the United in States 1992, 1 out of 11 had a prior conviction for homicide. This means that hundreds of additional people died because those convicted of murder were released only to kill again. [Numerous supporting examples follow.] members.iinet.net.au Still feel equivocal? How equivocal will you be if one of these guys finds you? Me? Life without parole? What does that mean? Many of those guys DO get out. A governor pardons them. A court decides there was something wrong in the preceding process. You want cases of "life without parole" who murdered again? I can find them. Easily. He has also asked for the federal death penalty in cases in seven states that don't allow capital punishment. That means absolutely nothing. Your talking different jurisdictions, different law, different charges, and federal supremacy. As an example, suppose the draft were re-instated and a state passed a law forbidding any of its citizens from being drafted. That law is meaningless. The issue of federal supremacy was settled long ago. Now I won't argue that evidentiary standards in death penalty cases should be heightened. I think they should. Good solid physical evidence should be required that links the accused to the crime. And that does not mean "eye witness" testimony. That is notoriously unreliable.