Clemency

25 December 2024, 09:14

crbutler

I saw a Pew report, but regardless, most support it.

Many have issues with fairness of application, but that is a different matter.

How many have banned capital punishment by legislative action?

Minnesota is one of the states that got rid of capital punishment.

The bigger issue is that it’s unpopular with lawyers and judges more than the citizens.

I’m not for making more crimes into capital crimes, but rather using it more frequently and with less delay in cases where it is appropriate.

I’m ok with limiting it to cases with concrete physical evidence, and I don’t think it should be used for cases with circumstantial evidence.

I also think it should not be used by prosecutors to get guilty pleas. The case should be so rock solid that they just try it and don’t entertain a plea bargain.

But then, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t stand for election, either.

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Again, so. Everything I said is accurate. Go try to expand your Capital Myrder statute if you do not believe me.

Oh, and it is 55 percent according to Gallup.

It is a split issue.

Look at how many states have banned or held in abeyance the death penalty.

25 December 2024, 10:11

Saeed

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
Haha, I actually think that one was typed right and it changed it.

We will try again.

If President Biden was too weak of body and mind to run, then he is too weak of body, and mind to be occupy the executive chair.

However, I am not in the Cabinet nor Congress to do anything about it.

Frankly,

Is ANYONE I your government fit to rule??

That includes those coming in too!

Every single one Trump proposed has been shown to be a crook!

Just like Trump himself!

25 December 2024, 10:28

LHeym500

55 percent today. I am sure Biden’s actions will drive the number a little north for awhile, then it will come back down.

The popularity Does not matter. Like I said and will say again. The popularity of the death penalty is not the issue.

The issue is, whether the grant of presidential clemency to Fed death row inmates is an abuse of power. The use of vested, specific, constitutional power by a President is not an abuse of power. The use is an express grant of power found in our Constitution.

The mere fact someone dislikes a piece of legislation does not make that legislation unconstitutional. The mere fact someone does not like when a president uses the declared power to pardon and grant clemency does not make an abuse of power.

Either engage in the hard work to try to change the Constitution, or complain.

Complaining is fine, but complain accurately. Just say I do not like and disapprove. Preferably state the way, but stop w this abuse of power nonsense. The President is a ring within the power vested and granted by the Constitution.

An objection though proper, but anchored to the wrong rationale is still overruled.

If one wants to near President Biden and by extension Dems for being soft, supplanting the court’s verdict and judgement on some flaws, to you, notion they the death penalty is wrong. Have at it. As Duke Wayne said, “ Shoot him in the foot, and make him eat sand.”

Now, the paraphrase, “ But we have to rational and intelligently honest about our objections.”

Your abuse of power argument is neither. Well, it can be intellectually honest, if one is ignorant that the Constitution expressly vest that power in the person of the president.

You think it is so popular. Go and try to make your state statute stronger. You will see how she key folks get. It is good to do it in an election year because you have the implicit threat of vote against making children killers ineligible for parole/real life on prison.

Your state has not had the death penalty since 1913. If popularity is what matters. It ain’t that popular. Likewise, just over half, 27, states still retain the death penalty. However, some percentage have court issued injunctions in place. KY being one. The Ky. S.Ct., lifted its moratorium, only to have the Lowe courts use the S. Ct., rational to block it again case by case. Thus, the number is actually less than 27.

This being the death penalty is correct is not a clear cut popular position.

If you do not want a president to use clemency to block death death row, then the nation should not vote for a president who questions the ethical and moral application of the death penalty. The nation did. Deal with it.

25 December 2024, 11:41

RolandtheHeadless

Pros of capital punishment:

1. General deterrence. Sends a message to other would-be killers.

2. Specific deterrence. Makes sure the individual in question doesn't do it again.

3. Supports the victims' and society's expectation of justice.

4. Satisfies the desire for retribution, i.e., an eye for an eye.

Cons of capital punishment:

1. Risk of mistakes that can't be cured.

2. Badly administered. The process drags out for years. Costs taxpayers more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

3. The government and society should not be in the business of killing people--on moral grounds.

4. Violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This is an argument, and is debatable.

25 December 2024, 12:45

Jefffive

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Pros of capital punishment:

1. General deterrence. Sends a message to other would-be killers.

In the Old West horse thieves were hung from the nearest tree but we never ran out of horse thieves.

2. Specific deterrence. Makes sure the individual in question doesn't do it again.

Indisputable.

3. Supports the victims' and society's expectation of justice.

Since the victim is almost invariably dead we don't know what they expect.

4. Satisfies the desire for retribution, i.e., an eye for an eye.

See #2.

Cons of capital punishment:

1. Risk of mistakes that can't be cured.

The biggie.

2. Badly administered. The process drags out for years. Costs taxpayers more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

3. The government and society should not be in the business of killing people--on moral grounds.

4. Violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This is an argument, and is debatable.

25 December 2024, 18:32

theback40

If they talked to the victims family, you could have a good idea what they want. It seems family doesnt count for anything anymore, it's only about the perp.

25 December 2024, 19:10

MJines

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Pros of capital punishment:

1. General deterrence. Sends a message to other would-be killers.

2. Specific deterrence. Makes sure the individual in question doesn't do it again.

3. Supports the victims' and society's expectation of justice.

4. Satisfies the desire for retribution, i.e., an eye for an eye.

Cons of capital punishment:

1. Risk of mistakes that can't be cured.

2. Badly administered. The process drags out for years. Costs taxpayers more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

3. The government and society should not be in the business of killing people--on moral grounds.

4. Violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This is an argument, and is debatable.

Not a bad list, although the notion that capital punishment serves as a general deterrent for other homicides has been disproven by criminologists years ago.

25 December 2024, 19:54

ledvm

quote:
The use of vested, specific, constitutional power by a President is not an abuse of power. The use is an express grant of power found in our Constitution.

Every legal power can be abused in a legal fashion. And, abuse is not all or nothing — there are levels of abuse. Abuse in this case is up to the voters to decide.

25 December 2024, 20:26

Steve Bertram

No worse than pardoning your in-law, then nominating him as ambassador to France.

Certainly not as bad as a pardoning sedationists who have attacked our government and attempted to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.

I know the Trumptards will disagree.

25 December 2024, 21:13

TomP

quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
The use of vested, specific, constitutional power by a President is not an abuse of power. The use is an express grant of power found in our Constitution.

Every legal power can be abused in a legal fashion. And, abuse is not all or nothing — there are levels of abuse. Abuse in this case is up to the voters to decide.

I idly wonder if pardoning guys who beat on the cops will go unnoticed by the electorate. In some places, maybe.
This is one of the redder of California's counties, but ideology takes a back seat to business.
Beating on the cops is bad for business. Cops unnecessarily beating on civilians is bad for business.
Act like grownups, get treated like grownups, for good or ill...

25 December 2024, 22:05

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
No worse than pardoning your in-law, then nominating him as ambassador to France.

Certainly not as bad as a pardoning sedationists who have attacked our government and attempted to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.

I know the Trumptards will disagree.

Pardoning a raping murderer is no worse?

25 December 2024, 22:51

LHeym500

quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
The use of vested, specific, constitutional power by a President is not an abuse of power. The use is an express grant of power found in our Constitution.

Every legal power can be abused in a legal fashion. And, abuse is not all or nothing — there are levels of abuse. Abuse in this case is up to the voters to decide.

No it cannot. If the President is following the Constitution, the president is not abusing power.

Your statement is plain stupid.

An abuse would be accepting a bribe for a pardon.

If one does not want a President exercising this pier. One needs to start advocating the Constitution to be changed. I’ll not support it, but I’ll respect it.

25 December 2024, 23:33

ledvm

quote:
Originally posted by LHeym500:
quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
The use of vested, specific, constitutional power by a President is not an abuse of power. The use is an express grant of power found in our Constitution.

Every legal power can be abused in a legal fashion. And, abuse is not all or nothing — there are levels of abuse. Abuse in this case is up to the voters to decide.

No it cannot. If the President is following the Constitution, the president is not abusing power.

Your statement is plain stupid.

An abuse would be accepting a bribe for a pardon.

If one does not want a President exercising this pier. One needs to start advocating the Constitution to be changed. I’ll not support it, but I’ll respect it.

Lord help the State of Kentucky.

25 December 2024, 23:56

ledvm

quote:
An abuse would be accepting a bribe for a pardon.

Certainly one level of abuse.

26 December 2024, 00:33

M.Shy

Just because one is allowed to to do it doesn’t make it right
I do believe, Dems party slipped cheese of their cracker and it might take awhile to right themselves

26 December 2024, 00:56

Steve Bertram

quote:
Originally posted by ledvm:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
No worse than pardoning your in-law, then nominating him as ambassador to France.

Certainly not as bad as a pardoning sedationists who have attacked our government and attempted to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.

I know the Trumptards will disagree.

Pardoning a raping murderer is no worse?

Clemency or pardon? Was the party then nominated for an ambassadorship?

26 December 2024, 03:53

jeffeosso

quote:
Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Pros of capital punishment:

1. General deterrence. Sends a message to other would-be killers.

2. Specific deterrence. Makes sure the individual in question doesn't do it again.

3. Supports the victims' and society's expectation of justice.

4. Satisfies the desire for retribution, i.e., an eye for an eye.

Cons of capital punishment:

1. Risk of mistakes that can't be cured.

2. Badly administered. The process drags out for years. Costs taxpayers more to execute someone than to imprison them for life.

3. The government and society should not be in the business of killing people--on moral grounds.

4. Violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This is an argument, and is debatable.

you now what sends message to murders? a 37 out of 40 chance for clemency, after being in clubfed for 15 to 25 years -- the lunatics will oft misquote that "it's just as expensive as life in prison" and, under the current enforcement, they aren't incorrect, just wrong. When the average life sentence is out in 20-25 years, and the average death sentence is delayed 22 years, yes, in fact, such lunacy does have a cost - and 22 years in special confinement DOES cost more than 2 years in genpop -- sure does --

the CRIME in that is the 22 years part - should be a max of 5 years - either they are executed within 5 years, or commuted to life WoP

as for the state "wontonly" killing persons, let's focus on saving the vets mental health -- i am unconcerned with the less than 50 per year executed over the last ~25 years -- the legal process is there for bleeding heart, true believers, to volunteer all their time to the cases -- step right up, libbie lawyers, and save these convicts. Stop telling the rest of the people to leave it be when you can be the voice of positive change