Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Newsflash! Virginia Executed A Guilty Man

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Date: 1/14/2006 1:37:00 PM
Author: AGBF



Date: 1/14/2006 8:13:19 AM

Author: Momoftwo

And what do an Italian and Englishman have to say about our justice system anyway?
Click to expand...


An excellent and erudite point, indeed! Why should we be influenced by foreigners like those who created the Renaissance in Italy and those who wrote the Magna Carta (and all the other instruments of English law upon which our legal system is based)? Those foreigners should really mind their own business!


Deborah

34.gif
Click to expand...

Magna Carta was not even close to being what our legal system was based on. I think people have a small misunderstanding of this document and why it was written and what it was really about... I know it has nothing to do with the topic.. just wanted to point this out.
 
Date: 1/14/2006 7:54:18 PM
Author: MINE!!
Magna Carta was not even close to being what our legal system was based on. I think people have a small misunderstanding of this document and why it was written and what it was really about... I know it has nothing to do with the topic.. just wanted to point this out.
Click to expand...

I am not sure we are in disagreement. I am saying that the Magna Carta was important in English law. It was certainly one of the earliest documents of importance, but naturally many others followed!!!

Our legal system is modeled on the English system, with many elements of English common law having become common law in the US. Only Lousiana, with its law based on the Napoleonic Code, doesn''t base its laws on English law.

Deborah
34.gif
 
Date: 1/14/2006 8:39:38 PM
Author: AGBF



Date: 1/14/2006 7:54:18 PM

Author: MINE!!

Magna Carta was not even close to being what our legal system was based on. I think people have a small misunderstanding of this document and why it was written and what it was really about... I know it has nothing to do with the topic.. just wanted to point this out.
Click to expand...


I am not sure we are in disagreement. I am saying that the Magna Carta was important in English law. It was certainly one of the earliest documents of importance, but naturally many others followed!!!


Our legal system is modeled on the English system, with many elements of English common law having become common law in the US. Only Lousiana, with its law based on the Napoleonic Code, doesn''t base its laws on English law.


Deborah

34.gif
Click to expand...


it was actualy based on Blackstone''s book more than anything else.
Which was a commentary on English law not a list of laws.


http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

In the early days Blackstone was the book used if there was a legal question because they didnt have all the case law we do today to distort the law with so they used his book.
Often one of the biggest requirements in the old west to be a circuit Judge was a copy of his book and the ability to read it.
 
Storm; thanks for the link:

Onto the topic of discussion - for those who wonder what Blackstone had to say about capitol punishment...

Volume 4, chapter 1:

Part II (partial extracts):

1. AS to the power of human punishment, or the right of
the temporal legislator to inflict discretionary
penalties for crimes and misdemeanors. It is clear,
that the right of punishing crimes against the law of
nature, as murder and the like, is in a state of mere
nature vested in every individual. For it must be vested
in somebody; otherwise the laws of nature would be vain
and fruitless, if none were empowered to put them in
execution: and if that power is vested in any one, it
must also be vested in all mankind; since all are by
nature equal. Whereof the first murderer Cain was so
sensible, that we find him expressing his
apprehensions, that whoever should find him would slay
him.

In a state of society this right is transferred
from individuals to the sovereign power; whereby men are
prevented from being judges in their own causes, which
is one of the evils that civil government was intended
to remedy. Whatever power therefore individuals had of
punishing offenses against the law of nature, that is
now vested in the magistrate alone; who bears the sword
of justice by the consent of the whole community.

And to this precedent natural power of individuals must be
referred that right, which some have argued to belong to
every state, (though, in fact, never exercised by any)
of punishing not only their own subjects, but also
foreign ambassadors, even with death itself; in case
they have offended, not indeed against the municipal
laws of the country, but against the divine laws of
nature, and become liable thereby to forfeit their lives
for their guilt.

-----

With regard to offenses mala in se, capital punishments are in some
instances inflicted by the immediate command of God
himself to all mankind; as, in the case murder, by the
precept delivered to Noah, their common ancestor and
representative, "whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." In other instances they are
inflicted after the example of the creator, in his
positive code of laws for the regulation of the Jewish
republic; as in the case of the crime against nature.

But they are sometimes inflicted without such express
arrant or example, at the will and discretion of the
human legislature; as for forgery, for robbery, and
sometimes for offenses of a lighter kind.

Of these we are principally to speak: as these crimes are, none
of them, offenses against natural, but only against social,
rights; not even robbery itself, unless it be a robbery
from one's person: all others being an infringement of
that right of property, which, as we have formerly
seen, owes its origin not to the law of nature, but
merely to civil society.


THE practice of inflicting capital punishments, for
offenses of human institution, is thus justified by that
great and good man, Sir Matthew Hale: "when offenses
grow enormous, frequent, and dangerous to a kingdom or
state destructive or highly pernicious to civil
societies, and to the great insecurity and danger of the
kingdom or its inhabitants, severe punishment and even
death itself is necessary to be annexed to laws in many
cases by the prudence of lawgivers."

It is therefore the enormity, or dangerous tendency, of the crime
that alone can warrant any earthly legislature in putting him
to death that commits it.

It is not its frequency only, or the difficulty of otherwise preventing it,
that will excuse our attempting to prevent it by a wanton effusion
of human blood. For, though the end of punishment is to
deter men from offending, it never can follow from
thence, that it is lawful to deter them at any rate and
by any means; since there may be unlawful methods of
enforcing obedience even to the justest laws.

Every humane legislator will be therefore extremely cautious
of establishing laws that inflict the penalty of death,
especially for slight offenses, or such as are merely
positive. He will expect a better reason for his so
doing, than that loose one which generally is given;
that it is found by former experience that no lighter
penalty will be effectual. For is it found upon farther
experience, that capital punishments are more effectual?


Thus: Blackstone recognized that the Death Penalty was just in certain cases (crimes against natural law); and could be just in certain cases of lessor crimes. However, he warns that such use of capital punishment for those lessor crimes needs to be done very cautiously.

I personally am not satisfied with the degree and solidity of evidence within the US needed to impose the death penalty - and feel that it should only be imposed very cautiously.

Perry
 
Mostly I was just poking fun at this alleged "news story" about a man wrongly punished and the way it totally disintegrated into nothing. These news outlets were practically rejoicing and hoping that the justice system screwed up and killed an innocent man. Too bad it didn''t work out for them. Tsk, tsk. So many inches of column lost which could have been devoted to uncovering the Republican "culture of corruption" and the horribly unjust war.

Of course I was also mocking those who would use an error by the courts to change their view on capital punishment. Base your view on principle - such as AGBF''s stand that it is an immoral punishment regardless of the crime - not on the manner of the punishment''s execution. (No pun intended.)

Thanks to Al and others who defended my honor. It''s good to see chivalry is not yet dead!
41.gif
 
I thought that this study might be germane to this (and other) threads in Around the World. It often seems to me (although this impression may not be supported by the facts) that some of the men posting here really enjoy talking about "frying" criminals and shooting intruders.

I am NOT saying that their basic philosophical stances are different from those of women, just that (to me) they appear to relish the idea of retribution.

Well...a new study says men DO relish retribution more than women. The study also says that there are some reasons why this was a positive for the human race, for those of you who believe in evolution and the adaptation of a species to its surroundings ;-).

Here is an excerpt from an article on the study.

"In 'Don Juan' Lord Byron wrote, 'Sweet is revenge - especially to women.' But a study released Wednesday, bolstered by magnetic resonance imaging, suggests that men may be the more natural avengers.

In the study, when male subjects witnessed people they perceived as bad guys being zapped by a mild electrical shock, their M.R.I. scans lit up in primitive brain areas associated with reward. Their brains' empathy centers remained dull.

Women watching the punishment, in contrast, showed no response in centers associated with pleasure. Even though they also said they did not like the bad guys, their empathy centers still quietly glowed.

The study seems to show for the first time in physical terms what many people probably assume they already know: that women are generally more empathetic than men, and that men take great pleasure in seeing revenge exacted."

Men and Revenge
 
Date: 1/19/2006 9:46:56 AM
Author: AGBF
I thought that this study might be germane to this (and other) threads in Around the World. It often seems to me (although this impression may not be supported by the facts) that some of the men posting here really enjoy talking about 'frying' criminals and shooting intruders.


I am NOT saying that their basic philosophical stances are different from those of women, just that (to me) they appear to relish the idea of retribution.


Well...a new study says men DO relish retribution more than women. The study also says that there are some reasons why this was a positive for the human race, for those of you who believe in evolution and the adaptation of a species to its surroundings ;-).


Here is an excerpt from an article on the study.


'In 'Don Juan' Lord Byron wrote, 'Sweet is revenge - especially to women.' But a study released Wednesday, bolstered by magnetic resonance imaging, suggests that men may be the more natural avengers.


In the study, when male subjects witnessed people they perceived as bad guys being zapped by a mild electrical shock, their M.R.I. scans lit up in primitive brain areas associated with reward. Their brains' empathy centers remained dull.


Women watching the punishment, in contrast, showed no response in centers associated with pleasure. Even though they also said they did not like the bad guys, their empathy centers still quietly glowed.


The study seems to show for the first time in physical terms what many people probably assume they already know: that women are generally more empathetic than men, and that men take great pleasure in seeing revenge exacted.'


Men and Revenge
Click to expand...


weeeeelllllll DUH!

I could have saved em some money they could have just asked me and id have tole em that would be the case.

Now if it had been someone that had harmed a kid the Ladies pleasure centers would have lit right up seeing em fry.
 
Date: 1/20/2006 1:42:56 AM
Author: strmrdr
Now if it had been someone that had harmed a kid the Ladies pleasure centers would have lit right up seeing em fry.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that research (at this stage) is showing that is untrue. Women may get more upset than men at "unfair actions" (to use the lamguage of the study), but they do not seem to get pleasure from seeing the punishment. At least if it involves pain.

I would bet that this study just scratches the surface, though. There are plenty of sadistic women in the world, plenty of child abusers. If their brains don''t show pleasure at inflicting pain, looking at the brain for clues about empathy or the lack thereof is pretty stupid :-).
 
Do a search on this guy...it''s not painted so liberally as by the Chicago Tribune.
There''s a LOT of evidence against him...
 
So it was a slam dunk then?
 
excuse me?
 
Well one thing is for sure. He will not be complaining about his rights being violated.
 
I think that "slam dunk" comment was some sort of sarcasm directed over here. NOWHERE did I say whether I was for or against the death penalty...don''t jump to conclusions. I just stated that there was a lot of evidence against him.
 
Now that I think about it, I''m going to give my stance on the death penalty.

I am anti-death penalty, but not for the reasons most people are.

I think that dying by lethal injection after sitting in a nice prison watching TV and working out for 10-25 years on the taxpayers dime is way too easy for people who commit heinous crimes. I put my dog "to sleep" by lethal injection, and these guys get the same humane treatment. Yes, their life is over, blah, blah, blah...trust me, I''ve debated this a million times.

I think that they should be put in some sort of supermax prison like the one in Colorado that Richard Reid is in. You''re out of your cell one hour everyday. No human contact other than the guard who takes you out. Shouldn''t be great food...it should be water, and enough food to sustain you. There should be no television. There shouldn''t be access to "ameneties". You should be in PRISON, JAIL. And if you wanted to make it a real prison, it could be done fairly cheaply...at least cheaper than keeping these guys on a nice death row for years upon years. Then they''ll either go crazy or live their lives out contemplating what they''ve done. THEN they have whatever sort of afterlife you believe in (if you do) to look forward to. That sounds like justice...
 
Yeah, Supermax them! A fate worse than death.

Oh, but Zack says that Bush will pardon him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top