Who all believes this man still has rights, and should not be exucted before friday!

john your right...such a dumb statement....i mean...it could of been the tooth fairy who attacked the CO, took his gun, murdered him, then fled the scene trying to escape a crime and escape as a prisoner.....when there is no doubt, and there is NO defense....there is no need to drag this out like he is some guy blamed for robbing a wal-mart!

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
.....when there is no doubt, and there is NO defense....

OK, so forgive me while I play Devil's advocate for a moment please. (Pure fantasy stuff, I'm not having a pop at the real CO in any way whatsoever).

Have you considered the possibilities that:

1. The man is clinically insane.
2. The CO had been abusing him (physically or sexually) in prison.
3. The CO was trafficking drugs and the deal went sour.
4. The CO was somehow blackmailing the perp's family.
5. The perp is innocent and the CO is blocking his attempts to prove it.
6. The doctor was related to the perp's victim and planned revenge.
7. Make the rest up from your own imagination...

They're probably all nonsense and most don't come close to excusing what happened anyway but that is what a trial is for, to establish whether there is doubt or defence, or are you suggesting we should sub-contract that process to the press?

[edit on 27-6-2007 by timeless test]

The death penalty has its place. Yet having said that, it's use should be very carefully monitored. I know it sounds like a liberal talking point, and not at all original thought, better to let a guilty man go, than condemn an innocent one.

In this particular case, however, guilt seems all but assured. The only way out that I see is a technicality, yet all that would result would be he goes back to jail.

A trial, fair and unequivocally so, a sentence, whatever it may be, and the carrying out of sentence. If death, so be it, if not, so be it.

Public executions? Followed by the ever popular bear baiting, and tossing of people to lions no doubt. Nice to see our connections with our ancestors is still so strong...

This little monster should quietly be strapped to the execution table and fed something lethal through a tube and needle and quietly die. No fuss, no celebration, no anything, save perhaps mourn what might have been, and the potential for good that has just been lost.

Let's just take a moment to mourn this officer, mourn with his family and friends, as well as his colleagues.

All of you herein who work corrections have my utmost respect. I don't think I could do that job. In the immortal phrase from Hill Street Blues: "Be careful outthere."

[edit on 27-6-2007 by seagull]

Let's try an analogy. What if I told you that that the FDA is too expensive and unnecessary, so from now on, the FDA was going to just act on their initial impulse without a thorough process? They're only going to do studies on drugs with names that sound scarry, and they're only going to check for bacteria in food that smells funny? Would you tollerate that?

What if I told you that from now on, anyone who could speak without an accent could just walk right across America's border without being asked for ID?

What if your kid was complaining about feeling bad, but your doctor refused to see your kid because from across the lobby, your kid looked healthy?

So why would you say that due process should only be rendered when at first glance it appears the individual might be innocent?
We PRESUME that you are innocent and then make a thorough examination of any suspicions from there, just like your doctor has to presume that your child is complaining for a reason and investigate from there.


This man still has rights.

The necessity of his rights being kept in tact is for your benefit as much as his.

We have to make sure the evidence is all as it seems, for the benefit of those who might be faced with unreliable evidence. There can't be exceptions to that process, because the exception completely negates the point of the process.

You get to the process (trial) because the evidence seems so clear-cut that the DA is sure not one person in twelve will harbor any reasonable doubt. And then in that process, sometimes, albeit perhaps not all that often, something turns up and it's, "wow, I can't believe we almost got that wrong".

If you make an exception, where if they are absolutely sure that the evidence is going to be incontrovertible, they can just execute you right there, guess what is going to happen to almost everybody who gets arrested. Afterall, they wouldn't prosecute you if they didn't think the evidence lined up against you (unless of course you're a lacrosse player, but thats another story).


I can understand why you may favor expanding capital punishment for those convicted, why you may favor carrying out death sentences immediately after all appeals are exhausted, etc. But why you would want to alter any part of the process that an innocent man is ever likely to face (everything that currently preceedes conviction) is beyond me.

The best argument that can be made against this man's rights is that maybe he should have been executed for his previous crimes already, and that argument, though it may have a moral point, simply doesn't work legally. Remember, what is legal is not necessarily what is right- it is an imperfect reflection of what we see as right. We can't just ignore the law and "do the right thing" because that's changing the rules in mid game. You've got to go through the motions of changing the law. So if he already should have been dead, you just weep for the fact that we didn't change the law in time to stop him, then you go about the business of changing the law so that it doesn't happen next time. But you can't strip him of his existing legal rights at this point.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
john your right...such a dumb statement....i mean...it could of been the tooth fairy who attacked the CO, took his gun, murdered him, then fled the scene trying to escape a crime and escape as a prisoner.....when there is no doubt, and there is NO defense....there is no need to drag this out like he is some guy blamed for robbing a wal-mart!

Thing is that you need a trial to prove someone's guilt. It's the only fair way to do it. As far as the law is concerned, this man is still innocent.

Originally posted by shadow_soldier1975
when there is no doubt, and there is NO defense....there is no need to drag this out

But it is the job of a jury to decide if there is any doubt and any defense or not. It's a catch-22.

It's not that I think this guy is innocent. I doubt many people anywhere would think that given the available info. It's that giving him due process is worthwhile simply because if we create a way around due process, the chance of others falling into it when they shouldn't is simply too great.

If you don't have to give this guy due process, you open up a very dangerous discussion of just how good a person's chances of being innocent have to be for them to get a trial.