There's a really easy way to stop what he calls the "frivolous appeals process." Abolish the death penalty. I guess that's not an option if you're really hard up to kill people. I've never been a big fan of state sanctioned murder though. Let people rot in jail for life, that is far worse than a quick death.

Plus, the innocent who have been wrongly convicted always have hope of getting out.

This is the christian way.

The Death Penalty the Ultimate in Hypocrisy.

Larry

". . .state sanctioned murder. . ."

This is an oxymoron. Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a person's life. If it is state sanctioned, it is lawful. Therefore the death penalty can't be murder.

" Let people rot in jail for life, that is far worse than a quick death."

I agree 100%. If I had a choice between lifetime incarceration or gently falling asleep with a needle in my arm, the choice would be easy.

Unfortunately though, not all states with capital punishment give the jury the option to mete out life without parol. So to make sure the criminal isn't out on the streets again in 20 years, they opt for the death penalty. Juries should have the option to give life without parol in all capital cases.

This is an oxymoron. Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of a person's life. If it is state sanctioned, it is lawful.

Taking the life of a human being can and should never be considered 'lawful'.

.......you have to wonder how many innocent people are in jail because the police and prosecutors "massaged" the case.......

........the death penalty should not be applied in cases where the conviction was arrived at through circumstantial evidence.......

.........it seems clear that this man has been wrongfully convicted.......is there not a governor in Georgia, does he not have the balls to do the right thing.???

"Taking the life of a human being can and should never be considered 'lawful'."

I agree. But what should and shouldn't be is irrelevant. What matters is "what is". In some states it is lawful whether we like it or not.

Then I presume you do not support a woman's right to take the life of her unborn child, corrcect?

Just curious.

.........a relative of mine was wrongfully convicted of first degree murder...he was sentenced to 25 years +..... the only witness against my relative was probably the murderer.........my relatives cell phone records showed that he was several miles away from the scene of the murder, at the time of the murder, but due to the "witness", my relative was convicted.......

*** Then I presume you do not support a woman's right to take the life of her unborn child, corrcect?

Just curious.

Posted by goatman***

.....and I presume you do not support the right of the government to interfere with a person's reproductive rights ??? ....

......it's ironic how people who are anti-abortion are for state-sanction killing of convicts......you have to ask, would Jesus execute this man ??? and why are these Christian nuts not demanding this man's exonneration ????

".....and I presume you do not support the right of the government to interfere with a person's reproductive rights ??? ...."

As I said in another thread, though I am a bit squeamish about it, I am for abortion in the first trimester if both parents decide on it. I also pointed out that I do not hide behind the hypocrisy of pretending that it is not taking a life.

........however you look at abortion ( and why did you bring it into a thread about capital punishment ??..it smacks loudly of right wing Christian fascism).......if we conservatives are in favor of small government, how can we also ask the government to monitor our genitals and their functions.??..only proponents of REALLY BIG GOVERNMENT would want this......

"and why did you bring it into a thread about capital punishment ??"

I was wondering if Audrey was consistent with her views on the taking of human life. That is quite clear if you read my original post and shouldn't require explanation.

"how can we also ask the government to monitor our genitals and their functions"

Nope, can't say I want anyone monitoring my genitals. But what do my genitals have to do with unborn humans, other than the fact that the sperm that created them came from there? Check your HS biology book -- after conception, a person's genitals are pretty much out of the picture as that new human life forms for the next 9 months. At least that's how it worked for me and my wife.

....."unborn humans" is a code-word for "I am a Christian who wants the law to compell others to follow my beliefs"......

........well....we don't share your beliefs and do not feel you should try to use the law to force us to follow your beliefs......you are welcome to do what you want with your reproductive organs if you agree that we should have the same option.......

.........Christians do not seem to accept the fact that if there is a God, he is pro-abortion........what is a miscarriage after all, but an abortion done by God........

.........does God approve of everything God does ????.....of course He does.......

......therefore God approves of abortions, and there is nothing in the Bible that says different........

"you are welcome to do what you want with your reproductive organs if you agree that we should have the same option......."

Chill, dude. I said (OK, implied) I've no problems with what people do with their reproductive organs. However, I am surprised that a literate person smart enough to navigate the internet does not know the difference between his sex organs and an unborn child. *sigh*

BTW, I am an atheist. I don't give a hoot whether someone thinks their mythical god approves or not.

*** Chill, dude. I said (OK, implied) I've no problems with what people do with their reproductive organs.***

.........then you will recognize that "unborn children" are a collection of cells with no rights that could supersede the rights of the host person......therefore discussing the "rights of the unborn" is a moot point...........

Let's see if I get this. The fact that I don't care what people do with their sex organs implies that I recognize unborn children are a collection of cells . . .

Huh?

I love non sequiturs

Which one of you bleeding hearts are willing to have this guy released and move into the house next to you and your family?

If the man is innocent yet wrongly convicted, of course I would welcome him into my neighborhood. The issue at this point however is whether or not the evidence on which the death penalty verdict was decided was credible or accurate. The issue does not appear to be related to whether or not he should be released forthwith.

""If it is state sanctioned, it is lawful.""

Exactly the argument that the Nazis justified their reign of terror with and the reason that the German Constitution specifically states that the state has no right to take life.
This case seems, from the article, to be pretty clear and a stay of execution would be granted by any fair minded person. If there was police coercion of witnesses those police should have to answer serious charges themselves.

I don't have ANY faith in the ability of the justice system to act fairly and accurately enough to justify having a death penalty. All the participants want is to WIN the case. How would you like to be on trial for your life with Mike Nifong prosecuting?

Agreed Jest

Death penalty is a bit final for my taste. If we were perfect and could know with perfect clarity that anyone convicted was guilty that would be one thing, but we are not perfect, mistakes are made and life is too precious to risk on faulty evidence, agressive prosecutors trying to enhance carrers or racist juries or anything that might make a trial questionable.

I didn't know Newt was elected king. You must mean 'THE CLINTON-ERA."

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony used to convict people. Nobody should ever be sentenced to death if the majority of evidence linking them to a crime is eye witness testimony.

Taking the life of a human being can and should never be considered 'lawful'.

Posted by Audrey_Hepburn

So.........If someone is comming after you with a big knife you should just let him kill you cause you can't kill him? It should never be taken lightly but there is a time and a place for it to be done.

Sniper of course is correct. Self defense is justified under many threatening circumstances.

Thank you Mod. I was beganning to wonder if my moral compas was still working.