Convicted murderer takes 34 minutes to die during execution.

[MadVlad]

you got pot on you... go to jail. i'd say community service would be better.

[tamias6]

Okey we have district attournies that can and will to manipulate evidence to make a defendant look guilty as hell. A person close to me fell victim to those tricks when he was in court. But it goes the other way around too. You get a defendant with enough money or in a high profile case like a Death Penalty case there will be some hot shot defence attourny doing the same things to make the defendant look like the next Pope. Even if the defendant is found guilty the defence will alway come up with some stupid cockamamie story to pull of the jury's heartstrings and get a reduced sentence such as "My defendant raped three weman and mowed down a class room full of children because his mother didn't toilet train him right so we need to feel sorry for this poor criminal." That to me is bunk. Maybe its because I'd be considered a hangman's Judge. But a crime is a crime. No Excuses. Thus the justice system needs to have a backbone to dish out the right punishment to fit the crime and mean it. That means all sentances would have no chances of parol, no plea bargaining exp. in very special instances, and a limited number of appeals--3 appeal attempts would surfice. Oh yeah, jail cells would have no cable TV, no radios, no decorations, no personal stuff, nada. They would just have just the basics the state provides to sustain prisoners such as a light, bed, sink and toilet.

But then there are the normal Joe cases where the defendant is stuck with a weak defence lawyer and thus the procecution has a field day. So to level the playing field for any cases, we need to remove the emotional stories and manipulation from both sides and just stick with the cold hard evidence and witness' answers and let the jury decide for themselves and no more "his mother didn't toliet train him right" or "look at his evil face" stories and any "if it doesn't fit you must aquit" catch phrases to emotionally bias the jury one way our the other.

[nowensone]

We might as well admit something here, folks, we do not have a blind justice system in this country, or even "justice", and I don't mean that in the way that everyone knows and yet doesn't much care about unless to b!tch about it on a forum like this, I mean it deeply and pervasively. Fortunately, most here will never really learn what that means, other than to perhaps get a speeding ticket that was falsely given, and have a prosecutor tell you it is irrelevant that you are innocent, you will lose if you choose to fight it. Money, status(influence) and physical appearance are the deciding factors of justice with few exceptions. If you can afford a lawyer in the previous example of a speeding ticket, it all goes away, which is usually due to a personal relationship with a judge by the attorney, which is outright, and ignored, corruption. In the case of murder, it is no different, affluence affords "justice", it always has, this has been conclusively proven if it is not in fact common knowledge. And it will not change because most people have no power to force change, or are never a victim of real injustice, and so have no pressing reason to complain or care.

Diaz may have been innocent, who really knows, but he is an example of the disenfranchised and our justice system - even an incompetent defense attorney would have won an acquittal in his case for murder, and of course from death.

A quote I find fitting:

It is lawyers who run our civilization for us - our governments, our businesses, our private lives... We cannot buy a home or rent an apartment, we cannot get married or try to get divorced, we cannot leave our property to our children without calling on the lawyers to guide us. To guide us, incidentally, through a maze of confusing gestures and formalities that lawyers have created... The legal trade, in short, is nothing but a high-class racket.

[Charlotteman]

MadVlad you say you wouldn't lose any tears if a pothead gets jail time......that must be the most callous remark I've heard in a long time. If your wishes came true, American prisons would have about 10,000,000 or more new prisoners.

[MadVlad]

Why is it callous? Is pot illegal? Yes. Is the penalty jail time (sometimes)? Yes. So, if I'm doing something that is guaranteed jail time, I know it, and I get caught, what is expected to happen?

Do I agree that pot should be illegal? No, I think pot is a lot less dangerous than alcohol. But, I also know that if I get caught with pot, especially a lot of pot, something bad is going to happen. Why would I be surprised when it does? And why would I feel bad for someone that knowingly puts themselves in that kind of risk category?

[runawayjim]

Why is it callous? Is pot illegal? Yes. Is the penalty jail time (sometimes)? Yes. So, if I'm doing something that is guaranteed jail time, I know it, and I get caught, what is expected to happen?

Do I agree that pot should be illegal? No, I think pot is a lot less dangerous than alcohol. But, I also know that if I get caught with pot, especially a lot of pot, something bad is going to happen. Why would I be surprised when it does? And why would I feel bad for someone that knowingly puts themselves in that kind of risk category?

[MadVlad]

do you feel bad when people get caught speeding, doing 10 mph over the speed limit, which is knowingly breaking the law? i know it doesn't have the same penalty as possession of pot, but it's still breaking the law and still a punishment.

[runawayjim]

even jimmy carter feels bad about putting pot smokers in jail.

"Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

REFERENCE: President Jimmy Carter: Message to Congress, August 2, 1977.

[MadVlad]

even jimmy carter feels bad about putting pot smokers in jail.

"Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

REFERENCE: President Jimmy Carter: Message to Congress, August 2, 1977.

[Pillsbury]

Nowensone, that's a nice quote. But what's the alternative? I shudder to imagine a world without lawyers.

[tamias6]

I think what is being said is that Lawyers have too much power as they have created so much red tape in the legal system that lawyers are the only ones that can weasel their way through it. Therefore the common man really has no chioce but to have his hand held by a lawyer when dealing with the legal system. That's why we need lawyers involved to do such things like buying a house, renting an apartment, opening a business, etc. In short, lawyers have got our society by the b***s and able to charge eleventy trillion dollars an hour for their services and get away with it and tie the hands of our judicial system with abitrary loopholes and technicaillities.

Nowensone, that's a nice quote. But what's the alternative? I shudder to imagine a world without lawyers.

[nowensone]

^ Pretty much.

----------------------------

Pillsbury, you can make the argument that lawyers are a good thing for our society, especially in light of Diaz' execution (I was making a similar agrument) - he probably should have been acquitted of what amounts to incomplete and circumstantial evidence, and didn't have much in the way of an attorney, probably just a public defender.

However, you could just as easily argue, as the quote was attempting to convey, that we need lawyers because they have made the system what it is. That is not really relevant to a murder trial, but I find the "high class racket" comment to be the most insightful piece of the quote as it really is a class thing, as lower classes don't have as much access to justice, and that is of course relevant to a murder trial.

I do not have anything against lawyers except for the fact that our system requires so many, and I think the reasons are clear - lawyers are usually our leaders and have themselves created this system. I forget the statistic, but I think it goes that Washington DC has more attorneys than all of Japan, and Japan has gotten by quite well despite that.

[runawayjim]

I think what is being said is that Lawyers have too much power as they have created so much red tape in the legal system that lawyers are the only ones that can weasel their way through it. Therefore the common man really has no chioce but to have his hand held by a lawyer when dealing with the legal system. That's why we need lawyers involved to do such things like buying a house, renting an apartment, opening a business, etc. In short, lawyers have got our society by the b***s and able to charge eleventy trillion dollars an hour for their services and get away with it and tie the hands of our judicial system with abitrary loopholes and technicaillities.

[tamias6]

In today's world of excessive law suits and obviously guilty criminals geting off on some totally obscure technicallity, laws have to be written as airtight as possible. That requires absolutely correct grammer and proper phrasing of a scholarly level. It would be easy to say "Killing people is bad" and be done with it. But what about the "what if's" such as " What if the person was attacking me?" or "The cane I was operating malfunctioned and caused my load to fall and kill another worker?" This is the gray area where techincallities and loopholes reside. That is why complex wording that can easily fill a Novel is required to make a Law enforcable and why our legal system is often far too complex to be understood by the normal John Doe.

i think that is a big problem. they also use a language that is not understandable by the average joe, meaning if you understand the language, you can easily take advantage of people. i don't know why laws and rulings and all that other stuff is written using words that the average person does not understand. probably so that we can't take the country away from the lawyers.

[dgreco]

In today's world of excessive law suits and obviously guilty criminals geting off on some totally obscure technicallity, laws have to be written as airtight as possible. That requires absolutely correct grammer and proper phrasing of a scholarly level. It would be easy to say "Killing people is bad" and be done with it. But what about the "what if's" such as " What if the person was attacking me?" or "The cane I was operating malfunctioned and caused my load to fall and kill another worker?" This is the gray area where techincallities and loopholes reside. That is why complex wording that can easily fill a Novel is required to make a Law enforcable and why our legal system is often far too complex to be understood by the normal John Doe.

[tamias6]

I think, every human being alive and to have ever lived since the start of civilization wishes were that easy. But sadly its a Catch 22.

Writtng the Laws at a level that the ordinary Joe can understand, would omit many fancy scholarly words and proper phrasing needed to make a Law as air tight as possible thus rendering the Law open to multiple interpretations which would invite those pesky loopholes and techincallities. On the other hand, writting the Laws in the way they are currently written including the fancy scholarly words and phrasing needed to make the law as air tight as possible, leaves the poor ordinary Joe in the dark, and even then, due to the complexity, the Law is still open to loopholes and technicallities. Inshort, its Hell if you do, hell if you don't.

isn't that a major problem in its self? We should beable to understand the laws, rules and regulations of our legal system

[Pillsbury]

^ Pretty much.

----------------------------

Pillsbury, you can make the argument that lawyers are a good thing for our society, especially in light of Diaz' execution (I was making a similar agrument) - he probably should have been acquitted of what amounts to incomplete and circumstantial evidence, and didn't have much in the way of an attorney, probably just a public defender.

However, you could just as easily argue, as the quote was attempting to convey, that we need lawyers because they have made the system what it is. That is not really relevant to a murder trial, but I find the "high class racket" comment to be the most insightful piece of the quote as it really is a class thing, as lower classes don't have as much access to justice, and that is of course relevant to a murder trial.

I do not have anything against lawyers except for the fact that our system requires so many, and I think the reasons are clear - lawyers are usually our leaders and have themselves created this system. I forget the statistic, but I think it goes that Washington DC has more attorneys than all of Japan, and Japan has gotten by quite well despite that.

[Pillsbury]

Let me add too that I've seen the way corporations and the state will take adavantage of the working class at every step possible. Sometimes I think that lawyers are the only thing there to protect people from the Patriot Act or the evil empire of Allstate with what's happening in New Orleans. You know, if you want anarchy, then "first, we kill all the lawyers."

[dpbaker]

I think this is just sick. There is no humane or justifiable way to kill someone, including those that have killed themselves.

[runawayjim]

Firing Squad. Bullets are cheap and quick.

[MadVlad]

Then too bad.

[runawayjim]

Then too bad.

[dgreco]

that goes against something called the constitution that protects the rights of american citizens, which include convicted felons who are sentenced to death, even if you disagree with it.

[tamias6]

^ Trying not to sound anal. But what good would it do for the family to launch a lawsuit against the government and/or the corectional system? The condemn felon is dead. No amount of money would fix that. Besides it was most likely an accident resulting the felon's prolonged execution. Thus, I don't think the correctional system was out to intentionally violate the Constitution.

[MadVlad]

that goes against something called the constitution that protects the rights of american citizens, which include convicted felons who are sentenced to death, even if you disagree with it.