Monday May 30, 2016
Jump to content
Here's the issue, down and dirty.
A man was found guilty of murder in 1981 and sentenced to life in prison. In 2003 he killed another prisoner and was sentenced to death.
The Democratic Governor of Oregon, although he has allowed executions to take place in 1996 and 1997, has announced that he will allow no more executions in Oregon. He has pardoned the man.
The man, however, has refused the pardon, saying he is ready to die for his crimes and can not be pardoned without his agreeing to it. A lower court agreed with him, saying that Oregon court rulings showed that the prisoner has to agreed with a reprieve for it to be effective.
The Governor has now appealed his case to the Oregon Supreme Court.
How do you think this thing will end?
And what do you think about the idea of one person saying that there will be no more executions?
Anyone elected or in a top office of some kind is nuts.
I think they do these stupid things to get thier 15 minutes of fame, but it goes on for years and costs us big bucks.
I just moved to Oregon, I don't yet know if the majority of Oregonians approve of the governors decision. I, for one, am undecided on the capital punishment issue. However, if one of my family was murdered, I would say, yes, execute the @#$%^&*!
I think the Oregon Gov. has been smoking one of his states biggest economic export products. Basicly, yuppie social liberals in Portland control Oregon politics for now. Ala San Francisco. So nothing should suprise anyone.
I for one, do not think that the question of capital punishment should be decided upon by one person; Governor or not.
As the estimable Mr. Franz stated, if someone I love is killed and the perpetrator is known, I would be glad to flip the switch or administer the injection, or utilize whatever method has been deemed appropriate to expedite execution.
My personal view on capital punishment is that if guilt has been determined BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, or a confession is in place, capital punishment is entirely appropriate.
If, however, there is doubt as to the guilt, and the imprisoned maintains their innocence; until such time as guilt is determined absolutely, that person should not be executed. As the saying goes," better that 10,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent one be executed".
Somehow, I think you're right.
It was good to hear someone voicing the one and only possible position on executions. It's easy to understand why reasonable people like Fred have doubts about capital punishment; they have dubts that our system is fair, which it is NOT, as you clearly imply.
If guilty of murder--and I mean murder, not some sap's definition of what should be included under that heading--then execution should be the ONLY penalty. Neat, clean, final and fair. You have chosen to kill someone, and so we choose to kill you
On the other hand, with the twisting of evidence that goes on today, and a jury system in which prosecutors search for the biggest lamebrains in the county, there should be NO executions for murder, or for anything else, unless the evidence is so clear cut and obvious that there is NO chance of a mistake, and no chance of the usual politically motivated convictions we see every day.
I further believe that every conviction by a jury for ANY offense, no matter how slight, should be reviewed by a group whose purpose is to seek out and reverse all unfair convictions.
And all laws passed by legislatures at all levels should be reviewed by a similar group whose purpose is to make sure that no inherent right of a human being is being stepped on by politicians.
I am thinking in particular of a recent and still ongoing case where someone is being charged with murder because he ran from the law with a child in his car. What utter nonsense! Murder requires INTENT. No intent, no murder.
This brings up an interesting question.
Some people believe that a person should have the right to choose a death sentence rather than life without parole. I have thought about it and come to the conclusion that I do not know whether or not it is a right, but I would favor a law that allowed people to make that choice.
How do you feel about it?
As Kim states, we need to be certain of the guilt of a murderer. If the perpetrator wishes to die, I think that, it removes much doubt about his guilt. But, if the person is pretending to be guilty, and no one discovers that fact, it is a reason to consider reversing the murder sentence. It seems like there could be some complicated twists and turns in a case like this.
You're right, Fred. There are many twists and turns.
I've thought about this for quite a while. If by some chance I were stuck in a place with the cruds that end up in prison I would prefer to be dead. I'd find a way to get that way, but it would be nice if the system would help me do it. After ll, the mots fundamental right we have is the right to life. Shouldn't we be the ones who decide when we want to flip the switch?
Posting comments requires a free account