Double Jeopardy problem:
“…a sentence of life imprisonment amounts to an implied acquittal for the alternative sentence of death and any attempt to impose the death sentence after that would violate double jeopardy.”
So says the Supreme Court in Bulllington v. Missouri, 1981.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So while we applaud his efforts after he decided to become human, he must still receive the consequences of his actions.
Hey lorisco I don’t know if you noticed it or not, but that’s the part that liberals hate.
It’s those nasty consequences…
I am with you Zeb.
When you can apply that standard to folks on your own team (GOP) then your words might mean something.
Until then you are nothing more than a hypocrite.
Intellectual dishonest is a beotch!
[/quote]
Okay that did it! I now apply those rules to people on my own team 
There…can I stop being a “beotch” now?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
You’re saying Tookie was sentenced to life first then later on when the law was changed he was put on death row?
I will never know if Tookie sent word for people to be killed from jail but I think its a pretty easy guess. C’mon X he would still be running things from behind bars.
Manson is guilty. Tookie was guilty. Tookie had hands on killing someone. Manson did not. Tookie was killed, Manson will not be. Does ordering the killing of someone warrant the death penalty? If not, Manson should not be killed. Tookie was personsible for the deaths of 4 people, Manson was not.
What are you talking about? the ONLY reason Manson is not on death row is because they changed the law, changed it back and left him off. In fact, if “ordering murders” shouldn’t be a factor in the death penalty, why is this fact brought up by just about anyone speaking the case concerning Tookie?
If you are going to make the case that Manson should not be on death row because he didn’t “act bad enough”, then why not look at Tookie’s chances of rehabilitation at all?[/quote]
You didnt clairfy who you were talking when you wrote about the law being changed. I didnt know if you were talking about Tookie or Manson.
I dont know the specifics of the law but can somone be sentenced to die for murder in which they didnt commit the act him or herself? I DONT agree with that.
There is a HUGE difference between actually killing someone and telling someone to do it in my opinion.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
I dont know the specifics of the law but can somone be sentenced to die for murder in which they didnt commit the act him or herself? I DONT agree with that.
There is a HUGE difference between actually killing someone and telling someone to do it in my opinion.[/quote]
I don’t completely agree with it either. I also understand the law in the aspect that Thunderbolt quoted as far as:
[quote]Double Jeopardy problem:
“…a sentence of life imprisonment amounts to an implied acquittal for the alternative sentence of death and any attempt to impose the death sentence after that would violate double jeopardy.”
So says the Supreme Court in Bulllington v. Missouri, 1981. [/quote]
I simply don’t agree that the death penalty should be allowed to proceed if 20 years pass and the convict shows a hint of rehabilitation. Tookie, however, is the wrong representative of this considering the acts he committed. I wonder if people will allow the other possible death row “victim” that BB posted about to be killed.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PGA200X wrote:
I dont know the specifics of the law but can somone be sentenced to die for murder in which they didnt commit the act him or herself? I DONT agree with that.
There is a HUGE difference between actually killing someone and telling someone to do it in my opinion.
I don’t completely agree with it either. I also understand the law in the aspect that Thunderbolt quoted as far as:
Double Jeopardy problem:
“…a sentence of life imprisonment amounts to an implied acquittal for the alternative sentence of death and any attempt to impose the death sentence after that would violate double jeopardy.”
So says the Supreme Court in Bulllington v. Missouri, 1981.
I simply don’t agree that the death penalty should be allowed to proceed if 20 years pass and the convict shows a hint of rehabilitation. Tookie, however, is the wrong representative of this considering the acts he committed. I wonder if people will allow the other possible death row “victim” that BB posted about to be killed.[/quote]
I agree 20+ years is too long to wait and people can change with that amount of time.
[quote]
Lorisco wrote:
The law was designed to prevent bias and deliver justice equally to all.
Professor X wrote:
Then why is Manson never going to face death?[/quote]
Because everyone on death row at the time the USSC declared the death penalty was unconstitutional had his sentence commuted to life in prison, and the death sentences were not reinstated (due to some complex constitutional issues) when the USSC reinstated the death penalty’s constitutional status several years later.
Oops, didn’t see this. Thunder is exactly right.
I note the Judge Richard Posner made the same point I keep making concerning why people sit for so long on death row: because it’s an institutional check against executing innocent people.
EXCERPT:
As for the risk of executing an innocent person, this is exceedingly slight, especially when a distinction is made between legal and factual innocence. Some murderers are executed by mistake in the sense that they might have a good legal defense to being sentenced to death, such as having been prevented from offering evidence in mitigation of their crime, such as evidence of having grown up in terrible circumstances that made it difficult for them to resist the temptations of a life of crime. But they are not innocent of murder. The number of people who are executed for a murder they did not commit appears to be vanishingly small.
It is so small, however, in part because of the enormous protraction of capital litigation. The average amount of time that a defendant spends on death row before being executed is about 10 years. If the defendant is innocent, the error is highly likely to be discovered within that period. It would be different if execution followed the appeal of the defendant’s sentence by a week. But the delay in execution not only reduces the deterrent effect of execution (though probably only slightly) but also makes capital punishment quite costly, since there is a substantial imprisonment cost on top of the heavy litigation costs of capital cases, with their endless rounds of appellate and postconviction proceedings.
[Edited to omit section unrelated to my point]