Georgia "Murder" Denied Appeal For Death Sentence

So let's shorten that appeals process up a bit, eh.

PHeller wrote: It just seem strange to me that you can murder someone, then point the finger at someone else who mentioned offhand how you should commit said murder, and let them get the harsher penalty. I guess its how our court system work, allowing accomplices in crimes get varying degrees of sentencing depending on how much they ratted on one another.

Did the boyfriend plead guilty? If I recall right, in practically every (all?) state with the death penalty, pleading guilty takes that off the table.

CNN has an article on this case and another one where a plotter is facing the death penalty later today - this one on very weak evidence:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/30/us/georgia-oklahoma-non-killer-executions/index.html

Yes he plead guilty in a plea deal which granted him life in prison.

Not sure what she pleaded, but I'd assume it was innocent as she wasn't the one who did the stabbing.

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

RealMiniParker wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting multiple appeal attempts, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

that's what I had in mind …

mtn wrote:

RealMiniParker wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting multiple appeal attempts, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

Those multiple appeal attempts have exonerated multiple death row inmates who were innocent of the crime they were convicted for. So, yeah, we should do away with that and kill more innocent people. They're in prison. Their lives are already over in there. Why do we need to take them off this earth? Does that make our world any better? Guess what--my life didn't change at all when Timothy McVey was executed. Same with John Wayne Gacy. They were already removed from society, removing them from the earth made zero change to my life, and zero change to yours.

because very few that are doing "life without parole" actually do their time … which means that they can come out and do it again …unless you think that time served actually rehabilitates someone

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

RealMiniParker wrote:

mtn wrote:

wbjones wrote:

mtn wrote: Death penalty seems weird to me. And wrong, for that matter. Before we even get into the moral issues, from a practical standpoint it costs a lot more to kill the person than it does to keep them alive. Counter intuitive, but the truth. On the moral perspective, I have three points. First, if we get it wrong once, just one time, then that is one major berkeleyup that cannot be undone, and that is one million times too many. So why do it? If you can make a mistake, and it has been proven that you can, why would you do something where the mistake is so catastrophic? Second, we're killing somebody because they killed somebody, and that is illegal. Seems hypocritical to me. Third and last, I feel that for the truly guilty, death would be welcomed over a life in prison. Just my opinion.

not if we'd go back to a tree branch and a rope … neither in short supply … and who really cares if it's "humane" … we're killing someone

It isn't the execution itself that is making it costly.

If we eliminated the ~20 years on Death Row, and the resulting multiple appeal attempts, it would be cheaper than life in prison.

that's what I had in mind …

So you'd rather have the very real risk of murdering someone who didn't commit the crime they were convicted for?

That is astounding to me. Especially since it still wouldn't really reduce the cost.

PHeller wrote: Yes he plead guilty in a plea deal which granted him life in prison. Not sure what she pleaded, but I'd assume it was innocent as she wasn't the one who did the stabbing.

and odds are he'll be out in 10 - 15 yrs

wbjones wrote:

PHeller wrote: Yes he plead guilty in a plea deal which granted him life in prison. Not sure what she pleaded, but I'd assume it was innocent as she wasn't the one who did the stabbing.

and odds are he'll be out in 10 - 15 yrs

Both were offered plea deals of life with minimum 25 years. He took it, she didn't.

the original trial was just 8 days, i read.

I would keep the death penalty but instead of actually killing them every so often give them a date, botch their last meal, then have some glitch like throwing the switch and the chair is unplugged, pull the lever on the gallows and the rope snaps dropping them on the floor ect. They never actually get executed but have to suffer through my team of hapless but amusing executioners at random intervals.

Wallie wrote: I would keep the death penalty but instead of actually killing them every so often give them a date, botch their last meal, then have some glitch like throwing the switch and the chair is unplugged, pull the lever on the gallows and the rope snaps dropping them on the floor ect. They never actually get executed but have to suffer through my team of hapless but amusing executioners at random intervals.

I approve of this!