Tookie's situation aside, the thing about the death penalty I have a problem with, is that those of you who are pro-death penalty have much more faith in the justice system than I. To believe in it, you must believe that jurors are smart, informed, intelligent people, and that the courts aren't corrupt, and that the guilty are punished and the innocent set free. I don't have that same faith, and far too many innocent people have been killed by the death penalty for me to support it. Even though Tookie is clearly guilty, to support the death penalty is to give total faith to the courts, lawyers, jurors, and the system.

What do you sugest? If we say the system is flawed so we cannot use the death sentance, what is next. Someone with millions of dollars, the best criminal lawer, should they be given harsher sentances? {they bought the jurry} or leinient sentances? {the jurry(sp?) was poor and thus biased against the defendant}

__________________
There are no rules, just adapt and improvise.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000729.php
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051...3501-9601r.htm
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1613

Give them the harshest possible sentence without actually killing them so that if it comes to light that they are actually innocent, they can appeal and be set free which has happened to many people on death row, and has come to light too late for many innocent people killed on death row. Maybe a middle ground could be met by only giving the death penalty to those prisoners who give a complete confession. The problem with this is that, as a result, no prisoner would ever confess, so I don't see this happening. So basically, it would probably have to be all-or-none with the death penalty.

psst, 'jury' I can tell I'm not there for you to yell out 'How do you spell this?' to. ha!

The more I see how the 'average' citizen is informed and thinks (or doesn't think) for himself, the more frightened I would be to sit in front of a jury of my peers. Especially in the presence of a silver-tongued group of lawyers. I have faith in our judicial system, but I know it is not infallible.

I have a problem paying for incarceration for a convicted killer. You are forming two standards. One for murder and one for all else. Is this OK with you? No sarcasm I really want to know.

__________________
There are no rules, just adapt and improvise.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000729.php
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051...3501-9601r.htm
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1613

Is it a fiscal issue? We pay to incarcerate pedophiles and rapists, so I don't see why paying to incarcerate murderers should be different. Clearly, murder deserves the harshest penalty, but again, due to my lack of faith in the system, I wouldn't kill convicts. I do realize some convicts are much more apparently guilty than others, but again, it's the same system that puts both sets of killers in the same pile and to give the benefit of doubt to those who may be innocent, whether or not to use to death penalty would have to be all-or-none.

your point make sense but I have more faith in the system. I also see it as a true deterant(sp?)
The fiscal issue must be concidered, there are far too many inmates.

Convicted rapist (assulting), pedophiles, kidnapers, anyone who fire on a cop/emt. All should IMO be set to death.

__________________
There are no rules, just adapt and improvise.

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000729.php
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051...3501-9601r.htm
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1613

I am sorry, my comments were out of line!!

I dont care if his victims can't read his letters, that's the stupidest (SP?? SP??) argument I've ever heard of. Bottom line is that a life sentence is punishment enough for anybody, even for Sadam. If you really want them to suffer for their past mistakes then why end their misery in a few minutes by lethal injection?

He was doing a lot of good from behind bars and regardless of what he did 20 years ago, he was worth more to society alive than dead. 85K a year would have been a great investment. Not many other people would have as much influence on troubled youth than the founder of the most notorious gang in America. It's ignorant to say that he hasn't made any positive impact on young lives.

"a life sentence is punishment enough for anybody"

I see your point, but for others it is a way to get three free meals, room and board and use prison as a place to be thugs and sometimes run crime organizations within prison.

I don't intend to argue your point, just adding my thoughts and if possible a different perspective.

Cheers, Max