Virginia ending the death penalty

[Belsnickel]

https://apnews.com/article/virginia-death-penalty-ralph-northam-c98c16a996037a4d1e1d497787b7e6f1

The bill to eliminate the death penalty has passed both houses and is set to be made law by Northam. This is huge because Virginia only takes second place to Texas when it comes to executions.

[*michaelsean*]

Some people just deserve to die.

[*Nately120*]

You know there is at least one person in VA who is like....Alice, onna these days they're gonna revoke the death penalty and then POW!

[GMDino]

(02-22-2021, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://apnews.com/article/virginia-death-penalty-ralph-northam-c98c16a996037a4d1e1d497787b7e6f1

The bill to eliminate the death penalty has passed both houses and is set to be made law by Northam. This is huge because Virginia only takes second place to Texas when it comes to executions.

Good for them.

Did I hear them as Garland about the death penalty cases during his hearing today?

[Goalpost]

(02-22-2021, 03:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Some people just deserve to die.

I agree totally but you cant be wrong once.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 03:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Some people just deserve to die.

The problem has nothing to with who deserves to die.  The problem is who decides.  Our criminal justice system is just too flawed to determine who lives and whom dies.

Not addressing you specifically, but it is ironic that many of the same people who claim the government is incompetent and should not have great powers also support letting a government system decide who lives and who dies.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not addressing you specifically, but it is ironic that many of the same people who claim the government is incompetent and should not have great powers also support letting a government system decide who lives and who dies.

"We don't want death panels deciding who lives and dies!"...people arguing against centralized healthcare while supporting the death penalty.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 03:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: "We don't want death panels deciding who lives and dies!"...people arguing against centralized healthcare while supporting the death penalty.

Yeah that’s the same.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 03:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem has nothing to with who deserves to die.  The problem is who decides.  Our criminal justice system is just too flawed to determine who lives and whom dies.

Not addressing you specifically, but it is ironic that many of the same people who claim the government is incompetent and should not have great powers also support letting a government system decide who lives and who dies.

I’ll say, if you are innocent you probably have a much better chance in death row than you do if you get life.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 03:13 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I agree totally but you cant be wrong once.

That’s the one compelling argument. The rest of the stuff I don’t care about. I don’t care if it’s a deterrent or anything else.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah that’s the same.

Actually, it's very similar. The "argument" was that people would go stand in front of beuracats who weren't really qualified to make these decisions and would decide who lives and dies. In reality, those were never a real thing, but the idea of regular citizens being capable of hearing cases and understanding laws, proper investigation methods, and eliminating all biases to determine if someone should live or die is something that happens every day and we are like "meh". A person who you don't trust to walk your dog could be deciding if you live or die in a court.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 03:35 PM)Au165 Wrote: Actually, it's very similar. The "argument" was that people would go stand in front of beuracats who weren't really qualified to make these decisions and would decide who lives and dies. In reality, those were never a real thing, but the idea of regular citizens being capable of hearing cases and understanding laws, proper investigation methods, and eliminating all biases to determine if someone should live or die is something that happens every day and we are like "meh". A person who you don't trust to walk your dog could be deciding if you live or die in a court.

Well they are already deciding if you are guilty and going to spend the rest of your life in jail. Sounds more like you are in favor of a different system.

[Au165]

(02-22-2021, 03:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well they are already deciding if you are guilty and going to spend the rest of your life in jail. Sounds more like you are in favor of a different system.

I actually think the general population is too dumb to serve on juries. It would be really tough to make "professional juries" for a multitude of reasons, however, I will say though that when it comes to death penalty cases I believe those cases should solely be handled by people who have some sort of legal training to make more informed decisions.

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 03:33 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I’ll say, if you are innocent you probably have a much better chance in death row than you do if you get life.

I have no idea what this means.

If you have your entire natural life to prove your innocence how can that be LESS than the chance you have of proving your innocence before the state kills you.

What happens if junk science used to convict someone is disproven after he is dead?  What about if the person who actually committed the crime confesses?  What if new technology or evidence is discovered?

If you were innocent would you take take your chances on death row or with life in prison?

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 03:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well they are already deciding if you are guilty and going to spend the rest of your life in jail. Sounds more like you are in favor of a different system.

The jurors are only a small part of the criminal justice system.

Jurors don't decide what types of evidence are valid or admissible.

Jurors don't commit prosecutorial misconduct.

Jurors don't provide ineffective assistance of counsel.

[GMDino]

Just one, recent story of a bad prosecutor manufacturing a case and an innocent man paying the price.

Years in prison might as well have been a death sentence to him.  


https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article249417185.html

Quote:[color=var(--tc,#222)]Pete Coones, exonerated in Kansas City, Kansas, murder, dies after 108 days of freedom[/color]

BY LUKE NOZICKA
FEBRUARY 21, 2021 06:32 PM, 
UPDATED 2 HOURS 54 MINUTES AGO

Olin “Pete” Coones, was freed Nov. 5, 2020, after 12 years in prison. The Kansas City, Kansas man was exonerated in the 2008 double shooting of Kathleen and Carl Schroll that was actually a murder-suicide. Coones believes the prosecutor lied. 

Olin “Pete” Coones Jr., who spent more than 12 years in prison before he was exonerated of murder 108 days ago in Kansas City, Kansas, died Sunday, his attorneys said. He was 64.


Coones’ death comes three and a half months after his 2009 murder conviction was vacated by a Wyandotte County judge. While he was a free man, Coones was released “in a body that was broken,” his lawyers said in a statement.


“Though Pete was no longer imprisoned, his death — like his unjust conviction — is the result of continued state neglect and mistreatment,” said his attorneys at the Midwest Innocence Project and law firm Morgan Pilate. “The evidence suggests that he ultimately succumbed to health conditions that went undiagnosed and untreated during his time in prison.”

Coones for years pleaded his innocence to anyone who would listen. He was freed after his attorneys argued he was framed in the 2008 deaths of Kathleen and Carl Schroll. They asserted the shooting was actually a murder-suicide carried out by Kathleen.


After hearing that evidence during a days-long proceeding, Judge Bill Klapper determined Coones’ trial had been marred by prosecutorial misconduct. The Wyandotte County District Attorney’s Office then moved to drop the charges against him.

No physical evidence tied Coones to the crime. At trial, his daughter confirmed he was at home in the hours around the shooting.


Investigators had failed to find crucial physical evidence at the crime scene, and Wyandotte County prosecutors later turned to an unreliable jailhouse informant. They hid and “manufactured” evidence to convict Coones, his lawyers said Sunday.
“His life was stolen because his innocence did not matter,” they said.


After spending more than 12 years in prison for murder, Olin “Pete” Coones walked out of the Wyandotte County Courthouse and into the arms of his family Thursday evening. After more than 12 years behind bars, Coones left the courthouse a free man. The Wyandotte County District Attorney’s Office moved to drop the charges against Coones, now 63, after the judge found Coones received an unfair trial in the 2008 shooting deaths of Kathleen and Carl Schroll. 


Coones’ exoneration was the first innocence claim to go to court that began in District Attorney Mark Dupree’s conviction integrity unit — the first created in Kansas.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 05:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The jurors are only a small part of the criminal justice system.

Jurors don't decide what types of evidence are valid or admissible.

Jurors don't commit prosecutorial misconduct.

Jurors don't provide ineffective assistance of counsel.

Why are you quoting me.  I'm not the one who brought up jurors.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 04:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have no idea what this means.

If you have your entire natural life to prove your innocence how can that be LESS than the chance you have of proving your innocence before the state kills you.

What happens if junk science used to convict someone is disproven after he is dead?  What about if the person who actually committed the crime confesses?  What if new technology or evidence is discovered?

If you were innocent would you take take your chances on death row or with life in prison?

 Because of the amount of scrutiny given to death penalty cases.  Yes I would like my chances of being found innocent if I were on death row.  

[fredtoast]

(02-22-2021, 05:48 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why are you quoting me.  I'm not the one who brought up jurors.

Your post that I quoted was about jurors.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-22-2021, 06:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Your post that I quoted was about jurors.

In response to AUs.  He's the one that hung it all on jurors.