Jump to content

If you ever needed more evidence that we are living in a Bizzaro world right now...


Schu
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Death penalty guarantees the perp will never kill again, saves money, and gives the families True Justice.........................Like John Belushi used to say......BUT NO!

 

The combined legal costs to the taxpayers of all of the procedures and appeals, etc. associated with a death sentence may be greater than those associated with life imprisonment:

 

McFarland, Torin (2016) "The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis," Susquehanna University Political Review: Vol.
7 , Article 4.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr/vol7/iss1/4

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garyrc said:

 

The combined legal costs to the taxpayers of all of the procedures and appeals, etc. associated with a death sentence may be greater than those associated with life imprisonment:

 

McFarland, Torin (2016) "The Death Penalty vs. Life Incarceration: A Financial Analysis," Susquehanna University Political Review: Vol.
7 , Article 4.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.susqu.edu/supr/vol7/iss1/4

 

 

 

...they need to sub-contract it out 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

My retired Detroit Detective Sgt./Photographer Friend went to China on a Law Enforcement exchange excursion to Japan, Singapore, and China where he met the Chief Justice of China. He and other US representatives sat in on a Murder Trial with irrefutable evidence against the perpetrator. A guilty verdict immediately resulted in Death by a Firing Squad out the back door. Done..................Next!

 

Think of all the FOOD and money and time wasted would have been saved if Sirhan Sirhan, Charles Manson, etc. were treated the same. What's this Sirhan gonna do for the next few years he has left...........hide?

 

Death penalty guarantees the perp will never kill again, saves money, and gives the families True Justice.........................Like John Belushi used to say......BUT NO!

As Walter Sobcheck says, Donny, you are out of your element.

 

2,800+ exonerated since the University of Michigan database was started, over 185 of those on death row.

 

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

 

That vast majority of those exonerations were based on DNA and proved that they simply convicted the wrong guy. There are several reasons this can happen prosecutorial (police) misconduct, faulty witness ID, etc. They are listed in the database for each exoneration.

 

The Framers were committed, to their core that Liberty means that it is better for 9 guilty men go free than for 1 one innocent man to be wrongfully executed. They have the exact opposite mindset in places like China. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
7 hours ago, Gilbert said:

 

It is my understanding that Bobby's own children submitted letters on his (Sirhan) behalf...... and if that wasn't enough, then consider the person "Bobby Kennedy", what's the problem?  It's not like he was somebody other than a rich brat who was slingshot to the position of AG by his nepotist, womanizing  cheat brother.

 

 

 

One testified on his behalf in person. One submitted a letter on his behalf, stating he believed they convicted the wrong man. Six submitted a joint letter, after the decision, stating that they disagreed with the panel decision.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
5 hours ago, wetowne said:

I prefer that murderers should live a long and miserable life in prison.
I only wish they could be put in liquid filled pods ala "The Matrix" and be given a simulated reality life full of incredible pain and suffering and be kept in that state for as long as possible. I'd pay extra in my tax bill for that.   Execution just makes it cheap and easy for everyone involved, including the murderer.
 

How do you get around this:

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

 

Canada and England, to name just a few, will not extradite to the US someone who is charged in the US with a capital offense unless the jurisdiction that is seeking extradition agrees that they will not seek the death penalty. There is a famous case in Texas that Anthony Amsterdam handled that ended up on my desk briefly.

 

Travis

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that any grieving family gets any peace after an execution. I suspect there is the reality that their loved one is still dead and that the killer's death didn't bring the comfort that they thought it would.

I wonder if we were still under the Mosaic Law, where the witnesses had to participate in the execution if that would change a person's mind?  I mean, it's one thing for us to sit on our couches and say stuff; but if we had to be the executioner, I suspect many of us wouldn't talk of execution so casually. 

Question for you Travis @dwilawyer who decides what is cruel or unusual punishment?  Is that (definition of cruel and unusual) specified in the state's constitution?  I mean, if a crime carries a max punishment of 25 years in prison; however 99.9% of those found guilty only get 10 years; can the person that does get 25 years claim the punishment is unusual since so few receive the max?  Perhaps unusual is not legally defined in terms of frequency; but in method?  

Can the woman that was just denied custody of her child because she is not vaccinated claim that is an unusual punishment?  I'm sure judges are constrained somehow; but I hear of some cases where the judge seems to have gone rogue ... stand on the corner and hold a sign admitting your guilt, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
40 minutes ago, BigStewMan said:

I doubt that any grieving family gets any peace after an execution. I suspect there is the reality that their loved one is still dead and that the killer's death didn't bring the comfort that they thought it would.

I wonder if we were still under the Mosaic Law, where the witnesses had to participate in the execution if that would change a person's mind?  I mean, it's one thing for us to sit on our couches and say stuff; but if we had to be the executioner, I suspect many of us wouldn't talk of execution so casually. 

Question for you Travis @dwilawyer who decides what is cruel or unusual punishment?  Is that (definition of cruel and unusual) specified in the state's constitution?  I mean, if a crime carries a max punishment of 25 years in prison; however 99.9% of those found guilty only get 10 years; can the person that does get 25 years claim the punishment is unusual since so few receive the max?  Perhaps unusual is not legally defined in terms of frequency; but in method?  

Can the woman that was just denied custody of her child because she is not vaccinated claim that is an unusual punishment?  I'm sure judges are constrained somehow; but I hear of some cases where the judge seems to have gone rogue ... stand on the corner and hold a sign admitting your guilt, etc...

The US Supreme Court ultimately decides what is cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment as applied to the states under the 14th Amendment.

 

Each state also has their own version of the 8th Amendment. 

 

State's can be more restrictive. For example, Wisconsin abolished the death penalty over 100 years ago I think. They can not be less restrictive than what the Supreme Court determines to be cruel and unusual.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled, since I have been practicing, the following to be cruel and unusual punishment:

 

1. Executing the mentally disabled;

2. Executing juveniles;

3. Giving juveniles life without any chance of parole;

4. Death penalty for sexual assault of a child

 

There are others.

 

To your question, it is rare that the Supreme Court will find the length of the sentence, by itself, to be cruel and unusual. There has to be something more.

 

For example, 3 strikes laws. Third offense is a minimum of 25 to life have been upheld, even if the 3rd offense would normally only carry a low max for 1st offense.

 

You have to show something else, like they only charge Asians with 3 strikes laws, and the defendant is Asian. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 8/30/2021 at 9:40 PM, BigStewMan said:

Can the woman that was just denied custody of her child because she is not vaccinated claim that is an unusual punishment?  I'm sure judges are constrained somehow; but I hear of some cases where the judge seems to have gone rogue ... stand on the corner and hold a sign admitting your guilt, etc...

It would [edit NOT] be based on the 8th amendment since it was not a fine nor a punishment in a criminal case. She would have arguments under other provisions, 14th and 1st, as well as others depending on the facts.

 

There are a multitude of cases on parents not getting their children medical care based on religious beliefs. Jehovah's Witnesses for surgery, Christian Scientists for forbidding child from getting a transfusion. Courts pretty much draw the line on a child who can be saved with a routine procedure.

 

I'm not familar with the case of a mother losing custody for not getting vaccinated. The usual standard is what is in the best interests of the child, and weighing the the pros and cons between two parents. Sometimes one factor can be enough by itself (drugs), frequently a court is weighing many factors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve ,my 2 cents ..... one cannot interpret this as a Punishment , but rather as  a  Limitation of the  custody of the Mother  by the Judge   ,  because She is not vaccinated which can put the Boy at a higher risk of contracting Covid 19  -

 

in this Instance ,  the Judge requires that  both Parents who share the  custody of the Child ,  be equally vaccinated  in the Best interest of the Boy   -

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dwilawyer said:

How do you get around this:

 

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Easy. In my fantasy world I can do anything I want. The Matrix example was hyperbole. Regular prison will just have to do. There's probably enough cruel and unusual punishment there already, it's just not sanctioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RandyH said:

you Forgot .......WW2 War Hero  

 

I believe the survivors that were under his command have stated a difference of opinion and were in a better position to make that call; being run-over by a Japanese destroyer does not a hero make.

 

reminds me of J.F. Kerry. 

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RandyH said:

Steve ,my 2 cents ..... one cannot interpret this as a Punishment , but rather as  a  Limitation of the  custody of the Mother  by the Judge   ,  because She  is not vaccinated which can put the Boy at a higher risk of contracting Covid 19  -

 

in this Instance ,  the Judge requires that  both Parents who share the joint custody of the Child ,  be   equally vaccinated  in the Best interest of the Boy   -

 

Which is stupid as even vaccinated they can still pass covid to the child.  This is a limitation of the judges intellegence.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

Which is stupid as even vaccinated they can still pass covid to the child. 

  you're right  about the efficacy of the vaccine not being 100% -94-95% efficacy aint bad 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

Its effective against symptom reduction not contraction correct?

  it does both  ,  the vaccine allows conventional medical treatments to work like a flu infection,   and bye bye Wuh-   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
8 hours ago, CECAA850 said:

Its effective against symptom reduction not contraction correct?

One thing I have learned over the last 18 months, you cannot dabble in this. The amount of misinformation "out there" is so voluminous that experts like our friend Peter say it's to the point where it is killing people.

 

Here is the science:

 

  1. Layan, M. et al. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.12.21260377 (2021).

  2. Prunas, O. et al. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260393 (2021).

 

"Both studies found that two doses of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine were 81% effective at preventing infections. Those who did get infected were also less likely to pass the infection to household members than were unvaccinated individuals."

 

The second study showed that vaccinated people who do get infected are up to 78% less likely to spread the virus to household members than are unvaccinated people. The second study was 66,000 households.

 

Caveat: Those studies were based upon cases when the alpha variant was prevelant.

 

Those numbers will likely go down by some amount when/if the studies are based on a Delta variant cohort.

 

I don't know what the judge based his decision on, he vacated that portion of his order the next day.

 

There was a case in Texas a few months ago, Judge Kitchens, who ordered a parent to get vaccinated. I don't know what the basis was. The father said he wasn't going to comply and wrote a letter to the Govenor.

 

Here is what the argument will be, assuming you can show these facts in a court of law:

 

1. Being vaccinated prevents spread to family members by 80%;

 

2. The couple's child is [under 12, let's say 10] and for that age group 1% (I think that number is close, I would have to check with my sister) get seriously ill.

 

3. What is in the best interest of the child?

 

At 1% it's kind of difficult call for court to make. If the number was 3% or 4% that decision is going to become easier and easier for a judge to make. Normally courts are involved with determining whether a child should be vaccinated. However, courts have also determined that a parent living or marrying a person would be adverse to best interest of child. (Examples, the parent whose custody is being revoked is living with: a registered sex offender, a person convicted of drunk driving 3 times, a drug user, a Baptist (just kidding,  conforming to myself that nobody reads this). What is very unusual about this case is that the courts, Texas and Illinois, were requiring the parent to get vaccinated.

 

These are not new (dare I say "novel") legal arguments or judicial decisions.  Maybe the judge had a case where one parent wanted a child to get a standard vaccination, other parent opposed it, and that child was blinded or died (measles, chickenpox). Who knows. All judges, like all of us, have their own "baggage."

 

Here is a case in Texas where one parent wanted child vaccinated, mom didn't, there was a letter from a pediatrician who said he examined child and it was in child's best interests to follow American Academy of Pediatrician's guidelines on vaccinations. Judge went with the MD, was affirmed by the appellate court.

 

https://casetext.com/case/in-re-aje

 

I don't think you are going to see much on this unless or until the AAP issues statement that both parents should be vaccinated, or State/Local Associations do so. 

 

Is there anything else that needs to be discussed about Covid/vaccinations in a thread about parole? I have tried to steer this back to "law" by my response, if people find more court decisions, etc. related to Covid/vaccinations they should go in the Legal Roundup thread, not this one.

 

What ever happened to Squeeky Fromme? (Rhetorical question).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...