The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

in our society where murdering is 'bad'...
(often relying on 'killing is a sin' religious thing)
shall a judge be allowed to sentence one to death?
or is a doc allowed to kill a bad healthy patient if he wants to?

no answer.... just cuz i think this could get out of hand....

that goes to human rights topic and everybody has it's own opinion about it

I pled the 5th.

Not quite sure I follow what you are saying in the second part of your question ob1

But for the first part .. in the States, ultimately it is in the judges hands as the sentence that is handed down for a defendant. They usually come to their sentence based upon the SA/DA recommendation. I think also public pressure also has some to do with their decision as well. Which is why in many extreme case when public opinion of a defendant and the crimes they committed are that the person should be put to death for their crime a judge will pass down that sentence. There is a lot more that goes into the decision of the sentence to be handed down though, there is what they call a Sentence Recommendation Panel where the case is compared to similar cases and the sentences that were handed down in those. The brutality (if the crime was a brutal crime) the victims welfare and safety. The defendant and the family also has the opportunity to submit letters and speak on the behalf of the defendant. After the sentence has been handed down, then there is a process in which the defendant can request in writing that their sentence be reviewed.

Sorry ....

I think for the most part it is a decent system employed here in the sentencing. I forgot to mention as well that state / country laws and the sentences mandated are also taken into consideration ...

But due to the length of the whole process, this goes back to what I spoke about in Daermon's thread ... this also helps to cause a major backlog in teh judical system here.

two parts to your question yeah ob1??..so here are two answers...*grins*

1.) YES
2.) NO

radu, what's 5th?

I think if the patient is dying from cancer or AIDS and is suffering terribly, if they give written permission.. a doc should be allowed to help them out...as for a judge giving out a death sentance.. an eye for an eye.. we gave the judge the positon to do that...its his job after all, to hand down decisions for us...we gave him that power.

.. in the States, ultimately it is in the judges hands as the sentence that is handed down for a defendant.


Actually thats not entirely correct, mamma...

Per the crime that the defendant is convicted of, there are certain punishments that are 'available'. The Judge instructs the jury as to how much time a convict can receive or what other punishments are available. The jury then decides what the defendant receives as their sentence.


OB1- The 5th is what a defendant (person being accused of a crime) can do to generally... at the time get out of answering questions in court or otherwise. Questions being legal questions on the litigation at hand.

To say you plead the Fifth Amendment ..."on the grounds that I may tend to incriminate myself ..." ect.

Here:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Thank you Khayman for explaining the 5th.I should have thouhgt to do that.

I work for a criminal defense firm. I damn well better know what it means. ROFLMAO

I still stick to a life for a life.

this thread has been posted and re-discussed various times...

here, check it out:


DEATH PENALTY THREAD

as for the first part eye for a eye and the second part definetly not.

And i'm guessing the result has been the same?

...i stand behind what Octavia has posted. good answer, Octavia!

If someone is dying i think it should be up to them weather or not they die.

Welll done Darkness_bound you just saved me the trouble for that... that was a very good thread too....

On this topic, it has been extensivly proven that giving some-one the "Death Award" (see previous thread) does not help in reducing the crime rate, in fact places like texas where the death award is dished out quite alot, the crime has risen... So no, death awards do not make matters better or make the world a better place....

it was a good thread....but was starting to get the broken record sound to it...but there are always new people on this site who have not seen it so please continue.....just try not to let it get too heated....it got a bit ugly last time round the mountain

i agree with lenoresprettycorpse, this could get out of hand, supprised that it aint been closed already.

it will prolly stay open until it gets too heated....so as long as we all act like intelligent adults....

it is a delicate subject on which many people have different opinions, and the majority are never going to be in accordance.

last thread, everyone 'spoke' their mind very diplomatically, and everyone respected eachother's opinions without lashing out at eachother in inappropriate manners.

i think we are all adults here to talk about almost any subject without the need of attacking eachother with any kind of volatile language towards anybody.

there is certainly no need for that, or the closure of this thread.

i think we all know how to handle a serious topic. and those of you who have nothing better to say than insulting others for their views, just...please...withhold your posts, it shouldn't be hard....if youre not going to say something 'pleasant' then don't say anything at all.


that's all. thank you =)

No one's going to like my opinion about the death sentence, but I have a right to an opinion and to voice it.... sooo, here goes.
I feel that what crime is committed should be the punishment. From abuse to rape to murder. I also feel that there should be crusafixtions live on tv... but some one dear to me reciently pointed out that society would become used to that too. I love Arizona's jail system... The offender lives in a tent in the middle of the desert. It gets below freezing at night and over 100* durring the day in the summer time. If you actually break out, chances are, you'll die before you get anywhere.

About euthanasia, unless there is written permission from the ill person, no one should have the life unplugged from them. This is a sad subject for me cause my gramum had alzheimers and she wasn't doing well at all, but she knew love and my uncle had her 'put down' like an old dog cause he didn't want to take care of her.... so I am strongly against it.

Hey DB.... Might I borrow your soap box when you're done with it?

I think I may need ti this afternoon...

>:)

Im not sure if a judge should be able to decide these things, i think it should be a jury desicion made by lots of people. Only if it is unanimous should one be convicted to the death penalty. But even then i am not sure whether it is the right thing to do. My morals are completely different to everyone elses, i am not a good judge of what is right or wrong. I dont think doctors have any right to kill someone unless there is no chance of saving them, eg. life support machine that could be used by someone who could survive without it. As for euthanasia i think people should be able to decide whether they want to die or not. Our life is in our own hands.

(shows up wearing a black hood carrying an axe).....what was this about again?
youth in asia....ya i'm all for them....gotta keep that population up....

sorry bout that...i'm in a weird mood

I should add to my previously repeated statement....

Unless it's a Bench Trial... which means there is no jury and the Judge does it all.
Sometimes people favor a bench trial over a jury trial because of multiple reasons... appearance of the defendant is a big one.
If theyre heavily tattood or scarred...they may respectfully request a bench trial.

Face it kids.

Appearance counts for an AWFUL lot of what we think of a person.

Specifically during a trial.

I love Arizona's jail system... The offender lives in a tent in the middle of the desert. It gets below freezing at night and over 100* durring the day in the summer time. If you actually break out, chances are, you'll die before you get anywhere.

Im sure ElderDan is gonna get into that when he gets around to this thread.... till then have a website....

http://www.mcso.org/submenu.asp?file=tentcity


Also... Im gonna add something else to my statements reguarding sentencing laws...

In FEDERAL court... the JURY finds the defendant Guilty or Not Guilty by whatever means.
The, yes, the judge decides the punnishment applicable to the crime being litigated.

In state courts there is two parts to a jury trial.

First part they hear the trial... Defense and Prosecution... everyones arguments, ect.
They then either find guilty or not guilty. (some cases a hung jury which means back to square one)

If they find guilty... THEN comes the second part. This is when the jury is informed of the possible penalties for the crime found guilty.

Then the jury choses what they feel, out of the choices they are given, which is best suited for the crime commited.

Make sense?

I'm not starting an argument here ... so don't anybody think that ...

Then explain to me Khay, so I can understand ..

In GA, where my ex was tired and convicted by a jury, it was the judge who handed out the sentence .. the jury had nothing to do with deciding what his fate would be. This was a small town state case, not federal. Is it different in different states or what? With everything that I've dealt with (lawyers and the lot) what I posted earlier was how I know/found at least GA to be.

I don't want to stray from the topic too far on this one, but yes I did want to jump on the AZ tent jail note.

Tent City, as it is known here, refers to two compounds in central Phoenix. They are part of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept. attempt to increase our jail space without spending the money to build new jails.

They are not out in the middle of the desert. They are in fact near Durango jail, the minimum security jail in town.

Yes, it gets cold here outside at night and over 110 during the summer. But the tents are equipped with fans. (Used to be evap coolers, but the inmates shorted them out often.)

Moreover, Tent City is for the lesser offenders. Ones on work furlough and first time offenders. Our Sheriff also brought back Chain Gangs for highway cleanup and other work furlough tasks. Those are the folks in Tent City.

They're cheaper and still a reasonable incarceration alternative for a overcrowded county jails. Plus, you gotta admit, there's a certain aversion attached to it. I mean, would YOU want to be jailed in a tent in Phoenix?

There's my 2¢ - and here's another link.
http://www.reelectjoe.com/issues/display_issues.cfm?ID=1870884114

This page, granted, is from the Sheriff's re-election page, but it's accurate. The opponents of Tent City try to pull "inhumane treatment" as a reason to shut it down. Look, people get fucked up in jail, whether it's inside or outside. My solution, keep yer nose clean, kid.

D

State Laws can be different, yes, Dami.
Having lived in several different states, you should know that.
Thats why they have their own laws. Votes of the citizens living there.
HOWEVER.... Virginia is technically NOT a State.
It's a Commonwealth. Our laws are different here than most states.

Post Script:

In different states...depending on what the crime is... and whether or not the accused is a past offender... can determine as to who hands down the punnishment.
Also whether or not the crime is a Felony as well.

:)

State laws are different..... thats because theyre tates.

Federal laws are the "laws of the land" so to speak.
They apply to ALL 50 states.

You'd think Id be able to get all this is one friggin post, y'know??
JEE-ZUS.

There are four commonwealths in the United States: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky.

Ok so, I admit when I missinform.

I missinformed.

Here we go:

Commonwealth and States are all states, yes ( i work for lawyers, not politicians, here...).

But theyre slightly different in how they handle their laws.

There we go. :)

LOL. This is why I got into Computer Science instead of Law School.

Logical application of instructions to perform a function, based on an intricate code of ones and zeroes. On and off. Alive or dead.

(That's a segue, folks.)

Thank you, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something there then.

My $ .02 on the tents ... I think it's a good idea for first offenders, from what I saw from the site, it seems even worse then some of the prisons I've been in (as a visitor of course) .. if I had to live that way I know I sure wouldn't want to go back.

In trying to get back on topic though, the second part of your question ..

If a person is very sick and know that there is not a cure or that they will die regardless of what is done for them, and they have spoken their wish not to live through the pain, then I feel it is their right to take their life. Should a doctor be allowed to assist in that? No I don't think they should, eventually it would lead to some real sick-o's out there encouraging people, some people are gullible, and easily swayed, and if they already know they are sick could be easily swayed to take their on life to which some whack job would find pleasure or amusement in.

I don't want to start anything political here, but take for example the woman in Florida, she's been in a vegetative state being kept alive by feeding tubes for how many years now? She didn't have a living will, just here-say of her desire not to remain living in just this type of event. Any other person and, the family would be encouraged to remove life support and let the person pass on. But here is this woman who will not regain what she was, nor can she survive with out the machines, and yet her family refuse to let her pass on ... Just my $ .02

HA! You wanna see a pretty prison?
Google Red Onion State Prison.

Its in SW Viriginia. LOL

They lock up fellas like Cyrus the Virus and Hannibal Lecter in that bad boy. :|

some people believe the death sentence is like murder, i am perfectly beside that 100%

but, think of this: so many ppl out there are so mean, cruel, and have killed for their own pleasure, what other way can u pay them back with the same pain they have caused others?

i am beside the death sentence and agree with it when only the right ppl are used for it...not innocence

i am beside the death sentence and agree with it when only the right ppl are used for it...not innocence


Ok. Sounds fair enough.

Define innocence.
Further more define "Uhhh...someone who didn't 'do it'."

Usually if someone has received the punnishment of the Death Penalty has more than likely been found guilty.

This is a good point in time for me to mention that in the United States if someone receives the 'Ultimate Punnishment'... they automatically get an appeal to the conviction.
Granted appeals often take longer than the initial process did... but they get one. After all.... it is a life we're talking about.

I am with lenoresprettycorpse on this one.

on the death sentance, let he who is without sin caste the first stone

on euthanasia, that is the choice of the indervidual, I personally would never wish to live in a vegitateive or paralysed state to waste away, that is no life, and is most definately not a good death,

if your pet develops an untreatable cancer or something akin you have it put down when the pain gets to great, it's called being 'humane' to take away a life that has not but a few months of pure agony left...

in a humans case it's called dying with dignity

Whel the death sentance should be an option (in my country maximum sentance is 20 years). It should be used for some deeds like raping, mollesting a child and so...
Euthanasia, whel not in that context..."killl the bad patient", I would apruve euthanasia for people with cancer, aids if they want it. Actualy oi would just give them an option of a suicide...

There is a religious factor in the euthanasia side to put into thought.

To kill oneself is against many religions. It's also, technically, against the law as it is murder. You're murdering yourself.
SO.... if the patient is bad off enough that euthanasia is a choice in the matter, more than likely they aren't healthy enough to put enough force behind a suicide attempt- i.e.- jumping out a window (this envolves walking and a small bit of climbing), shooting yourself (depending on the gun, could they lift it and aim it steady long enough to get it done right?)... well... i think we get where I'm going with that.

So there are physical and religious limitations to the suicide thing.

A religious implication on euthanasia?
Technically it's not suicide. YOU aren't doing it. It's been dubbed "Assisted Suicide", yes... because you know it's going to happen and it's, generally, wished to happen byt the patient being administered the lethal drugs causeing the desired result- death.
HOWEVER... I hand you this in argument-
You are kidnapped by someone. Taken to a far away cabin in the woods and beaten and raped and tortured (think CSI and L&O SVU all in one weekend)... a lot of people at that point dont wish to live through that. At some point... the thought crosses the mind "How long is this going to go on? Why doesn't he just kill me? How am I going to face the world having had this happen to me?"

Eventually the man/woman, group of people who have... wronged... you are telling you that theyre going to kill you now... the shallow grave is dug out back by the septic tank... there's a good oak tree out back... and there's a noose on the make-shit kitchen 'table'.

You're gonna die. You can BARELY move on your own power.
You KNOW you'll die. And frankly, you welcome it at this stage. The pain is just to great. The suffering overwhelming.

Now that you've envisioned this.
See and AIDS patient in the final stages (ie- the movie GIA)... a cancer patient in stage 4 thats lost 75% of their body mass.
The know they wanna die and there's a way to do it.
But technically... THEY arent the ones who do it.

i feel that the goverment has no right to force terminally ill patients that they have to continue their pain.....I don't condone euthanasia for all ill patients...but for those who choose it.....and for those who are vegetative.......or effectively brain dead...
i've made damn sure my family knows my feelings on this should it happen to me....

however this removal of feeding tube is vile...if you are going to kill them do it...don't starve the woman to death.....

I agree with you Daermon, if they were to just remove the tubes, they estimated that she might live a week. That would be starving her to death, I guess that is part of the reason why the government is trying to step in to stop the tube from being removed. So this is where the whole "Assisted suicide" would come into play. They know that without the tube she will not survive, yet she has been kept this way all these years with no change in her state of being.

As Crazywolf just put it: if your pet develops an untreatable cancer or something akin you have it put down when the pain gets to great, it's called being 'humane' to take away a life that has not but a few months of pure agony left...

in a humans case it's called dying with dignity

In her case it is not assisted suicide, euthanasia.

I have yet to hear that she stated she wanted to die AT ALL let alone in this manner.

Unfortunatly... hence the debate between her husband, who as i recall has power of attorney over her... and her parents, who dont want to have to bury their child.

I sympathize with both sides of this.

That there is where the problem lies Khayman, in everything I've read and heard about the case, the husband claims that her wishes would be to be left to die, it is because they are not written documentation of, is where they are able to have prolonged her life so long. The understanding being that, like most couples who talk, that at some point in their lives together the topic was brought up of "If this were to ever happen, this is what I'd want for you to do..." type of thing. How many people document private moments like this? None that I know of. I understand the parents not wanting to bury their child, I wouldn't want to bury my own. But on the same token, if she were in this woman's state of being, I would rather let her (my daughter) go on peacefully to the next place, then to have her continually living but not living. That is all I meant. Just as if I were in the same state of being I would hope my family would do the same for me.

But I digress and this is taken this thread way off topic, I didn’t mean for that to happen, I apologize.

very controversial subject. but i think that it all depends. like with the Shivo case they shouldn't have removed the feeding tube cause that is just inhumane to starve a person to death. but i think that after 10 yrs of her condition she should be humanely euthanized. but thatsmy opinion. because he mom said that she was being selfish with wanting her daughter alive. but i guess it just really all depends. lke with ppl like ted bundy i think that they should definately get the death penalty. those who have been convicted of a seriously henious crime should have to be put thru what they put the victim tru. i think that that is the best justice.