Steven Staley - TX - 5/16/2012 STAYED!!

[JTiscool]

It's too bad the courts aren't smart enough and don't realize it's too convenient that is "insane" all of a sudden when he's about to face punishment yet he wasn't insane enough to avoid trial 

[HST]

Why does he need a map and GPS?  I don't get it.

I didn't get that either.  In fact, I really didn't understand anything in that entire post.  It was like trying to decipher a mixture of cave paintings, ancient hyroglifics and bad graffiti.  Who knows, though?  It could be pure genius when translated through Sanskrit.

Dilligaf brought a sound point.  Failing to administer meds to psychotic inmates would likely otherwise be deemed as unconstitutional.   

[Russki]

I have quickly looked at the board before going off to a wedding and cruise. I was recently called a bully because I attacked Trolls.

I am seeing bullying now of a pro member by one of the same people who accused me.

[k"KKK"hirschkorn]

O   Frenchy he is trying to be Some thing. Not sure what. To be honest I really care what he has to say. Some people while being Pro, think inmates have right's.. How  was it said O  its all in how you interpret  the law.. There by being  an Opinion.

 And why do "we" have to give him meds any way.  O  thats right you and others think he is nut's. Any one that pay's attention knows and can see every one on death row is nut's. To be honest they  really truly are. They are loony. But  they are not Insane to witch by meds will do any thing. Meds are a wonder full thing they can cure what ale's you..

 But like the saying there is no cure for "stupid" none  there's Not a pill you can take.  No amount of school in the can change it. Hell Duct tape wont even fix it. That is the issue at hand here. The inmate are certifiably  dumber then a box of rocks. I mean How dumb does one have to be. I mean really you honestly think any of these people, have a real and true mental issue.

So lets say we force this guy to take a saline shot or a sugar pill. for o 6 months.  Then when he say's hay I am not  Nut's any more the meds cured me. LoL We tell him  you are taking sugar. Time to punch your time card. Is that what you want? Because as I have seen it SCOTUS don't care if he is nut's now. He know what he was doing then and is/was active in the trial. When it come's down to it that's all that matters. They where able to think plan the crime and all that. By doing so used thinking a court found them competent to stand trial. It is time to punch his card.  If AZ don't have the sumach Call me I can, and will carry out this turd's sentence of death. It is so simple any one can do it.

 It's no big deal.  Step one find vain. Step two insert 14ga needle. Step three hook and lock IV line to said needle. Step four connect IV line to Saline bag. Step five repeat on his/her other arm. Step six connect drug line to the 3 way T shaped thingy ma jig.  Step 7 Let the condemned say good bye. Step eight pump 5MG Sodium thiopental or phenobarbital In to his/her arm. Step nine Remove the corpus. Step ten It's Miller Time.

Yea  it really is that simple.  Yes I am really that cold and heartless.

[UKTom]

Why does he need a map and GPS?  I don't get it.

I didn't get that either.  In fact, I really didn't understand anything in that entire post.  It was like trying to decipher a mixture of cave paintings, ancient hyroglifics and bad graffiti.  Who knows, though?  It could be pure genius when translated through Sanskrit.

Dilligaf brought a sound point.  Failing to administer meds to psychotic inmates would likely otherwise be deemed as unconstitutional.   

I was planning a road trip this weekend, only to the local destruction derby race where I will coalesce with some great minds, but thank god I can now adumbrate the use of a GPS and a map. A map without a GPS is very much like a ship without a sail, a redneck without a gun or a Pope without a 13 year old boy – they all co-exist!

But the point Dillgaff raises is interesting. To take it further I would expect most health professionals may cite the Hippocratic Oath as a reason NOT to administer the medication. If the medication is given solely to allow the “patient” (as they see him) to gain the necessary mental competency to be executed then they may refuse.

[Naviator]

I have quickly looked at the board before going off to a wedding and cruise. I was recently called a bully because I attacked Trolls.

I am seeing bullying now of a pro member by one of the same people who accused me.

You brought this up in another thread as well, and I'm wondering if it is to stir up trouble?  Everyone here has again been respectful.  We havent attached pony pics, called people names, or anything inflammatory.  In fact, Diligaf brought up a very good point which has opened up some new discussion, which really is what makes a board good and pleasurable.

[UKTom]

Spot on Naviator!

[Russki]

"I didn't get that either. In fact, I really didn't understand anything in that entire post. It was like trying to decipher a mixture of cave paintings, ancient hyroglifics and bad graffiti. Who knows, though? It could be pure genius when translated through Sanskrit."

Seems plain enough to me and hardly respectful. I guess we all better adumbrate. UKTom must wear out his thesaurus just to try to confuse. Certainly an ill chosen word in context though.

[Naviator]

"I didn't get that either. In fact, I really didn't understand anything in that entire post. It was like trying to decipher a mixture of cave paintings, ancient hyroglifics and bad graffiti. Who knows, though? It could be pure genius when translated through Sanskrit."

Seems plain enough to me and hardly respectful. I guess we all better adumbrate. UKTom must wear out his thesaurus just to try to confuse. Certainly an ill chosen word in context though.

Still more respectful than many of the points of view that you have disagreed with in the past.  Also the fact that you mentioned this similar post in the Lopez thread looks suspiciously like you are attempting to bait people into an argument or stir up trouble.  In either case, I assure you everyone is for the most part (sarcasm notwithstanding), being treated pretty well.  Perhaps because a discussion is happening without your usual antagonism that you feel unnerved.  I invite you to join discussions, that is what a good board is about.  I promise to treat you respectfully, regardless of our differing opinions, if you are willing to do the same.  You are a longstanding member with plenty to offer.  If not, please enjoy the discussions and see where they end up.  All the best.

[Henrik - Sweden]

As some already have pointed out: There is quite often confusion in threads because of the fact we all tend to mix up what we think is MORALLY right with what we think is LEGALLY right. Of course it must be ok to express and discuss both kind of opinions in the same thread, but to respond to a post that discusses the legal aspect with something like "HEY I don't care, just fry the scumbag!" is quite pointless and just destroys the possibilities for a sound debate IMHO. To tell somebody that can hardly be considered "bullying".

The Staley case is interesting in a legal context so it would be nice if we could continue to discuss that instead of discussing whether board member 1 or 2 had the right to say A or B.

[UKTom]

As some already have pointed out: There is quite often confusion in threads because of the fact we all tend to mix up what we think is MORALLY right with what we think is LEGALLY right. Of course it must be ok to express and discuss both kind of opinions in the same thread, but to respond to a post that discusses the legal aspect with something like "HEY I don't care, just fry the scumbag!" is quite pointless and just destroys the possibilities for a sound debate IMHO. To tell somebody that can hardly be considered "bullying".

The Staley case is interesting in a legal context so it would be nice if we could continue to discuss that instead of discussing whether board member 1 or 2 had the right to say A or B.

Absolutely spot on Henrik…don’t see you post much? 

[Russki]

" I invite you to join discussions, that is what a good board is about.  I promise to treat you respectfully, regardless of our differing opinions, if you are willing to do the same.  You are a longstanding member with plenty to offer."

Sadly, I obtained my PhD between Caius, Sorbonne and a short spell in Berkeley which of course leaves me ill equiped to 'debate' with such august  personages such as yourself and UKTom. I did learn in England however that if one adumbrates too much, one goes blind.

I see nothing to debate about. The laws in the USA are what they are and clearly courts decide 'due process' fortunately without the input of the Brit/Canadian cabal. Those who feel the laws are ridiculous have a right to state their feelings too. Most on this board would probably agree that the system is in need of revision.

Elsewhere, to discuss an execution held in 1989 seems pointless. For a stupid old person like myself, I always understood the law had to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A conviction can NEVER be 100%. Clearly, in its time, deLuna was found guilty. End of story. Seems an excellent hunk of fodder for the antis though which without doubt is being highlighted by your good selves.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for all you terribly clever people to explain to me how LWOP can be absolutely guaranteed.

[Naviator]

" I invite you to join discussions, that is what a good board is about.  I promise to treat you respectfully, regardless of our differing opinions, if you are willing to do the same.  You are a longstanding member with plenty to offer."

Sadly, I obtained my PhD between Caius, Sorbonne and a short spell in Berkeley which of course leaves me ill equiped to 'debate' with such august  personages such as yourself and UKTom. I did learn in England however that if one adumbrates too much, one goes blind.

I see nothing to debate about. The laws in the USA are what they are and clearly courts decide 'due process' fortunately without the input of the Brit/Canadian cabal. Those who feel the laws are ridiculous have a right to state their feelings too. Most on this board would probably agree that the system is in need of revision.

Elsewhere, to discuss an execution held in 1989 seems pointless. For a stupid old person like myself, I always understood the law had to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A conviction can NEVER be 100%. Clearly, in its time, deLuna was found guilty. End of story. Seems an excellent hunk of fodder for the antis though which without doubt is being highlighted by your good selves.

In the meantime, I am still waiting for all you terribly clever people to explain to me how LWOP can be absolutely guaranteed.

I can't explain how LWOP can be absolutely guaranteed, and I don't recall advocating it in this case.  You would be right in an assessment that once the DP is eliminated, advocates would claim LWOP is cruel.  I agree with you, leaving very little to discuss on that.

You are right about USA law being decided in USA courts, without Canadian and British input.  This is a good thing too, considering each of our countries respective position on the DP.  But the one thing all 3 justice systems have in common is a respect for the rule of law as it is written in the books, and not submitting to immediate popular opinion.  Adhering to due process maintains the integrity of the system as a whole, and elevates far above fly-by-night kangaroo courts from some third world dung heap.  Just my two cents.

[Russki]

Perhaps this is the case in Canada but these days, the 'rule of law' is in fact 'reactive' in most countries and is changed frequently to respond to immediate popular opinion. This certainly includes France, the UK and most other European countries.

Then again, seeing as both the USA, UK and France have decided to take part in illegal warmongering, nothing surprises me at all. I just cannot understand how Israel is continued to be supported despite their continuing abuse of international law and how wedding parties, children and civilians can be wiped out by their thousands without batting an eyelid while giving so many appeals to a scumbag on DR.

I also rather suspect that most of the West is rapidly promoting itself to the 'third world' due to greed, corruption and excessive spending.

[Naviator]

Perhaps this is the case in Canada but these days, the 'rule of law' is in fact 'reactive' in most countries and is changed frequently to respond to immediate popular opinion. This certainly includes France, the UK and most other European countries.

Then again, seeing as both the USA, UK and France have decided to take part in illegal warmongering, nothing surprises me at all. I just cannot understand how Israel is continued to be supported despite their continuing abuse of international law and how wedding parties, children and civilians can be wiped out by their thousands without batting an eyelid while giving so many appeals to a scumbag on DR.

I also rather suspect that most of the West is rapidly promoting itself to the 'third world' due to greed, corruption and excessive spending.

Hmmm.. I agree with what you said about the "rule of law" being reactive.  I didn't articulate myself very well with what I said.  In Canada, like other countries, the law is changed to reflect the popular opinion of society too.  If people raise a concern and it's agreed to be in the best interests, legal, and upholding the rights of all citizens, laws will be changed, thus making the law a living document as opposed to static. 

A clearer way to say it was that I'm happy the courts (at least in Canada, and hopefully in UK, USA, and France) don't pander to immediate public opinion, but follow the rule of law.  Courts here, and I imagine elsewhere, are able to set precedence, but not able to change the law, which is left to the govt of the day.

Something different between Canada and the US system is they elect their judges as opposed to appointments in Canada, each system having their own pro's and con's with respect to due process and popular opinion.