Christian/Newsom murder trial part deux

#2
#2
Just saw a report on WBIR...appears there was no choice but to grant a new trial...the judge had a lot of issues.
 
#4
#4
I never understood why the district attorney didn't ask for the death penalty for any of the culprits.

Since they are being granted a retrial, does the DA have the option to ask for a harsher penalty?
 
#5
#5
gsvol said:
I never understood why the district attorney didn't ask for the death penalty for any of the culprits.

Since they are being granted a retrial, does the DA have the option to ask for a harsher penalty?
Click to expand...

Are you pro-death penalty?
 
#6
#6
therealUT said:
Are you pro-death penalty?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with the death penalty in certain cases, do you?

As comedian Dennis Miller once said; "You've got to thin the herd every once in a while.

I do know the state of Tennessee has exectued people for far less horrendous crimes than this one, no doubt about that.
 
#7
#7
gsvol said:
I have no problem with the death penalty in certain cases, do you?
Click to expand...

I do have a problem with the death penalty.

Should we remove individuals from society because (1) they pose a direct threat to the safety of individuals within society; (2) it serves as a deterrent to other individuals that may have otherwise committed heinous crimes; or, (3) we want to invoke retribution and/or vengeance upon the criminal?
 
#8
#8
therealUT said:
I do have a problem with the death penalty.

Should we remove individuals from society because (1) they pose a direct threat to the safety of individuals within society; (2) it serves as a deterrent to other individuals that may have otherwise committed heinous crimes; or, (3) we want to invoke retribution and/or vengeance upon the criminal?
Click to expand...

(4) its entertaining, or (5) at least somebody else's day is sh*ttier than mine
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
therealUT said:
I do have a problem with the death penalty.

Should we remove individuals from society because (1) they pose a direct threat to the safety of individuals within society; (2) it serves as a deterrent to other individuals that may have otherwise committed heinous crimes; or, (3) we want to invoke retribution and/or vengeance upon the criminal?
Click to expand...

1. Well yes, isn't that one reason we imprison criminals?

2. I believe it does, at the bare minimum when the death penalty is used, that is one criminal that won't repeat his crime.

3. It is a matter of justice, the penalty should reflect the severity of the crime.
 
#10
#10
gsvol said:
1. Well yes, isn't that one reason we imprison criminals?

2. I believe it does, at the bare minimum when the death penalty is used, that is one criminal that won't repeat his crime.

3. It is a matter of justice, the penalty should reflect the severity of the crime.
Click to expand...

1. Putting someone away for life serves the same end.

2. The death penalty does not deter crime.

3. That is not the intent of punishment; punishment is intended to deter and correct. Capital punishment does not deter and it cannot correct.
 
#12
#12
therealUT said:
1. Putting someone away for life serves the same end.

2. The death penalty does not deter crime.

3. That is not the intent of punishment; punishment is intended to deter and correct. Capital punishment does not deter and it cannot correct.
Click to expand...

That cuts into the statue fund.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
1. Putting someone away for life serves the same end.

2. The death penalty does not deter crime.

3. That is not the intent of punishment; punishment is intended to deter and correct. Capital punishment does not deter and it cannot correct.
Click to expand...

Prison isn't stellar at this either. Anybody not deterred by death will not be deterred by prison.

The retribution is the best justification. If it gives closure to the victim families, and the crime warrants it...I see no problem with it.
 
#14
#14
I am against the death penalty.

1) religious reasons, not gonna have this debate today so let's not get started please... try me on a better day
2) it doesn't serve a worthwhile purpose
3) too many mistakes happen and one innocent person murdered by the state in too many. just look at the number of people the innocence project have exonerated and understand that they can only look at a fraction of cases.
4) it precludes restitution. i think restitution is the best punishment. it makes things 'right' for the victim as much as can be. it forces the criminal to face the real consequences to his victims and their families which is the best way to deter repeats.
5) closure is overrated. boo hoo, I can never sleep until someone else is dead.
6) it makes us the same as the criminal. you may think that your reasons for murdering him are better than his reasons for murdering someone else, but that is just a rationalization. you are murdering him for revenge or to make yourself feel better. those motives are not good ones.
 
#15
#15
therealUT said:
1. Putting someone away for life serves the same end.

2. The death penalty does not deter crime.

3. That is not the intent of punishment; punishment is intended to deter and correct. Capital punishment does not deter and it cannot correct.
Click to expand...

1. It is also quite costly to the taxpayer.
Having said that, I'm not overly enthusiastic about giving government the right to take someone's life because there is always the possibility of abuse of power, I think a higher standard of proof should be in effect before a death sentence is meted.

2. A debatable point, one survey among criminals said that it does deter certain crimes. Most opponents of the death penalty say that it isn't a deterent, others say that it is. Either way, that is a hard thing to prove.

3. It is an indisputable fact that those suffering the death penalty will not repeat their crime, perhaps not statistically significant but still a point. Another thing, what we commonly call the department of corrections will never correct some, they are either pathological misfits or are solidly committed to a life of crime and no amount of incarceration will ever change that and some have just become institutionalized and incapable of living a life in which they must make their own decisions.
 
#16
#16
The prosecutor should still have discretion with regards to the death penalty.

It's really a shame the family has to go through it again.
 
#17
#17
All for the death penalty.

one bullet alot cheaper than 30 plus years of me paying for your food and board.

yes, i would probably miss the first shot on purpose just for kicks but by the third or fourth shot i would have moved away from the arms and legs and actually put the SOB to rest.

So 5 bullets still cheaper than 30 plus years of government housing.
 
#21
#21
gsvol said:
1. Well yes, isn't that one reason we imprison criminals?

2. I believe it does, at the bare minimum when the death penalty is used, that is one criminal that won't repeat his crime.

3. It is a matter of justice, the penalty should reflect the severity of the crime.
Click to expand...

Which goes against new testament values does it not? Who says we are allowed to play God in deciding judgement on people?
 
#22
#22
GoBigOrangeUT said:
Which goes against new testament values does it not? Who says we are allowed to play God in deciding judgement on people?
Click to expand...

NOT!

What you are talking about is eternal judgement.

No one is playing God to make laws that say you can't drive 100 mph in a school zone, such laws are made and enforced for the safety of society as a whole.

It isn't playing God to make laws and enact punishments for violations of life and property such as rules against theft, robbery, rape and murder.






RockyTop85 said:
The prosecutor should still have discretion with regards to the death penalty.

It's really a shame the family has to go through it again.
Click to expand...

It is a shame that it ever happened at all.

To me it's a shame that the prosecuter didn't ask for the death penalty in the first trial.
 
#24
#24
Some said the media ignored the Christian/Newsom kidnap, rape, torture, murder and dismemberment case but sensationalized the Duke lacross rape accusation.

(which is absolutely true)

In an ironic twist, the girl who falsely accused the lacross players is now eligible for the death penalty in the case of the death of her boyfriend whom she is accused of murdering.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top