http://www.startribune.com/local/so...UoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUnciaec8O7EyUsX If you haven't already, read the story in the link above. The people involved deserve the death penalty. How could they do such a thing to a person? Especially one with disabilities. I can't believe it happened in near the Twin Cities. I work with people with disabilities and this story just saddens me to think what the world is coming to. This kind of thing deserves the death penalty, "an eye for an eye." The people who did this are just sick.
i think they should be tortured for a month..Chinese water torture and branded and have their thumbs cut off maybe dunked in a huge tub of puke and urine..then set on fire
Bah...just send 'em all to general population in a Federal Pen. and make sure the other inmates all know of their crimes.
I dont see any reason to waste more money throwing people in the pen. They should die the same way. Torture them for 2 days, drag each one of the behind a motorcycle, beat them after they are tied to a tree, and burn them the same way. People should dies the same way they killed someone. You shoot and kill someone, Guess what same to you You rape someone and kill them, ... Guess what, its really gonna hurt! and so on and so fourth! Maybe people will start getting the point.
Because it costs more to kill them? And it should. Because we have major problems in a our criminal justice system that can lead to innocent people ending up on death row. Even 1 is too many and this country has had way more than that, including people executed who may have been innocent. I have my own theories about whether we really want the state to ahve the power to kill or whether it's actually a deterent (I've met a lot of criminals, very few think about what will happen if they get caught -- they don't think like you or I), but that is moot until we solve the executing innocent people problem. This case, admittedly is one of those cases where "good facts" (in terms of strength of the case, not acts) create bad law. There's few people who would want to see someone who did this to live. But at the end of the day, our justice system should be about protecting the innocent first, not punishing the guilty.
True True, I agree with you. In what I said I should have said that if proven guilty. I know a lot of innocent people die, and Im not for that. Its just hard seeing something like that and nothing happens to them, or they are released withing a few years. Thats to bad.
All I have to say is america needs to crack down on certain types of criminals. Repeat sex offenders, child molesters, and any type of crazy violent crime; Burn them and proceed to get drunk around the fire. Then piss on ashes. No, America gives rights to criminals that have already been convicted. Ohh OJ *cough cough* He got busted tho.LOL Idiot
Execution of anyone but murderers begs the criminal to murder the victim. Kill the main witness with no additional consequences. There's 18 innocent people in Illinois who are alive today because we did that (more people than Illinois executed sine 1976) Also the 8th Amendment, which you'd have as a mere technicality certainly protects criminals after conviction.
The 8th Amendment prevents cruel and unusual punishment. Not or. The death penalty is not unusual. As long as we don't make it cruel, so be it.
wow tough questions and anwers. WHY spend money on Crimnals ??? A better method must exist. Think about it, no other country in the WORLD has people locked up or on some sort of leash for criminal actions. IS that sane or should I say Just ? Its only fair to the people in Prison not the good people who stay out of trouble.
Not fair to the tigers to eat such tainted meat. Stake + fire + offenders. Also, pellet guns whilst slow cooking them.
this sort of thing is sick... but personally I would love to see all the big talkers here carry out what they say they would... what so they then can be someone who did it too...
He asserted that criminals should have no constitutional rights. Not having cruel and unusual punishments is a right they should retain regardless of interpretation (oh and you've gone into an interesting constitutional debate of the meaning of "and" and it's not **** and dry. And the death penalty IS "unusual" unless you live in China, it's the cruel bit that's at issue.) i'll also point out that the supreme court has held that executing an innocent man IS cruel and unusual punishment. If you don't spend money on criminals they don't go to jail.And I'm unlear aboutr what you're saying. Most other first world countries have large prision populations. Not as large as ours, butr a huge percentage of that has to do with the drug war. You'd be amazed how easy itr is to go to prison (not jail) for very minor possession. There should be a better solution, but the answer is more spending, or at least smarter spending, not less. The BEST way to prevent recidivism is to make sure people have a job after they get out. It's why I (and most prosecutors) will try to give better deals to people who have jobs. If they lose that job, they will be back, probably for something more serious. Oh and "good" people do commit crimes, even felonies. They ****ed up, true, but if you put them in the current violent, non-reformatory prision system, you'll put in an 18 year old low level drug dealer (no violent offenders), and he comes out a harded violent felon with no choice but to return to crime to make money. The prosecutor's job is to do thier best to make sure they never see the defendant again. Harsh punishments often don't do this (you get a sense when you actually see the person. Hardened *******s get long sentences. At this point we need them out of society. But someone with just a few offenses? We want to scare them and make sure they don't come back. This is more important for society than pure punishment. (This doesn't apply to very serious crimes, rape, pre-meditated murder, etc though if they're getting out, preparing them for free society is still important). T Oh and Paw Paw is ****ing up the justice system in this state and is letting crimianls go. He massively cut public defender budgets, which sounds "tough on crime." But it's not. The PDs offices have had to shed many lawyers. It has gotten to the point where some offices can't field a PD for anything but the more serious crimes. Anyone who is PD eligible cannot be tried until they are represented. This runs up against speedy trial "technicality" (the Consitution), and the cases get tossed and they're back on the street. Yes, this is for the more minor crimes, but these minor crimes can be pretty useful. Some serious gang members are more often kept in jail due to drivers violations than violent crimes. DAr is easy to catch them doing. Assault, less so. We deal with some far more serious people than you'd think. At least one guy we catch all teh time will commit a murder (well, get caught, he may have already commited one) in the next few years if he's on the streets. And he's PD eligible, so . . . . It is a system where cutting funds is more likely to keep criminals on the street and committing crime.
Regardless of the crime, I don't support the death penalty. It's cheaper to keep someone in solitary than on death row in the vast, overwhelming majority of cases. I feel it's a worse punishment too, being alone for the rest of your days. If convicted, let 'em fade, and don't stoop to their level with the punishment (which, for what it's worth, I think some of the previous may be doing).
put them in a giant pit with a variety of weapons, fill the pit with snakes and stuff and let them take care of eachother... at the end, the winner gets to eat a pie, then we cover then in sugary materials and set killer bees loose on him. all of this will be on HBO, we take that money and eliminate our debt.
WOW... Sad, very sad! 3rd or 4th degree assault?!?!?! :roll: How about attempted murder? Sounds a bit premeditated to me... Apparently the 16 year old girl made a "false" claim that the mentally challenged individual made a sexual advance on her. She then helped the perps lure the young man out to be kidnapped for his near fatal beating. Horrible stuff! Hopefully, nightly "pound-them-in-the-pooper-and-call-me-bitch" treatment from fellow inmates for a long, LONG time.
Well, lets see: Intent to harm seriously is not intent to kill. This would be a stretch with the evidence i've seen in articles. 1st degree assualt is probably out because it is an extremely high standard. It requires “serious permanent disfigurement” and “bodily injury which creates a high probability of death." That this hasn't been charged shows you why they also haven't charged attempted murder. It was savage, yes, but not seriously life threatening. Second degree requires intent. Third degree is basically what's left. Yes, it's only punishable by 5 years, but I'd be pretty sure they're going for all 5. Prosecutors don't charge out cases low. This ****s up bargaining at minimum and generally defeats the purpose of the adversaial system. They're going to charge the most serious offense possible. In this case, it's only "3rd degree." Should they find evidence that would even suggest intent to kill or that it fit 1st degree, you can bet they'll charge it. Oh and if 3rd degree was such a fantastic deal they would have plead by now. You know we all love to joke about prison rape and maybe these guys deserve it. I've certainly made some PMITA prison statements before. However, prision rape is a serious issue that often leads sentances for minor felonies (drug stuff) to become deaths endances due to Hep or AIDS. It also has been linked to a number of psycological problems after release. It's a horrible thing. There's a reason we don't just sentance people to "rape." Christ and I've actually sent people to jail. . . . how am i the criminal loving hippy?
+1 - or more like conspiracy to commit 1st degree. People are f***d up. Sucks hard. It's not as rough as most people would like to think, but it's not exactly easy, either. Unfortunately, policy seems to way off track and can't get back on because it would be politically disastrous to make a stand against de facto corrections policies. I mean, come on folks. I get as absolutely mad to the core as anyone when I hear something like this happens. But do we really want to deal out life and death? I don't. Do you? What happens when we get it wrong? And we do get it wrong often enough to matter. Prison should be hard. It should be labor and solitary confinement. Talking to other inmates should be strictly punished. There should be zero amenities. But time that hard can't be as long as current sentencing, so it will never happen. Couple hard time like that with focused therapy and you might actually effect change in people. It certainly doesn't seem that our current system works worth a s**t. Prison isn't currently much of a deterrent, but the increasingly long sentences destroy people's lives.
Wouldn't the sentencing guidelines make that kinda tough? They could seek an upward departure, but last I heard there was a lot of recent court decisions resulting in quite a few upwardly departed sentences getting remanded on appeal. IIRC, a 1st degree assault was a severity level 8, which is like 86 months for a first time offender.
I donb't do felonies yet, so I'm not to up to date on this stuff but as understand it: Upward departure requires a justification, a quite compelling one, but in this case IF it's as the media reports it (a big if -- the media sucks at reporting this stuff), then I think they have a case. This of course, also depends on the criminal history score, i don't know the crimianl histories. Now, even if the judge executes 5 years, they'll only do 40 months in with 20 months supervised release. They're also charged with a load of crimes and there's at least 2 offense dates, so it's possible they'll get convicte dof 2 different charges. Also, I believe they're charged with kidnapping and burglary, both of which are exempted from 609.35 (barring multiple sentancings for acts that constitute more than one crime). There's a lot of possible time here. Two different assaults, at least one count of kidnapping and burglary.
I think defendants (if they can still be called that after conviction) are now entitled to a jury hearing to determine the factual basis for an upward conviction. Many incarcerated inmates have had the opportunity to appeal their sentences (not conviction) if they were upwardly departed. It's also now more difficult for prosecutors since there is the option for a jury hearing (though not nearly as difficult as dealing with all the appeals, no doubt). Even with multiple charges, though, they would be ran consecutive, unless I'm forgetting an exception to the default consecutive sentencing.
This is exactly the type of case that would play well to a jury. Do you mean concurrent? Minnesota law presumes a concurrent sentance, but doesn't require it except in certain 609.035 situations. A consecutive sentance is always allowed for crimes commited on different days. the court can decelare most sentances consecutive, though that is subject to some review, mainly whether it "unfairly exaggerate criminality of defendant's conduct." (State v. Ford, 39 N.W.2d 214 (1995)). In this case, if reported properly, that's hard to do.
I always **** them up, I've had to edit my last post like 3 times to correct which is which. (Note to self, write down what you want before sentancing)
I don't believe that any government that derives its power from the consent of the people has the authority to kill said people. To me, this isn't a moral issue, this is a fundamental interpretation of the social contract of government. There are always roads to be paved, ditches to be dug.
