The legal process was quick, and so was the execution itself:
"On the stroke of 8am they would enter the condemned cell, strap the prisoner's arms behind his back and lead him to the gallows. The whole procedure often took less than 10 seconds from the hangmen entering the cell to the prisoner dropping to his death."
Posts
11 comments:
I am a advocate of the death penalty, BUT the criteria should be 'BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT", and not the 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' they use now.
If the jury cannot convict to the higher standard but can convict to the lower one then life in prison is the penalty.
Yes I know we have standards like 'continuing threat to society', and you might keep that standard, but beyond a shadow of a doubt, to me, makes sure they really did do the crime.
And then, as for execution methods, hang 'em or shoot 'em or gas 'em... I don't care as long as it is reasonably quick. Not instantaneously or without pain, but just reasonably quick.
"Shadows of doubt" are like emanations and penumbras of the words actually in the Constitution: available for use in specific situations, but only those that are supported by not using the current standard, or the actual words.
Shadow of a doubt is like... Video of them murdering the victims or witnesses back up by forensic evidence.
Reasonable doubt is like... caught with the victims car, credit cards, and the murder weapon and DNA shows the blood on the suspects shoes match the victim.
You can convict someone now of capital murder and give them the death penally with circumstantial evidence. But in a few cases they may not have been the murder.
Consider this U.S. timeline from 1901:
September 6 - Leon Czolgosz shoots President McKinley.
September 14 - McKinley dies.
September 23 - Czolgosz goes on trial.
September 24 - Guilty
October 29 - Off to the Hot Squat.
Peter
I am a former death penalty advocate but now believe in hard time life sentences .... Just in case
Interesting. All those last minute rescues in the movies really didn't happen? No one rode up and shot the rope?
Electric bleachers.
Paul wrote: I am a advocate of the death penalty, BUT the criteria should be 'BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT", and not the 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' they use now.
I fail to see how this is not indistinguishable from opposition to the death penalty in all cases.
"I fail to see how this is not indistinguishable from opposition to the death penalty in all cases."
Like I said, Video of them murdering someone or eye witnesses back up by forensic evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt unless you believe in time travel or aliens or whatever.
So no, it's not indistinguishable from opposition to the death penalty in all cases.
The endless delays is why am not so sure about the death penalty any more. If the voting public cannot put in place legislators to enforce the law then perhaps it should be life. Of course once the activists win on the death penalty then they will go after life without parole. A strong reason to deny the bastards any victory.
Sorry, you're wrong Paul. When you say beyond a shadow of a doubt you are demanding a degree of certainty that just isn't part of the fabric of existence. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- is beyond a shadow of a doubt, not even basic arithmetic.
Video evidence? Are you kidding? You must be. Nothing you see on video is 100% trustworthy.
Eyewitness testimony is the least trustworthy of all because everything you see is subjective.
Wiser men than you or I have known since ancient times that the universe is a doubtful place, which is why the law has never demanded a verdict beyond the shadow of a doubt, because if it did no court case could ever be decided, jury rooms would be full of dried skeletons.
Post a Comment