Murdering suspects will not solve the problem, but make it worse.
That is a big question. Everyone is worried about the exiled commies given posts in natural resources and environment for instances.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Cross-posting from here
because it's about a certain application of the death penalty in Islamic countries.
I just learned something new about my own religion (Islam) today while watching a TV program on MBC that discusses one topic each day and shows alternative views, often seriously debunking widely held beliefs through carefully examining the passages of Quran or Sunnah that are usually cited in support of the conventional opinion(s). This new thing I learned? Apostasy has only ever been prescribed death as punishment in case a person didn't merely renounce Islam, but became actively belligerent towards Islam and/or the Muslim community in general (e.g. declaring open war). There are even several examples of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) of leaving known apostates alone unless they committed an unrelated crime (e.g. murder).
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Huh - interesting. Something useful for my world-building.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/belgian-expatriate-pleads-guilty-to-killing-son-035450368.html
There's been a murder in Singapore done by a Belgian expat. So far, he's not getting the death penalty due to mental complications.
The Mod with the Migraine
Texas, apparently always eager to execute, is set to execute a man even the prosecution agrees had no part in a murder.
In 1996, a 22-year-old Wood waited in a pickup truck while his friend Daniel Reneau went inside a gas station in Kerrville, Texas, to steal the store's safe. Reneau ended up killing the clerk during the robbery. '''Most states allow a distinction between accomplices and those who physically carry out the crime. But in Texas, sitting in that truck and taking part in the robbery is enough to get Wood convicted of murder and onto death row.'''
Wood's attorney, Jared Tyler, has argued there should be a distinction. "It's rare, both in and outside of Texas, for a person to be sentenced to death based on a conviction under this kind of law," he said.
Reneau was a drifter who showed up in Kerrville during the summer of 1995. By November of that year, he met Wood through a friend, after couch-surfing and motel-hopping around town. The pair eventually moved into a trailer together along with their girlfriends. Wood's girlfriend, Nadia Mireles, noticed Reneau engaging in "erratic and threatening" behavior once the foursome started living under one roof, court documents say. Reneau had started arming himself and committing crimes. In December 1995, Wood and Reneau stole firearms and stored them in the trailer. Then came the plan to steal the safe from the Texaco gas station after Wood and Reneau befriended the clerks who worked there.
Kris Keeran, the clerk Reneau would eventually shoot, allowed the two to hang around the store, scratching lottery tickets. The three of them, along with the assistant manager, discussed "how to defraud the store of money," according to court documents. Keeran later changed his mind about stealing from the store, the filing says, which frustrated Reneau. Sitting in a borrowed pickup truck outside the gas station in the early morning of January 2, 1996, Wood waited for Reneau to steal the safe.
His defense attorneys have argued, numerous times, that Wood did not know Reneau was carrying a gun and would subsequently shoot Keeran. Reneau was executed in 2002.
The Texas statute commonly referred to as the "law of parties" abolishes "distinctions between accomplices and principals...and each party to an offense may be charged and convicted without alleging that he acted as a principal or accomplice." Crucially, it adds: "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it..."
The law is not unique to Texas. In some states, it is called "accomplice liability" or "Pinkerton liability" resulting from the 1946 US Supreme Court case Pinkerton vs. United States, according to the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty. The statute closest to Texas' law of parties is on the books in Georgia, NCADP says. In September 2015, Georgia executed Kelly Gissendaner, who was convicted of murder, for persuading her lover to kill her husband in 1997.
Mark Bennett, a criminal defense lawyer who has worked in Texas for over two decades, made the point that the situation is black and white in Texas because there are no accessories or accomplices to crimes in Texas. "Either you take some role in the crime or you don't," he explained, "and so, there is no way for Wood to be an accessory to murder." The last man to be convicted and executed under the "law of parties" statute in Texas was 34-year-old Robert Lee Thompson on November 19, 2009. His co-defendant, Sammy Butler, killed a store clerk whom the two were robbing. Butler is serving a life sentence. Thompson did shoot another store clerk in the robbery attempt and that man lived.
Charles Keeran, the father of the gas station clerk killed by Reneau, said he "originally wished for Reneau and Wood to be executed, [but he] changed his mind after Reneau's execution," according to The Dallas Morning News. Keeran told the Dallas newspaper that living in prison is a better punishment, and that death was the "easy way out." CNN made repeated attempts to contact the Keeran family but was not able to reach them for a comment.
Terri Been, Wood's sister, said she grew up a conservative Republican but has spent the past 20 years fighting to change the death penalty laws, which she believed in for much of her adolescence. She told CNN it feels like the entire family is in its own personal jail cell. "I scream and scream and talk and talk and nobody listens," she said, crying through her words.
Both Been and Wood's lawyer, Tyler, say Wood has a learning disability and an IQ of 80. This was the reason for a stay of execution in 2008, to give the defense time to argue Wood's inability to comprehend actions and words at an adult level. "Even if Jeff learns something and can say it back right away, the next day he'll forget everything," Been said.
Page Pate, a constitutional law expert, said Wood's team is thinking along the correct lines by arguing in the latest clemency petition that Wood was party to the crime and there was a lack of intent to kill. His criminal intent was not to take anyone else's life, Pate said. Tyler is optimistic the courts will hear Wood's out. "I'm not aware of another case in which a person has been executed with as little culpability and participation as Mr. Wood has," he said.
The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton told CNN it does not comment on pending litigation and that "Attorney General Paxton will, as always, enforce the law as written." Jeff Wood's friends and family delivered the petition for clemency to Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on Thursday, the family announced on its website. The parole board typically makes a recommendation to the governor to stay or continue with the execution a few days before the scheduled date. The board declined to comment on the Wood case.
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Jesus, who did his partner kill, the judge's daughter?! I have never heard of someone being sentenced to death for driving a getaway vehicle. That is beyond reprehensible.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
Amused
It's Texas, the epitome of this stupid Be hard on crime mentality. Kind of ironic as Texas also has tested the exact opposite of that and has gotten much better results.....
Formerly known as Bleddyn And I am feeling like a ghost Resident Perky Goth
Queen of Good Things, Honest
Also ironic because Texas is one of the most belligerently pro-life states in the U.S. I'll never understand how anyone can make such a fuss over the "right to life" and then turn around and start killing folks for minor sleights.
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
The law in the night
"Woa woa woa there boi, you don go abortin' those sin free childs, nah you force them into poverty and crime, then we strike with the ever loving fear of jeeezus into their hears 'n then we kill 'em"
note
Inter arma enim silent leges
Jupiterian Local
So, bit of a long story here, but there's been a lot of death penalty news in Florida recently.
Last year, Florida's death penalty law was ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court because it didn't require a unanimous jury recommendation (the law was that at least 10 of 12 jurors had to recommend execution for it to be considered by the judge). This left Florida's death penalty in a sort of limbo — the existing law was unconsitutional, but it wasn't clear what rules should be used instead. Last month, Florida governor and award-winning Lex Luthor lookalike
◊ Rick Scott signed a bill reinstituting the death penalty in Florida, now requiring a unaniumous jury recommendation.
Separate from this, a man named Markeith Loyd allegedly killed his pregnant ex-girlfriend last December and an Orlando Police officer in January. This latter killing spawned a massive manhunt that ended in his surrender and arrest (though not without officers getting caught on camera kicking him in the face as he lay unarmed and unresisting on the ground — but that's a separate issue).
The state prosecutor assigned to this case, Aramis Ayala of Florida's Ninth District court, indicated that she would not seek the death penalty in this case -- or in ANY case she prosecuted. Part of her statement: "I have given this issue extensive, painstaking thought and consideration. What has become abundantly clear through this process is that while I currently do have discretion to pursue death sentences, I have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of this community or in the best interests of justice. After careful review and consideration of the new statute, under my administration I will not be seeking the death penalty." This was about two weeks ago, not long after Rick Scott signed the new death penalty law.
There was a public outcry from the usual suspects, including the Orlando police chief. Scott responded by asking Ayala to recuse herself. She refused, so he removed her from the case and assigned it to Fifth Circuit state attourney Brad King instead. There is no precedent for this, and it's unclear whether Scott actually has the legal authority to do it. Ayala filed a motion to stay the proceedings until that question was answered, but a judge denied her motion, allowing the case to go forward under King. A group of Republicans in the Florida House of Representitives are attempting to cut her office's budget, and Governor Scott has now reassigned 21 other first degree murder cases away from Ayala and to King.
Even ignoring the political theater here (Alayna is Florida's first black state attorney, and was elected to the position in Orange County, a deeply blue region generally in opposition to the Republican state government), though I do support the death penalty in general, I don't think it should be used like this, as a tit-for-tat punishment for murder. The law allows prosecutors discretion of whether or not to seek the death penalty, and if Alaya's judgment is that it's never appropriate to do so, then that's her right as an elected official. The fact that Scott is doing an end-run around her on dubiously legal grounds is appalling, and I very much hope that the courts eventually rule in her favor, though I'm not optimistic about her chances.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
edited 4th Apr '17 11:21:17 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
Jupiterian Local
I basically think that the only crimes that merit capital punishment are crimes against the state (eg, treason, espionage, desertion in the face of the enemy) and crimes against humanity (eg, terrorism, mass murder, genocide). These crimes are categorically different from crimes against individuals, as they affect entire societies, not just the immediate victims. Even if you're a serial killer who's murdered dozens of people, that pales in comparison to the effect of bringing down the government, committing genocide against an entire people, or planning and executing acts of terrorism.
The flip side is that I think death is the only appropriate punishment for those offenses. Once you've done something of that magnitude, you've demonstrated that you are actively and deliberately trying to destroy the society you're part of. At that point, you deserve nothing less than death.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Your friendly neighbourhood Regent
Wow dude. Death penalty for desertion? I mean, I'm not going to argue that desertion or spying or whatever is admirable or okay, but "indicative of actively trying to destroy society"? I don't see it.
Also, I do wonder about a society that can see spying and trying to bring down a government as positive things (see: James Bond and various superspy wish fulfilment characters, anything about a revolution or rebellion that sides with the rebels and has people who change sides)... and yet also simultaneously something only the most heinous of monsters would do and deserving of death?
Treason and espionage are great except when they're turned against us, is that it? (To clarify, I'm aware that 'treason' probably has a specific legal definition that not every instance of changing allegiances will fulfil, but you get my point, right?)
edited 5th Apr '17 5:07:56 AM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...
The law in the night
Death Penalty for desertion existed for as long as there has been armies, specially if the defector switched sides or left a post that would jeopardize this countrymen.
Also desertion is on the category of military crimes, not civil, which can only be committed by a military in or off duty, remember the Military works on a different set of rules and on a fully voluntary military force by the moment you join, you give up certain protections civilians would have.
edited 5th Apr '17 5:56:58 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Considering the primary motivation for desertion is escaping death at the hands of the enemy, that's not surprising. But that doesn't make it right. As for espionage, all governments do it, so that'd mean deliberately exposing their agents to death (though such agents are usually volunteers, while soldiers are sometimes conscripted - and conscripts are more likely to desert than career soldiers).
Also, most (all?) developed nations either don't have capital punishment on the books for desertion, or in practice don't use it. Even in the rest of the world, I suspect that most punishments (when they occur at all, the Iraqi army was plagued by desertion a few years back, and I don't remember hearing about organized punishments) and off the record, illegal, summary ones.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
The law in the night
Desertion isn't an automatic death sentence, you'd need to do something that would award the death penalty, such as: providing intel to the enemy during desertion, jeopardizing your countrymen because of the desertion, surrendering materiel during the desertion to the enemy.
Martial courts usually incarcerate recaptured deserters or people attempting to engage in desertion.
However defection is an automatic death sentence, because it isn't just treason it is also taking army against your countrymen.
edited 5th Apr '17 6:12:06 AM by AngelusNox
Inter arma enim silent leges
It's a bird.
I'm not exactly a huge fan of retributive "justice" in general, but I guess I'm still sort of on the fence when it comes to the death penalty. I can imagine extreme situations where I might think it was necessary, but most of the time I don't see the point.
Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty in principle, but I am opposed to it in practice in almost all cases. It has no utility (more costly, life imprisonment in max security is just as safe, its not a deterrent), massive risk (false positives mean killing innocent people), equity issues up the ass (far more likely to be used on minorities, the poor, and those with intellectually disabilities), and is a terrible burden on both the victim's and the convict's families.
Until the system adapts to iron out these flaws (see also: never), I'll just support abolishing it altogether. Its just easier.
edited 5th Apr '17 7:18:48 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
The death penalty on desertion might also make it easier in some cases for the deserter to get away. We had a case in Germany that was about an American who deserted from his unit in Iraq and seeked political asylum in Germany. Last time I checked the court decided to extradict him because he was not facing an inhumane punishment (because desertion is also illegal in Germany). If he was to face the death penalty, he would qualify for protection as far as I know.
From what I understand about US law, while capital punishment is on the books for a few offenses, various court rulings, political sentiment and accepted practices make it all but impossible to sentence someone to death (let alone execute them) for anything that isn't 1st Degree Murder.
The one exception might be treason, but considering that the US definition of treason is very narrow (unless an outright war starts, the only way to commit treason as an American is to join a terrorist group, and most of those don't get captured alive), its almost a non issue.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Although Texas seems to be pushing that limit... .
Seeing as shooting or disappearing people doesn’t do a thing about the root causes of crime, I don't see how this will fix things in the long run.
While Duterte has supporters here, there's quite a bit of snark directed at him on what he intends to do with Abu Sayyaf and the Sulu Sultanate. In other words, people that shoot back.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot