Bush OKs execution of Army death row prisoner

[Moto-zutto 0]

I should add too that while individuals can apparently justify the death penalty based on emotional response, our criminal law doesn't have its basis in emotion.

Our criminal law does have it's basis in emotion. There is someone somewhere that makes the decision, and if they say emotions did not play a factor in the decision... they are full of it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I should add too that while individuals can apparently justify the death penalty based on emotional response, our criminal law doesn't have its basis in emotion.

Our criminal law does have it's basis in emotion. There is someone somewhere that makes the decision, and if they say emotions did not play a factor in the decision... they are full of it.

No - it really doesn't. If that were the case things would not have changed from Roman times when all you needed to do to convict someone of murder in a public court was be a better public speaker than the other guy (you didn't even need to be a lawyer). It had absolutely nothing to do with establishing proof of guilt via cataloged evidence, a motive or extenuating/mitigating circumstances - all of which are part of the modern judicial system.

The jury may be influenced by emotional appeals - but the court system that we have goes to great lengths to ensure that evidence and testimony submitted for the jury's consideration is free from bias or prejudice. Which incidentally is why juries in high profile murder cases are cut off from the outside world so that they don't read newspapers, internet gossip or watch TV movies made during the trial where the guilt of the defendant is clearly established.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Number 6

[Moto-zutto 0]

I should add too that while individuals can apparently justify the death penalty based on emotional response, our criminal law doesn't have its basis in emotion.

Our criminal law does have it's basis in emotion. There is someone somewhere that makes the decision, and if they say emotions did not play a factor in the decision... they are full of it.

No - it really doesn't. If that were the case things would not have changed from Roman times when all you needed to do to convict someone of murder in a public court was be a better public speaker than the other guy (you didn't even need to be a lawyer). It had absolutely nothing to do with establishing proof of guilt via cataloged evidence, a motive or extenuating/mitigating circumstances - all of which are part of the modern judicial system.

The jury may be influenced by emotional appeals - but the court system that we have goes to great lengths to ensure that evidence and testimony submitted for the jury's consideration is free from bias or prejudice. Which incidentally is why juries in high profile murder cases are cut off from the outside world so that they don't read newspapers, internet gossip or watch TV movies made during the trial where the guilt of the defendant is clearly established.

agree to disagree

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you like - but its pretty well established that the judicial process in our criminal courts is based around fixed rules and procedures for the express purpose of screening out bias, prejudice and ensuring a fair trial.

The only places where this doesn't happen are states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Number 6

[Moto-zutto 0]

If you like - but its pretty well established that the judicial process in our criminal courts is based around fixed rules and procedures for the express purpose of screening out bias, prejudice and ensuring a fair trial.

The only places where this doesn't happen are states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

agree to disagree

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again - if you like.

But I'm not saying anything that's particularly controversial here. If you've ever served on a jury, or sat through a criminal court case (or even watched a TV/Movie legal thriller), you'll probably have some idea of the rules and limitations that are imposed on the process.

[Peikko 1,575]

Maybe he/she is simply saying that while people are involved no judicial process can completely illiminate bias? The system on its own is designed to minimize it but people operate it so bias is still possible. It is certainly not an intrinsic part of the system.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe he/she is simply saying that while people are involved no judicial process can completely illiminate bias? The system on its own is designed to minimize it but people operate it so bias is still possible. It is certainly not an intrinsic part of the system.

Oh that can happen certainly - but on a basic level the court process is structured in a way so that someone can't make the argument that so and so is guilty because "they look shifty". Of course who knows what really goes on in jury rooms..

[franklie 0]

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday approved the execution of an Army private, the first time in over a half-century that a president has affirmed a death sentence for a member of the U.S. military.

The court-martial panel convicted Gray of:

_Raping and killing Army Pvt. Laura Lee Vickery-Clay of Fayetteville on Dec. 15, 1986. She was shot four times with a .22-caliber pistol that Gray confessed to stealing. She suffered blunt force trauma over much of her body.

_Raping and killing Kimberly Ann Ruggles, a civilian cab driver in Fayetteville. She was bound, gagged, stabbed repeatedly, and had bruises and lacerations on her face. Her body was found on the base.

_Raping, robbing and attempting to kill Army Pvt. Mary Ann Lang Nameth in her barracks at Fort Bragg on Jan. 3, 1987. She testified against Gray during the court-martial and identified him as her assailant. Gray raped her and stabbed her several times in the neck and side. Nameth suffered a laceration of the trachea and a collapsed or punctured lung.

The military also has asked Bush to authorize the execution of Dwight J. Loving, who has been at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., since 1989 after being convicted of killing two taxicab drivers while he was an Army private at Fort Hood, Texas. But that request is not yet ripe for a presidential decision. The White House declined to discuss the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080728/ap_on_...itary_execution

People in the military who do crimes like this should be "Danny Deevered"

[Peikko 1,575]

One can assume from this that either you are being deeply ironic, or that the meaning of the poem you so thoughtfully provided the link for completely escapes you.

[franklie 0]

One can assume from this that either you are being deeply ironic, or that the meaning of the poem you so thoughtfully provided the link for completely escapes you.

Danny Deever (a soldier) killed a man while he was sleeping. For that crime he has hanged by neck til he was dead. It was a terrible crime and the justice was unsettling as the poem depicts but it does not mean that justice should not have been served.

Crimes perpetrated by personnel in the military or by police are reprehensible.