Alright, tell me how we're going to fix the legal system.  When we do that, THEN we can talk about the death penalty.  It doesn't matter which one is flawed, you can't USE the death penalty until whichever one is the problem is fixed.  Even if it is the legal system, it still means that an innocent person could be put to death. And even if it's just for huge crimes, the wrong person can still be accused for a huge crime.  The public thinks they don't deserve to live, but the public has no idea if that person is the one responsible for the horrible crimes.

Well, the best way to "fix" the legal system is with a stringent control on the distribution of firearms and a system of education that doesn't rob public schools of funding because half the students are underpriveliged and can't pass the tests that determines the money needed to educate them in the first place.

Once you crack down on crime, there's no need to reform a system that's hardly used.  I don't know the guvmint hasn't realised yet that the best deterrant for crime is to keep people busy, but whatever.  I was once called a terrorist sympathizer because I said the common terrorist is an impoverished person with literally nothing to lose; remove the poverty aspect and they would definitely think twice about blowing themselves up.  Same thing applies to crime; remove the need to commit a crime and you'll have less fucking criminals.

but what do i know i'm just a kid

Wouldn't this belong more in the politics forum than GENERAL CHAT

The death penalty is moronic btw, everyone knows that.

That's part of what I was saying before, it's like "yeah some people just shouldn't be allowed to live" but I think it's damaging for an otherwise good person to make judgements like that - I hate how people make it like killing or not killing is some kind of morally challenging thing, I think it's that some people are more coocoo-nuts than others. Like I sure hope nobody here has ever had a moral conflict whether or not to make a CHAIR out of someone

yo heres something im in a class RIGHT NOW (teacher is talking) and we learned abotu a cool case, it's called Ford v. Wainwright.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_v._Wainwright

check it out, it's interesting.

atkins v. virginia is about retards, check that oneout too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle

HOOOOLY SHIT.

you got but for'd sonnnnn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle

HOOOOLY SHIT.

you got but for'd sonnnnn

The fuck...this is really serious?  Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else?  Without knowing what it would be used for?  Shiiiiiiit

The fuck...this is really serious?  Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else?  Without knowing what it would be used for?  Shiiiiiiit

yeah this girl in class went crazy and even though she was pretty right she was so crazy we spent like the last thirty minutes listening to her rant and the teacher explain.

The fuck...this is really serious?  Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else?  Without knowing what it would be used for?  Shiiiiiiit

Yeah, please fucking explain this because this is making me go crazy.

I hope your explanation starts with "Well..... it was a Floridian judicial system......"

edit: not the death penalty, but life without parole (STILL FUCKED)

"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on 3 August 2004[2] of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle

saying someone "seemed to admit knowing about a burglary" (what can that even MEAN? it sounds like he says "yeah, maybe they were going to do something illegal") doesn't justify prosecuting them for first degree murder and trying to get the death penalty

EDIT: This is basically manslaughter. While he did not conspire to murder, his actions resulted in one. I think it's the same if, drinking and driving, you accidentally kill someone -- while there is no malicious intent, your idiocy resulted in someone's death. Arguably, however, this punishment may be disproportionate. I bet the state's appellate lawyers are busy.

ahahahaha so lemme get this straight.

My roommate asks me to borrow a bedsheet (he can either tell me it is for some normal purpose like SLEEPING, or I can simply not ask) and I give it to him. While I am off at class on campus 1.5 miles away, my roommate gets some girl to come over the apartment and strangles her with the bedsheet until she chokes and dies.

Although in this case the item lent is directly the weapon of death, all of the other circumstances you described are the same. By lending the bedsheet, I did not conspire to murder, but my roommate's actions resulted in a murder. I had no malicious intent. I was not at the crime scene. My idiocy of lending my roommate the bedsheet resulted in someone's death.

OOPS GUESS ITS MANSLAUGHTER

@ Velfarre

Solitary confinement for life can be classified as cruel and unusual, therefore contradicting amendment 8 of the U.S. constitution.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/

I am pretty sure you didn't mean me for this because if so I have no idea why.

Also in the case of the guy lending the car, I don't think SEEMED really counts for much, especially because it could mean something like he was told about the murder and then thought back and in hindsight, he could remember the guy acting strange.  Or anything else like that.  "Seemed" doesn't count as AIDING MURDER.

ASE, you really should stop letting your bedsheets out to murderers. You bring it on yourself.
-5 Dapp

Hah, sorry about that -- wrong person. 4Dsheep*

Aside from the fact that he probably could have used another bedsheet if you hadn't given him one, the situation described is not the same. Now, if you knew beforehand that your friend was going to rape the girl, and you gave him the equipment to do so, and your friend kills her with the equipment in question -- then the situation is the same.

There is no evidence that he actually knew beforehand though.  Just that he "seemed" to admit knowing about it, which doesn't really hold any water.