12 years in prison for murder

Don't look now, but you've just validated my position. You cannot be truly guaranteed that there is no risk of recidivism until after the murderer is eating dirt six-foot under.

Ok picture this scenario. A wive's husband has been abusing her and generally been a bastard for years, the wife can't live a proper life because of this, and one day kills him, with intent. That's murder, but do you really think that she will reoffend? Do you really think she should be given the death penalty also?

And to the thing about the electric chair, it's still enjoying someone's death, which is sick even if you don't want to call it murder, i think it's just as bad...

How do you define "with intent?"

But I don't think she should get the death penalty, no. Not even close to a suitable candidate. In fact, under exigent circumstances, I think a wife who kills her husband after years of abuse shouldn't even see the inside of a prison cell.



Okay, as you apparently don't understand the definition of murder:



Notice the word unlawful? That means that a judicial execution as authorised by law is not murder. Whether you like it or not.

And, oddly enough, I know somebody who witnessed an electric chair execution in Georgia (long story). Apparently, it's nowhere near as inhumane as it's made out to be in the media/movies. No violent shaking; no smoking; no burns; no electrical zapping sounds; no frying of the body. Inmate sat down, got an electrode attached to his head and leg, got a quick bolt of electricity, was unconscious in a very tiny fraction of second, and the heart stopped within 20 seconds. Much quicker, and arguably less painful or prone to error, than lethal injection.

I'll agree that murder is an 'unlawful' killing, but it tends to be the person with the biggest stick that makes the laws; and they're not always fair! For example if a Saudi woman is abused by her husband and kills him she's probably going to die in some rather medieval way. While I recognise that I have used a very extreme example, I've used it as to show a point; the law is not always 'correct'.

Yeah, I know what you're saying. Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that still practices beheading as a method of execution, for another example (although, admittedly, even France only stopped using the guillotine in 1981).

Regardless, that's the definition of murder. If the punishment for murder (or whatever) is death "by intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death and until such convict is dead,"^[1] then it's not murder when somebody is strapped to a gurney and has their veins shot full of 70ml of concentrated potassium chloride.


[1] Source: Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, §43.14

Technically they could kill people by connecting their circulatory system to a pressurised water system and just destroying their blood vessels... Wouldn't put that past the texans!

Surprisingly, as cowboy-ish as those Texans are, they have quite a developed system for executing inmates. That is, of course, because they've executed four times as many people as the second-most active state. (Texas has executed 408 inmates since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976, runner-up Virginia has executed, as of yesterday, 102 inmates.) Texas even has its own purpose-built execution facility: the Walls Unit in Livingston, TX.

Texas is one of those states which is a bunch of counterintuitive factors; in some ways it seems so advanced; and then uses it's advantages to make a sort of backward far-right waste land (I have no problem with right or left - just extremes).

When did the US retract the death penalty - and why ?

Hmm . . . maybe. I'm sure you've caught on by now that I tend to support the death penalty, but I do understand your rationale.



The US never abolished the death penalty by a legislative process (although some individual states have done; a few even before the UK abolished hanging for murder).

In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the "arbitrary and inconsistent imposition" of death penalty as then practiced in the US was unconstitutional. In the case, it particularly stressed the requirement for a capital punishment trial to be separated into two phases: the trial phase and the punishment phase. In the trial phase, a jury decides on the guilt of the defendant. Once a guilty verdict has passed, a separate punishment phase is held in which the jury is presented with a case from the prosecution for imposing the death penalty, and hears mitigating evidence from the defence lawyers. A jury then votes on life-or-death, and if a death sentence is passed, the trial judge can then formally sentence the defendant to death -- although the jury recommendation is non-binding, and the judge can choose to overrule the jury and impose a sentence of life imprisonment instead. If the jury decides against the death penalty, life imprisonment is the default punishment -- the judge may not overrule the jury in this instance.

The individual states each wrote and passed into law these recommendations. In 1976, another case was brought before the Supreme Court, Gregg v. Georgia, and the Supreme Court held the new judicial procedures to be constitutional. Thus, the death penalty effectively became legal again. The first execution under the modern-day death penalty system occurred in January 1977, when Gary Gilmore was executed by a firing squad in Utah. However, most states didn't begin executions for another several years, as it took time for convicts to work their way through the appeals system. Texas performed the world's first lethal injection execution in 1982, when Charles Brooks was executed. Most states didn't begin executions for up to a decade after the Gregg ruling. Since reintroduction, 1,114 inmates have been executed -- most recently in Virginia on Thursday, and one in Texas and one in Mississippi on Wednesday (although three in the space of two days is very uncommon).

The obligatory web links for references:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furman_v._Georgia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_v._Georgia
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=414&scid=8
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=15&did=410#SuspendingtheDeathPenalty
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jC2Ex7ynBVOrf0lv-MgOqX8mqWGAD923TSD80
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-udk0Hm32Eurxb9S7JOP25nwrLwD924ITVG2

but in the US, the death sentence doesnt prevennt people from killing others.. (i do agree with the death sentence btw...)

i agree that we should have harsher sentences, and capital punishment for some offences..

I watched a program the other day about some women protestings that life wasn't life. She pissed me right off lol! Bitter old lady! She thought that all people who commit murder should get LIFE in prison, with no chance of parole.

The victims family will never be the same, your right, but how is keeping him in prison another 5/10/15/20/25 years going to make any difference. My stance, is that theres no point ruining two lives, he deserves a second chance. Theres a reason the defendent has rights, and the deceased doesnt - their dead!

I think how sentences currently work is perfectly fine. Life sentence, with a minimum sentence that has to be served. Parole can then be offered, depending on the inmates progress. If someone recieves 18 years minimum sentence, they have a chance at having atleast some sort of life outside prison, increase it by much and its just too late. I can't see any improvements to be made here personally.

Generally the sentence is more lenient if someone is under the age of 18. Most prisons are tough places and 12 years is a tough punishment for a 16 year-old.

How do you define "with intent?"

But I don't think she should get the death penalty, no. Not even close to a suitable candidate. In fact, under exigent circumstances, I think a wife who kills her husband after years of abuse shouldn't even see the inside of a prison cell.




And, oddly enough, I know somebody who witnessed an electric chair execution in Georgia (long story). Apparently, it's nowhere near as inhumane as it's made out to be in the media/movies. No violent shaking; no smoking; no burns; no electrical zapping sounds; no frying of the body. Inmate sat down, got an electrode attached to his head and leg, got a quick bolt of electricity, was unconscious in a very tiny fraction of second, and the heart stopped within 20 seconds. Much quicker, and arguably less painful or prone to error, than lethal injection.

Danke schone - I do love a personally tailored explanation, they give you all the information you could require

I don't know if you've seen the original film 12 angry men, but if you have, would the 'compulsory death sentance' for finding a man guilty, be typical of the pre-70's american system?

And it's legal to sell guns to anyone over there, AND people actually have the money to buy them.

But what you're saying is that some murderers are not as bad as all, and they don't all deserve the death penalty?

Oh, and because one elelctric chair death was relatively efficient, does not mean they always are.

Yep. Exactly what I'm saying.