why sentance to death be issued in rearest of the rear cases ?
613548
I guess it's because the rear is just so much more offensive than other parts of the body, so when there is a rear case that is worse than other rear cases -- like if someone tells a really, really bad rear joke, like "What do the Startship Enterprise and toilet paper have in common?" -- the jokester gets the death penalty.
608736
It is all due to appeals, which wind their way through both state and federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court.  Then there are the motions for reconsideration, motions to file new evidence, and all of the resulting appeals and judicial reviews.\n\nAs a Canadian, I have never figured out the American judicial system, with its two (state and federal) tracks, interlocutory appeals upon interlocutory appeals, etc.  We haven't had capital punishment in decades, but back then our system didn't allow all of these interlocutory appeals at various stages.  The Court of Appeal would hear one appeal after everything was done at the trial level.  After the Court of Appeal was finished with it, it would proceed to a retrial or to the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, then it would hear the appeal and make its decision.  If the death sentence were upheld, the Prime Minister and his cabinet would make a decision on whether to commute the sentence.  Generally, that was it.  No eleventh hour calls to the Supreme Court.  A couple of times, the Minister of Justice asked for a new reference before the Supreme Court (Coffin and Truscott), but that was it.  And it never took 20, or even 5 years.\n\nI suppose that this was partially due to the fact that, even back then, there were significantly less death sentences handed out in Canada compared to the U.S.
1050037
I saw a show on thirteen world about this topic, it is very interesting. \nIt should vary from case to case. If someone found evidence of prior  hate or bad thoughts and such for the victim of the crime, they should have a some jail time, but even if they commited murder, it is  not wise to put them to jail because they were unconcious. If you can prove that they were concious that in fact changes everything. Judges should handle this with thought. I Disagree with everyone else because subconsious movement may be a sickness.
804974
If YOU as the defendant is doing the rescheduling, it had better be a damn good reason involving sickness close to death. \n\nThe attorneys involved can reschedule for a larger variety of reasons, as can the judge.
829341
It was apparently found to be an accident.\n\nHe's most likely going to punish himself daily more than any jail could.  He probably knew and was buddies with the deceased....
368475
It depends on the intent when the crime was committed. Ex. Murder one is premeditated with malicious intent.
141125
Under certain circumstances, the inavailability of the witness will make hearsay admissable.  However, some states have a doctrine that makes the words of the dead even harder to use as evidence.\n\nYou'd need more facts.
555669
The basic laws of the country are breaking down and that is the problem..  The police can't get tough because they get sued.  It is just too much.  People on death row for 10 years.  They can't decide in 10 years if they are guilty or not.  The whole system is just in a state of non functioning.
987618
90% of appeals that are won are remanded back down to the court where the trial occured and then the same verdict is rendered after another trial.  Most of the appeals won are on issues that don't affect the outcome of the trial.
580762
There is a fine line between justice and revenge, but it's a clear line.\n\nWhen somebody is wronged, it is not the responsibility of the one who was wronged to execute justice.  Someone else should do that.  When you take revenge for yourself you are likely to do it in anger, which can cloud your judgment.\n\nThis is why we have the justice system in place.  It is why a judge must recuse (disqualify) himself from a case if he is involved in it.  Justice is, indeed, blind.  Revenge is, in turn, hazy.
522609
Actually, yes.  Not long ago I was reading on CNN.com about a guy who was to be out to death.  He had 2 heart attacks while on death row and both times they brought him back.  Then they had to wait until he was well enough to be executed.\n\nStupidest darn thing I have EVER heard of.  Don't you love our system?!?!
790684
It is a hard one because it has happened that they executed the wrong person....so what happens than ,you cant bring them back...no one has a right to take any life....we are to quick to kill kill kill.
521328
For the same reason it takes us so long to put them to death, We have become so politically correct that we care more about the person who has committed the crime than the victim. We have allowed Judges and lawyers the power to justify their jobs, without them caring about the victim of the crime. It has become a money game. If you have money you can do what you want !and get away with it. If not don't worry we will pay for the next 10 to 15 years of your trials, America, we need to wake up!!
138358
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, traditional teaching does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.\n\nIf, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. \n\nToday, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
541809
I believe the essence of the question is diffult to answer. I have not had one of my siblings speak to me for about five years. They decided if one of our parents was near death, nothing can be done to save them. Due to my religious convictions, I did not agree and our father is still living. But since I have been living in China, my mother died. I have said I will investigate her death, to see if my mother's wishes were honored.\n\nThe death penalty is a violation of human rights, regardless of whether the death row inmate violated someone else's human rights by killing them. We do not have the right to play God. I resent a judge to decide death for anyone. I also resent the fact that I have been shunned from being on a murder case, because of my views on the death penalty. That is a violation of my right of expression.\n\nNo judge has any right to tell anyone they will die for their crimes. The case I should have been on, the man was found innocent after eight years. This was because picking out the jury was a tainted system, violating the rights of a poor man with no education. In effect, he was sentenced because he was poor and uneducated.\n\nI read where some of the answers were against the Islam people for cutting off the hand of a hungry boy for stealing food. He was also treated with injustice. The boy has a destroyed life just for being poor and hungry, the same problem the innocent man faced.\n\nIf a jury decides a man should die, the prosecutor, judge, and jury have killed the man. They are no better off that the man charged. But remember, the man was innocent.\n\nGod is a jealous God; he does not want us to worship any idols; he also does not like us to be God by killing a person charged with killing.
351139
Not for you, even though you've stolen my heart. lol j/k!\nBut seriously, I do. Deep down inside I do, even though I worry a lot about the wrong people being executed.\nAs far as some people saying we shouldn't stoop down to their level, there is a great difference between us and them, even when we have to take their life;\nThey killed, for pleasure or hatred, usually no remorse.\nWe HAVE to kill, not because we want to, but because these people will not repent or turn from their ways, and will kill innocents again if they are let out.
91469
It was actually a 1998 case U.S. Supreme Court case.  The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit arising from a high speed police chase.  The issue in this case is whether a police officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. The Supreme Court said no and ruled in favor of the officers.