Pharmacist Shoots Robber 5 Times - Charged with 1st Deg. Murder

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

The whole idea of the death penalty, (which I'm for) or in this case, the "instant death penalty", being a deterrent is bogus.

"For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1"

Why? Because the type of people who are inclined to kill people during the commission of a crime, are fucking idiots. They either don't consider the consequences, or don't a give a fuck.

No law you could impose, is going to make these people any smarter. It would, as you pointed out, probably drive the Murder rate up, instead of down.

JC

While I'd like to think it's a deterrent, I'm okay if all it does is remove scum from the human population on earth.

[Rider]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Given the obvious premeditation in this case, the pharmacist would be a fool not to raise this defense.

JC

Let them roll the dice on a murder 1 charge. You will never get 12 jurors to convict. The pharmacist should plead not guilty to the grave. The fact that the kid that was shot had no gun doesn't make a shit of difference. You do know that there have been instances where people kill people with their bare hands? You don't need a fucking weapon present to be fearful of your life.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Rsv1000R

While I'd like to think it's a deterrent, I'm okay if all it does is remove scum from the human population on earth.

That exactly why I'm for it.

My position has always been that the death penalty may not be an effective deterrent to everyone, but it works pretty damn good on the people it's applied to.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

That exactly why I'm for it.

My position has always been that the death penalty may not be an effective deterrent to everyone, but it works pretty damn good on the people it's applied to.

JC

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

[Rider]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

That's ALL of them.

[Rsv1000R]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And for that reason should only be used in truly heinous cases ('special circumstances', murder of a law enforcement officer, etc.), or with offenders who are at serious risk of re-offending (serial killers, etc.).

I'm okay with just plain murders, But in general I'd like their cases be clear cut, and not based on circumstantial evidence.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Rider

That's ALL of them.

You would have a very hard time demonstrating that theory. Most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim and has had a great deal of time to work up to it. Every killer isn't a serial killer (though some of the things that I'm seeing from kids these days make me think that we're raising a generation of sociopaths).

[Rider]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You would have a very hard time demonstrating that theory. Most murders are committed by someone who knows the victim and has had a great deal of time to work up to it. Every killer isn't a serial killer (though some of the things that I'm seeing from kids these days make me think that we're raising a generation of sociopaths).

Don't need to prove it. Put them in the chair and flip the switch and be done with it.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Rider

Let them roll the dice on a murder 1 charge. You will never get 12 jurors to convict. The pharmacist should plead not guilty to the grave. The fact that the kid that was shot had no gun doesn't make a shit of difference. You do know that there have been instances where people kill people with their bare hands? You don't need a fucking weapon present to be fearful of your life.

It doesn't really matter if he pleads not guilty, the prosecutor can amend the charge to include the lessor charge anyway, (if I'm reading this right).

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Rider

Don't need to prove it. Put them in the chair and flip the switch and be done with it.

Next step: Do away with the trial and just fry their asses because they've been accused.