|
|
Post by skyloom on Mar 25, 2006 22:17:59 GMT -5
Several states have started a moratorium on executions while a commission examines the way capital punishment is administered in the state.
In Delaware, we have one individual in the legislature who will agree to a commission, but who will not agree to a moratorium while the commission does its work and makes its report.
So, do you all see any problem with taking what we can get, i.e. a commission that, if it is honest, will find plenty of problems in the system? Or is it important that a moratorium on executions be in place while the commission is at work? Are there any possible problems with separating the two?
|
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 25, 2006 23:26:29 GMT -5
Dear Sky,
In itself seperating the two is not a problem: However if I lived in a State where there was any questions with regard to problems with CP, then I would want a moratorium.
Love and hugs,
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Mar 26, 2006 4:00:01 GMT -5
A moratorium is important. Esp. here in Texas where executions are common....them still going on while the system is being investigated doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Mar 27, 2006 12:14:53 GMT -5
A moratorium is important. Esp. here in Texas where executions are common....them still going on while the system is being investigated doesn't make any sense. Well, here in Delaware, while we do have a high execution rate, we are such a small state that executions don't happen every month... or even every year. In fact, had the bill been passed when it was introduced the commission would have completed its work and submitted its report by January of this year and the only "practical" effect might have been postponing the execution of Brian Steckel for two months, or maybe changing his sentence to life without parole. I don't know if we have anyone scheduled for execution in the next year or so, but I'll find out. Meanwhile, the argument I'm hearing now is that the murder rate goes up in states while a moratorium is in effect. I don't know if that's so, but I also don't know what difference it makes. I'd guess it's more coincidence than anything since I doubt there are sufficient numbers to prove any valid statistical correlation there. |
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Mar 28, 2006 3:09:18 GMT -5
Yeah, what difference does it make as long as we are ensure the government is killing off innocent people themselves.
hugggz,
Suzanne
|
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Mar 28, 2006 5:28:27 GMT -5
Dear Suzanne,
If you are in a State that is not going to perform any executions, then a moratorium is not important. Texas is a law of its own and a moratorium would be most important.
I think that ideally a commission and a moratorium would be good for all CP Authorities. However if they can get a commission to look into CP in all of those authorities that would be good; if they can get a moritorium as well that would be the icing on the cake.
I would not decry a commission just because they do not also introduce a moratorium.
We have to take whatever we can get, that does not mean that we have to be happy about what we do not get.
Love and hugs,
Judy
|
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Apr 10, 2006 12:42:40 GMT -5
We have to take whatever we can get, that does not mean that we have to be happy about what we do not get. Spoken like a good lawyer, Judy!  I do think it's important to have some issues that you are willing to give in about, but you also have to have a bottom line beyond which you will not give in an inch. |
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Apr 12, 2006 2:10:16 GMT -5
Exactly. Especially when you are talking about the death penalty. We are talking about lives. Negotiating one life for another? No....lives aren't for negotiation. Don't kill, legally or illegally. That's what abolishing the death penalty is about.
|
|
