The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. The state does not. I agree that legal proceedings shouldn’t be drawn out unnecessarily, but other than delays due to courts being overloaded, there’s usually good reason for these things taking a while. Sometimes it takes too long (decades). Sometimes that’s the defendant’s fault. Sometimes that’s the state’s fault. But I’d rather it take too long than have it be rushed.
I agree with having a high standard for death penalty cases - some of them these days are quite convincing and have things like DNA evidence, etc., that make it a true certainty. Even in cases where the convicted WANTS the death penalty, we have mandatory appeals and such that stretch it out years.
But wasn’t there a recent issue with some official lying about test results in trials? And I seem to recalll some questions about the validity of things like the science of bite marks or something along those lines.
Not disagreeing totally, merely pointing out that we always seem certain about this stuff right up to the point where we realize what has occurred.
The rapist or murderer should receive no mercy and once proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt they should be eliminated. The liberals want to criticize the execution method but perhaps we should first get them so high they don't care and then euthanize them by the easiest and most effective method. But only after they vote.
Just a minor clarification that doesn't have much to do with your point, but the standard is not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Beyond a shadow of a doubt would be an impossible standard, there's the possibility, however remote that bigfoot could have committed the crime then disappeared. However unlikely, you can't really prove that COULDN'T have happened. But it certainly ain't reasonable.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt would be an impossible standard, there's the possibility, however remote that bigfoot could have committed the crime then disappeared. However unlikely, you can't really prove that COULDN'T have happened. But it certainly ain't reasonable.
That is an interesting subject, and I've kinda looked into it in the past as death comes with loss of blood to the brain. When the head is removed in a precise manner, there are many reports out there of people's facial expressions changing, eyes blinking while the head is laying in a basket.
Here is a little more:
Scientists conducted gruesome studies on the heads of the condemned.
From the very beginning of its use, speculation abounded over whether the heads of the guillotined remained conscious after being cut off. The debate reached new heights in 1793, when an assistant executioner slapped the face of one of his victims’ heads and spectators claimed to see its cheeks flush in anger. Doctors later asked the condemned to try to blink or leave one eye open after their execution to prove they could still move, and others yelled the deceased’s name or exposed their heads to candle flames and ammonia to see if they would react. In 1880, a doctor named Dassy de Lignieres even had blood pumped into the head of a guillotined child murderer to find out if it would come back to life and speak. The ghastly experiments were put to a stop in the 20th century, but studies on rats have since found that brain activity may continue for around four seconds after decapitation.
https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-guillotine
I was a kill em all and let God sort em out when the death penalty was concerned, but I've mellowed considerably after following some cases where the defendants were railroaded on to death row by over zealous county prosecutors looking to put another win into their resume for future political gain.
Oklahoma has had Joyce Gilchrist and Bob Macy as prime examples of corruption in office that put innocent people in jail and on death row.
Other prosecutors have sent people to death row like in the book "The innocent man" written by John Grisham. These poor guys were within hours of their execution when they were finally released because of their innocence. Their lives and families were ruined for political gain by the county prosecutor who even remained in office afterward, and I think one committed suicide because he couldn't handle it, but I stand to be corrected on that.
DNA is exonerating people all over the US from our flawed justice system.
It was listed in the last post on page 1.
Fun fact, the last use of a guillotine (and beheading in the western world) was the public execution of a convicted murderer
In France, 1977. Hoddy is right, there were extensive studies done on whether it was an instant death or not, and the conclusion at the time was that it is not. What a cool way to go though. Imagine losing your head but having the presence of mind to think 'Well, s**t.'
Parts of this study were done in some gruesome manners too. Even to see if you could keep the brain alive long enough to reattach a head to a transplanted body. While it wasn't confirmed it was tested on humans, it did show some crazy results on a few dogs.
Lol, that's not even remotely possible.
Flushing, reddening of the cheeks, etc. is cause by increased blood flow to the area. That's not gonna happen once the head is disconnected from the blood supply, and what little blood remains is steadily draining out the neck.
Just my miserly two cents.
Similar threads
