Regarding the death penalty... only 22 people were executed in 2019 and 17 executed in 2020. It's a virtual certainty that most people currently on death row will die of old age before they are executed. Which really begs the question. Why does the U.S. even bother? It makes us look bad, wastes untold hours of court time, and doesn't even happen anyway. Regardless of how you feel about the fairness of the death penalty, it should be ended on practical grounds.
Yes, but we spend millions getting complicated equipment and chemicals, yet like QM said, some people die even before it happens. Hardly anybody is put on it either.
How is it a cake walk he literally talks about how Japanese prisons aren’t violent. Clearly you haven’t been or seen a prison in the us they are extremely violent and guards won’t do anything to stop it.
Just to clear confusion, by "relief" I meant that prisoners view the Death Penalty as an easy way to escape their horrendous crimes. I wasn't attributing it to prison conditions. Sorry for being Vague. US prisons are easy off compared to other places no doubt.
This is a preposterous statement. No lawyer's practice depends on death penalty appeals, except lawyers who have chosen over other options to fight the death penalty on moral grounds. I have been in the law a long time. I've never once heard of a lawyer who depends on death penalty appeals to get rich. The only lawyers who work mostly on death penalty appeals earn a fraction of what they are worth, because they care more about the cause than the money.
Nope, the death penalty saves time and money. Look up how many plea deals happened to take the death penalty (and life on death row) off the table. Also, saying prisoners view the death penalty as a relief is laughable. Life in prison has usually has many benefits over death row, such as time out of cell, commissary, visitation, etc., though these probably vary state by state.
That's a good point @loganite and one I hadn't considered. It is possible that the possibility of the death penalty reduces the amount of total court hours spent arguing murder cases. I withdraw my statement that it wastes court time pending further evidence.
SAVE?! It's much easier and more cost-effective to do it the traditional way, instead of getting scientists to make special substances for it. We already have everything needed in prisons, so it's kind of a waste of time with the death penalty.
Yes, the death penalty's main utility is as a bargaining chip. When there is an ironclad case against a murderer, he has no reason to spare the state a trial unless the death penalty is hanging over his head. If a life sentence is certain, he may as well go to trial. But if conviction at trial brings the threat of the death penalty, he'll be much more likely to plead to life in prison. I'm philosophically opposed to state execution, but the death penalty is a valuable force in plea bargaining.
Proxima - There are two problems with listing a new article as a source. First, they are not experts and only give a snapshot of any situation based on limited research. Have you ever watched a news story on a subject on which you are an expert and noticed how many things they get wrong? Why would you trust they get everything right on a story you know nothing about? Second, news companies do have political biases and report stories through their preferred lens. My response is based on my over 20 years experience working in the American legal system and seeing first hand how it works (and doesn't work).
The family of any person who was killed so horrifically that the death penalty is an option should get that option. If they want it. I don’t care if it never happens, I don’t care how much it costs or practical grounds. Psychologically, if your child, spouse, parent, whoever you love was brutally murdered, you might sleep better knowing that a jury of the perpetrators peers found him unworthy of living.
Technically it only takes one senator to block legislation using a filibuster. Legislation in the Senate (with some exceptions) is given unlimited debate time. Accordingly, a single Senator can hold the floor for debate as long as they want to prevent a final vote on a bill, thereby "blocking" legislation (even if temporarily). Stopping such a filibuster requires ending debate by invoking cloture. A successful cloture motion on a bill normally requires 60 votes in favor. A cloture motion will fail if there are not 60 votes in favor, regardless of how many vote against it (there is a proposal under consideration to change this to requiring 41 votes against instead of 60 votes for, but this has not yet passed). Senators who vote against a cloture motion are technically declining to end debate on a bill; the one Senator is still doing the procedural blocking.
Perhaps a more accurate formulation would be: Q: "How many votes are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate?" A: 60
Happy to snag 13 out of 15. More important, any quiz that has Swearingen as a clue is fabulous, but as the possible answer for an American college? Brilliant!
Wow I only got 3 wrong! Felt more like I would have gotten only 3 right, it felt catastrophic. I guessed nearly all of them
The only ones I knew/ had a strong feeling about were pick-up, fbi, cassowary and whale.
Ow and I did sort of expect to get the defcon right, guess I was counting the wrong way (and it might have still been wrong even then) (My other 2 wrong were the college and horses)
And I am very curious to know which animal the people, that thought the cassowary ran around in the US, thought was not native to the US
https://www.quora.com/What-is-prison-like-in-Japan
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90935&page=1
Perhaps a more accurate formulation would be: Q: "How many votes are needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate?" A: 60
The only ones I knew/ had a strong feeling about were pick-up, fbi, cassowary and whale.
Ow and I did sort of expect to get the defcon right, guess I was counting the wrong way (and it might have still been wrong even then) (My other 2 wrong were the college and horses)
And I am very curious to know which animal the people, that thought the cassowary ran around in the US, thought was not native to the US