• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should there be a "Swift Justice" law

Swift Justice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 15.0%

  • No

    Votes: 17 85.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Jetboogieman

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
35,169
Reaction score
44,117
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people including children on the 22nd of July 2011.

He will be tried through a painfully slow justice system and ultimately will be convicted and spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.

Now normally I'm against the death penalty. But it just seems to me that acts of this nature, extraordinary nature I might add, require extraordinary responses. Its obvious he did it, I don't need a jury or a judge to tell me otherwise.

And its painfully obvious given the barbarity of his crimes, and his depraved reasoning that he has simply forfieted his right to live.

In this case, I believe a summary execution is entirely justified. No need for torture, no fuss, just taken behind the shed and put down.

But he's only one example.

I believe there should be a clause in the justice system for events like this, and for example Loughner, for acts such as this, where its painfully obvious that they're guilty and willfully carried out the actions of their own free will, that they should be summarily executed.

Of course this is a pipe dream, very extreme on my part and I'll be first one to admit it goes against alot of what I believe and it goes against the very fabric that the law is. The law has to apply equally, and at the end of the day, is there truly a moral difference between someone who stabs a woman to death for $130 or shoots a person in cold blood because they believe they're an idealogical enemy...

Not really.

But mass murderers, especially ones like Loughner, and Breivik, don't just wake up one day and decide to committ these acts, they take time, careful consideration, planning and execution, and lets go one step further. For world leaders that committ crimes against their own people. Such as genocide and other maliticous acts. Lets do it to them as well. Milosovec didn't deserve the ICC, he deserved a shot to the back of the head after bring raped with a hot iron for all the attrocities he caused. He carefully planned and executed a campaign of national ethnic cleansing and mass rape that was years in the making and lasted 3 years. The Nazi leaders that were hung deserved their fate for the brutal and systematic slaughter they unleashed...

But again I absolutely and openly admit that its all in the end emotionalism. This whole post is. But when I see Breivik and Loughner being coddled, relatively speaking, given the so much rights and priveledges when its obvious and doesn't even require a judge, jury of investigation that the only priveledge these men gave to anyone was a bullet or a bomb... its enough to boil your blood.
 
Who decides which cases are sufficiently obvious to permit denying due process to the accused? Say it is a judge. What would stop a judge from just declaring half his docket to be that obvious? What could stop a wave of public hysteria from convicting an innocent person that was just disliked for some other reason or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
 
teamosil said:
Who decides which cases are sufficiently obvious to permit denying due process to the accused? Say it is a judge. What would stop a judge from just declaring half his docket to be that obvious? What could stop a wave of public hysteria from convicting an innocent person that was just disliked for some other reason or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Click to expand...

The obvious flaw in my reasoning.

I'm well aware.
 
teamosil said:
Who decides which cases are sufficiently obvious to permit denying due process to the accused? Say it is a judge. What would stop a judge from just declaring half his docket to be that obvious? What could stop a wave of public hysteria from convicting an innocent person that was just disliked for some other reason or in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Click to expand...

Ever hear of appellate court? I doubt Jet is talking capture to execution in a week or two, but let's face it - some criminals fall well beyond the realm of "reasonable doubt".

What we need to do is, instead of having up to 7 appeals (which will end up costing more than the price of putting a man in prison for the rest of his natural life), shorten it down to 1 appeal. If two competent judges say you should die, you're dead.

And you know what will stop a judge from doing that? His job.
 
The law is the law. If the death penalty is allowed for cases in which you approve of it, it is a matter of certainty that it will be applied in cases in which you disapprove of it.

As much as I believe in the death penalty, and I believe in it a lot, I believe in due process more.
 
Gipper said:
Ever hear of appellate court?
Click to expand...

You can't have an appeal before you have a trial. That's what appeals are for- to determine if the trial was fair. Without a trial there would be nothing to appeal and no basis for the appellate court to rule on.

Gipper said:
I doubt Jet is talking capture to execution in a week or two, but let's face it - some criminals fall well beyond the realm of "reasonable doubt".
Click to expand...

Everybody agrees with that statement, but how do you determine who is "beyond the realm of reasonable doubt" without a trial? Just gut instinct? The random draw of a judge?

Gipper said:
What we need to do is, instead of having up to 7 appeals (which will end up costing more than the price of putting a man in prison for the rest of his natural life), shorten it down to 1 appeal. If two competent judges say you should die, you're dead.
Click to expand...

Most cases only get one appeal. I'm not sure where you're getting 7 from.

The way it works in both the state and federal systems is that you have trial courts, which hear the actual evidence and witnesses and whatnot. Then there are appeals courts- for example the circuit courts in the federal system. Appeals courts are required to hear any appeal, so every defendant can have at least one appeal if they believe there was something wrong in their initial trial. In 99% of cases, that is the end of the road. Supreme courts are not required to hear all appeals, they just pick the cases that they think warrant another review from all those that apply for a second round of review. Usually that is less than 1% of cases that they decide to hear, and usually it is because they think the appeals court got something wrong or two appeals courts disagree over a particular legal point and they want to clarify it.
 
In capital offenses, it's up to 7. And just look at the case he mentioned. There is no doubt the man did it. The only possible defenses would be centered around mens rea - I know how schiesters love to use the insanity plea. Fortunately, I think they'll cutting down on that being a legitimate defense.
 
"Justice" is blind and must stay that way.
"Swift justice" = vigilantism = lynchings (innocent or not, this does not matter)...
But our criminal justice does need improvement, which I am certain the conservatives will try to block.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Anders Behring Breivik killed 77 people including children on the 22nd of July 2011.

He will be tried through a painfully slow justice system and ultimately will be convicted and spend the rest of his natural life behind bars.

Now normally I'm against the death penalty. But it just seems to me that acts of this nature, extraordinary nature I might add, require extraordinary responses. Its obvious he did it, I don't need a jury or a judge to tell me otherwise.

And its painfully obvious given the barbarity of his crimes, and his depraved reasoning that he has simply forfieted his right to live.

In this case, I believe a summary execution is entirely justified. No need for torture, no fuss, just taken behind the shed and put down.

But he's only one example.

I believe there should be a clause in the justice system for events like this, and for example Loughner, for acts such as this, where its painfully obvious that they're guilty and willfully carried out the actions of their own free will, that they should be summarily executed.

Of course this is a pipe dream, very extreme on my part and I'll be first one to admit it goes against alot of what I believe and it goes against the very fabric that the law is. The law has to apply equally, and at the end of the day, is there truly a moral difference between someone who stabs a woman to death for $130 or shoots a person in cold blood because they believe they're an idealogical enemy...

Not really.

But mass murderers, especially ones like Loughner, and Breivik, don't just wake up one day and decide to committ these acts, they take time, careful consideration, planning and execution, and lets go one step further. For world leaders that committ crimes against their own people. Such as genocide and other maliticous acts. Lets do it to them as well. Milosovec didn't deserve the ICC, he deserved a shot to the back of the head after bring raped with a hot iron for all the attrocities he caused. He carefully planned and executed a campaign of national ethnic cleansing and mass rape that was years in the making and lasted 3 years. The Nazi leaders that were hung deserved their fate for the brutal and systematic slaughter they unleashed...

But again I absolutely and openly admit that its all in the end emotionalism. This whole post is. But when I see Breivik and Loughner being coddled, relatively speaking, given the so much rights and priveledges when its obvious and doesn't even require a judge, jury of investigation that the only priveledge these men gave to anyone was a bullet or a bomb... its enough to boil your blood.
Click to expand...
I agree 99.99%
Good improvements - should be enacted - now!
 
Negatory. You would increase the number of these incidents if the perps knew that they would be quickly executed. Turning the weapon on yourself, or suicide by Cop requires pain. Those that can't do that need to sit in an 8'x5' cage for 10-15 years before being executed. It's part of the punishment. One hour a day in the dog walk, 23 hours a day in the cage.
 
I get that and all, but on the taxpayer's dime? I'd rather just take them out back and bill their next of kin for the bullet.
 
Gipper said:
In capital offenses, it's up to 7.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're talking about. That certainly isn't the normal process- the only courts above a district court are the appeals court and the supreme court, so I'm not sure where those other appeals would go even... Can you explain or provide a source?

Gipper said:
And just look at the case he mentioned. There is no doubt the man did it. The only possible defenses would be centered around mens rea - I know how schiesters love to use the insanity plea. Fortunately, I think they'll cutting down on that being a legitimate defense.
Click to expand...

It's one of those "worst system except all the others" things. Yeah, due process is a pain sometimes, but the alternative is tyranny, so obviously that's worse, right? You can't just let judges convict whoever they want of whatever they want without any evidence just because they say they're real sure...
 
I dont see the benefit of a new law....no matter how long his trial takes he will be behind bars....much like casey anthony who was imprisoned for over two years leading up to and including her trial
Aside from that your own mentioned flaw...who decides which case goes on fasttrack
 
There is an assumption here that the death penalty, assuming that it is not done via torture, is in his judgment, less desirable that being held in some prison. Killing him makes him a martyr for his type, held in prison not so much. For his ‘safety’ he could be held in solitary confinement and receive other ‘protections’. Think about the one you want to punish, not yourself, when you want harshness.
 
Last edited:
In what universe can a mass-murderer be eligible for martyrdom?
 
Unfortunately there are others that think like him. And fewer that are in ideological alignment. And a smaller number, but not zero, that think the action he took is correct.
 
Gipper said:
Ever hear of appellate court? I doubt Jet is talking capture to execution in a week or two, but let's face it - some criminals fall well beyond the realm of "reasonable doubt".

What we need to do is, instead of having up to 7 appeals (which will end up costing more than the price of putting a man in prison for the rest of his natural life), shorten it down to 1 appeal. If two competent judges say you should die, you're dead.

And you know what will stop a judge from doing that? His job.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think the stronger the evidence the less appeals you get.If they got you on video shooting people then no appeals and an immediate trip the electric chair,gas chamber, lethal injection room or in some states a firing squad after a guilty conviction. It should not take 10-20 years to execute someone.
 
I don't see the point. Nothing that happens to this man will make the situation better.
 
Not introducing him back into public would probably make the situation better.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Negatory. You would increase the number of these incidents if the perps knew that they would be quickly executed. Turning the weapon on yourself, or suicide by Cop requires pain. Those that can't do that need to sit in an 8'x5' cage for 10-15 years before being executed. It's part of the punishment. One hour a day in the dog walk, 23 hours a day in the cage.
Click to expand...
This is a pathetic attempt at revenge, not justice..
The mass murderer was/is insane, as difficult as this is - we must learn from them in order to prevent future occurrences.
Some good can possibly come from this.....
 
OH COME ON! There is NOTHING to learn from him other than some people do not deserve to live. Do you think you're going to dissect his brain and find the "psycho gene"?

I swear, you give one voice to the "all prisoners can be rehabilitated" crowd, and it snowballs to bullcrap like this.
 
Gipper said:
OH COME ON! There is NOTHING to learn from him other than some people do not deserve to live. Do you think you're going to dissect his brain and find the "psycho gene"?
Click to expand...

If we were actually discussing dissecting death row inmates for research purposes, I'd be adopting an entirely different position.
 
Yeah, I suppose I could allow for that. Might as well be more useful in death than you were in life.

I mean, we're talking real needle-in-a-haystack chances of finding anything worthwhile, but it'll employ some neurologists and MEs while still killing those who need to die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom