Perhaps I’ll join Greybat in the corner…

Sure you did.

Hey I thought I said to stop being mean to me because I’m part Irish. Some people I’m distantly related to have really suffered, you know!

But if you’re offering… the bathtub thing, I mean.. can I watch? Just want to make sure you forget your scruples and grab the phone.

Thanks for the info.

But since it is federal legislation, that still may mean that the death penalty option is still on the table in all states, unless Kennedy’s amendment says specifically that state prohibition of the death penalty takes precedence.

And I doubt the federal government would give away their authority like that. For one thing, it makes for very messy law.

No. Jesus, you’re slow. A federal penitentiary isn’t considered state property, even if it’s located inside of a state. Even if a state facility were used by the feds to carry out the death penalty, it’s NOT forcing a state to carry out the death penalty as the federal government is doing it, not the state. It is not possible for the state prosecutor to request the death penalty in states in which the death penalty are not possible sentences.

It doesn’t matter if the word possible isn’t there…LOL! Read again, you’re not comprehending. it’s like slapping a retard–you just end up hating yourself at the end.

Except that the amendment says nothing of the sort. The word “possible” isn’t there at all, clearly (as you say), or even in smudged ink.

And your assumption about that punishment not being possible in non-death penalty jurisdictions is false.

I doubt you even read it before you wrote that.

How long do you intend to keep this up?
I’m getting tired of you running in circles, and I am sure everyone else is wishing we would just get a room.

Also, this is a non-argument at this point because Kennedy led an amendment to the bill that allows the state to decide when to use the death penalty in the case of a hate crime. So, basically, this got watered down to turning a hate crime into a specialized murder status. That doesn’t mean it is universally applied. It means that (I’ll use Ohio for an example although I know the process doesn’t work like this everywhere) the jury gets to deliberate separately from the verdict on rather the case warrants the death penalty if it has a special circumstance. They then give that opinion to the judge and the judge makes the final ruling but in the vast majority of cases the judge sides with the jury. So, in Ohio, if you commit a crime that is deemed by the jury as being worth the death penalty and meets the special circumstances then you will receive the death penalty only after it is oked by the judge.

Since 1976, the “racially biased death penalty” in Ohio has been used on 11 blacks and 20 whites.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.or.....cutionrace

Also, you guys act like the simple act of murder warrants the death penalty which is not the case at all. There are lists in each state of aggravating circumstances that have to be met and weighed against mitigating circumstances. Normally, when someone actually makes it to the point where they get the death penalty its not their first murder or it was completely heinous. Hell, Jessee Davis (who killed his wife while she was still pregnant with his at term baby which would have lived if born) didn’t get the death penalty although he killed his own child while it was still in its mothers womb by killing its mother in front of his other child.

This is 100% true. In that case, it would take a federal prosecution, federal sentencing and federal facility to carry it out (likely), you idiot.

I never said that the state law would trump the federal law.

I think anyone reading that would come to the conclusion that you believe states could be forced to carry out the death penalty even if they didn’t carry it. That’s simply not true.

But it does bring the death penalty back into those states, albeit under federal jurisdiction. I said nothing about state law being forced to change.

And your claims that state law would trump the federal death penalty (#76 #79) are false.

I hear you, but as slim as that chance is it is definitely a poison pill for some who don’t want to see the death penalty brought back into states where it has been outlawed.

Now this is what you wrote…and it’s a pretty clear claim that you thought it would be forcing states which don’t have the death penalty to carry it out. That’s not the case.

You might want to visit Canada sometime, you might even learn how to read English, and pick up a few manners.

You know I did not say that, and despite your ravings everyone reading this can also see for themselves what I actually wrote.

They can also compare your claims about the amendment with what it actually contains.

That would a be a federal charge, a fedederal prosecution and federal sentence in, likely, a federal facility. That is not forcing any state to carry out the death penalty. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not “state property,” and it’s certainly not subject to “state law”.

*sigh*

http://www.queerty.com/shock-d.....ent-195966

It would be a federal case, not a state case. The state would not be handling the prosecution or the execution. That would be at a federal facility.

Good sentiment, and I agree with it in theory.

But you don’t have to read too far in here to see there’s not much in the way of solidarity and common ideals. Quite the opposite, actually.

For instance, I am completely opposed to the death penalty.

We may share a narrow set of experience and oppression, but beyond that there is no “fold” whatsoever, nor is there even a common strategy for how to deal with that oppression.

On the contrary, there are plenty in here who are more focused on attacking anyone who does not think exactly like them, rather than accepting the fact that we have differences.

Thanks for the clarification.

Perhaps your word will be good enough, since I presume you are an American, and not one of us foreigners who don’t know anything.

You are basing your interpretation on this blog and newspaper articles – not the actual text of the amendment.

The amendment states nothing at all about the word “POSSIBLE”; it does not appear in the text.
All of the conditions have to do with the nature of the crime, and there is nothing concerning the state in which it is committed.

The Sessions amendment concerning the death penalty can be found partway down this page:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....hNi:e80022:

It’s SA #1615.

Now I am no lawyer, but there is nothing in that text about state law at all, and certainly nothing about a death sentence being dependent on a state’s use of the death penalty.

As near as I can tell (and if there’s a lawyer in the house it would be good to get a professional opinion) there is nothing in the legislation to prevent a person from being executed simply because the crime was committed in a non-death penalty state.

Here’s that chapter 228 the amendment refers to, FYI:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/us.....0_228.html

Nothing in there either, except that the federal government MAY use a state facility for execution if it wishes.

Sessions’s two other amendments – 1616 and 1617, are also there.

I’m not disputing that. You’re not understanding. I stated, and clearly, that the death penalty addition states POSSIBLE punishment for a hate crime, and in state where that is not permissable, that punishment is not possible. And who cares? I’m a supporter of the death penalty.

Read the first line in the main article:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/deat.....id=1101082

No, that’s not true anymore than it is right now for people convicted of federal hate crimes in states which don’t allow the death penalty. You’re canadian. Fuck off.