No conviction yet? No need to drag this out
Why is the court dragging along, listening to arguments about whether a man ought to have forced medication while he awaits trial?
Why hasn’t that man been convicted already? Witnesses saw him shoot those people in Tucson. He was caught “red-handed” and is guilty of the crimes; this case is closed!
The defendant is not the only citizen with the right to a speedy trial. Give the victims closure.
The justice department doesn’t need to waste time and money on learning why he did it, or what happened in his life. If he, or his attorney, want to prolong anything, let it be the hearings for sentencing. Let them hash it out with the judge alone.
There is no justification for wasting the taxpayers’ resources and the jurors’ time over what is already evident. But there are mucho plenty fees for the lawyers!
Patrick Shepherd
Mesa
bobunf posted at 6:39 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
About a thousand years ago we decided that you couldn't "convict: somebody if they couldn't defend themselves. As the Massachusetts Colony Assembly described it about 600 years later, one who "by the Providence of God, shall fall into distraction, and become Non compos mentis."
If a person can't defend him or herself, he or she can't be convicted.
I don't think this rather elementary principle of law needs to be changed.
sockratties posted at 7:39 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
He’s not going to get the death penalty and he’s not going to get out. He will get life in prison in one form or another. He’s in prison now so what difference does it make? Might as well make sure there are no grounds for a mistrial and minimum grounds for appeals. The lawyers will manage to get all money available sooner or later anyway.
mrconservative posted at 9:47 pm on Sun, Jun 10, 2012.
I agree with Patrick. The crime happened nearly eighteen months ago. Get it over with already! (And I hope that he DOES get the death penalty. No punishment we can give him on earth is even close to what he'll get in hell.)
VofReason posted at 1:11 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
Yet another good reason for the ability to carry firearms for citizens. Sad part is that no one was armed to take care of this nut right then and there. In fact Giffords was a big proponent of the 2nd amendment, that would have been great irony for this guy. Who would have held it against anyone for shooting Loughner dead if they were there when this was going down.
bobunf posted at 4:03 pm on Mon, Jun 11, 2012.
There was someone present with he gun. He didn't use it, but helped tackle Loughner. No Rambo needed.
Dale Whiting posted at 11:42 am on Tue, Jun 12, 2012.
Do any of us believe that Jared Laughner was sane when he pulled the trigger some 30 plus times? No. Do any of us believe that he is sane now? I doubt it. So justice would have us keep Laughner incarserated, forever if necessary. It's called crminal insanity.
Those of us who saw something to do immediately after Laughner acted made suggestions. Mine was to outlaw extended round magazines. But our target shooters would not hear of it. Why not let us talk about that sort of insanity?
VofReason posted at 12:14 pm on Tue, Jun 12, 2012.
Good show Bob and Dale. As good liberals you must deny the fact that true evil exists. Heaven knows his school didn't get enough tax dollars or we didn't have a large enough state program to pay for his mental needs to prevent him from getting to this point. As Captain reality swoops in, he would sclearly point out that any disgruntled nut could claim the same after any ill deed. Nope, someone should have ended this slimes miserable life for causing unfathomable pain on the people he hurt and killed. No need to make him a further drain on taxpayers so liberals can feel good about themselves.
VofReason posted at 12:15 pm on Tue, Jun 12, 2012.
Since Bob and Dale have no skin in the game, wonder what the parents of the little girl who they bnever get to see grow up think? Hmmm?
Dale Whiting posted at 5:34 am on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.
Would killing Laughner make them feel any different? Studies show that it does not! He's incarcerated for life or trial, which ever comes first. And convicting Laughner doesn't change that. Eye for an Eye gives no satisfaction, unless of course you are an American waging war on every nation that doesn't such up to you. Happy Flag Day, VofR!
True evil does exist. It exist in our individual hearts and minds. And when you can't see it in yourself, it is its strongest. Tried you mirror lately?
sockratties posted at 6:16 am on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.
Good and Evil are terms given to actions or conditions after the fact. Criminals commit evil acts. Some people do good things, some people do bad things. When we catch criminals we incarcerate them for safety and then decide on their punishment. If we decide they knew the difference between good and evil then we punish them accordingly. If we decide they didn’t know the difference we declare them “criminally insane” and just keep them locked up for our safety and for theirs. Loughner is currently being treated and evaluated so he can take part in his trial as a defendant. If he is able to participate it will serve to make him able to face his accusers and to be sure he understands the gravity of his crime and the reason for and severity of his punishment. It may also minimize distraction and legal challenges.
sockratties posted at 6:54 am on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.
I have no problem with the death penalty. Perhaps we can use an older method of killing, like the garrote, where you put a rope around someone’s neck and twist a stick tighter and tighter until they stop kicking. That’d be really punishing. Put it on live TV and sell commercial space (good place for those lawyer ads) so it could make money. As soon as executions become popular the conviction rate should sky-rocket and that would cut down on how much prison space we need. Next we can increase profit by including corporal punishment for drug trafficking like many South-Eastern Asian countries and really begin making money. Being in Arizona our legislature will privatize executions and we won’t have to do anything ourselves. Business can sell the guns and ammo, use TV courts (“Judge Reaper” sounds cool) to convict, house the criminals until convicted, execute the criminals and handle disposal of the bodies. All we citizens will have to do is provide the criminals, watch the programs, text in our guilty or innocent vote (texting fees are extra), watch the show and enjoy. It doesn’t get any better than that.
chuckles3 posted at 9:25 am on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.
Trial delays allow lawyer to continue to bill the State(taxpayers) for years and years. This is allowed by judges who used to be lawyers who are appointed by politicians, many of whom used to lawyers.....
bobunf posted at 11:45 pm on Wed, Jun 13, 2012.
Apparently some really don't like the rule of law. And in the US we have that pesky Constitution to contend with:
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Then there's:
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
VofReason posted at 12:03 pm on Thu, Jun 14, 2012.
Yes Dale, I think anyone with any sense that sees a nut shooting people in a Safeway parking lot would come to the conclusion that this needs to stop immediately. For Bob, do you think anyone needed to review the constitution or consider the slimebags frame of mind when he is shooting innocent people down in front of them. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that keeps people thinking they can get away with these things. People who try to make insane excuses for evil actions. I don't know the answer, but I would love to hear anyone who lost a loved one or was hurt that day's thoughts of this guy and the taxpayer paying for his legal fight and subsistance for the next 20 years.