WE NEED JUDGES LIKE ROY BEAN LOVE THIS.

The Hats · Senior Member

WE NEED JUDGES LIKE ROY BEAN LOVE THIS.

Dougwe · Chief one feather

Geez Ron, why should the vultures suffer as well?

dorian · Guru

Truth is stranger than fiction.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean

"In 1848, the two brothers opened a trading post in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Soon after, Roy Bean shot and killed a Mexican desperado who had threatened "to kill a gringo." To escape being charged with murder by Mexican authorities, Roy and Sam Bean fled west to Sonora."

"In 1854, Bean courted a young lady, who was subsequently kidnapped and forced to marry a Mexican officer. Bean challenged the groom to a duel and killed him. Six of the dead man's friends put Bean on a horse and tied a noose around his head, then left him to hang. The horse did not bolt, and after the men left, the bride, who had been hiding behind a tree, cut the rope. Bean was left with a permanent rope burn on his neck and a permanent stiff neck."

"Langtry did not have a jail, so all cases were settled by fines. Bean refused to send the state any part of the fines, but instead kept all of the money. In most cases, the fines were made for the exact amount in the accused's pockets. Bean is known to have sentenced only two men to hang, one of whom escaped. Horse thieves, who were often sentenced to death in other jurisdictions, were always let go if the horses were returned."

D and D · Guru

So true, Dorian. Truth is also stranger than assumption (which may also be considered as fiction) as is the case when assuming that the death penalty is a deters people from committing capital crimes - www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

03_troopy · Guru

Well at least it assures they won't repeat the crime....

dorian · Guru

I know firsthand that people do assess the deterrent value of penalties before they decide whether or not to commit murder. In order to win a custody battle, a former neighbour tormented his wife till she committed suicide. It turned out that a decision granting her custody of their child was delivered the day following her death. One of her brothers went to the man's house with the intent to kill him, while the other came to me for help. He confessed that he had considered killing the man himself, reasoning that, if caught, he would be out of jail within 10 years. He only decided against it after assessing the impact on his dependants.

On another occasion I was told by someone who had been defrauded of his life's savings during the GFC that he had considered paying a terminally ill person to kill the offender. Obviously the idea was that people who have nothing to lose would not be deterred by any penalty, however severe. That's why suicide bombers are so dangerous. In fact the Israelis have attempted to counter this problem by imposing penalties on the bomber's relatives. AIUI, the bomber's house or parents' house is demolished.

BTW, I don't care about the deterrent value of penalties. I just want to see justice done. I don't believe that any penitentiary has ever really "corrected" anyone. An eye for an eye, I say.

That said, I am a democrat, first and foremost. The idea that politicians should be allowed a conscience vote on issues such as the death penalty and euthanasia is repulsive to me. I don't want any lawyer, or property developer, or union hack to make moral judgments on my behalf. I'll do the thinking, they can do the representing. That's what being a member of the House of Representatives entails. If 80% of voters want the death penalty, then that's how it should be. No debate necessary.