And who would decide which cases are 'clear cut'?
I gave two examples... seems pretty easy when a killing is witnessed by many, in broad day light or positively identified by a survivor, or even admitted to the crime. Wouldn't you think?
After all if there is oversight over which cases are clear cut or not then you will just get a completly different set of appeals. Also just try thinking this though - you would end up with 'guilty' 'not guilty' and 'clear cut'. If it is not 'clear cut' why are the guily being sent to be killed?
Where did I say I'd deny anyone their day in court? Let the jury decide. If it's death, there are degrees. Murder in the first degree is pretty clear cut IMO, so what's the issue? Not second, not third, not manslaughter. I'm not advocating the death penalty in the case of an accident, self defense, etc. If I walked up to you and put a gun barrel to your forehead, pulled the trigger, in the middle of the street on a sunny day, for no good reason other than to watch you die or take your wallet, I should expect the consequences for my actions and swiftly at that, not 20 years later after playing on some bleating heart liberal to save me from my fate.. Stop putting your own words between the lines and reading them out as liker they were implied.
Oh, that's right, for the most of the left only fetuses qualify.
An offesive comment which had no reason to be said, nothing to back it up and nothing to do with the issue(s) at hand,
Offensive to who? The people that openly condone that while sparing (adult) murderers? Of course it has a reason to be said. You champion the the guilty and ignore the innocent. A life is a life, we are talking guilty and innocent correct (3700 per day in the US alone if your interested, sorry no list of names for you http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)? So, I'm not bothered one bit if you were offended. Are you bothered that I'm annoyed at the hypocrisy? I thought so.
Anyway. Here's are some stats for you, I'm sure they won't be as "good" for you because it is not in line with your thinking. All the same:
"Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Of the offenders with prior felony records, the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.
The bureau also reported 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony."
I'm sure your list in a side by side comparison would pale next to 15 percent of the prison population even if only one 10th of a percent of the 15% were prior murders.
Slightly OT: Here's an interesting one (not murder specific, but repeat offenders) concerning Canada thought I'd pass it on.