Which means that both these guys can plead guilty, spare everyone a trial and go away for life without the possibility of parole.[/quote]

To which my initial reaction is, “Smashing, let’s go for it”. As long as those two are never going to walk free again, I see no reason to turn them into celebrities in what will most likely (based on CT’s record with the death penalty) be the long involved process of *not* killing them.

Thanks for the answer, I wasn’t clear on whether non-capital murder carried the possibility of parole. Looks like it does not.

There is no parole for someone convicted of murder.

So yes, they can charge a capital felony but not seek the death penalty.

Which means that both these guys can plead guilty, spare everyone a trial and go away for life without the possibility of parole.

Some background: I am from Cheshire and knew the Petit family quite well, especially the girls. I am also against the death penalty, for a number of reasons that aren’t really germane here. I was nevertheless glad to hear that Komisarjevsky and Hayes were going to be charged with capital murder, because in capital murder cases where the death penalty is *not* imposed, there’s a mandatory sentence of life without parole. And to put it simply, the idea that the people who did this might someday ever get out of jail seemed obscene.

I’m still against the death penalty, although should either of those two end up being executed don’t expect to see me on the protest lines. I’m just wondering if there’s a mechanism by which the prosecutor’s office can decide not to seek the death penalty (for whatever reason) but still have the case proceed under the capital statue because it meets the legal definition of capital murder. Or does the decision not to seek the death penalty automatically downgrade the prosecution to a “vanilla” murder one charge, without the mandatory minimum?

And thank God nobody ever confesses falsely.

If you and your friends got together, you might have the power to take my stuff and my life; the government has the power to confiscate our freedom, our property, and our lives. In neither case would we say that the more powerful entity has the right to harm the less.

Society does not have the right to extract income taxes (in fact, in Texas the constitution forbids income taxes); it does, however, have the power. Similarly, it doesn’t have the right to tell us what side of the street to drive on, and it doesn’t have the right to kill any of us.

So, in part, you’re on the right track. Society (whatever that is — the corporate body of people, or government) has the power to kill individuals. But not, as to its victims, the right.

I think society is the wrong word for what I understand you to be trying to express since the only thing outside of society is the individual. The courts are part of the government (society’s expression of its will), as much as the legislative and executive branches. So when you say “society has the right” I assume that you mean society has the right as to an individual. If what you really meant was that the states have rights as to the federal government, I might well agree.

What I’ve argued is that the states do have the power to impose mandatory death sentences and that Woodson was an illegitimate grab by the Supreme Court. To the extent I am right, the people’s right to govern themselves has been diminished.