The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

T2,

Drew is right. If you execute on a date and don't allow for appeals on the 'express lane' you set a double standards for criminals. A thief could appeal until exhausted, but a murderer is to be killed and thus limited in pursuit of his appeals? At the risk of executing the wrong guy? Both could be innocent and wrongfully convicted. The impression I get is that you want the death penalty, and you want it fast, never mind the legal system. So just make special rules that 'break the system' (which usually implies that they are illegal or unconstitutional), like the 'express lane', in an attempt to achieve this end. Does the end justify the means?

The crime you're accused and perhaps convicted for of determines your procedural rights after the verdict? Yeah? The arbitrary double standard aside, your view leaves no room for error, I can only repeat that.

Also, what I see in your argument is the apparently positivist view that a verdict has to be executed just because it is a verdict, never mind possible flaws. I can see room for such a view in 'averting of a danger' scenarios, where threats are imminent and are to be countered NOW to prevent harm - there is no time for deliberations - but not in criminal law, after the fact. In criminal law, in trial, you have the guy in jail, at your disposal, he threatens no more, and you have all the time in the world to deliberate whether you got him there wrongly or rightly. There is no rush.

Also, and that is quite ironic, you trust a jury to decide rightly once, but as soon as appeals are concerned the whole legal system apparently becomes corrupt, gets bogged down in delay, becomes flawed, a sham with sleazy lawyers and liberal anti-death-penalty activists interfering and delaying the delivery of swift punishment? This view would be highly inconsistent. If appeals are so flawed, why trust in the initial trial? Curiously, your distrust doesn't extend to the first stage? So the legal system is apparently broken, and can't to be relied on - especially as far as death penalty and executions are concerned - but instead of reforming it as a whole to fix that, there is only fiddling about rules for faster executions? That's just silly. I tell you this: It ain't that easy to get an appeal. If appeal is permissible there have been flaws in trial. You do want them being addressed, do you? You're comfortable with the possibility of killing an innocent for the sake of the death penalty being swiftly delivered?

 

Are they not still human?

Gnarfflinger, I may be reading you wrong, but this is looking increasingly like revenge. Retaliation is not justice.

 

A few comments....

Ragusa: I trust the post office (my sister is a Postmaster) -- so don't use sweeping generalities, it's a poor way to argue and I expect better arguments from you. I trust the justice system even though there are mistakes and it's a bit slow sometimes. I don't trust a government agency to make humane decisions (the people in the positions might, but too often their hands are tied by the bureaucracy).

There are two competing trains of thought about justice: It is better to have the occasional guilty man set free than have an innocent man imprisoned -- versus -- it is better to imprison the occasional innocent man than allow guilty men free. You appear to believe the first, I believe the latter. And I include the death penalty in that belief.

As far as capital punishment is concerned it really comes down to whether or not the death penalty is a deterent. It is not a deterent for everyone, but I believe it IS a deterent for some. IMO it is better to execute the most heinous as an example.

There is a rush -- it's called the Sixth Amendment. If the prosecutor takes too long, the murderer goes free.

Drew (and Ragusa): I agree, we need to speed up the appeals process. I believe capital cases should have a priority AND that capital criminals need to have good defense attorneys assigned pro bono. I think the biggest reason innocent men are convicted is substandard representation for the poor. The system HAS to change, but it needs to be forced into that direction.

I believe there should be specific guidelines for capital punishment to include the weight of evidence, gravity of the crime, number of victims, etc.. I personally believe anyone who would murder IS mentally unstable and so there should be no "not guilty due to mental defect" defense allowed.

Once again, the only reason for the death penalty is deterence. It is not revenge or punishment of the individual -- capital punishment is used to influence other people's behavior (much like terrorism ... there are very close parallels here). If it doesn't prevent some killings on some level, the death penalty should be abolished. I believe it does work, so I support it.

 

Going back to the UK, here's some facts and figures:

There is a greater "punishment" than a life sentence, known as a "whole life sentence" in the UK, where the prisoner won't ever get released.

There are a total of 35 people on "whole life" sentences in the UK (Comparing to over 30,000 in the US). Two of these were given their sentences last month. The "Whole lifers" are almost exclusively multiple muderers.

Muderers with life sentences (Averaging about 15 years imprsonment), raise the figures to just under 5000. Surprisingly (or not) England and Wales have more prisoners serving "life" than the rest of the EU combined (Data from end of 2002).

 

T2,
as far as mail delivery is concerned I relied on what I heard. No offence.

We're talking death penalty. That means it is about killing the occasional innocent man than letting a guilty men live.

Would you be willing to let one of your relatives, erroneously accused and sentenced for murder, pay that price? Tragically he died for his country. I know you served in the military. Would it be like losing a family member serving in the military to friendly fire? Not quite, I think. Imagine yourself caught in the grinder of the legal system. Would you willingly accept death because even though innocent - your death would be good for the system? I don't say that to taunt you, but to give the problem a face. It must appear remote, after all there are just very few murderers compared to the entire population, but can we in a nutshell ask from every citizen to be ready to sacrifice themselves for the country? Like in Sparta?

And with all the time in the world I of course meant a reasonable time frame. I think, that irrespective of the verdict being about time or death, the procedural rights for everyone accused of a crime - no matter the eventual verdict - are the same because they are an expression of the individual rights enshrined in the legal system.

 

The only problem with that thought is our legal system, with its presumption of inncence, is set up to operate under the first set of criteria. I cannot tell you what to believe, but that's not the way the system operates. And of further note, perhaps in philosophy there are two competing trains of thought about justice, but in practice, only one is implemented. Our country, and most other western democracies use the first. So there really aren't two completing trains of thought.

You're kidding me right? You are not seriously using that arguement. I cannot ever recall that an accused murderer was allowed to go free because the legal system moved too slowly. I don't think it's occured in my lifetime. For those unfamiliar, here's the 6th Amdendment from the Bill of Rights:

The bold was added by me, as I think that is the specific part you were referencing. While it doesn't specifically say that they get to go free, it does guarantee the right to a speedy trial. However, there is no definition of what speedy is, and I cannot ever recall someone being released (much less someone accused of murder) because it took too long to set a date for the trial. The reason there is usually a fairly long delay between the arrest and the trial is to allow both the prosecutors and the defense teams time to prepare for the trial. To say there's a rush because of the 6th amendment, we should also point out that the court system shouldn't forget to pick a jury, or forget to tell the accused what charges are being brought against him. When was the last time any of these things have happened? Sorry, but it is not a particularly convincing line of arguement - at least not for me.

 

I always find the 'what if a member of your family' argument to be a bit overboard.

The majority of murderers on death row had numerous problems with the law. There is usually a history of violent behaviour. No one in my family meets that description, nor would I have anything to do with them if they were such violent miscreants.

People are judged by their past actions -- that may not be fair, but that's the way it is. Rodney King is a great example. He didn't deserve to be beaten, but he was a known PCP user with a violent record -- had he not had a history of violence, and not been high at the time, it is unlikely he would have been treated as harshly.

This is true for the entire justice system (throughout the world). A good person, who support the community and stays out of legal trouble is rarely targetted by the police for crimes. Known criminals are looked at more closely. If evidence points to a known criminal, the police are all over the person -- based on choices that individual made in their life. Why should I feel sorry for a violent criminal who get wrongly convicted?

Aldeth: Even murderers are granted the right to a fair and speedy trial. The Supreme Court has set some fairly specific guidelines. I've heard of cases waiting 17 years to go to trial -- but those have extremely unusual circumstances (such as the defendant being unfit to stand trial). In an interesting case US v MacDonald the Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the indictment of a man who had killed his wife and children on grounds of failure to provide a speedy trial. Fortunately, the Supreme Court reversed that ruling. They stated basically there is a requirement for a speedy trial, but this case did not violate that.

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. I do agree with your comment about closing the case and letting a guilty person go free. But I'm still not going to feel guilty about keeping a violent criminal in prison and off the streets -- I would rather have the correct violent person put away.

 

What I don't like is a view that holds that crime accusations always hits the right guys, and even more so if they anyway have a bad record. Indeed, more often than not that's true.

Still, the cases I have in mind are those where some guy is, his record non withstanding, being sentenced for a crime he did not commit. For that his record is utterly irrelevant. Either he is guilty now, or he is innocent. What he did in the past has no bearing on that very clear distinction at all. The guys exonerated through DNA evidence by the innocence project have largely been guys with a bad record, just that they didn't commit the crime they have been sentenced for - they may have traded with drugs, be thieves or whatever - just not murderers - that is important.

That they are or have been 'bad guys' doesn't mean they're free game and that they all only deserve what they get, and if they didn't deserve exactly that it still hits the right guy. That is not what the law sais.

The system can be perverted in very serious ways. Think of the legal travesty of the Don Siegelman case, where the prosecutor's have not only selectively accused, but also withheld exonerating evidence, and where the judge apparently still is colluding with the prosecution.

 

I believe a person's past actions are completely relevant. I know that's not always the case in a legal proceeding. The guys found innocent due to recent advances in DNA testing -- how do you KNOW they are not murderers (once again, an absolute in your argument). One of this nation's most notorious murderers was convicted of tax fraud, people are not always in jail for the most fitting crime. Due process works. There are glitches in the process -- damn the bad luck if you're one of the glitches.

Legal travesty of the Don Seigelman case is your personal opinion. But then, that could be because the name Rove is associated with the prosecution.

 

Not only is that not alway the case in a trial, unless the defendant's prior record is somehow relevant to the current case, the defendant's prior record is usually inadmissible in court.

 

I think past history of violence should always be admissible in a case involving violence.

Aldeth, to continue with your (much) earlier post...

You made good points and I really can't find an example where the courts have actually let a murderer off -- it's come close (and I did reference that in my comment, US v MacDonald). A lot of drug dealers and other assorted scum have been let off. I am one of those extremist who equate drug dealers with murderers.

I believe there are many cases where evidence was just not quite there for a conviction and so arrests were delayed -- this could be fears from either the 4th or 6th amendment. Certainly, Ted Bundy in Utah falls into this category. He was the prime suspect, they were watching him and he still committed another murder in the area (and many more afterwards).

 

Well, you'll be happy to know that drug dealers is one area where you WILL see evidence from prior convictions be allowed in court. Most drug dealers package their drugs in very specific ways and use very specific drug paraphernalia in the packaging process. It is unlikely that two drug dealers in the same area use exactly identical methods. So if you had prior convictions in which you distributed your drugs in a specific manner, and then the current case has you doing the exact same thing, then they will allow that as evidence.

However, I think you are saying that any past history of violence should be allowed, and it typically isn't. If a guy had a prior conviction on a burglary charge, that likely isn't going to be admissible if he is later charged with a murder. (Perhaps if he had previously been convicted of murdering someone, THAT would be admissible, but there aren't too many people who are convicted of murder, do their time, get out, and murder again.)

 

Give them appeals --the same appeals anyone else gets -- if the grounds for appeal are valid, but if the appeals are overturned or disallowed then kill the buggers. There are cases where the guilt is beyond doubt -- the criminal admits it, the evidence is overwhelming (I am here thinking of the Paul Bernardo case here in Canada wherein the guy TAPED HIMSELF raping and killing two (or was it three?) young girls -- the jury saw the tapes. 'Nuff said) and where keeping the criminal in line is a severe insult to the memory of the victims and the loss suffered by their family and friends. The world would definitely be better off without Bernardo and his ilk, and anyone who says that his life (or the lives of those guilty of similar crimes) has value has absolutely no influence on me. I cannot take that argument seriously. Killing him would free up but one cell but it would be a good start.

 

If the only reason we use capital punishment is because it serves as a deterrent, we may as well just quit using it. In keeping with previous years, the 2006 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed that the South, which accounts for over 80% of executions, had the highest murder rate. The Northeast, which has less than 1% of all executions, again had the lowest murder rate. The death penalty simply does not deter more crime than life in prison. Don't just take my word for it, though. According to a survey of the former and present presidents of the country's top academic criminological societies, 84% of these experts rejected the notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. It is important to note that the other 16% didn't actually endorse it, either. (They just didn't reject it.)

T2, first of all, there are plenty of death row inmates who did not have prior trouble with the law, so this isn't really a valid line of reasoning. It can happen to your family, and the argument is not "overboard". In any case, I find the fact that someone had legal problems in the past a weak justification for wrongly giving him the death penalty for a crime he didn't commit.

Because, after paying his debt to society, he is no longer a violent criminal.

 

You, of course, realize any time you use the term "academic" your drawing from a populus that is overwhelmingly against the death penalty. Cite a reference where non-academic criminological societies are against the death penalty and you have a good argument. Also, the term "plenty" is very ambiguous (almost as ambiguous as 'majority' and 'numerous').

No, just a violent ex-con. I'd rather not have those in my neighborhood either.

 

Oh no, I was merely referring to the particular crime they have been, falsely, accused of and been sentenced for. The absolutes you read into it. And while we're splitting hairs already:

No, as long as he isn't violent again, it is just someone who has in the past been punished for violent crimes. That's quite something else. If sayings like 'Once a drunk, always a drunk!' were true, institutions like 'alcoholics anonymous' wouldn't exist.

 

The fact that educated people are more likely to base their opinions on raw data doesn't make them inherently biased. If the death penalty deterred more crimes than life in prison, places that frequently employ it will have less murder. They do not. It is also worth pointing out that the only people actually studying this type of thing are going to be the academics. A criminologist is defined as someone who studies the etiology of crime, criminal behavior, types of crime, and social, cultural and media reactions to crime. Non-academic Criminologists do not exist. Now, if you insist on a non-academic assessment, you may be interested to know that A 1995 Hart Research Poll of police chiefs in the US found that the majority of the chiefs do not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool.

You want real numbers? Fine. As I'm sure you know, 2 out of 3 people on death row have prior felony convictions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, then, that 1 out of 3 do not. Good enough?

Ragusa handled this one just fine. A person who is convicted of a crime, is released, and doesn't commit another crime is not a criminal. Nor is he violent. Perhaps he once was a violent criminal, but he is not anymore.

Why is this question even relevant? It's not like we're just going to start imprisoning or executing people just because we can't prove that they absolutely aren't murderers. If someone is in prison for a crime he didn't commit, we shouldn't be asking ourselves if "are we sure he didn't have it coming?" It should be a question of how and where our legal system broke down and how to stop it from happening again.

Since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on the death penalty in 1976, 120 death row inmates have been exonerated. That means that for every 8 people executed, one is proven innocent of any wrongdoing. Given the fact that these exonerations are almost all due to genetic evidence and that such evidence is only available in 5-10% of those convictions (due to it either being corrupted, not collected at all, or destroyed after the trial), these exonerations are really just the tip of the iceberg. This is a problem.

 

Comparing a violent person to an alcoholic is quite astute. When an alcoholic falls of the wagon there is a possibility that individual will get in their car and endanger others. Usually, the alcoholic will call friend, get a cab, stay at a hotel, or just get drunk at home -- most don't want to hurt anyone. When a person who has violent tendancies falls off the wagon, someone WILL get hurt. Every time.

I've been around far too many violent people in my life, and whole lot of alcoholics as well. I've never seen evidence that either group can be completely cured. I don't want the violent guy around -- I don't want that person near anyone I care about.

Drew: Your very good at quoting deathpenaltyinfo.org -- don't you think that site is bit one sided?

Tip of the iceberg? That's 120 out of over 3,000 -- hardly the 12.5% opponents of the death penalty want you to believe. Genetic evidence is not applicable to many of these crimes. People against the death penalty like to point to those numbers and cast doubts on all the convictions. Demographics of murders are far more complicated than "south" or "New England."

There is a huge difference between someone convicted of a felony and a person with a history of violence. Neither are inclusive of the other. Usually, a murderer has a prior conviction of a violent crime. But not all murderers have such convictions. Not having a conviction does not mean the individual does not have a history of violence -- it may just means they weren't caught. In fact, there have been a few cases here in the Chicago area of murderers without records, but many cases of domestic disputes where the victims dropped charges.

You're against the death penalty. Fine. Call your Govornor or state legislature and change it. You have that right and I encourage you to do it. I am on the other side of that fence.