I'm watching the news and the story is about the guy who kidnapped and killed a priest last year which got me thinking.

Since we already put some criminals to death for their crimes why do we simply confine others until they die?

killing some now but locking up others until they die seems.... hypocritical maybe.

I'm not really sure where I fall. I am for the death penalty because no criminal who has been put to death has ever committed another crime. I don't look at it as a deterrent as mush as a preventative measure.

On the other hand, it is hard to release someone that new evidence proves was wrongfully convicted if they are dead.

What are your views on capital punishment? What about life without parole?

Either way, the vast majority leave prison in a body bag.

WRT sentencing, let the victim's family choose.

Either way as well for me, but I'm morw of a sheriff joe kinda prison/jail. Lets make it as uncomfortable as our boys over seas for the rest of thier life. And no major medical either, the sooner they die the better, less cost to the taxpayer.

Agree with the concept of Capital punishment but in today's world it isn't practical from a financial standpoint. Millions go to lawyers appealing cases for years which is a waste of money.
So, life w/out parole. Bare bones existence in prison. No TV or other niceties. Feed them only if they are earning their keep through a work activity. Should not be 3 squares and a bed for nothing.

I agree with powers. I did a report on this in highschool. Lets do some math. 20,000 homicides a year, currently there are 2800 on death row, the US killed 30 people in 2016, I dont think it's been over 100 in the 2000s.

Seems it is not a deterrent and to just kill those in San Quentin you're looking at a french revolution number of killings per day to catch up. It's a waste of our money, with all the appeals and BS, we could just put the 5 Billion dollars into something useful.

Now, if we made it efficient and cheap I believe it could work as a deterrant but the modern world doesnt have a stomach for it.

From a crime and punishment standpoint, I am in favor of capital punishment. However, and it's a big one, we aren't very good at it. The innocence project here in Florida has found quite a number of (generally black) men convicted of rape and murder before DNA evidence was common, who have subsequently been exonerated by DNA evidence, and the actual killer identified. God forbid we had put those men to death improperly.

Lots of witnesses, heinous crime, I'm ok with the death penalty. Circumstantial evidence, heinous crime, life without. If the system was wrong in those cases, it can be corrected and compensated. I guess what I am suggesting is that I am ok with "beyond a reasonable doubt" for life without, but I want an even higher standard for the death penalty, something like "absolutely he did it, no question".

I believe that the death penalty is only moral and fair if it is applied in cases where there is simply no question of both guilt and responsibility.

quote:

Lots of witnesses, heinous crime, I'm ok with the death penalty. Circumstantial evidence, heinous crime, life without. If the system was wrong in those cases, it can be corrected and compensated. I guess what I am suggesting is that I am ok with "beyond a reasonable doubt" for life without, but I want an even higher standard for the death penalty, something like "absolutely he did it, no question".

I believe that the death penalty is only moral and fair if it is applied in cases where there is simply no question of both guilt and responsibility.

That's pretty much where I'm at. There are entirely too many people who have been accused of things that they haven't done.

This is true going backwards. But now we have DNA analysis and a whole raft of new forensics.

Plus, lets be real about this, back in the old days, the criminal justice system had no problem playing fast and loose with defendants rights and criminal procedure. A lot of old convictions probably deserve a good review.

Going forward, I think significant changes need to be made on both sides of the coin. Defendants in capital cases need to be guaranteed certain things. The big ones are competent, experienced, adequately paid council, who are given the resources necessary to independently investigate the case. There also should be set piece pre-trial review of issues that have led to exonerations in the past.

The last point goes to the other side of the coin. Once the issues that have led to problems in the past are addressed in pre-trial procedures, and that the trial procedures are put in place to make sure defendants actually get a fair trial, the endless appeals that death penalty cases now generate need to be curtailed. It should not take twenty plus years to get a convicted murder executed.

One of the things I've thought about, which I know people will have problems with, would be to federalize the crime of murder, and have all murders prosecuted in Federal Court under a consistent set of standards and procedures. This would mean that all murders would be subject to be charged with capital murder, and you wouldn't have a situation where a murder might get something like 25-life in one state, while someone convicted of the same crime in a different state might get death. The Feds also have the resources to provide the what I said should be provided above.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
From a crime and punishment standpoint, I am in favor of capital punishment. However, and it's a big one, we aren't very good at it. The innocence project here in Florida has found quite a number of (generally black) men convicted of rape and murder before DNA evidence was common, who have subsequently been exonerated by DNA evidence, and the actual killer identified. God forbid we had put those men to death improperly.

Lots of witnesses, heinous crime, I'm ok with the death penalty. Circumstantial evidence, heinous crime, life without. If the system was wrong in those cases, it can be corrected and compensated. I guess what I am suggesting is that I am ok with "beyond a reasonable doubt" for life without, but I want an even higher standard for the death penalty, something like "absolutely he did it, no question".

I believe that the death penalty is only moral and fair if it is applied in cases where there is simply no question of both guilt and responsibility.

No issue with capital punishment as a concept.

But first, we ought to set it up so that innocence is presumed throughout the process, so that all accuseds are assured of competent legal representation, that their Constitutional rights are respected throughout the process, and that it takes 100% of the jury to convict.

Oh, wait, we already do that. Never mind.

We're supposed to. In the past it hasn't always happened that way.

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
No issue with capital punishment as a concept.

But first, we ought to set it up so that innocence is presumed throughout the process, so that all accuseds are assured of competent legal representation, that their Constitutional rights are respected, and that it takes 100% of the jury to convict.

Oh, wait, we already do that. Never mind.

Nothing on Earth is perfect.....nothing.
We do our best.
So to insist upon perfect justice before being willing to impose our best attempts at justice would be to simply insure NO JUSTICE.

There is an increasingly severe level of appropriate punishments for increasingly severe crimes. At some point, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty.

quote:

The innocence project here in Florida has found quite a number of (generally black) men convicted of rape and murder before DNA evidence was common, who have subsequently been exonerated by DNA evidence,...

While I would not dispute the near-certainty that mistakes have probably been made, I do suspect that many of these stories are not actually "proofs of innocence", for these reasons:
1. When a person is convicted of a capital crime, they instantly have no other goal and full-time job for the rest of their lives but to try and avoid the execution.
2. There are countless "justice warriors" and virtually unlimited donated funds available to help in this "quest for justice".
3. As years go by, evidence degrades, memories fade, witnesses die, and some evidence is simply lost.
4. Often times the lack of DNA evidence is merely the pretext for a new trial...it is not really THE PIECE of evidence that definitely exonerates the person.
5. Once the new trial has been granted, via any pretext (DNA evidence included) it is MUCH harder to obtain a reconviction for the reasons in 3 & 4 above.
6. With no reconviction, the suspect is declared "not guilty" and the social justice warriors start shouting that "DNA Evidence exonerated an innocent man on death row."
That's their mission in life, and they are delighted to tout "success".

But what about the real mistakes ?
Well, I assume, sincerely hope, and believe that mistakes are extremely rare. But realistically, people die due to "mistakes" of one form or another every day. I believe there is something more to life than mere survival, so I also believe that there is "perfect justice" meted out to all....just don't expect it here on Earth.

quote:

1. When a person is convicted of a capital crime, they instantly have no other goal and full-time job for the rest of their lives but to try and avoid the execution.

What else are they going to do? The police and prosecutors stopped looking for other suspects years ago.

quote:

4. Often times the lack of DNA evidence is merely the pretext for a new trial...it is not really THE PIECE of evidence that definitely exonerates the person.

Browsing the cases I have looked at, the DNA absolutely exonerated the convict.
They had convicted the wrong guy and were going to put the wrong guy to death.

The only way I can support the death penalty anymore is if the defendant says, "Yeah, I did it and will do it again if I ever get the chance" and the evidence (NOT eyewitness testimony) supports that he did it.

I tend to stick with Catholic teaching on the subject. Contrary to popular belief, the Catholic Church is not opposed to the death penalty.

From my 1995 copy of the Catechism:

quote:

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason, the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged a well-found right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity of the dignity of the human person.

I think that a lot of folks, myself included at times, have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to the crimes committed by some people, and immediately want revenge. In my opinion capital punishment should not be used as revenge, but rather for punishment and, more importantly, protecting society from any further actions by the person. Some might argue that we could protect society by keeping all offenders in prison for life. Well, that's not always the case.

Who gets put to death, then, ends up being pretty subjective and a matter of individual conscience. So, who decides? It's a tough call.

quote:

Originally posted by Crom:
Nothing on Earth is perfect.....nothing.
We do our best.
So to insist upon perfect justice before being willing to impose our best attempts at justice would be to simply insure NO JUSTICE.

There is an increasingly severe level of appropriate punishments for increasingly severe crimes. At some point, the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty.

There is hardly more an egregious act than that of the State ending the life of an innocent man.

Frankly, I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free than see one innocent man put to death. If the State--meaning the collective "we"--can't guarantee to get it right every time regarding capital punishment, then I'm not sure we should even consider it. That doesn't mean there still can't be justice, but State sanctioned death of the innocent undermines our system worse than not punishing the guilty.

I used to be a firm pro-death penalty supporter. Nowadays not so much.

There is definitely a problem with some prosecutors trying to get a conviction when they know they might have the wrong person. In my county DAs make $295,000 a year while working and the same amount in retirement. Many of them are living their nice comfortable lives and not giving a s**t about loose ends of a case. They want the conviction, their salary, and not much else matters.

I have seen first hand numerous examples of both corruption and failures in the justice system, where I no longer trust judges nor attorneys.

I do have practical objections.

We get it wrong too often, and it is irrevocable.

It doesn't deter. It is preventive, but not deterrent.

We don't apply it even handedly. The nature of the victim plays a huge part in who is sentenced to death. Mostly, this seems unfair to me.

In today's news, the fat ass that sat down on her baby until the little tike died, needs to be executed now. When proven guilty without a doubt, death is the only choice.

Costs too much to keep guilty animals alive.

quote:

While I would not dispute the near-certainty that mistakes have probably been made, I do suspect that many of these stories are not actually "proofs of innocence", for these reasons:

We had so many of these cases in Florida that the republican controlled legislature had to pass a statute for calculating the compensation owed to the improperly convicted. And by improperly convicted, I mean actually innocent, not "getting off on a technicality" or "owed a new trial".

The reason for this is that in many states prosecutors are elected, as they are here. Or, they are promoted and compensated on their conviction rate, not on seeking "justice". So they don't seek justice they seek convictions, sometimes at all costs. Sometimes in collusion with elected sheriffs who are also not graded by the public on justice either but rather on their conviction rate. In too many cases, there is bad witness testimony, evidence withheld by law enforcement or by the prosecutor, or exculpatory witnesses that are not disclosed to the defense. Because the incentive structure for the State favors conviction over justice, the awesome resources of the State are used to secure convictions and not justice. In addition, trial level state provided counsel is overworked and underfunded. I was on a jury where the court appointed free defense lawyer was obviously and frankly incompetent. Had that been a capital case, the accused would have had no chance. None.

The death penalty can only be enforced in the interests of justice. Not revenge, not the satisfaction of the citizenry, but justice, and in order to do that, the incentive system on the part of the State must be focused on justice not on conviction, and the standards for conviction and implementation of the final penalty must be ironclad. If that is not achievable, then I can not support the death penalty. In that case, I take jhe's position that it is systemically unfair.

quote:

Originally posted by Powers77:
Agree with the concept of Capital punishment but in today's world it isn't practical from a financial standpoint. Millions go to lawyers appealing cases for years which is a waste of money.
So, life w/out parole. Bare bones existence in prison. No TV or other niceties. Feed them only if they are earning their keep through a work activity. Should not be 3 squares and a bed for nothing.

and therein lies the problem

you should get one appeal, with it adjudicated within 30 days

then the sentence should be carried out

none of this dying of old age on death row...

lawyers created the system and lawyers have fucked it up so badly that any similarity between truth and justice is purely coincidental

quote:

Now, if we made it efficient and cheap I believe it could work as a deterrant but the modern world doesnt have a stomach for it.

What is cheaper than rope? After all, it is reusable!

Appeals? One.

And just out of curiosity, what happened to swift justice some are so fond of quoting?

Was it Kalifornistan some years ago that paid more than a million bucks for some asshole on death row, for a heart transplant (AIR) so they could keep him alive long enough to execute him?