quote:

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.

So what if one, or more, of those guilty people decide to rape/murder your loved ones?

We can argue the capital punishment issue until hell serves cold lemonade. The harsh fact, IMO, is that the death penalty, as enforced today, becomes no deterrent to others committing the same crimes.

Deterrents only work when those on the receiving end actually believe that it will happen to them.

And the odds would seem to be that if one is sentenced to death that decades will pass before any punishment will be exacted, if ever.

The average murder is a crime of the moment, or passion. Deterrence doesn't work on those people. They don't weigh and balance, they grab a weapon and kill the person that is pissing them off. And they would do so even if we executed convicted murderers within 30 days of conviction.

If they could weigh and balance the utility of committing murder, they wouldn't murder even if there was no death penalty, and merely face life or even thirty years.

Maybe a hired assassin would properly consider the death penalty as a deterrent. Most other murderers cannot. To think otherwise is to apply the rationality standards of you and I to people who do not think that way. It just isn't realistic.

I am convinced deterrence is not a valid reason to execute people. Prevention is. And revenge, or eye-for-an-eye justice, may be a valid reason.

As others have said, we get it wrong too often (the argument could be made that getting it wrong even once is too many).

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

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.

So what if one, or more, of those guilty people decide to rape/murder your loved ones?

Way to completely miss the point with a totally irrelevant "what if" scenario.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

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.

So what if one, or more, of those guilty people decide to rape/murder your loved ones?

Way to completely miss the point with a totally irrelevant "what if" scenario.

I don't see that as an irrelevant scenario at all.
If it were JUST a matter of "letting a guilty man go free", I could easily accept that. But it is not. We all know the rates of recidivism and escalation of criminal behaviors, so a guilty man who goes free has a much higher probability of harming or killing someone else.

Those who oppose the death penalty seem to assume they are avoiding a potential moral transgression (killing of an innocent person). But innocent people will also DEFINITELY be killed if we let guilty men go free.

The old Chinese aphorism: "Those who are kind to the cruel are cruel to the kind."

Death penalty debate - All of a sudden conservatives seem to think that the government can be trusted to get it right.

Deserving to die, and trusting the government to properly administer this, are two very different things.

I don't really see life in prison as a preferable outcome. If someone is falsely convicted, the humane thing may be to administer the death penalty. Living your life in prison as an innocent person would have to be a type of hell.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember

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

I'm with you.

My Nana was murdered by a drug addled crackhead, who took a plea during his court visits when none of the family had any say so in the process. (I would have preferred a trial-I KNOW he would have gotten the chair)

He chose to take a plea to remove the death penalty off the table for four of his five charges.

I get why he did it, HE wanted to live

There was no disputing his charges-NONE.

But I have worked in the criminal justice system, I was a cop for some time, I know how Police investigate the crime, and then the Courts are supposed to seek conviction for crimes committed. I also know that many, many cops seek a prosecution INSTEAD of seeking the TRUTH.

Personally, I would rather see fewer people charged and convicted (and the cops actually find the truth) than someone be improperly convicted.

Yet, we must understand that this is a process, and rught now it's the only process we have. Until someone comes up with a "Pre-crime" squad, I'll stick with what we have.

I understand that there are gangs of crazy people who go aout and lobby for poor"pookey" who killed someone but he's only in jail because he's black, white, yellow, red, purple or whatever...and that shit need to stop. I think that if there is no NEW evidence in a case, then someone shouldn't get another trail.

And I don't have a problem with "Life w/o parole" if those communities want to do that -they foot the bill, then it's on them. Personally-it would be cheaper to put a bullet in their brain on the way out of the courthouse than to house them forever.

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
If someone is falsely convicted, the humane thing may be to administer the death penalty.

?????????? ????????????

You've seen too many movies. It's not all shankings and gang rape. Prison isn't that bad.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
The average murder is a crime of the moment, or passion. Deterrence doesn't work on those people. They don't weigh and balance, they grab a weapon and kill the person that is pissing them off. And they would do so even if we executed convicted murderers within 30 days of conviction.

The "average murder" as described above is not filed as a capital case. We reserve the death penalty for only the worst of the worst and that's why they're called "Special Circumstances" offenses. What you describe above is most frequently punished with a sentence that runs about seven years (nationally).

My gripe is with the "Court appointed" defense attorney who doesn't give a shit about the defendants future in Prison and maybe the kid is innocent, but cop a plea.

And don't get me started on Parole/Probation officers who boost their over time pay by snatch and grab inmates from their families around Christmas time.

quote:

Originally posted by zingo:

quote:

Originally posted by bdylan:
If someone is falsely convicted, the humane thing may be to administer the death penalty.

?????????? ????????????

Give 'em a fair trial....and THEN hang 'em!

I've buried too many fellow corrections workers. Incarcerated people often kill. If they did it, kill them.

Freakin' politicians.

Let's not call it the death penalty, execution, or capital punishment, call it retroactive abortion to get the liberals onboard.

It may not deter others, but the recidivism rate is very low. I could go with a ninety day appeal process before the sentence is carried out.

If a judge rules a prison is overcrowded, the judge should be required to pick the inmates to be retroactively aborted to get down to the proper number.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:....I think that if there is no NEW evidence in a case, then someone shouldn't get another trail.

And I don't have a problem with "Life w/o parole" if those communities want to do that -they foot the bill, then it's on them. Personally-it would be cheaper to put a bullet in their brain on the way out of the courthouse than to house them forever.

First off, most new trials are obtained because the State/Gov violated the defendant's Constitutional Rights. We have a Constitution for a reason. The 4th Amendment is just as important as the 2nd.

Second, I have represented completely innocent people charged with very bad crimes. When it is you or a family member facing life in prison (or death) for a crime you didn't commit, you would be singing a different tune.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:....I think that if there is no NEW evidence in a case, then someone shouldn't get another trail.

And I don't have a problem with "Life w/o parole" if those communities want to do that -they foot the bill, then it's on them. Personally-it would be cheaper to put a bullet in their brain on the way out of the courthouse than to house them forever.

First off, most new trials are obtained because the State/Gov violated the defendant's Constitutional Rights. We have a Constitution for a reason. The 4th Amendment is just as important as the 2nd.

Second, I have represented completely innocent people charged with very bad crimes. When it is you or a family member facing life in prison (or death) for a crime you didn't commit, you would be singing a different tune.

People sing the "innocent until proven guilty song," but I think most Americans actually believe that if you got arrested you must have done it. My hat is off to criminal defense lawyers. Fighting those attitudes against the entire power of the state with limited resources.