Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope, I have never been a fan of jury's. Most of the time they know nothing about the law and the numbers the OP cited are a perfect example of their incompetence. I'm also against the death penalty. Countries like Canada and Australia abolished the death penalty and they have some of the lowest intentional homicide rates in the world. Compare that to places like Texas who have execute more people than any other state BY FAR and ranks about in the middle for homicides per capita U.S.
You're missing an important point. Juries have convicted and been part of sentencing many thousands of people to death row (3108 are on DR as of 4/1/13 per DRIC). Consequently the rate of exoneration to execution is far lower than what OP suggests, making the juries much more dependable than OP's numbers suggest. It's not the fault of the juries that the numbers are skewed due to executions not being carried out properly.
Would abolishing the death penalty lower the homicide rate? I can't see why it would do anything but raise it. So let's solve part of the problem and save the taxpayers many millions every year by removing the murderers, permanently.
You're missing an important point. Juries have convicted and been part of sentencing many thousands of people to death row (3108 are on DR as of 4/1/13 per DRIC). Consequently the rate of exoneration to execution is far lower than what OP suggests, making the juries much more dependable than OP's numbers suggest. It's not the fault of the juries that the numbers are skewed due to executions not being carried out properly.
Would abolishing the death penalty lower the homicide rate? I can't see why it would do anything but raise it. So let's solve part of the problem and save the taxpayers many millions every year by removing the murderers, permanently.
I agree that thousands of prisoners remain in the death row pipeline -- you noted 3,108.
I certainly do not know how they will clear out from death row in the future; i.e., what the future ratio of executions to exonerations for the 3,108 will eventually prove to be -- and when the last of the 3,108 exits death row, I doubt that I will be alive to find that out.
However, the data I used is sizable, accurate and based on a 38 year history (1976 until today). I do agree that the the future ratio may be different than the 10 executions to 1 exoneration ratio that is what we have witnessed over the past thirty-eight years.
The death penalty should remain in place. However, a system needs to be implemented. Persons who are accused of a death penalty case, should go before a judge. The OBVIOUS guilty ones (Yes, there are), should be convicted and killed, within weeks. Not allowed endless appeals and strung out for 20+ years.
And for the flaming liberals who say: You can never be 100% sure "X" committed the crime. Yes, you can:
ALL of the above listed persons. There is NO DOUBT of their guilt. There is absolutely NO REASON why they lived, beyond a few weeks of their conviction. EXCEPT for the liberal "do gooders" in this world. The obvious guilty, such as I have listed and THOUSANDS of others, should have been killed long ago. The ones where the evidence is questionable, et al yes, give them time and appeals.
However, you liberals won't even give in this area.
I'm probably, in my advancing age (well, just hit 40. But there's a hell of a bigger difference between 30 and 40 than there was between 20 and 30).. Softening on the death penalty a bit.. Alot because I'm growing more and more distrustful of our government as a whole, and society in general.
That being said. The death penalty needs to remain an option.. As we say here in the south.. There's some people that "just need killin'"
Should there be the death penalty for anything other than murder? Eye for an eye?
Should murder have to be coupled with another crime to qualify?
I cannot see death penalty cases applying to drugs.. Period. No matter how bad. Unless there's murder along with the drug crimes.. And i'm not talking having an ounce of pot when you murder someone.
I haven't fact checked your numbers.. But.. I accept them. 510 of those 1366 were in Texas.. Then, the other side of the coin.. California has 731 people on death row.
I disagree with BOTH of those.. First off, Texas is a little too happy to execute someone. California is too pussyfooted to execute anyone. I think, oddly, the southern states have it closer to right. SC, NC, GA, VA. Pretty steep standards to get death.. But if you get it.. You get it.
I think one of the biggest things that has started to change my mind are the cases here in SC. George Stinney and the Griffin brothers.. Stinney is the youngest person ever executed in the US, at 14.. And most likely innocent. The Griffin brothers received pardons from the state almost 100 years after they were executed.
One wrongfully convicted person is too many. Much less a wrongfully executed person.. Now.. Both of those cases were from a totally different time. I won't say race relations are perfect in SC, but it certainly isn't like THAT anymore, either. But.. It still nags at you.. If it happened before, it can happen again.
Nope, I have never been a fan of jury's. Most of the time they know nothing about the law and the numbers the OP cited are a perfect example of their incompetence. I'm also against the death penalty. Countries like Canada and Australia abolished the death penalty and they have some of the lowest intentional homicide rates in the world. Compare that to places like Texas who have execute more people than any other state BY FAR and ranks about in the middle for homicides per capita U.S.
When I worked at the Arizona State Prison I walked more than one to the Gas Chamber so I am a fan of the death Penalty. I know what creeps these miscreants were.
Jury's are what this country is made for. If you are guilty the last thing you want is a judge. With a jury you have a chance to sway them.
You're missing an important point. Juries have convicted and been part of sentencing many thousands of people to death row (3108 are on DR as of 4/1/13 per DRIC). Consequently the rate of exoneration to execution is far lower than what OP suggests, making the juries much more dependable than OP's numbers suggest. It's not the fault of the juries that the numbers are skewed due to executions not being carried out properly.
Would abolishing the death penalty lower the homicide rate? I can't see why it would do anything but raise it. So let's solve part of the problem and save the taxpayers many millions every year by removing the murderers, permanently.
If the state wrongfully executes ONE person then the death penalty should be abolished, because obviously the system has flaws and taking INNOCENT life makes them and everyone invlolved just as guilty as the murderers themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306
The death penalty should remain in place. However, a system needs to be implemented. Persons who are accused of a death penalty case, should go before a judge. The OBVIOUS guilty ones (Yes, there are), should be convicted and killed, within weeks. Not allowed endless appeals and strung out for 20+ years.
And for the flaming liberals who say: You can never be 100% sure "X" committed the crime. Yes, you can:
ALL of the above listed persons. There is NO DOUBT of their guilt. There is absolutely NO REASON why they lived, beyond a few weeks of their conviction. EXCEPT for the liberal "do gooders" in this world. The obvious guilty, such as I have listed and THOUSANDS of others, should have been killed long ago. The ones where the evidence is questionable, et al yes, give them time and appeals.
However, you liberals won't even give in this area.
No, the death penalty should be abolished. Locking someone up forever accomplishes the same thing. Maybe the U.S. should ask places like Canada and Australia how they get it done without having to kill people? Maybe there should be less corruption in our government, maybe we should take a look at how guns are really getting into the wrong hands. Obviously if executions were the best way to deal with/discourage murders than the U.S. should have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world, but as we all know the U.S. does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Pickering
When I worked at the Arizona State Prison I walked more than one to the Gas Chamber so I am a fan of the death Penalty. I know what creeps these miscreants were.
Jury's are what this country is made for. If you are guilty the last thing you want is a judge. With a jury you have a chance to sway them.
Arizona has injected their share also.
I think you made my point quite nicely. If someone is GUILTY than it's BETTER they face a judge instead of a jury, for the exact reason you named...THEY KNOW THE LAW AND WOULD BE HARDER TO SWAY.
At the end of the day I'm not sure if there's a God and certainly don't believe in one that gives a sh*t. What if you walked someone to their death who was innocent? I think that you and EVERYONE involved at the very least should be convicted of manslaughter. One of my biggest regrets about their not being divine judgment is there's probably not going to be a hell for people like you to burn in.
Last edited by ImMovingVerySoon; 02-12-2014 at 09:30 AM..
The wrongful conviction rate isn't 9%. The rate of wrongful convictions compared to executions is 9% (based only on the numbers you provided). There are many more convictions than executions. If the number of executions was where it should be, which is conceivably 100 times higher than it is, the percentage of wrongful convictions would be so low that it wouldn't even make the news.
There are far too many absolutely guilty people sitting on death row while attorneys suck up taxpayer funds on nonsense.
Exactly! You can't compare executions to exonerations. You CAN compare those sentenced to death row, to those found to be innocent at a later time. When someone is executed it is only after years of appeals have been exhausted. Sometimes those exonerated were done so on a technicality. They are apples and oranges.
I think we should start relying more upon lie detection technology, as a solution to the wrong conviction problem. Test the defendant, and test the witness as well. Test every kid in school several times, like they do for hearing and vision. Find out the very small percentage of kids that the test does not work on, or gives unreliable results for, and exempt them from testing for life in a courtroom situation. All the rest are fair game, take the test when you are accused of any serious crime, or have it be one of the points the prosecutor uses to convict you for not taking it. If you are innocent and are familiar with taking lie detector tests from childhood, there is no reason not to take it.
I hope they continue to work on lie detection technology and brain scanning, and how to spot people that try to defeat the test by biting their tongue or poke themselves with a pin. Maybe put a rubber plug in their mouth like boxers use, and have them type their answers out, strip them down to their underwear and watch them like a hawk when the take the test. If they get caught trying to defeat the test, they are guilty. This technology is already good enough to give more accurate convictions than what we have now, lets use it.
In the future when mind scanning is perfected, there will be no more need for courtroom lawyers and juries. You could be accused, tested and executed all in the same day. Crime would drop to almost nothing.
I would consider the source of the information and discount the study. Death penalty cases are reviewed again and again. I am not aware of anyone who has been executed and later found to be not guilty, at least in recent times. Years ago, yes its possible, just like there are people in jail who are not guilty of their crimes. But death penalty cases, the ones I've read about, there is no doubt the person committed the crime, is guilty and deserves the punishment because of how horrible the crime is. Even saying that, no justice system will ever be perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
