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.
I think I would be ok with doing away with the death penalty if prisons weren't so nice.
Butch up the prisons, make them meaner and dirtier, and we might could talk.
Hearing prisons had to get cable bc Monday Night Football moved to ESPN is...uh...not really impressive to me.
Or we could do the drop them on an island thing. I liked that move. No Escape.
Ever been inside of a prison? They aren't all that nice. The few luxuries that prisoners are afforded, like the ability to watch TV are not offered by bleeding heart liberals but by the prison administration who realize that if you don't offer some privileges in exchange for good behavior, prisons would be so dangerous that no one would be willing to work in them.
1) First, take away any states ability to determine the outcome. Make it all federal and move all homicide cases accordingly. If you kill someone in Maine, it's just as bad as if you did it in California. Don't need a Baptist to make sense of that. Murder, is well, murder. REGARDLESS of where you doit or within any imaginary boundary. We want you dead equally, and Californians should have no more say so than those in Maine?
2). Fund, and yes this means taxes which can come from those who acquired such through ill gotten gains, a group who QUICKLY reviews homicide cases and prosecutes just as fast. Rocket docket.
3) All convicted receive mandatory DNA testing whenever possible (when DNA is present). Instead of paying for high priced private lawyers, appoint federal lawyers to help defendants. This would afford all a competent defense with mandatory DNA testing ata fraction ofthe costs othe US taxpayer. After all, the murderer in Maine needs to be tried as voraciously as the one in Arizona. Get rid of the 2 million a copy private lawyers and that it's more expensive to execute them argument goes up in smoke. It's BS only because we allow it to be so expensive, period.
4) put all DNA testing under 4 strategically placed Federal labs for consistency and reliability and cut the costs and time to results accordingly. No one should wait long. Either for vindication or execution. Society deserves no less.
5). If, after all that, the camera shows you flipping off the camera, has a full confession verified by two independent non interested federal judges, and the DNA is found in the van, under her fingernails, all over her skirt, panties, and car, then execute accordingly, no appeals, no passing go. Fini, adios, goodbye. That seems sufficient reason to end your life to me. What say you? Cheaper too.
6) if there is still gray, but you have the finger and confession, maybe life without parole with hard labor 6 days a week, 10 hours a day, and 45 minutes for lunch, forever.
Bottom line? If they are so blatantly obvious and the mandatory DNA test comes back and proves its everywhere, you are toast. If not, life with no parole and appellate process attaches albeit in a few years, not decades. At least the goof rate would drop to less than 1/1000th of a percent?
Truth be told,there are probably more on death row deservedly so than those that aren't. I like any sane person does not wish to kill the innocent man OR woman, however, for the other 99.999% that are overtly guilty. Execute with extreme prejudice.
Fair enough?
no, it just shows that you have a limited understanding of how the criminal justice system works. And after reading this for the third time I still don't know what it means:
"If, after all that, the camera shows you flipping off the camera...the DNA is found in the van
What Camera, what van?
1) States are not going to turn their prosecutions over to the feds. If you are convicted of any crime you have a right to appeal, and to pursue that appeal at the federal level.
2) Most states have DNA labs that are perfectly able to do DNA testing That is NOT the problem, the problem is that sometimes prosecutors don't even disclose what evidence they have and fail to introduce exculpatory evidence so it is never tested. The other problem is that with technological advances we are now able to do DNA testing that wasn't possible even 20 years ago, what happens in another 20 years if a new technology develops that allows us to detect DNA that wasn't found in the past?
3) You are going to deny a defendant the right to pick his own attorney if he can pay for it? Instead everyone will be assigned some kind of public defender? Somehow I don't think that will hold up on appeal.
4) Hard labor 10 hours a day blah blah blah. If you knew anything about the system, you would understand that most prisoners would love to work but they are kept in cells because there simply aren't enough jobs in the prison for them, or their security classification is such that allowing them out of their cell to work would pose a danger to staff.
Spend a few minutes reading about people on death row who have been found innocent then come back and we can talk about 'your plan'
Truth be told,there are probably more on death row deservedly so than those that aren't. I like any sane person does not wish to kill the innocent man OR woman, however, for the other 99.999% that are overtly guilty. Execute with extreme prejudice.
Fair enough?
I see no evidence in your posting history which indicate that you're sane. You hate colleges, unions, and black people. Not exactly I'd call that sane!
No; I think its as clearly shown its the only way of getting rid of dangers to society. Often a technical issue lets a convicted killer that is still dangerous to society gets out. If you look at the numbers getting death compared to murders is not very many overall and the appeals process takes years in reviewing before sentence carried out. Takes a pretty terrible crime to get death in first place.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I feel as though I should. I guess it's simply not a topic I'm terribly concerned with right now. Prison reform of how non-violent criminals are sentenced could eliminate budget fears by freeing up resources to focus on more dangerous inmates and those on death row. I don't think abolishing the death penalty would benefit society as much as prison reform for non-violent criminals, either. So to me it's a much higher priority which might ironically negatively impact activist arguments against the death penalty.
But I think I should be against it simply because I distrust the accuracy of the criminal-justice system at large. Bless our peers and rights to defend ourselves in court, but juries can be absolutely fickle if not outright biased about how they sentence a defendant. Many times victims want revenge, not justice, and I don't think it's the court's place to give that to them. The point of a court proceeding is to identify then remove a dangerous person from causing further harm to others and/or to prevent social discord when slighted parties take matters into their own hands like a lynch mob. (Which sometimes happens anyway) These goals can be easily accomplished through life imprisonment and provides life-long opportunity for a potentially innocent person to appeal their conviction. So I should support abolishing more than I do. I'm ashamed that I'm so indifferent at heart even if I follow the logic.
...Now that I think about it, reforming non-violent criminal sentencing could actually solve the problem about worrying if keeping someone in prison for life is too expensive as well. Interesting how dealing with that could either bolster or diminish the effort to abolish the death penalty depending on how it's argued.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I feel as though I should. I guess it's simply not a topic I'm terribly concerned with right now. Prison reform of how non-violent criminals are sentenced could eliminate budget fears by freeing up resources to focus on more dangerous inmates and those on death row. I don't think abolishing the death penalty would benefit society as much as prison reform for non-violent criminals, either. So to me it's a much higher priority which might ironically negatively impact activist arguments against the death penalty.
But I think I should be against it simply because I distrust the accuracy of the criminal-justice system at large. Bless our peers and rights to defend ourselves in court, but juries can be absolutely fickle if not outright biased about how they sentence a defendant. Many times victims want revenge, not justice, and I don't think it's the court's place to give that to them. The point of a court proceeding is to identify then remove a dangerous person from causing further harm to others and/or to prevent social discord when slighted parties take matters into their own hands like a lynch mob. (Which sometimes happens anyway) These goals can be easily accomplished through life imprisonment and provides life-long opportunity for a potentially innocent person to appeal their conviction. So I should support abolishing more than I do. I'm ashamed that I'm so indifferent at heart even if I follow the logic.
...Now that I think about it, reforming non-violent criminal sentencing could actually solve the problem about worrying if keeping someone in prison for life is too expensive as well. Interesting how dealing with that could either bolster or diminish the effort to abolish the death penalty depending on how it's argued.
I agree that prison reform is more important. Non-Violent crimes should face lesser punishments and prisons needs to be more geared toward crime prevention and rehabilitation. In their current state, their basically poorly managed crime schools. Again, this is important when looking at someone who commits a crime but isn't your usual suspect; a "normal" guy who does something wrong. He'll come out way worse much of the time. This is a problem that needs addressing and is realistically more pressing that the death penalty, which has decreasing popularity and use anyway.
With that said, I hold my view that death as a punishment is the vestige of a less moral society. It's draconian and authoritarian to put the life of a human being in the state's hands. As it is, I think the concept of life without parole is evil and counter productive. A person will have no motivation to change their behavior if their chances of ever being free again are 0%. Even if for more serious crimes, it's rare that they'll be paroled and eventually released, if that possibility exists, you'll motivate more to work on mellowing our or whatever it is they need.
The best way to lower crime AND create a productive society is to filter out the bad parts of people and create more good people. Various other countries have had pretty impressive success rates with it. The US hasn't, which many site as being relevant, but you have to look at the state of the prisons. It makes sense that a prison in Norway would cause fewer people to reoffend than a prison in America. One is properly funded and managed by intelligent people with the goal of rehabilitation and prevention, the other is an American prison.
And I know that Norway's prisons are quite luxurious in comparison to what most consider a prison (though not all... in fact, not even most), but I'm not talking about private bedrooms with internet access or anything like that. We don't have to model our prisons after Norway, nor do I think we should at this point, but we should look at their system and mimic what works so we can see genuine improvements.
1) First, take away any states ability to determine the outcome. Make it all federal and move all homicide cases accordingly. If you kill someone in Maine, it's just as bad as if you did it in California. Don't need a Baptist to make sense of that. Murder, is well, murder. REGARDLESS of where you doit or within any imaginary boundary. We want you dead equally, and Californians should have no more say so than those in Maine?
You'd have to amend the Constitution to give the federal courts power to try all murder cases. You'd also have to revoke the authority of state courts to try murder cases. Trust me, your idea is implausible. People would make arguments like "this is a huge expansion of federal power" and "the plutocrats want to take us out of state, try us, and execute us".
2). Fund, and yes this means taxes which can come from those who acquired such through ill gotten gains, a group who QUICKLY reviews homicide cases and prosecutes just as fast. Rocket docket.
"The group" that reviews cases by law are appellate courts. You could expand the number of appellate judges, but these appointments are political. Some judges will favor the death penalty and others will not. Judges are set up to be independent and will often make decisions you disagree with. Requiring rapid review of capital cases means a diversion of scarce judicial resources away from other important cases. The divorce litigant will wait longer for appellate review of their inflated child support award. Children will wait longer for a permanent custody decision. The defendant hit with a $10,000,000 award based on dubious testimony in a civil case will wait longer to get that award reversed. Decent people who haven't committed murder will wait longer to get their disputes resolved because they will occupy a lower priority than murder cases do. This can't be justified when much of the problem could be avoided simply by giving a convicted murderer life without parole rather than the death penalty.
3) All convicted receive mandatory DNA testing whenever possible (when DNA is present). Instead of paying for high priced private lawyers, appoint federal lawyers to help defendants. This would afford all a competent defense with mandatory DNA testing ata fraction ofthe costs othe US taxpayer. After all, the murderer in Maine needs to be tried as voraciously as the one in Arizona. Get rid of the 2 million a copy private lawyers and that it's more expensive to execute them argument goes up in smoke. It's BS only because we allow it to be so expensive, period.
Competent lawyers have to be trained and its like competency in any profession. If you want people who can do the job it will be expensive. The salaries for these people will reflect that fact. There are several thousand people on death row and you shouldn't underestimate just how many "death penalty qualified attorneys will be required". Its apparent you have very little knowledge what is involved in competently defending a death penalty case. If you did, you would understand that much of this expense is unavoidable. Also, someone who can afford their own attorney has a constitutional right to pick the lawyer of their choice. They don't have to pick the one that you select for them.
4) put all DNA testing under 4 strategically placed Federal labs for consistency and reliability and cut the costs and time to results accordingly. No one should wait long. Either for vindication or execution. Society deserves no less.
Independent DNA testing is the most reliable. Yes, the government gets to pick a lab, but after they are done, the defendant has a right to get a second test at the facility of their choice. It insures honest results. DNA testing is a tool. Its not a gold standard, or the "end-all". Someone's DNA can end up on a surface for other reasons than they committed a murder. Its important to remember that.
5). If, after all that, the camera shows you flipping off the camera, has a full confession verified by two independent non interested federal judges, and the DNA is found in the van, under her fingernails, all over her skirt, panties, and car, then execute accordingly, no appeals, no passing go. Fini, adios, goodbye. That seems sufficient reason to end your life to me. What say you? Cheaper too.
Very few cases meet all these criteria. There is always a group that maintains that "all we want to do is execute those who absolutely guilty". The problem is you have to come up with set criteria for determining who is absolutely guilty and apply that to all cases. Its not as simple as you think. Also, you have to make room for the fact that some could find a way to manipulate a system with no appeals for this group, or for that group, to execute people who they know are innocent.
6) if there is still gray, but you have the finger and confession, maybe life without parole with hard labor 6 days a week, 10 hours a day, and 45 minutes for lunch, forever.
Life in prison is not a desirable fate for most people. Spending 23 hours a day in a cell is plenty of deterrent for most not to commit homicide.
Bottom line? If they are so blatantly obvious and the mandatory DNA test comes back and proves its everywhere, you are toast. If not, life with no parole and appellate process attaches albeit in a few years, not decades. At least the goof rate would drop to less than 1/1000th of a percent?
Truth be told,there are probably more on death row deservedly so than those that aren't. I like any sane person does not wish to kill the innocent man OR woman, however, for the other 99.999% that are overtly guilty. Execute with extreme prejudice.
Fair enough?
A goof rate of 1% or 1/10 of 1 percent is acceptable until the person executed is your friend or family member. Than it becomes intolerable when a sentence of life without parole is an option.
The current system in more time-consuming, but a better system than what you propose.
The only way capital punishment can really work is if the criminal is obviously guilty and has a long history of violent crime. Nutty, one-off cases, where somebody suddenly goes from petty crime to 1st degree murder and/or the evidence is sketchy leave room for doubt, and you don't want to be executing people if there's still uncertainty. But in other cases, where the criminal is violent psychopath who's obviously guilty, they can be executed, IMHO. But the person in question has to be somebody like the Joker in Batman - completely evil, completely irredeemable, and obviously guilty.
No; I think its as clearly shown its the only way of getting rid of dangers to society. Often a technical issue lets a convicted killer that is still dangerous to society gets out. If you look at the numbers getting death compared to murders is not very many overall and the appeals process takes years in reviewing before sentence carried out. Takes a pretty terrible crime to get death in first place.
If you go back to the Middle Ages, there are records of pick-pockets stealing from people at public executions of pick-pockets. Criminals generally aren't intelligent enough to think through the consequences of their actions (which is what makes them criminals in the first place) and many of them have the mentality that they won't be caught anyway. Others simply don't care - which is hard for me to wrap my head around.
In other words, those who commit crimes that would generally get them the death penalty are going to commit them whether we have the death penalty or not. As proof, I offer every single convict in this country who committed a "death penalty crime" in a state that had the death penalty and was given a life sentence instead.
The only way to effectively rule that statistical bias out is by eliminating life terms and strictly using the death penalty for capital murder crimes. If we upped the ante on the death penalty we stand a risk, as a society, of killing innocent people more rapidly and more efficiently. Should that occur, what is an acceptable rate of innocent deaths, in your opinion, such that we can feel justice for those who are guilty? If for every one hundred guilty people we murder on death row, if one of them is innocent, should we be able to wipe our hands and say "Job's done!"?
At what point do the scales tip such that the life of an innocent inmate who gets executed is greater than that of the many who are guilty? To me, as a society, the death of one innocent man is greater than all those we would deem worthy of the death penalty.
The only way capital punishment can really work is if the criminal is obviously guilty and has a long history of violent crime. Nutty, one-off cases, where somebody suddenly goes from petty crime to 1st degree murder and/or the evidence is sketchy leave room for doubt, and you don't want to be executing people if there's still uncertainty. But in other cases, where the criminal is violent psychopath who's obviously guilty, they can be executed, IMHO. But the person in question has to be somebody like the Joker in Batman - completely evil, completely irredeemable, and obviously guilty.
huh?
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.
