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.
Cost should not be an issue if the appeals process was short maybe 1-2 years at the most.
That's still a long time, isn't it? Doesn't the constitution say everyone has a right to a speedy trial? I feel like a trial that lasts over a year is not speedy. Frankly, if someone can't be proven guilty in a years time, that's telling to me.
Criminal justice in this country has some warped priorities. We focus on punishment, yet ignore prevention and rehabilitation, both of which are objectively more important from a societal perspective. Simply putting a murder in prison does nothing to deter others from murdering, does nothing to prevent the murder from committing again (if personal guilt does not work as a proper motivator), and really doesn't even address the societal issues the breed murderers.
I really think until we fix our so obviously corrupt and broken justice system, capital punishment should at least be put on hold. Once we fix our system to actually work to address the issues instead of just throwing them in a cell (I view that as pushing everything under the bed when your mom asks you to clean; it can't stay their forever and the problem is not solved, just somewhere else), the concept of capital punishment may have a place in the justice system, but only in extreme cases.
That's still a long time, isn't it? Doesn't the constitution say everyone has a right to a speedy trial? I feel like a trial that lasts over a year is not speedy. Frankly, if someone can't be proven guilty in a years time, that's telling to me.
Every defendant is entitled to a speedy trial, but it is also to his benefit to delay it as long as he can, which is why almost all defendants waive their right to a speedy trial.
As for my two-cents worth (which is likely all it is worth!), I will start by saying I am 110% in favor of the death penalty. Not necessarily because I think it is a deterrent to capital murder (or 1st degree murder as it is called in some states), but because there are some crimes so brutal and heinous (the Lawrence Bittaker scum someone above mentioned is a perfect example) that those who commit them deserve to die if for no other reason than to satisfy that natural desire for "eye for an eye" justice.
With that said though, I could be persuaded that life at hard labor -- kept in isolation even when busting rocks or whatever -- with no privileges whatsoever -- and without any chance of parole -- might be a better alternative. But only only because it might be even more appropriate in the realm of making the guilty party pay the price both physically and mentally. The only problem is that there is no guarantee they will not escape to kill again (ala' Ted Bundy)...or kill a guard or even another inmate who is in for a relatively minor non-violent crime.
Too, it is worth mentioning that many opponents of the death penalty present this option as a reasonable alternative. However, it is also true that quite often it is done for "strategic reasons". That is, they actually oppose the general concept of punishment at all (seeing violent crime as the result of societies shortcomings, not evil in the individual) and one capital punishment was eliminated, the same would start to work on dismantling the life without parole alternative as well.
BTW -- once again mentioning the Lawrence Bittaker case as a classic example of a case for the death penalty, Moderator cut: language and his partner (Roy Norris) kidnapped young girls, then sexually assaulted them before killing them in the most brutal and sadistic manner. He made a tape recording of the screams and pleadings of his last victim. Those who had some dealing with him (law enforcement officers, psychiatrists, and prosecutors) invariably said he was the most repulsive human (if he could be called that) they had ever encountered. I remember reading a book once that was written by a court psychologist describing some of his more memorable subjects and he was in agreement, and said the tape recording was "the most hideous thing I have ever heard." He also stated that the detective who was originally responsible for the eventual arrest of Bittaker and his partner eventually committed suicide, in large part because -- according to the note he left behind -- he could not rid himself of the sounds he heard on the tape recording in question; that they continued to haunt him.
For anyone interested, here is a YouTube video of portions of Bittaker's trial (toward the end, a camera in the hallway catches some who attended the trial coming out and crying, while portions of the tape can be heard from within the court). The second link goes to a site on which the entire transcript of the tape is furnished
With many prisoners on death row for 30+ years such as the case in California should it just be abolished. Americans are so concerned with the possibly that an innocent man getting executed that we allow years and in some cases decades of delays. An example would be Lawrence Bittaker AKA ( Tool Box Killer ) a man that has been on California death row for 34 years since 1981.
Recently a California judge has ruled that it was cruel and unusual punishment to keep people on death row so long, but i say it's cruel and unusual for the victims family's.
If Americans want to continue to use the death penalty we need to accept some small percentage will be put to death who are innocent and shorten the appeals process to a few years, or get rid of capital punishment all together if we can't live with the fact that some innocent people will be put to death.
In a few situations I favor the death penalty too. I would execute serial killers and those who sexually abuse and murder a child. However, even for these I fully support appeals process in place. Nearly 150 people who have been condemned to death in the last thirty years have been released when it was determined, often after years of appeals, that weren't guilty of the crime of which they were convicted.
I guess "making a mistake" and executing the wrong person seems o.k. to you as long as you, a friend, or a family member aren't that person. I suspect if it were, you'd have a very different opinion about the death penalty. Especially, when a sentence of Life Without Parole is an option.
Every defendant is entitled to a speedy trial, but it is also to his benefit to delay it as long as he can, which is why almost all defendants waive their right to a speedy trial.
Which is precisely why I think extremely harsh sentences (death included) should be rule out. When facing an outrageous amount of time in jail or facing death, who wouldn't want to delay it on the off chance they get off? If prison sentences and punishment overall were more reasonable and geared toward a better end result for everyone (including the convict), I think people would be more willing to opt for a speedy trial, which then saves a large sum of money.
Over the decades, I have gone back and forth on this issue. At this point I fall on the side side of respect, even love of life.
Why not wall them up in a 12x12 with a total gym, a TV with cable, and access to books, on line or not. They will be punished for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they will achieve wisdom and understanding. So that when they face that confrontation at the pearly gates, they can be judged appropriately.
Over the decades, I have gone back and forth on this issue. At this point I fall on the side side of respect, even love of life.
Why not wall them up in a 12x12 with a total gym, a TV with cable, and access to books, on line or not. They will be punished for the rest of their lives. Perhaps they will achieve wisdom and understanding. So that when they face that confrontation at the pearly gates, they can be judged appropriately.
JMHO
I always appreciate seeing a small flicker of humanity on this forum.
I've always felt it's best to allow criminals the chance to better themselves, even if they've been struck with a life sentence. It does two very important things: 1) gives the criminal (or ex-criminal) a chance to understand the error in their ways and if they are not serving for life, a second chance and 2) shows those who have not committed a crime are good people, willing to offer forgiveness to those who may not truly deserve it.
I think it should be abolished. Risking innocent lives to take out a few guilty is not worth it to me.
I respect your personal convictions on the matter, but I think you are turning it upside down. You make it sound as if those convicted of capital crimes and are actually innocent outnumber the guilty ones executed. There is no irrefutable evidence that an innocent person has ever been executed in modern times. But to be fair, I will acknowledge that the laws of averages suggest that it has probably happened at one time or another.
But this is where the moral question comes in. That is, in terms of lives, is it better to take the very small risk that an innocent person may be executed and by doing so assure that many callous killers will never again take an innocent life? (the death penalty is definitely a deterrent; that guy ain't gonna do it again).
OR, is it the morally superior position to take the chance that the same brutal killer(s) may one day be paroled or escape to kill again because such is preferable to permitting the state to judicially take the life of one of its citizens?
I obviously go with the former choice, but certainly hope and pray such never occurs (I might also add that if an LEO or zealous prosecutor is ever proven to have deliberated convicted an innocent person of a capital crime, they should suffer the same fate in turn).
Anyway, we all know about Ted Bundy, but here is another example of such an instance that occurred in my native state. This article first appeared in Texas Monthly magazine:
Kenneth McDuff is one of the most sadistic, vicious murderers Texas has ever produced. Why did the state parole board put him back on the streets?
And since I see the death penalty as mostly being a punishment of revenge, I oppose it. The state shouldn't use such archaic tactics. Frankly, I don't think the state has the right to determine rather or not a prisoner can live or die.
Revenge is a personal thing, while retribution is a societal thing. Which is why a criminal justice system exists. It is the state acting on behalf of society at large. Now whether or not the people of the said state want capital punishment is something they decide by voting for candidates whose position they favor on the issue.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 03-13-2015 at 10:25 AM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
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.
