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.
In related news, despite what you've been told and what humans have observed for millennia, the sun actually rises in the west. The east-rising sun theory is part of a huge conspiracy.
I would go back to the opening question of the original post: do we believe in ourselves?
I think a better way to frame it is do we believe that our system of justice is structured, designed, and operated so as to guarantee fair and accurate outcomes?
For me the answer is clearly no.
First, every year we see people who have been sentenced to life without parole or other similarly long sentences and who have subsequently been shown to be innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is pure happenstance that those people were not sentenced to death and executed. Since 1973 at least 185 innocent people who have been sentenced to death have been exonerated, and at least 375 people have been exonerated by the use of DNA evidence. So as an empirical matter, it is clear that our system cannot be trusted to produce correct outcomes.
Second, there are many points in the system at which racial or other extraneous factors operate to influence who will be charged, who will be charged with a capital crime, and who will be sentenced to death. Not only the race of the perpetrator, but also the race of the victim, plays a part in whether the death penalty will be sought.
Third, there are elements that have been introduced into the system with the clear intention of making it less just, and less likely to produce a just outcome. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized the use of what are called "death qualified" juries, in which any potential juror who has a moral scruple against capital punishment can be excluded, even though (I would say because) it has been clearly shown that a death qualified juror is more likely to convict the defendant than a juror opposed to the death penalty.
Fourth, there are myriad elements of the system that, intentionally or not, make trial outcomes more, not less, likely to be wrong. These include reliance on eyewitness testimony, to reliance on improperly suggestive identification techniques, to relying on false confessions even when the police know they are false.
I don't think Sirhan Sirhan should be released. Sure, he won't kill again, but he did immeasurable harm to our society, and he did it on purpose. Even with the foolishness of a few conspiracy junkies, there is literally no doubt that he is guilty of this monstrous crime.
Still, do I "believe in" our system enough to think that this system should be given the power of life and death? Absolutely not.
I would go back to the opening question of the original post: do we believe in ourselves?************
I don't think Sirhan Sirhan should be released. Sure, he won't kill again, but he did immeasurable harm to our society, and he did it on purpose. Even with the foolishness of a few conspiracy junkies, there is literally no doubt that he is guilty of this monstrous crime.
Still, do I "believe in" our system enough to think that this system should be given the power of life and death? Absolutely not.
The problem to me is not the unicorns who are sentenced to death and are totally innocent. This is not the Jim Crow south of the 1920s and 1930s. Death penalties in modern, post-1976 times have a bifurcated hearing process where first guilt or innocence and then aggravating or mitigating factors are considered. It is unlikely, therefore, that a first-time offender would get capital punishment. Most and probably all of these offenders are hardened criminals or, in a rare case such as Sirhan, caught in the act and not denying the actions they took. Therefore, the likelihood of an innocent person being wrongfully executed is nil.
As far as the last sentence of the quote, the question is really whether we believe in an ordered society and a system of morality enough to enforce it? I wouldn't have written this thread if first the death penalty, and then true life without release were not effectively off the table. Further motivation was the outcry against "mass incarceration" and the push to release actual criminals and to refrain from imprisoning people for racial or political reasons. The fallout from Mike Brown and George Floyd, and cashless bail makes it patently obvious that we don't believe in a criminal system that punishes.
I would go back to the opening question of the original post: do we believe in ourselves?
I think a better way to frame it is do we believe that our system of justice is structured, designed, and operated so as to guarantee fair and accurate outcomes?
For me the answer is clearly no.
First, every year we see people who have been sentenced to life without parole or other similarly long sentences and who have subsequently been shown to be innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Second, there are many points in the system at which racial or other extraneous factors operate to influence who will be charged, who will be charged with a capital crime, and who will be sentenced to death. Not only the race of the perpetrator, but also the race of the victim, plays a part in whether the death penalty will be sought.
Third, there are elements that have been introduced into the system with the clear intention of making it less just, and less likely to produce a just outcome. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized the use of what are called "death qualified" juries...
Fourth, there are myriad elements of the system that, intentionally or not, make trial outcomes more, not less, likely to be wrong. These include reliance on eyewitness testimony, to reliance on improperly suggestive identification techniques, to relying on false confessions even when the police know they are false.
Still, do I "believe in" our system enough to think that this system should be given the power of life and death? Absolutely not.
I concur with most of what you posted and would also answer "no" and that it's not just death penalty cases we should be looking at. I'd add that we need to change the way the decision-makers in the criminal justice system are selected and retained. Right now many of these positions are elected, often in a contest more like a beauty pageant than a selection based on ability, education, and integrity. I think we should require judges, prosecutors, and sheriffs to be appointed by a professional board with regular performance review. In small town and county circuits the judge, prosecutor, defense lawyers, and even sheriffs and probation officers make up a tight circle of people who know each other, play golf, hunt, or play tennis together or were possibly business partners or distantly related. Elected prosecutors are often looking for the next higher job, either as a judge or in the legislature or even higher. I suggest we prohibit higher candidacy for a period of two or more years after leaving those positions. During election years it really looks good to voters if you are super tough on crime -- lots of convictions, lots of incarcerations, lots of high numbers. Race is often a part of that, also the "usual suspects" whoever they are (everybody knows they are guilty). It would be interesting to learn how many of those incorrectly convicted individuals were on trial in a local election year.
Professionalism is not the strongest trait in some criminal justice decision-makers. Defense lawyers in my city complained that the police were not arresting enough people and they were having a hard time making ends meet. The police needed to round up a few more "criminals". Some years ago my state police installed a super-duper electronic fingerprint system and sat back and waited for the cold cases to flow in to the system based on all those fingerprint cards. It turned out that the out-state police and deputies didn't know how to take proper fingerprints. Many were unreadable or else they just didn't bother in the first place or take it serious. Again. a lack of professionalism.
Some very good points above, about criminal justice. 93% of Americans sent to prison are plea-bargained, 14 out of 15 never see a jury. Prosecutors do not go ti trial based on probability of guilt, but probability of getting a guilty verdict, with a Grand Jury at their disposal to determine that.
I don't think Sirhan Sirhan should be released. Sure, he won't kill again, but he did immeasurable harm to our society, and he did it on purpose. Even with the foolishness of a few conspiracy junkies, there is literally no doubt that he is guilty of this monstrous crime.
The man has a screw loose for sure.
Under California law, to be released on parole, a prison lifer must be considered no longer a danger to the public. Asked at his hearing whether he’d ever kill again, Sirhan replied: “I would never put myself in jeopardy again.”
That wasn’t exactly a statement of remorse. But Sirhan at another point said: “Sen. Kennedy was the hope of the world … and it pains me … the knowledge for such a horrible deed — if I did, in fact, do that.”
Neither was that exactly taking full responsibility for the evil act, although Sirhan added: “I’m still responsible for being there and probably causing this whole incident through my own gun or other guns.”
Sirhan, who is Palestinian, now claims not to remember the murder. But he confessed immediately afterward and has many times since, saying he objected to Kennedy’s support of Israel. There was a kitchen pantry room full of people at the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard who witnessed the killing.
Under California law, to be released on parole, a prison lifer must be considered no longer a danger to the public. Asked at his hearing whether he’d ever kill again, Sirhan replied: “I would never put myself in jeopardy again.”
That wasn’t exactly a statement of remorse. But Sirhan at another point said: “Sen. Kennedy was the hope of the world … and it pains me … the knowledge for such a horrible deed — if I did, in fact, do that.”
Neither was that exactly taking full responsibility for the evil act, although Sirhan added: “I’m still responsible for being there and probably causing this whole incident through my own gun or other guns.”
Sirhan, who is Palestinian, now claims not to remember the murder. But he confessed immediately afterward and has many times since, saying he objected to Kennedy’s support of Israel. There was a kitchen pantry room full of people at the Ambassador Hotel on Wilshire Boulevard who witnessed the killing.
I was exactly eight years old when RFK was murdered. I date that year, 1968, with my becoming somewhat aware of what was going on around me in the adult world. Those who lived through that period may remember what an awful year 1968 was. It began with North Vietnam launching the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. While US armed forces caused enormous casualties among the communists, the fact that they were able to attack us all over Vietnam was proof that four years of effort in Vietnam had not defeated the communists. In April 1968, Martin Luther King, the very symbol of non-violent protest to discrimination was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee. In June, just after winning the 1968 California primary Bobby Kennedy was shot by Sirhan Sirhan.
I remember being told by mother the next morning that Bobby had shot. Shortly after that, they announced he had died. My father was a big supporter of Bobby. It was a bit unusual for him. He was a World War II veteran who wore his hair in crew cut and frequently badmouthed hippies and the anti-war movement. Yet, he saw something in Bobby that fired his imagination. Bobby's death was a dark moment for him and for our family. Many others felt exactly the same way. When Bobby spoke he had a way of appealing to the best in people. He struck this philosophical note in his speeches that few other candidates have ever matched. My favorite is when he would quote George Bernard Shaw and say:
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not."
Whether Bobby had been elected president or not, his death was enormous loss for this country. I suspect it was a totally political crime by Sirhan Sirhan. He was an Arab and RFK expressed support for Israel. I don't think its any more complicated than that.
The "Great Debate" question is whether society has totally lost its belief in itself to the extent that we no longer consider willful, cold-blooded murder a line that must not be crossed? Why would we even consider parole for the likes of a Charles Manson or Sirhan Sirhan?
Does that line say something about society, or does it say something about George Gascon? Gascon has a lot of questionable policies, not the least of which is never appearing at a Parole hearing. There's an active petition now to have a referendum to recall and remove him from office. Sirhan's most recent hearing was the first that the DA's office didn't send anyone.
Does that line say something about society, or does it say something about George Gascon? Gascon has a lot of questionable policies, not the least of which is never appearing at a Parole hearing. There's an active petition now to have a referendum to recall and remove him from office. Sirhan's most recent hearing was the first that the DA's office didn't send anyone.
I think Mr. Gascon's stance is emblematic of the problem. There's a belief that no crime, no matter how heinous, deserves punishment. At the risk of repetition this has evolved all the way to cashless bail, followed by endlessly delayed trials. The excuse of course is Covid. But in the real world nobody is really pushing for these crimes to be tried.
Even "life" sentences now, even for major assassins, are commuted. If the top of society doesn't believe, why should anyone?
First you must telll me that you believe execution has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
Failing that, your position is reduced to revenge. If your own blood-lust is such that you wish to kill in revenge, we have nothing to talk about. You have forever forfeited your right to call yourself compassionate.
Sirhan was Jordanian. Those 50 jets were in fact later used to kill Jordanians. Sirhan was a soldier with a cause.
I used to be against capital punishment until I watch nat geo's series on prisons. Its disgusting. Almost torture. Put the nasty ones down.
Measurable? We don't pay to keep that inmate alive. Plus, I can count the victims and I can count the imamate that we turned off.
I liked the "blood thirst". its cute, but misguided.
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.
