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.
You're advocating a change in due process of the law. I think that's a Constitutional issue.
Currently the FACT is that appeals are part of due process, and appeals are very expensive.
You're right,I am for changing it based on certain facts only.If upon pulling up to the scene,the individual is caught in the act of premeditated murder and also if an individual comes forward and admits guilt,signs a statement,and the statement is backed up with a polygraph then I believe the appeals process should not be in play.
You're right,I am for changing it based on certain facts only.If upon pulling up to the scene,the individual is caught in the act of premeditated murder and also if an individual comes forward and admits guilt,signs a statement,and the statement is backed up with a polygraph then I believe the appeals process should not be in play.
Are you aware that death penalty trials are comprised to two phases. First there is the guilt innocence trial. If defendant is found guilty, then the second part of the trial take place, which is the sentencing phase of the trial.
In order to impose the death penalty on someone there must be statutory aggravators. The state presents their case for statutory aggravators. Then the defense puts on their case involving mitigators.
Are you aware that the death penalty in this country was once held to be unconstitutional and STOPPED. It was reinstated in I think 1977. Google Furman v. Georgia and read about what changes had to be made in order for death penalty law to NOT be unconstitutional and to be reinstated.
For more history of the death penalty in this country, try Death Penalty Information Center. There's a link to that site in one of the above posts.
Death penalty laws are very complex because death is different. When you kill someone, if you made a mistake, you can't bring them back to life. Personally, I do not know of one single case where a defendant was "caught in the act" by law enforcement, and then signed a confession, and took a polygraph. By the way, information from a polygraph is not admissable in court in any kind of case. One other fallacy is your assumption of "premeditation." "Premeditation" is defined in the law and is not as easy as you may think to prove. Your example involves so many elements that situations like that would never be the case, IMO.
Can you point out any cases where the defendant was caught in the act of killing someone, there was evidence of premeditation, the defendant took a polygraph and signed a confession?
This explains WHY death penalty statutes were changed, and what changes were made.
"Suspending the Death Penalty
The issue of arbitrariness of the death penalty was again be brought before the Supreme Court in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, ... With the Furman decision the Supreme Court set the standard that a punishment would be "cruel and unusual" if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or it if was not more effective than a less severe penalty.
In 9 separate opinions, and by a vote of 5 to 4, the Court held that Georgia's death penalty statute, which gave the jury complete sentencing discretion, could result in arbitrary sentencing. The Court held that the scheme of punishment under the statute was therefore "cruel and unusual" and violated the Eighth Amendment. Thus, on June 29,1972, the Supreme Court effectively voided 40 death penalty statutes, thereby commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates around the country and suspending the death penalty because existing statutes were no longer valid.
"Reinstating the Death Penalty
.."Athough the separate opinions by Justices Brennan and Marshall stated that the death penalty itself was unconstitutional, the overall holding in Furman was that the specific death penalty statutes were unconstitutional.
With that holding, the Court essentially opened the door to states to rewrite their death penalty statutes to eliminate the problems cited in Furman...
Other states sought to limit that discretion by providing sentencing guidelines for the judge and jury when deciding whether to impose death. The guidelines allowed for the introduction of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining sentencing...
These guided discretion statutes were approved in 1976 by the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia,...collectively referred to as the Gregg decision. This landmark decision held that the new death penalty statutes in Florida, Georgia, and Texas were constitutional, thus reinstating the death penalty in those states. The Court also held that the death penalty itself was constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
In addition to sentencing guidelines, three other procedural reforms were approved by the Court in Gregg.
The first was bifurcated trials, in which there are separate deliberations for the guilt and penalty phases of the trial...
Another was the practice of automatic appellate review of convictions and sentence.
The final procedural reform from Gregg was proportionality review, a practice that helps the state to identify and eliminate sentencing disparities. "
In Florida the judge is the one who determines the sentence. The jury, during the penalty phase of trial, hears evidence of aggravators and mitigators, and the jury makes a recommendation as to whether or not to impose the death penalty. They recommend life or death. The judge then makes the final determination and imposes the sentence.
That is still the system here. So, of course, the judges in Florida don't want to override jury recommendations anymore. That would probably give opportunity for attorneys in this state to challenge the system used here where the judge imposes the sentence and makes him/her the finder of fact in the penalty phase of the trial. In the jury instructions in death penalty cases, penalty phase, the jury is instructed that they are making a recommendation only and that the judge makes the final determination of what the sentence will be.......at least that was the case in the jury instructions. It may have changed since the Arizona case.
Of course this type of system actually relieves jurors of the responsibility of imposing a death sentence and therefore, IMO, it makes the decision easier for them. They would never have to grapple with any guilt feelings in the future regarding the execution of someone whose conviction was questionable.
The easiest way to handle these problems is by removing ANY "type of system" involving the DP....just switch to life without parole.
If we could somehow make it 100% objective and required 100% proof (as if proof in ANY case could ever be 100%), I would feel a little bit better about it.
That said, I do not believe that state-sponsored killing (except in the case of a necessary war) is EVER morally appropriate or acceptable, so I still wouldn't approve. Two wrongs do not make a right.
As to the part of your post I bolded, I don't know about you but if I was on one of these juries and had any involvement at all in sentencing even the worst scumbag on the face of the planet to die, I would grapple with guilt feelings regardless of whether the conviction was "questionable."
Are you aware that death penalty trials are comprised to two phases. First there is the guilt innocence trial. If defendant is found guilty, then the second part of the trial take place, which is the sentencing phase of the trial.
In order to impose the death penalty on someone there must be statutory aggravators. The state presents their case for statutory aggravators. Then the defense puts on their case involving mitigators.
Are you aware that the death penalty in this country was once held to be unconstitutional and STOPPED. It was reinstated in I think 1977. Google Furman v. Georgia and read about what changes had to be made in order for death penalty law to NOT be unconstitutional and to be reinstated.
For more history of the death penalty in this country, try Death Penalty Information Center. There's a link to that site in one of the above posts.
Death penalty laws are very complex because death is different. When you kill someone, if you made a mistake, you can't bring them back to life. Personally, I do not know of one single case where a defendant was "caught in the act" by law enforcement, and then signed a confession, and took a polygraph. By the way, information from a polygraph is not admissable in court in any kind of case. One other fallacy is your assumption of "premeditation." "Premeditation" is defined in the law and is not as easy as you may think to prove. Your example involves so many elements that situations like that would never be the case, IMO.
Can you point out any cases where the defendant was caught in the act of killing someone, there was evidence of premeditation, the defendant took a polygraph and signed a confession?
George Banks. PA Not only slaughtered his family to include his children but also shot at police. There he sits on death row after all these years. He is a poster child for speedy delivery of justice.
america hates punishment been like that for 50 years.
does not matter, prison, home school all the same dont do it.
time out confinement prison with no forced labor
reward only system
works great with rats
The easiest way to handle these problems is by removing ANY "type of system" involving the DP....just switch to life without parole.
If we could somehow make it 100% objective and required 100% proof (as if proof in ANY case could ever be 100%), I would feel a little bit better about it.
That said, I do not believe that state-sponsored killing (except in the case of a necessary war) is EVER morally appropriate or acceptable, so I still wouldn't approve. Two wrongs do not make a right.
As to the part of your post I bolded, I don't know about you but if I was on one of these juries and had any involvement at all in sentencing even the worst scumbag on the face of the planet to die, I would grapple with guilt feelings regardless of whether the conviction was "questionable."
I agree with you. Best thing to do is not have a death penalty at all. LWOP would do just fine.
I don't believe you or I would ever be allowed to sit on a jury in a death case. One of the questions asked of each potential juror during jury selection is how they feel about the death penalty. If you are opposed to the death penalty, you are excused and not allowed on that jury.
I can't count the times I've said "two wrongs don't make a right." The death penalty is a "luxury" for those who treasure revenge. And it is becoming a "luxury" which our society can barely afford anymore.
George Banks. PA Not only slaughtered his family to include his children but also shot at police. There he sits on death row after all these years. He is a poster child for speedy delivery of justice.
Clearly you do not understand the Constitutional concept of due process of the law and you do not understand that laws are in place to protect you and other innocent people who may be charged and convicted of a crime you did not commit. That doesn't mean that every person on death row is innocent. It means that all citizens have the right of due process of the law.......even people who are infamous for crimes they have committed.
WHY do you worry about what happens to "George Banks"? Is it personal? Are you a family member of the victims? Are you related to George Banks? WHY IS IT SO PERSONAL? Will the execution of "George Banks" personally enrich your life in some way??
Was George Banks caught in the act of murdering all those people, did he sign a written confession, was premeditation proven, did he take a polygraph? Is that your point, that George Banks would be an example of the set of circumstances which another poster suggested garner execution immediately after conviction? Is that your point?
america hates punishment been like that for 50 years.
does not matter, prison, home school all the same dont do it.
time out confinement prison with no forced labor
reward only system
works great with rats
Clearly you do not understand the Constitutional concept of due process of the law and you do not understand that laws are in place to protect you and other innocent people who may be charged and convicted of a crime you did not commit. That doesn't mean that every person on death row is innocent. It means that all citizens have the right of due process of the law.......even people who are infamous for crimes they have committed.
WHY do you worry about what happens to "George Banks"? Is it personal? Are you a family member of the victims? Are you related to George Banks? WHY IS IT SO PERSONAL? Will the execution of "George Banks" personally enrich your life in some way??
Was George Banks caught in the act of murdering all those people, did he sign a written confession, was premeditation proven, did he take a polygraph? Is that your point, that George Banks would be an example of the set of circumstances which another poster suggested garner execution immediately after conviction? Is that your point?
Austin, I think that you are a bit pompous. Talking down to people isn't a way to earn respect.
I am against killing innocent babies/adults, but all for killing murderers. The BIG issue I have with the d.p. is corruption. Who draws the line for who deserves to die/live. What if that line starts to shift. Where will it end?
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.
Lancet71
