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.
And you cannot undue keeping someone in prison for 20 years by just letting them to and saying your sorry. The process is not perfect, and can never be, that is why the appeals process is so thorough and ultimately the guilt is determined by ones piers, not a judge.
Scores more die in gen pop while doing shorts bids than by lethal injection. If you are worried about people dieing prematurely, worrying about the death row should be the last of your concern.
Appellate court judges look at the appeal and rule on it. If, and only if, the defendant is granted a new trial, it is heard before a jury. Otherwise, the appeals court makes the decision not one's peers (a pier is a structure, btw)
The whole court system is really fascinating. You'd probably enjoy reading up on it to find out just how it all works.
Also, those who have been wrongly incarcerated for great lengths of time are often given money to compensate. Not that it really gives them back those years but, at least, they don't have to worry too much about food and clothing. It's an awful shame when someone is locked away and they aren't guilty.
And you cannot undue keeping someone in prison for 20 years by just letting them to and saying your sorry. The process is not perfect, and can never be, that is why the appeals process is so thorough and ultimately the guilt is determined by ones piers, not a judge.
Scores more die in gen pop while doing shorts bids than by lethal injection. If you are worried about people dieing prematurely, worrying about the death row should be the last of your concern.
The appeals process is thorough? Brotherman, what you don't know about law is encyclopedic. It's ridiculously convoluted and thoroughly full of crap, is what it is. And, as Mars is pointing out, there are no guarantees your appeal will be accepted for retrial.
As for guilt being ultimately determined by a jury of one's peers - um, do you really think that is a good thing? Do you think most of the people you read on this forum are capable of analyzing how to tie their shoes, let alone analyze complex rhetorical Sophist smoke and mirrors thrown at them in dazzling presentations created to obfuscate regardless of truths?
You would trust the average knucklehead on the street with your life when they can't even figure out how to eat properly when they are presented with absolute scientific evidence on what causes morbid obesity?
As long as we have such a charade for a justice system, you better damn well give people the opportunity to keep fighting for their lives.
Appellate court judges look at the appeal and rule on it. If, and only if, the defendant is granted a new trial, it is heard before a jury. Otherwise, the appeals court makes the decision not one's peers (a pier is a structure, btw)
The whole court system is really fascinating. You'd probably enjoy reading up on it to find out just how it all works.
Also, those who have been wrongly incarcerated for great lengths of time are often given money to compensate. Not that it really gives them back those years but, at least, they don't have to worry too much about food and clothing. It's an awful shame when someone is locked away and they aren't guilty.
Thank you, Mars, for speaking sensibly.
Unfortunately, some states still don't compensate for false convictions and incarcerations.
It IS an awful shame when people are falsely accused, convicted, and imprisoned. Happens all the time. And shame is certainly the right word for that.
Appellate court judges look at the appeal and rule on it. If, and only if, the defendant is granted a new trial, it is heard before a jury. Otherwise, the appeals court makes the decision not one's peers (a pier is a structure, btw)
The whole court system is really fascinating. You'd probably enjoy reading up on it to find out just how it all works.
Also, those who have been wrongly incarcerated for great lengths of time are often given money to compensate. Not that it really gives them back those years but, at least, they don't have to worry too much about food and clothing. It's an awful shame when someone is locked away and they aren't guilty.
I understand the appeals process and the court system, trust me.
It is thorough, the trial process is thorough as well, usually years of hearings and motions before a single juror walks through the door. And I trust the decision of a jury instead of a bureaucrat. Anyways, a criminal can always waive their jury trial and go for a court trial.
It isn't the money, being out of society for so long changes people. They can no longer function, the money gets spent in short order on the vises of their youth and the person ends up back in prison because they have no life skills, no one will take them in, etc. People who are wrongly convicted most times are not innocent of crime, just innocent of that crime.
I understand the appeals process and the court system, trust me.
It is thorough, the trial process is thorough as well, usually years of hearings and motions before a single juror walks through the door. And I trust the decision of a jury instead of a bureaucrat. Anyways, a criminal can always waive their jury trial and go for a court trial.
It isn't the money, being out of society for so long changes people. They can no longer function, the money gets spent in short order on the vises of their youth and the person ends up back in prison because they have no life skills, no one will take them in, etc. People who are wrongly convicted most times are not innocent of crime, just innocent of that crime.
Some remarkable statements here. Astounding, actually. And your last sentence takes the cake for ignorance as to the very purpose and value of law in society.
Having a person such as you make it onto a jury would prove the nightmare of the system a reality.
Some remarkable statements here. Astounding, actually. And your last sentence takes the cake for ignorance as to the very purpose and value of law in society.
Having a person such as you make it onto a jury would prove the nightmare of the system a reality.
You are probably not around those that make their way through the justice system. Talk to any police officer and they will tell you the same.
That is why I do not have a problem with the high standard of proving guilt in the justice process. If a criminal gets let go because of a process, it won't be long until they get picked up for something else. For criminals are not criminals because they are smart and have life skills.
Thank you, Mars, for speaking sensibly. Unfortunately, some states still don't compensate for false convictions and incarcerations.
It IS an awful shame when people are falsely accused, convicted, and imprisoned. Happens all the time. And shame is certainly the right word for that.
And they should. When the state errs so monumentally, they should be held accountable, even if it means doing so with $$$. I also agree that "shame" isn't the right word. It's worse than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
I understand the appeals process and the court system, trust me.
It is thorough, the trial process is thorough as well, usually years of hearings and motions before a single juror walks through the door. And I trust the decision of a jury instead of a bureaucrat. Anyways, a criminal can always waive their jury trial and go for a court trial.
It isn't the money, being out of society for so long changes people. They can no longer function, the money gets spent in short order on the vises of their youth and the person ends up back in prison because they have no life skills, no one will take them in, etc. People who are wrongly convicted most times are not innocent of crime, just innocent of that crime.
I don't know if I'd agree with you about it being all that thorough. I've seen cases rushed through court without all the evidence presented, only to have the DA hang his/her head in shame because they didn't do their due diligence in the matter. What I've learned about DA's is that they are always jockeying for that bump up in position. Some want to be judges and a big win could catapult them onto the bench. Such as the DA who was in charge of the Peterson case. He's now a judge. If he had lost that case, he'd be in private practice, scratching for clients. The DA's office doesn't like losers so if they can get a conviction with the evidence (or lack thereof) they have, and they can get a jury to believe it, they'll do it. Look. I'm not saying all DA's are like this but there is a multitude of stories about wrongly convicted people on death row. All because some gung ho DA skirted the truth and got the win.
As for prison changing people, I agree. I've never believed that incarceration is a means for rehabilitation. It's only trains them to be better criminals. And the longer one stays in prison, the more "institutionalized" they become. (Red said that to Andy in probably one of the greatest movies ever made).
So what's the solution? Is it better to let someone use up tax dollars to file appeal after appeal until they've exhausted all of them, only to have the final answer still be the same ... or, is it better to sentence someone to life without the possibility of parole and allow them one appeal, just in case something was overlooked and they truly are innocent of the crime? You already know my answer. Save the $$$ and lock them away for life. Oh, and one thing the prison system could do is remove those damned law books because that's where these jailhouse lawyers get these crazy ideas to appeal. They've got nothing better to do than sit in the library, scouring page after page, looking for any loophole they can find.
And they should. When the state errs so monumentally, they should be held accountable, even if it means doing so with $$$. I also agree that "shame" isn't the right word. It's worse than that.
I don't know if I'd agree with you about it being all that thorough. I've seen cases rushed through court without all the evidence presented, only to have the DA hang his/her head in shame because they didn't do their due diligence in the matter. What I've learned about DA's is that they are always jockeying for that bump up in position. Some want to be judges and a big win could catapult them onto the bench. Such as the DA who was in charge of the Peterson case. He's now a judge. If he had lost that case, he'd be in private practice, scratching for clients. The DA's office doesn't like losers so if they can get a conviction with the evidence (or lack thereof) they have, and they can get a jury to believe it, they'll do it. Look. I'm not saying all DA's are like this but there is a multitude of stories about wrongly convicted people on death row. All because some gung ho DA skirted the truth and got the win.
As for prison changing people, I agree. I've never believed that incarceration is a means for rehabilitation. It's only trains them to be better criminals. And the longer one stays in prison, the more "institutionalized" they become. (Red said that to Andy in probably one of the greatest movies ever made).
So what's the solution? Is it better to let someone use up tax dollars to file appeal after appeal until they've exhausted all of them, only to have the final answer still be the same ... or, is it better to sentence someone to life without the possibility of parole and allow them one appeal, just in case something was overlooked and they truly are innocent of the crime? You already know my answer. Save the $$$ and lock them away for life. Oh, and one thing the prison system could do is remove those damned law books because that's where these jailhouse lawyers get these crazy ideas to appeal. They've got nothing better to do than sit in the library, scouring page after page, looking for any loophole they can find.
Their will always be some case about an over reach, political pressure, etc in the DA's office. The vast majority of the time that isn't true though. A lot of the bad convictions for death row were pre DNA, over the last decade or so that is changing. Of course that doesn't help those in prison pre DNA.
In the grand scheme of things the cost to opposite death row is minimal compared to the rest of the justice system, plus if actually used it would act as a deterrent to some criminals.
Ultimately, the goal of the DA is just about every case is to get the defendant to plea out. If 1% of arrests went to trial without a waiver of time the justice system would come to a complete halt and scores of people would have their charges dropped and be released because of a lack of timely persecution.
Last edited by shooting4life; 07-20-2014 at 12:13 AM..
If you are an innocent person who is executed, what is an "acceptable" percentage?
I think we have to accept that a small percentage of human error is a fact of life. These cases certainly pull on the heart-strings, but police mistakenly kill innocent people too - it doesn't mean we should abolish police. I think some people have committed crimes so heinous, some people are so anti-social and evil that they are incapable of rehabilitation and do not deserve another breath. It sends a good message imo. And more importantly, in a state/country that is increasingly bleeding red, the taxpayers should not be forced to feed/house these savages and foot the bill for decades of court battles. The average American can't take much more...the country is not as prosperous as it used to be. The costs have to be cut somewhere and it has to start with the dead weight like criminals, illegals, bloated gov't salaries, etc...
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.
