Death penalty in California ruled unconstitutional. (population, arrests, offer)

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

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.

There are plenty of people on death row who never get a DNA test, and there are prosecutors who actively block the efforts of groups such as the Innocence Project from obtaining DNA tests for their clients, likely because they don't want to look bad as the prosecutor who put an innocent man on death row.

State crime labs are backed up and even the new interest in forensic criminology popularized by CSI, Cold Case, and Forensic Files is not going to fill the seats.

We need to reform our justice system and one step that can be taken to reduce the harm done to innocent people is abolishing the death penalty.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by SHABAZZ310

Harrier, finally there's something I agree with you on...

Glad to hear it!

We don't always have to butt heads.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by stabo

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.

Harrier disagrees - but not for your stated reason.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Freudian slip or did you really mean that? So your advice is to demand a jury trial on the original charges and forget pleading them down to a lesser included offense if I was actually and irrefutably guilty? Don't think I'd want you on my defense team.

Actually, Harrier saw shooting4life's post not as a criticism of plea bargaining, but as a statement of reality for the behavior of many DA's.

If plea bargaining was rejected, then the dockets would backlog.

Unfortunately, there are also prosecutors who take questionable cases to trial because they want the publicity, another flaw in the system which needs to be corrected.

Prosecutors should not be allowed to use innocent people as political pawns.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The system is designed for people to plea out, if people do not work within the design of the system then it comes crashing down.

Harrier wouldn't see that as a bad thing - however if he were an officer of the court representing a client, he would not act in a manner that would bring such an outcome to fruition.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Did you really just say that someone who is found not guilty because they are innocent is actually a criminal simply because they were charged with a crime?

People who get arrested most of the time are criminals. If they are found not guilty for one specific crime, most time they will get arrested again in the future for committing another crime. People commit crimes because they generally have no other life skills.

Generally their are three types of people in the justice system

The largest group is for things like DUI and minor domestic abuse, regular people making a mistake and getting caught, general do not serve any time, complete community service and diversion programs and don't reoffend.

The next two groups are who I am talking about re repeat offenders.

The next biggest group are minor criminals, these are people with drug problems and commit mostly non violent crimes to support their addiction. They drive the b&e's, grand theft, shoplifting and the occasional armed robbery.
The next group are much smaller but are the worst of the worst, rapists, child molestation, murder, assault, etc. which make up a much smaller portion of the justice system compared to the two groups above.

Both of the two above groups are made up of long term criminals that will almost always re offend. The vast majority of people in these two groups also don't commit just one crime, they commit a bunch of crimes over time and are finally caught for one of the crimes. That is why I say if they get let out for some reason it won't be long until that get picked back up for something else.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

After actually reading Judge Carney's ruling, it appears that it isn't the DP he's ruling as unconstitutional but rather the promise or threat of death that is unconstitutional and the long delays an inmate must wait for sentence to be carried out. I was puzzled by his ruling because Judge Carney is a conservative judge. Not to say that all conservative judges make liberal rulings but I wondered what compelled him to make such a ruling.

He is also a former UCLA wide receiver.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

People who get arrested most of the time are criminals.

You didn't make a distinction in your earlier post.

Here is a more direct question:

Do you believe that everyone who is arrested is a criminal?

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Actually, Harrier saw shooting4life's post not as a criticism of plea bargaining, but as a statement of reality for the behavior of many DA's.

If plea bargaining was rejected, then the dockets would backlog.

Unfortunately, there are also prosecutors who take questionable cases to trial because they want the publicity, another flaw in the system which needs to be corrected.

Prosecutors should not be allowed to use innocent people as political pawns.

Most of the questionable things taken to trial are the things the da adds on the try and get a plea. This is how the process works.

The da has a great case for three charges and wants the person to plea out, so the da tells the person plea to these three charges or we will go to trials and I will also charge you with these 4 other things that are a stretch for 7 total charges. Then they tell the defendant, you can either plea to these 3 charges for 2 years or you can face up to 20 years on the 7 charges. Most people won't risk it and take the deal, even when the chance of being found guilty on all charges is exceptionally low and the judge won't give the maximum sentance in most cases and the defendant would still only get the same 2-3 years if they went to trial.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Most of the questionable things taken to trial are the things the da adds on the try and get a plea. This is how the process works.

The da has a great case for three charges and wants the person to plea out, so the da tells the person plea to these three charges or we will go to trials and I will also charge you with these 4 other things that are a stretch for 7 total charges. Then they tell the defendant, you can either plea to these 3 charges for 2 years or you can face up to 20 years on the 7 charges. Most people won't risk it and take the deal, even when the chance of being found guilty on all charges is exceptionally low and the judge won't give the maximum sentance in most cases and the defendant would still only get the same 2-3 years if they went to trial.

Its all a game.