The risk of the death penalty.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Floorist

I am glad that the majority does not agree with you and neither do laws.

Well you would be wrong.
The majority of states(27) abolished capital punishment by statute.
Another 7 have formally suspended capital punishment, but still legal by statute.
Ohio has informally suspended.

Out of the 10 most populous states, only Texas, Florida, and Georgia kill people.

Michigan was the first English speaking territory in the world to abolish capital punishment, way back in 1847. In fact no one has ever been executed by Michigan.

[deadwood]

Originally Posted by JohnPBailey

Witnesses are only human and can sometimes see or hear things incorrectly even with the best of intentions. Some people's
faces look alike. Mistaken identity. Some witnesses have bad hearing or eyesight or a lousy memory.

Like I said, studies have shown that eye witness testimony is the least reliable type of evidence

In my opinion that is because most people don't know how to tell the truth, which doesn't mean they are liars since a liar is person who intentionally lies. However, when one testifies in court they swear to tell the truth therefore if what they testify to in court turns out not to be true, then it is what it is, false testimony.

So why are innocent people convicted? Because the trier of fact, whether judge or a jury didn't know how to discern the truth, and discernment is whole different topic.

[deadwood]

Originally Posted by JohnPBailey

How do you get into the mind of the accused to figure out "intent"?

It is reflected in their actions. Kind of like the fact you focused on the "intent" while showing indifference to the fact that it is impossible to intentionally and unintentionally do something at the same time. If the prosecutor can have you arrested at his sole discretion and charge you with multiple charges before a jury, something is going to stick, if you cant see it happening then it might be a different tune that is heard when it happens to you.

FYI, in regards to the question I asked, the jury found the defendant guilty on both charges, that he intentionally caused the death of the person burglarizing his home and that he caused the death of that same individual without intent.

Ironic thing isn't that the jury found the defendant guilty on anything and everything the prosecutor put before them but rather that the law in the State where this occurred authorizes a person to use of deadly force preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

"and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves ...."

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by JohnPBailey

There's always a risk of putting at least one innocent person to death in error by the state. There is no better reason than that to abolish the death penalty altogether in the United States of America. The number one deterrent against violent crime is a well-armed society and such a society trained in personal defense with arms.

Panic much?

An informed intelligent person is aware that Article III of the US Constitution states that the Supreme Court is the only court that is constitutionally guaranteed and that Congress may create inferior courts from time to time as necessary.

An informed intelligent person is also aware that all courts come in two flavors: trial courts and appellate courts and that at least one appellate court is a "court of last resort."

In other words, the 11 federal circuit courts that currently exist and function as appellate courts are not constitutionally guaranteed. They are creations of Congress.

Accordingly, Congress -- anytime it freaking feels like it -- could create a special appeals court whose purview is exclusively death penalty cases and it could put one such court in each of the 11 existing circuits.

Congress could also craft the statute creating those special appeals courts in such a way that:

1) All death penalty cases are automatically appealed for free at no cost to the defendant to the special appeals court;
2) Trial transcripts and documents are automatically forwarded to the special appeals court within 72 hours of sentencing;
3) The special appeals court would conduct a systematic review:

a) for error in procedural due process with authority to affirm or reverse and remand;
b) for error in substantive due process with authority to affirm or reverse and remand; and
c) re-investigate the case based on certain specific criteria.


The investigators would be persons who possess the investigative skill-set but are not police officers, were never police officers and never underwent peace officer training.

Why? Two reasons. First to eliminate possible biases and prejudices and second to ensure you get the cream of the crop instead of the bottom 10th percentile.

If you're wondering why innocent people get harassed by police, are wrongly accused by police, are wrongly thrown in jail by police, are wrongly forced to stand trial and are wrongly convicted, it's because of unions and stupid Americans.

Stupid Americans decided they don't want to exercise control of their police through their local elected officials.

That's way too much work for your average American and besides, it might interfere in their ability to watch American Idol or binge-watch Gilligan's Island.

Instead, Americans decided to give total control of their police to union officials whom they do not elect and who never ever have to answer to them at any time ever.

The union officials decreed that you can't be an investigator unless you're a police officer.

The problem with that is policing is one skill-set and investigating is a totally separate independent unrelated skill-set.

Policing is about resolving disputes and enforcing traffic laws.

Investigating is about gathering, examining, analyzing, and evaluating evidence to make inferences or draw conclusions.

What if union rules said you can only be a surgeon if you possess the pipe-fitting skill-set?

Or, you're only allowed to be a teacher if you also posses the athletic coaching skill-set?

Or, you're only allowed to be a manager if you possess the air-traffic controller skill-set?

Or, you can only be a nurse if you also possess the pilot skill-set?

Do you see how stupid that is?

If you do doubt, then turn on the TV and watch any number of crime shows like Dateline, 20/20, 48 Hours and all the other crime shows where:

1) Innocent people were harassed by incompetent "investigators" and wrongly tried or convicted because they botched everything; or
2) The guilty parties could not be tried because incompetent "investigators" botched the investigation or the crime scene or the evidence or drew all the wrong conclusions; or
3) The crime remains unsolved because the incompetent "investigators" made a dog's dinner out of everything.


Why do you tolerate it?

Where do you suppose your State or the unions keep their magic wands?

Because, if you got hold of that magic wand you could just wave it around and your children would all be doctors and lawyers and CEOs and you could turn yourself into a fighter-pilot.

What will it take for you all to see the light? Will it take you being wrongfully arrested, or tried or convicted? Or merely someone you care about?

Police unions fostered, endorsed, promulgated, promoted and perpetuated racism, and the whole "us vs them" mentality and the whole Blue Wall of Silence Code and the "it's okay to lie, lie by omission, obfuscate, deceive or withhold evidence or information in furtherance of protecting and serving your pension" nonsense.

Therefore, anyone re-investigating a murder case has to be well above all of that and have no connection to The System.

After re-investigating the case, the court would then affirm, vacate, vacate and remand, reverse and remand, or issue a stay of execution for a definite period of time.

Upon affirming, the next appeal would be to the US Supreme Court, and if there are no appealable issues, the execution is carried out immediately.

The swiftness would actually make the death penalty a deterrence, and there is no conceivable way an innocent person could be executed.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by LordSquidworth

What part of the Constitution gives the state the right?

*** SNIP ***

The Constitution assigns powers to the federal government and reserves Rights for the people and the various Sovereign states. Powers granted to the government supercede the Rights of the people/states. That is why they can call up a draft and force young men to join a standing army and die in wars.

Pretty much the 10th Amendment to the Constitution grants the states the Right to anything not specifically granted as a power to the Federal government. That would include capital punishment. Many states have banned the death penalty, as is their legal constituional Right.

The question then is, does a convicted criminal have an inalienable Right to life under the US Constitution? Generally, the answer is "absolutely yes". An exemption is the Right of a convicted person, who we historically have considered to have forfeited that Right to life due to the heinous nature of his crime. The courts and the Supreme Court have long recognized this Right of the states to execute convicted criminals. They have imposed various limitations and conditions, but never ruled that executing criminals is in and of itself unconstitutional.

You may think otherwise.

I would just caution that, if a convicted criminal has an inalienable right to life, then he also has an inalienable right to liberty. You can't establish that he has an absolute right to life without establishing a commensurate right to liberty. In which case, prison and jail must be abolished, since those deprive him of his liberty.

I don't know how you fell about that. I don't know if you believe convicted criminals havew forfeited their constitutional Right to liberty.

If you believe that convicted criminals have forfeited their right to liberty, it is no different legally than believing that convicted criminals have forfeited their right to life. Morally it is different and that is an entire other discussion, but legally it is no different. You either believe the state has the Right to both incarcerate and execute convicted criminals, or you have to believe they have no Right to either means.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by scorpio516

Well you would be wrong.
The majority of states(27) abolished capital punishment by statute.
Another 7 have formally suspended capital punishment, but still legal by statute.
Ohio has informally suspended.

Out of the 10 most populous states, only Texas, Florida, and Georgia kill people.

Michigan was the first English speaking territory in the world to abolish capital punishment, way back in 1847. In fact no one has ever been executed by Michigan.

And then consider something else. In the last 10 years, the majority of executions have taken place in the former Confederate states. Alabama's last execution was earlier this month.

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by JohnPBailey

There's always a risk of putting at least one innocent person to death in error by the state. There is no better reason than that to abolish the death penalty altogether in the United States of America. The number one deterrent against violent crime is a well-armed society and such a society trained in personal defense with arms.

I'm glad this man did not get the death penalty

A Kansas City man who has been jailed for more than 40 years for three murders was wrongfully convicted in 1979 and will be released, a Missouri judge ruled Tuesday.

Kevin Strickland, 62, has always maintained that he was home watching television and had nothing to do with the killings, which happened when he was 18 years old.

Judge James Welsh, a retired Missouri Court of Appeals judge, ruled after a three-day evidentiary hearing requested by a Jackson County prosecutor who said evidence used to convict Strickland had been recanted or disproven since his 1979 conviction.

Missouri man jailed for over 40 years exonerated; judge says he was wrongfully convicted in 3 killings

[SunGrins]

Twenty years in criminal justice has taught me that no one should be executed under our current, very flawed system. It needs a complete overhaul from top to bottom. There is no halfway fix or bandaids that will make it right.

[Volobjectitarian]

The death penalty gives no possible reversal if later evidence confirms the convicted was actually innocent. Based simply on that alone, it should be abolished. It cannot be undone.

That said, anyone receiving a "life without the possibility of parole" sentence should be permitted to voluntarily choose execution to get the sentence over with before spending 40+ years in 23 hour lockdown or whatever. There should be a voluntary component attached to that sentence that allows the convicted to save themselves time and save all of us money...if they so choose of their own volition.

You solve two problems - 1) no more irreversible mistakes and 2) voluntary component allows convicted to do us all a favor and just get it over with.