Another case illustrating why the death penalty needs to go

[djAdvocate]

Sept 9, 2014 21:26:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be perfectly honest... I'd even be "for" the Death Penalty in cases where who the perp was is NOT in doubt, but there wasn't even a death... if the perp used a weapon that COULD have killed someone and THREATENED to use it.

Because... just because they didn't kill this time doesn't mean they won't the next time, AND we know they don't mind threatening to do so. (might cut down on violent crime if the criminals knew that even threatening to kill could cost your life).

the evidence on deterrence is ambiguous.  given the certainty of wrongful conviction, and the uncertainty of deterrence, i don't think it is a factor that a reasonable person should consider. 

I don't see that ever happening though.

not that anyone is soliciting my opinion, but i don't think crimes of passion should be subject to even LWOPP.  i bet that perspective is about as far out of the mainstream as yours is.

[EVT1]

Are they? As far as I know they are not- at least as a general rule. I think you are right in the mainstream on that.

[Deleted]

Sept 9, 2014 21:43:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:26:54 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

To be perfectly honest... I'd even be "for" the Death Penalty in cases where who the perp was is NOT in doubt, but there wasn't even a death... if the perp used a weapon that COULD have killed someone and THREATENED to use it.

Because... just because they didn't kill this time doesn't mean they won't the next time, AND we know they don't mind threatening to do so. (might cut down on violent crime if the criminals knew that even threatening to kill could cost your life).

the evidence on deterrence is ambiguous.  given the certainty of wrongful conviction, and the uncertainty of deterrence, i don't think it is a factor that a reasonable person should consider. 

I don't see that ever happening though.

not that anyone is soliciting my opinion, but i don't think crimes of passion should be subject to even LWOPP.  i bet that perspective is about as far out of the mainstream as yours is.

Your bolded is why I limit it to only those cases where the perp's identity is NOT in doubt.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 9, 2014 21:41:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:25:35 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I have no idea.  No idea if it's higher or lower or what.  I just know it happens.  Regardless.  What do you do with those people?  Even if it's just one time - what do you do?  Obviously, I know it's a chance you take being a correctional officer, just like a police officer or a fireman, etc.  But what do you do with those inmates who have nothing to lose - nothing further you can take from them?  Do we just allow them to keep killing? 

Usually, I'm not one to make a case out of the 1:1,000,000.  This time, it's personal.  Guess that's the way it is for everyone.

i know.  but here is my point:

let's say that the murder rate of guards is 100x greater for those who are NOT death penalty cases.

if that is the case, then there is no reason to treat DP cases as any different than the general population.

I see your point.  It just bothers me that there is nothing further we can do with these prisoners who continue their murderous ways when they are locked up.  I'm not sure, either, that killing them is the answer.  I surely don't know what is.   

[djAdvocate]

Sept 9, 2014 23:08:29 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Sept 9, 2014 21:41:59 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i know.  but here is my point:

let's say that the murder rate of guards is 100x greater for those who are NOT death penalty cases.

if that is the case, then there is no reason to treat DP cases as any different than the general population.

I see your point.  It just bothers me that there is nothing further we can do with these prisoners who continue their murderous ways when they are locked up.  I'm not sure, either, that killing them is the answer.  I surely don't know what is.   

i appreciate that.  and, i would also add, i understand the argument made by people that these "worthless pieces of human garbage" should get NO tax money.  i get that.  it is rational.  which only goes to show how irrational this issue really is.

here is a little aside of my own perspective.  i lost my brother 28 years ago.  if i could have ONE MORE DAY with him, there is no amount of money i would spare to make that happen.  so, i have a rather slanted view of what our time here is worth- and i tend to see these boundaries between guilt and innocence as blurry rather than sharp.  i am sure i have done worse things in my life than some people in prison have done.  yet they are there, and i am here, with a warm cat next to me and a warm computer on my lap.  the argument of what is "fair" is pointless.  it is not about fair for me.  it is strictly a right/wrong spectrum.  i want a shot at redemption, no matter what my circumstances.  it would be no different for me now, in middle age, than it would have been for my brother, in his youth.  it is a natural right, imo.

i know others don't view it that way.  that's fine.  i might even be in a minority on this.  but i feel pretty strongly about it.  it guides a lot of my opinions and actions.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Sept 9, 2014 23:48:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 9, 2014 23:08:29 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

I see your point.  It just bothers me that there is nothing further we can do with these prisoners who continue their murderous ways when they are locked up.  I'm not sure, either, that killing them is the answer.  I surely don't know what is.   

i appreciate that.  and, i would also add, i understand the argument made by people that these "worthless pieces of human garbage" should get NO tax money.  i get that.  it is rational.  which only goes to show how irrational this issue really is.

here is a little aside of my own perspective.  i lost my brother 28 years ago.  if i could have ONE MORE DAY with him, there is no amount of money i would spare to make that happen.  so, i have a rather slanted view of what our time here is worth- and i tend to see these boundaries between guilt and innocence as blurry rather than sharp.  i am sure i have done worse things in my life than some people in prison have done.  yet they are there, and i am here, with a warm cat next to me and a warm computer on my lap.  the argument of what is "fair" is pointless.  it is not about fair for me.  it is strictly a right/wrong spectrum.  i want a shot at redemption, no matter what my circumstances.  it would be no different for me now, in middle age, than it would have been for my brother, in his youth.  it is a natural right, imo.

i know others don't view it that way.  that's fine.  i might even be in a minority on this.  but i feel pretty strongly about it.  it guides a lot of my opinions and actions.

First, I'm so very sorry for your loss and life is so very precious. 

I've never (and hope I will never) decide on my view of the morality of an issue based on what it costs.  I wouldnt' care if it cost 1000 times more to house a prisoner for the rest of his life than it does to execute him.  That doesn't even weigh in on how I feel about the issue.  I know it is important to some and that's fine.  It just isn't me.

I also totally understand wanting a shot at redemption.  I surely pray I get more than one cause I'm gonna need them!  I struggle with those who would simply continue to victimize innocent people no matter how many shots you give them.  I'm a fence-sitter on this one.  That is highly unusual for me.  I decide what I think is right and that's that.  This one is a struggle.

[fairlycrazy23]

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 9:57:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

A very well thought out and put together presentation.

It's all BS... but it's well thought out and well presented BS.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 18:10:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 10, 2014 9:57:07 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

A very well thought out and put together presentation.

It's all BS... but it's well thought out and well presented BS.

if by BS you mean "unvarnished truth", then we agree.  if not, present your rebuttal.

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 18:33:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 10, 2014 18:10:57 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

A very well thought out and put together presentation.

It's all BS... but it's well thought out and well presented BS.

if by BS you mean "unvarnished truth", then we agree.  if not, present your rebuttal.

Fair enough.

All three "points" are intentionally slanted. They are not TRUTH (empirical and unalterable), they are "this is how we see it, and we shall ignore facts that could alter it or other options that could have just as much impact that we disagree with".

One by one (their assertion first, followed by why they are wrong OR how it could easily be fixed but still have the Death Penalty):

1> "The Death Penalty is Too Expensive". Yes. It is. But the solution isn't "get rid of it". The solution is "get rid of the waste". It costs so much because, in most cases, Death Penalties are not implemented within a reasonable amount of time, AND there are too many appeals, each one a separate (and costly) event.

Give all those found guilty ONE hearing date/time (for all appeal-able issues) and cover them all in one sitting. If a judge THEN feels another singular appeal is warranted on ANY appealed issue, he/she can schedule that appeal within a short period (couple of weeks to a couple of months, for ANY and ALL issues). NO need to stretch it out to YEARS.

2> "The Death Penalty Doesn't Deter Crime". Correct, as it's implemented NOW it doesn't. "The Death Penalty" is a joke, and criminals see it as such. Maybe if MORE Death Penalties were carried out, criminals would see the deterrent. Now it's just as likely for the criminal to hit the Powerball as it is to be caught, tried, sentenced AND actually executed. Fix it, don't do away with it.

3> "The Government Shouldn't Kill People". I agree that they shouldn't kill people... but I would add to that the word "indiscriminately", because as part of the mandate "To Protect and Serve" they need to remove the threat of violent individuals that have proven willing to kill. The best way to remove them permanently is to sentence them to death. Death is irrevocable. Life in Prison is not. Just as Charles Manson's sentence was commuted to a lesser sentence (went from "Death" to "Life in Prison without Parole"). Future laws could commute those down too... from LWOPP to "Life, but with eligibility of parole".

[djAdvocate]

Sept 10, 2014 19:26:53 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 10, 2014 18:33:39 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

if by BS you mean "unvarnished truth", then we agree.  if not, present your rebuttal.

Fair enough.

All three "points" are intentionally slanted. They are not TRUTH (empirical and unalterable), they are "this is how we see it, and we shall ignore facts that could alter it or other options that could have just as much impact that we disagree with".

One by one (their assertion first, followed by why they are wrong OR how it could easily be fixed but still have the Death Penalty):

1> "The Death Penalty is Too Expensive". Yes. It is. But the solution isn't "get rid of it".

no, but A solution is. 

The solution is "get rid of the waste". It costs so much because, in most cases, Death Penalties are not implemented within a reasonable amount of time, AND there are too many appeals, each one a separate (and costly) event.

Give all those found guilty ONE hearing date/time (for all appeal-able issues) and cover them all in one sitting. If a judge THEN feels another singular appeal is warranted on ANY appealed issue, he/she can schedule that appeal within a short period (couple of weeks to a couple of months, for ANY and ALL issues). NO need to stretch it out to YEARS.

2> "The Death Penalty Doesn't Deter Crime". Correct, as it's implemented NOW it doesn't. "The Death Penalty" is a joke, and criminals see it as such.

you have anything to back that up?  or is it just a joke to YOU, and you are projecting?

Maybe if MORE Death Penalties were carried out, criminals would see the deterrent.

yeah, because that works so well in China, for example. 

Now it's just as likely for the criminal to hit the Powerball as it is to be caught, tried, sentenced AND actually executed. Fix it, don't do away with it.

3> "The Government Shouldn't Kill People". I agree that they shouldn't kill people... but I would add to that the word "indiscriminately", because as part of the mandate "To Protect and Serve" they need to remove the threat of violent individuals that have proven willing to kill. The best way to remove them permanently is to sentence them to death. Death is irrevocable. Life in Prison is not. Just as Charles Manson's sentence was commuted to a lesser sentence (went from "Death" to "Life in Prison without Parole"). Future laws could commute those down too... from LWOPP to "Life, but with eligibility of parole".

so, you don't actually object to any of the points, only the conclusion.  got it. 

there is hope for you, Richard. 

[djAdvocate]

just to put the record straight, the Death Penalty has been an American staple since 1630. 
the first prominent person to argue against it's effect as a deterrent was Benjamin Rush.
he managed to convince Benjamin Franklin that the opposite was true- that it had a "brutalizing effect" on the (then) US psyche.
so, this is a very very old argument.  and not a very good one, as it turns out. 

edit: many states have abolished the Death Penalty.  Michigan was the first, in 1846.  there is little evidence that this
contributed in any way to "higher murder rates" in the states that have done this.  it is quite well studied.

[EVT1]

Someone doesn't understand how appeals work- but sure ok- a complete overhaul of the entire legal system should take care of that  

[Deleted]

Sept 10, 2014 23:46:16 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Someone doesn't understand how appeals work- but sure ok- a complete overhaul of the entire legal system should take care of that  

If you mean me... you'd be dead wrong.

I understand exactly how they work. I also understand that most of the time and expense is unnecessary (mainly because most appeal grounds turn out to be baseless or unworthy of appeal even if they may have some LIMITED merit).

[EVT1]

Sept 11, 2014 17:57:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Sept 10, 2014 23:46:16 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Someone doesn't understand how appeals work- but sure ok- a complete overhaul of the entire legal system should take care of that  

If you mean me... you'd be dead wrong.

I understand exactly how they work. I also understand that most of the time and expense is unnecessary (mainly because most appeal grounds turn out to be baseless or unworthy of appeal even if they may have some LIMITED merit).

Of course I meant you since you suggested we just have one appeal and done- and I pointed out that that view implies you have no idea how the system works- or maybe better that maybe you don't get how much of a basic part of the legal system appeals are and how next to impossible implementing that would be- the massive amount of legislation across the states and through the federal system, the amount of opposition that would stand in the way, etc.  One appeal could not ever work anyway because you are dealing with two different systems. 

Since that isn't ever going to happen just end it already- it doesn't work as advertised, the potential to kill innocent people is high, and it is a colossal waste of resources.

[Deleted]

Sept 11, 2014 19:58:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 11, 2014 17:57:28 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

If you mean me... you'd be dead wrong.

I understand exactly how they work. I also understand that most of the time and expense is unnecessary (mainly because most appeal grounds turn out to be baseless or unworthy of appeal even if they may have some LIMITED merit).

Of course I meant you since you suggested we just have one appeal and done- and I pointed out that that view implies you have no idea how the system works- or maybe better that maybe you don't get how much of a basic part of the legal system appeals are and how next to impossible implementing that would be- the massive amount of legislation across the states and through the federal system, the amount of opposition that would stand in the way, etc.  One appeal could not ever work anyway because you are dealing with two different systems. 

Since that isn't ever going to happen just end it already- it doesn't work as advertised, the potential to kill innocent people is high, and it is a colossal waste of resources.

Might want to go back and re-read what I actually said...

[in case you don't want to go looking: Give all those found guilty ONE hearing date/time (for all appeal-able issues) and cover them all in one sitting. If a judge THEN feels another singular appeal is warranted on ANY appealed issue, he/she can schedule that appeal within a short period (couple of weeks to a couple of months, for ANY and ALL issues). NO need to stretch it out to YEARS.]

ETA: one hearing by a judge to determine if any of the appeals have merit, then those that do have merit can be scheduled independently, but quickly.

[EVT1]

I did read it and what you are suggesting is next to impossible- and who would you suggest hear the case?  You are dealing with state issues and federal issues, jurisdictional issues, it's a damn mess. 

The funny part is your idea that appeals would happen quickly

You are dealing with the bedrock of the legal system- you might have some support for speeding up the process but no way in hell would you have a chance to change the appeals process- for one too many large interests rely on it- corporations for example.  Not going to get BP on board when you have billion dollar civil judgments at the trial level and they might have to end the case with one appeal and pay up- and if you don't have BP, you don't have the GOP- so I repeat- never going to happen. 

[Deleted]

Interesting tangent you go off on there.

Who said anything about ant other types of cases? I sure as heck didn't.

Remind me again... who is under sentence of death in BP? I wasn't aware of anyone that was. Was I misinformed?

Also curious about how many CIVIL trials result in the DEATH Penalty... I can't recall ever hearing of a single one. Could you refresh my memory on them? There must be many if you know of them...

[EVT1]

Here we go again- 3rd time in a week:

news.yahoo.com/woman-released-1976-reno-murder-case-220949893.html

     A 64-year-old woman who spent more than 30 years in prison for a Nevada killing she says she didn't commit was released on Thursday, three days after a judge granted her another trial in light of new DNA evidence.

    

     While under psychiatric care at Louisiana State University Medical Center, Woods acknowledged killing Mitchell but later recanted. She was convicted of the murder in 1980, later won an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court, and was convicted again in 1985.

     Court documents filed Monday revealed DNA on a cigarette butt found at the crime scene matches that of Rodney L. Halbower, 66, an inmate currently serving time in Oregon for attempted murder.

Mental issues, false confessions, I think I see a pattern here......

 

 

[EVT1]

Sept 11, 2014 22:14:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Interesting tangent you go off on there.

Who said anything about ant other types of cases? I sure as heck didn't.

Remind me again... who is under sentence of death in BP? I wasn't aware of anyone that was. Was I misinformed?

Also curious about how many CIVIL trials result in the DEATH Penalty... I can't recall ever hearing of a single one. Could you refresh my memory on them? There must be many if you know of them...

It is not a tangent- appeals are part of the system and you can't just go monkeying with them without affecting the entire system.  It is called equal protection- and part of the Constitution.  You cannot treat a death penalty defendant any different than a corporate entity when it comes to rights to appeal.  They are people too ya know...........

[Deleted]

Sept 11, 2014 22:26:59 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Sept 11, 2014 22:14:42 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Interesting tangent you go off on there.

Who said anything about ant other types of cases? I sure as heck didn't.

Remind me again... who is under sentence of death in BP? I wasn't aware of anyone that was. Was I misinformed?

Also curious about how many CIVIL trials result in the DEATH Penalty... I can't recall ever hearing of a single one. Could you refresh my memory on them? There must be many if you know of them...

It is not a tangent- appeals are part of the system and you can't just go monkeying with them without affecting the entire system.  It is called equal protection- and part of the Constitution.  You cannot treat a death penalty defendant any different than a corporate entity when it comes to rights to appeal.  They are people too ya know...........

You trip yourself up with your own argument.

If "appeals are part of the system" then there's no difference between a murder case/trial and a product liability case/trial, therefore there's no difference in cost.

Either that... or... there IS a difference and MURDER appeals aren't equal to other appeals.

Which is it... you can't have it both ways. Either they are special (and therefore CAN be changed without changing everything else) or they aren't (and there's no increased financial burden JUST "because it's a Death Penalty case")

[EVT1]

You are wielding some very strange logic.

There is no real difference in appellate cases be it civil or criminal- at least as far as that right exists.

One HUGE difference though, is that in a death penalty case the person is, or will be indigent and at that point the state is paying for both the prosecution and the defense.  Another is that death penalty appeals are automatic- at least in some places. 

If I remember right there are three trips up the appeals ladder- and this gets long- but you have the state trial court, appellate court, state supreme court- then on to federal district court, circuit court, and SCOTUS.

NEXT- you get to start it all over with ineffective counsel claims- rinse, repeat.

NEXT- you get to do it yet again via Habeas Corpus- rinse, repeat.

That is from memory from law school about 15 years ago. Add the amount of motions, delays, etc. and it makes perfect sense why people on death row are more likely to die there of natural causes.

[Deleted]

I won't argue that the logic is strange... because it's YOUR logic.

You are the one saying they are the same AND different.

If they are different, then JUST the Death Penalty "system" CAN be changed.
If they are the same then there's no great expense.

You can't have it both ways. it either is or it isn't.

[EVT1]

So more false choice options from you. Well good luck changing the entire legal system, and of course getting the SCOTUS to overturn itself as well.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 11, 2014 22:53:30 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

You are wielding some very strange logic.

There is no real difference in appellate cases be it civil or criminal- at least as far as that right exists.

One HUGE difference though, is that in a death penalty case the person is, or will be indigent and at that point the state is paying for both the prosecution and the defense.  Another is that death penalty appeals are automatic- at least in some places. 

If I remember right there are three trips up the appeals ladder- and this gets long- but you have the state trial court, appellate court, state supreme court- then on to federal district court, circuit court, and SCOTUS.

NEXT- you get to start it all over with ineffective counsel claims- rinse, repeat.

NEXT- you get to do it yet again via Habeas Corpus- rinse, repeat.

That is from memory from law school about 15 years ago. Add the amount of motions, delays, etc. and it makes perfect sense why people on death row are more likely to die there of natural causes.

that would be interesting to find out:

how many death row inmates die before they reach the chair?

[NastyWoman]

how many death row inmates die before they reach the chair?

In California?  A good number I would think.  What I can't understand with all the DP proponents is that they can't see that LWOPP is a death sentence in and of itself.  It's just that the "box" the body is put in isn't pine or some such right from the start.  And that is quite aside from the fact that there is ample proof (as presented here) that it is not only the guilty that killing get the DP and we can't fix our mistakes after the fact (DP is applied).  Or does anyone here really think that the system works so perfectly that we never hung/electrocuted/etc. an innocent person?

[Deleted]

Fortunately he was caught 6 hours after he escaped... but... a school shooter that had been sentenced to "3 Life terms" escaped yesterday.

(Google "school shooter escape" or "T J Lane"... if you are curious about him, his case, or his escape/re-capture)

Escape is one reason The Death Penalty should still exist.

[jkapp]

The death penalty is not a deterrent...fine, but then neither is prison - so should we do away with that too?

And by keeping these dangerous death penalty-type prisoners in prison, we allow them to rape and kill other prisoners, which apparently to some people is chock full of innocent people! So why are you wanting all of these innocent people to be raped and killed in prison by the real criminals?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 12, 2014 18:04:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

The death penalty is not a deterrent...fine, but then neither is prison - so should we do away with that too?

false dichotomy.  LWOPP is the suggested punishment, rather than death.  nobody has suggested that people go free for committing crimes. 

And by keeping these dangerous death penalty-type prisoners in prison, we allow them to rape and kill other prisoners, 

i addressed this with another poster.  is there any evidence that death row inmates have higher "rape and kill" rates than, say, pedophiles or people incarcerated for manslaughter?

which apparently to some people is chock full of innocent people! So why are you wanting all of these innocent people to be raped and killed in prison by the real criminals?

because it is better than having them rape or kill the rest of us? 

[Deleted]

Sept 12, 2014 18:04:06 GMT -5 jkapp said:

The death penalty is not a deterrent...fine, but then neither is prison - so should we do away with that too?

And by keeping these dangerous death penalty-type prisoners in prison, we allow them to rape and kill other prisoners, which apparently to some people is chock full of innocent people! So why are you wanting all of these innocent people to be raped and killed in prison by the real criminals?

Exactly. Using the "well, murder still happens" basis to say that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, one could expand that to say "crime still happens, so imprisonment is not a deterrent... let's just get rid of all the prisons!"


(I'd be willing to bet that those against the Death Penalty "because apparently it's not a deterrent" would be HIGHLY opposed to getting rid of prisons for the same exact reason... not a deterrent)