Reversing my position on death penalty.

[Stella_Omega]

I firmly believe the solution is to be extra meticulous in trying and keep prosecutors and police from railroading innocent persons, which they have been known to do. A civilian review board of all convictions would help, and it might even help speed up the executions of those who deserve to be executed.

That's a very commendable belief.

 

[Handley_Page]

Otto is German and lives in Germany, Box. America is not actually the center of the world.

From what I see occasionally, this might come as a bit of a surprise to some citizens.

I firmly believe the solution is to be extra meticulous in trying and keep prosecutors and police from railroading innocent persons, which they have been known to do. A civilian review board of all convictions would help, and it might even help speed up the executions of those who deserve to be executed.

Amen to that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You don't have to talk about the DDR etc. You can talk about the southern USA even as recently as 80 years ago, when some black defendants were hanged after trials that were no more than officially sanctioned lynchings. However, the glare of publicity has essentially eliminated that part of the problem.

Let's face it, Cloudy and some other Southerners. You know what I refer to really did happen, albeit decades ago.

Dear,

You really need to learn a little about life in the South before you run your mouth.

Blacks werent murdered just for goofs, they were murdered because they were poor and did the dirty-work for wealthy, powerful people. That is, they made moonshine, they burned barns, they assassinated, etc. They were killed to silence them and hide their connections. But in most cases blacks murdered cops who got too close to the moonshine. And blacks murdered cops to avoid serving hard time labor for private contractors who generally worked them to death.

 

[Weird Harold]

A threat? What for is a threat necessary? Why should a dude in lockup have to be impressed by anything ever again? Life without parole is working pretty well in the case of Charles Manson. We need more sentences like that.

Read up on the activities of the Aryan Brotherhood's leaders. Four of them are serving multiple life-without-parole sentences and have been further convicted of ordering hits on people inside and outside of prison. Total Isolation has been suggested for those four, but their lawyers are objecting on the grounds of "cruel and unusual." Some forms of Solitary Confinement have already been ruled unconstitutional because they quickly drive the prisoner insane; I think their lawyers have a pretty good argument against "total isolation" as unconstitutional. too.

Charles Manson has reportedly said he would kill again if ever released. His conviction (and original death penalty) was for organizing and ordering the Tate-LaBianca killings, yet, according to news reports surrounding his recent parole hearing, he has been caught with contraband cell phones at least twice in the last year.

Many prohibition era gangsters ran their organized crime operations from jail after being convicted of everything short of capital murder. (the death penalty was much more common and less tied up in appeals during prohibition.)

IIRC, one of the four Aryan Brotherhood leaders was convicted of ordering five hits from prison, three of which were carried out. That's three deaths that executing the asshole instead of piling 19 consecutive "life-without-parole" on him would have prevented.

The application of the death death penalty is in serious need of reform, along with the entire criminal justice system, but there are cases/individuals where nothing except death will stop them from corrupting everyone they come in contact with -- guards, lawyers, other prisoners, etc. The death penalty has to remain an option for when nothing else works; the ultimate sanction.

 

[ishtat]

Am I alone in finding it ironic that a society, which in the aggregate manages to execute 17000+ of its fellow citizens (illegally) by firearms alone every year has bigger problems than the need (or not) to execute a couple of dozen recalcitrants per annum.

My observation is that based on this thread the desire for revenge is greater than the desire for justice.

That said, I think that execution is an appropriate punishment, not in just a few, but in many cases. Another litster has suggested execution only for the most heinous cases. Define heinous. Would we do so by appealing to the emotional impact of the crime, hardly a reasonable basis.

If we executed say, just the premeditating murderer, the cop killer, killers expanding their drugs operation, we would be looking at several thousand executions per annum. Would society have the stomach for it? It's apparently acceptable to send 5000 American servicemen to their deaths in a pointless war, but would the same society be equally content to execute 5000 criminals? The moral questions are not fundamentally different.

Another Poster suggested that Western Europeans are against the death penalty. That is incorrect, in every country outside Scandinavia polls indicate a majority favour the Death penalty - and I'll wager that even Norway might think so at the moment. In the post democratic EU, however, the political 'oligarchic elite' ignores democratic opinion.

 

[saucydenise]

Am I alone in finding it ironic that a society, which in the aggregate manages to execute 17000+ of its fellow citizens (illegally) by firearms alone every year has bigger problems than the need (or not) to execute a couple of dozen recalcitrants per annum.

To what is this a reference?

 

[ottohauser1977]

Very true. See, I was right about this all along. Sorry. Just using an ex's right to pick on a former spouse.

So I see. Using an ex-husband's right to roll my eyes at the teasing.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Now that the lunatics are firmly in control of the asylum, it is time to confront the issue that should end this discussion. The simple fact is that innocent people are executed for crimes that they did not commit. Any system which increases the number of executions by broadening the range of crimes for which capital punishment is applicable will result in more innocent people being put to death.

Does anyone honestly believe that innocent people are not executed? In the United States, since 1989 there have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the U.S. Seventeen of those people were sentenced to death and spent time on death row before they were exonerated. Click.

In fact, there is growing evidence that innocent persons are executed. Even supporters of the death penalty concede this fact. Click(p. 20). The documentation of such cases is growing as more investigators with more and better resources are examining these cases in greater detail. At least 18 executions are highly suspect. Click

Perhaps the most thoroughly documented case is the 1989 execution of Carlos De Luna. A Columbia University Law professor and his students wrote a book and put together a website which explains in excruciating detail how the State of Texas botched yet another case and executed an innocent defendant. Click

If, after reading these resources, you still support the death penalty, then you are in favor of executing innocent persons. There is no way of escaping this conclusion. Merely re-branding the problem as one of "improper convictions" neither denies its existence nor solves it. It's nothing but a dodge and an admission that the you are too weak-minded to confront the issue.

I will give Box credit. He is the only proponent of capital punishment to address this problem head on. He even proposes a solution, although it is completely inadequate. But at least he is thinking about this issue instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Box's solution is the creation of a review board, similar to a grand jury, to review death penalty cases and pronounce them either tainted or free of defects. The flaws in this proposal are overwhelming.

There are 33 states with the death penalty. Not one of those states has such a board. That means that 33 separate state legislatures must be convinced to adopt this proposal, as outlined by Box. In most cases, that would require the amendment of state constitutions. You see, courts, their divisions and jurisdictions are all created by the state constitution. They do not exist in a vacuum. Without legislation action and approval of a constitutional amendment by voters, there is no board. Right off the bat you are already facing an insurmountable hurdle.

But suppose for a second these boards are adopted in all 33 states with the death penalty. If I read Box's proposal correctly, these boards supplant the appeals process. Are these boards adversarial? That is, do both sides get to put on a case? In the grand jury proceeding that Box proposes as a model, only the prosecution puts on a case and the jury decides if there is sufficient evidence to file charges. If this proceeding is not adversarial, then which side puts on the case? The prosecution? Are they really going to put forth evidence of prosecutorial misconduct? What if it's the defense? Are they going to put forth any evidence that tends to favor guilt?

Let's suppose the process is, indeed, adversarial. Both sides put on a case. Then what is the point of the first trial, if there is going to be an automatic trial immediately following it? Practice?

Here's another problem. Juries hear evidence and make findings of fact. Judges here arguments and make conclusions of law. How are errors of law supposed to be corrected by a panel of persons without legal training? If you needed a second opinion on a medical diagnosis, would you ask a panel of laborers, secretaries, housewives and bus drivers to decide your medical treatment?

Also, consider the fact that in many of these cases, the evidence of innocence or police and prosecutorial misconduct does not emerge for years. None of this evidence reaches the review board, since they have already concluded their proceeding and the defendant is already dead.

If you can accept the inevitability of innocent persons being put to death, then let me ask one more question: Do you still favor capital punishment if it is your son or grandson or father (97% of all capital sentences are given to men) who is sitting on death row for a crime that he did not commit? Do you just shrug it off and say, "oh well, you win some, you lose some--better luck next time?"

 

[ottohauser1977]

Now that the lunatics are firmly in control of the asylum, it is time to confront the issue that should end this discussion. The simple fact is that innocent people are executed for crimes that they did not commit. Any system which increases the number of executions by broadening the range of crimes for which capital punishment is applicable will result in more innocent people being put to death.

Does anyone honestly believe that innocent people are not executed? In the United States, since 1989 there have been 289 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the U.S. Seventeen of those people were sentenced to death and spent time on death row before they were exonerated. Click.

In fact, there is growing evidence that innocent persons are executed. Even supporters of the death penalty concede this fact. Click(p. 20). The documentation of such cases is growing as more investigators with more and better resources are examining these cases in greater detail. At least 18 executions are highly suspect. Click

Perhaps the most thoroughly documented case is the 1989 execution of Carlos De Luna. A Columbia University Law professor and his students wrote a book and put together a website which explains in excruciating detail how the State of Texas botched yet another case and executed an innocent defendant. Click

If, after reading these resources, you still support the death penalty, then you are in favor of executing innocent persons. There is no way of escaping this conclusion. Merely re-branding the problem as one of "improper convictions" neither denies its existence nor solves it. It's nothing but a dodge and an admission that the you are too weak-minded to confront the issue.

I will give Box credit. He is the only proponent of capital punishment to address this problem head on. He even proposes a solution, although it is completely inadequate. But at least he is thinking about this issue instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Box's solution is the creation of a review board, similar to a grand jury, to review death penalty cases and pronounce them either tainted or free of defects. The flaws in this proposal are overwhelming.

There are 33 states with the death penalty. Not one of those states has such a board. That means that 33 separate state legislatures must be convinced to adopt this proposal, as outlined by Box. In most cases, that would require the amendment of state constitutions. You see, courts, their divisions and jurisdictions are all created by the state constitution. They do not exist in a vacuum. Without legislation action and approval of a constitutional amendment by voters, there is no board. Right off the bat you are already facing an insurmountable hurdle.

But suppose for a second these boards are adopted in all 33 states with the death penalty. If I read Box's proposal correctly, these boards supplant the appeals process. Are these boards adversarial? That is, do both sides get to put on a case? In the grand jury proceeding that Box proposes as a model, only the prosecution puts on a case and the jury decides if there is sufficient evidence to file charges. If this proceeding is not adversarial, then which side puts on the case? The prosecution? Are they really going to put forth evidence of prosecutorial misconduct? What if it's the defense? Are they going to put forth any evidence that tends to favor guilt?

Let's suppose the process is, indeed, adversarial. Both sides put on a case. Then what is the point of the first trial, if there is going to be an automatic trial immediately following it? Practice?

Here's another problem. Juries hear evidence and make findings of fact. Judges here arguments and make conclusions of law. How are errors of law supposed to be corrected by a panel of persons without legal training? If you needed a second opinion on a medical diagnosis, would you ask a panel of laborers, secretaries, housewives and bus drivers to decide your medical treatment?

Also, consider the fact that in many of these cases, the evidence of innocence or police and prosecutorial misconduct does not emerge for years. None of this evidence reaches the review board, since they have already concluded their proceeding and the defendant is already dead.

If you can accept the inevitability of innocent persons being put to death, then let me ask one more question: Do you still favor capital punishment if it is your son or grandson or father (97% of all capital sentences are given to men) who is sitting on death row for a crime that he did not commit? Do you just shrug it off and say, "oh well, you win some, you lose some--better luck next time?"

An excellent question. One that every proponent of the death penalty should ask himself or herself.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Every execution goes thru an appeals process involving scrutiny from state, federal, and supreme court. The process takes many years, some convicts wait 35 years before theyre put down.

Box's harebrain idea is called a jury. It never occurred to him that what he wants is a jury.

 

[Weird Harold]

Does anyone honestly believe that innocent people are not executed?

Does anyone honestly believe that there aren't wrongful convictions at all levels ? The answer isn't to ban the death penalty completely, it is to reform the criminal justice system so that it is fail-safe -- nobody at any level gets wrongly convicted. Making that single reform -- or returning to that simple principle of innocent until proven guilty -- would eliminate most death-penalty objections while helping far more accused than just those charged with capital crimes.

There are people who are on death row and/or still killing despite multiple life sentences whose guilt is unassailable. Convicts who have been convicted by a wide-range of evidence, who admit their crimes -- sometimes even reveling in their crimes -- so that there is no doubt at all of their guilt. It is up to society to determine what qualifies for the ultimate sanction and even what the ultimate sanction should be, but there are criminals who are only human by the very loosest of definitions and the ultimate sanction -- death -- should be available and applied in those cases.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Very true. See, I was right about this all along. Sorry. Just using an ex's right to pick on a former spouse.

So I see. Using an ex-husband's right to roll my eyes at the teasing.

Gee, aren't you two cute!

Isn't it a coincidence, too, that after a 2+ year hiatus, not only does good 'ol Otto show up suddenly posting like gang busters, but so does his "saucy" ex-wife, who just happens to sound like a "bi-sexual MILF".

Seems almost too coincidental. Seems almost like the sequel to that story you wrote, dude.

'Course now, I KNOW you wouldn't be blowing smoke up our collective asses with some poorly done, one dimensional, alt, now would ya dude?

(P.S. How odd that she not only had to mention in damn near evey one of her posts that she is your "friendly ex wife" and that she starts also posting in the GLBT forum, but you yourself post there for the first time in your life yesterday.

It's almost as if your "sequel" would be featuring a bisexual MILF ex-wife and you are doing some "research" by playing people with your alt. Odd. Very odd. )

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Does anyone honestly believe that there aren't wrongful convictions at all levels ? The answer isn't to ban the death penalty completely, it is to reform the criminal justice system so that it is fail-safe -- nobody at any level gets wrongly convicted. Making that single reform -- or returning to that simple principle of innocent until proven guilty -- would eliminate most death-penalty objections while helping far more accused than just those charged with capital crimes.

There are people who are on death row and/or still killing despite multiple life sentences whose guilt is unassailable. Convicts who have been convicted by a wide-range of evidence, who admit their crimes -- sometimes even reveling in their crimes -- so that there is no doubt at all of their guilt. It is up to society to determine what qualifies for the ultimate sanction and even what the ultimate sanction should be, but there are criminals who are only human by the very loosest of definitions and the ultimate sanction -- death -- should be available and applied in those cases.

You're still dodging the question. Are you in favor of executing innocent people?

But taking it a step further and identifying the problem as wrongful convictions at all levels, how do yo solve it? Do you continue executing innocent people until the larger problem is solved?

If the issue were merely the application of capital punishment to those cases in which the crime was heinous and the evidence of guilt was unassailable, then we would only be talking about 1 or 2 cases per year, and not the 1294 people that have been executed since 1976, or the 3242 people currently sitting on death row.

Most cases are not cut and dry. There is conflicting evidence on many issues, which is why cases are tried before juries. But juries make mistakes. Sometimes, prejudice can infect the jury. Other times, critical evidence is not available. Sometimes it doesn't become available until years after the trial. Sometimes a witness admits to fabricating all or part of his/her testimony. Sometimes someone else confesses to the crime.

The system is not infallible. Mistakes are made. Death should not be one of those mistakes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Every execution goes thru an appeals process involving scrutiny from state, federal, and supreme court. The process takes many years, some convicts wait 35 years before theyre put down.

Box's harebrain idea is called a jury. It never occurred to him that what he wants is a jury.

It is not called, nor would it be called, a jury. A jury is a group of people who sit in a courtroom and hear and see testimony. Their verdicts are swayed by many things, such as animus toward the defendant, the deep sincere voice of the prosecutor, the demeanor of the defendant, the size of the tits on a witness, the autopsy pictures that have no bearing on guilt or innocence, and the general circus atmosphere at times.

What I am referring to is a group of citizens, probably volunteers, who examine transcripts and photos and exhibits and other actual evidence. They would probably never even hear or see any of the principals in the case. And, there is no reason to limit their sessions to cases in which a prisoner has been sentenced to death. There can be errors made in all kinds of cases, including those where the sentence is life without possibiliby of parole. Of course, the line may need to be drawn somewhere, maybe only in cases where the sentence is five years or more, or similar floor.

Personally, I would have no problem sitting on such a board.

 

[TexasWife25]

Does anyone honestly believe that there aren't wrongful convictions at all levels ? The answer isn't to ban the death penalty completely, it is to reform the criminal justice system so that it is fail-safe -- nobody at any level gets wrongly convicted. Making that single reform -- or returning to that simple principle of innocent until proven guilty -- would eliminate most death-penalty objections while helping far more accused than just those charged with capital crimes.

There are people who are on death row and/or still killing despite multiple life sentences whose guilt is unassailable. Convicts who have been convicted by a wide-range of evidence, who admit their crimes -- sometimes even reveling in their crimes -- so that there is no doubt at all of their guilt. It is up to society to determine what qualifies for the ultimate sanction and even what the ultimate sanction should be, but there are criminals who are only human by the very loosest of definitions and the ultimate sanction -- death -- should be available and applied in those cases.

I do not believe at this time it is possible to eliminate human error or curruption. People have been attempting to reform the justice system for years and years, and while we've made great strides, by no means is it perfect.

What do you see that all those other people havent, that is the "full proof way" to insure only guilty people get convicted?


Also for clarification, I have no moral objection to murders/rapists/pedophiles dying horrible grusome deaths. My issues are with granting government that level of power, the wasteful cost to the state, and the chance of someone innocent being killed by mistake.

 

[Weird Harold]

You're still dodging the question. Are you in favor of executing innocent people?

Now that is truly stupid question.

What part of "I'm against imposing any sentence on an innocent person from a speeding ticket to the death penalty," don't you understand? That includes executing anyone on death row now without a complete review of the evidence and appeals.

If judges and governors are doing their job properly before signing the death warrants, there won't be any innocents executed; any case where there is the slightest doubt would be commuted to Life Without Parole.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Now that is truly stupid question.

What part of "I'm against imposing any sentence on an innocent person from a speeding ticket to the death penalty," don't you understand? That includes executing anyone on death row now without a complete review of the evidence and appeals.

If judges and governors are doing their job properly before signing the death warrants, there won't be any innocents executed; any case where there is the slightest doubt would be commuted to Life Without Parole.

So, how exactly do you make that work? How do you keep states from electing a George W. Bush, or a Rick Perry?

 

[Weird Harold]

What do you see that all those other people havent, that is the "full proof way" to insure only guilty people get convicted?

For starters, if governors and judges were doing their job, any possibility of doubt in a conviction would result in a commutation of sentence.

Second, no one should ever be given the death penalty based solely on eye-witness testimony and/or circumstantial evidence.

Third, every case should be examined in light of every successful appeal (of any felony) to ensure that the conditions aren't present. Perhaps by Box's impartial, anonymous, review panel.

In future, there should be a total news moritorium -- especially news stories discussing evidence or "trying the case in the news" -- for all felony cases. Inflamatory news coverage, and/or prosecutors seeking to make a name for themselves in the news is a large part of the reason for wrongful convictions -- postpone news coverage until after the verdict and you remove much of the pressure of public opinion to convict someone, anyone, quickly.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It is not called, nor would it be called, a jury. A jury is a group of people who sit in a courtroom and hear and see testimony. Their verdicts are swayed by many things, such as animus toward the defendant, the deep sincere voice of the prosecutor, the demeanor of the defendant, the size of the tits on a witness, the autopsy pictures that have no bearing on guilt or innocence, and the general circus atmosphere at times.

What I am referring to is a group of citizens, probably volunteers, who examine transcripts and photos and exhibits and other actual evidence. They would probably never even hear or see any of the principals in the case. And, there is no reason to limit their sessions to cases in which a prisoner has been sentenced to death. There can be errors made in all kinds of cases, including those where the sentence is life without possibiliby of parole. Of course, the line may need to be drawn somewhere, maybe only in cases where the sentence is five years or more, or similar floor.

Personally, I would have no problem sitting on such a board.

Based on the 1000s of trials and court hearings I've participated in THE PROBLEM is incompetent defense lawyers and judges. Judges are lawyers who cant hack private practice, and public defenders are lawyers no respectible law firm will hire. I have literally kicked lawyers from the Attorney Generals Office who fail to catch shenanigans the judge pulls. Theyre terrified of judges, and afraid of pissing off any other lawyer who may be a path to a better job.

So defendants need competent counsel who know the facts, know the law, and arent afraid to throw a flag on a dopey judge.

 

[Weird Harold]

So, how exactly do you make that work? How do you keep states from electing a George W. Bush, or a Rick Perry?

Fix the educational system so that even Texans are smart enough to elect responsible leaders?

 

[TexasWife25]

For starters, if governors and judges were doing their job, any possibility of doubt in a conviction would result in a commutation of sentence.

Second, no one should ever be given the death penalty based solely on eye-witness testimony and/or circumstantial evidence.

Third, every case should be examined in light of every successful appeal (of any felony) to ensure that the conditions aren't present. Perhaps by Box's impartial, anonymous, review panel.

In future, there should be a total news moritorium -- especially news stories discussing evidence or "trying the case in the news" -- for all felony cases. Inflamatory news coverage, and/or prosecutors seeking to make a name for themselves in the news is a large part of the reason for wrongful convictions -- postpone news coverage until after the verdict and you remove much of the pressure of public opinion to convict someone, anyone, quickly.

How do you define doubt? What would be enough that a governor should step in and overrule the due process of the people?


DNA isnt full proof, and real life isn't CSI, many cases don't actually have it. DNA analysists are also human and make mistakes, or interpret the results to slant whatever side paid for them. Even confessions of guilt can be suspect. Ive read of cases where confessions were coerced , or the defendant had ulterior motives.

I think all of your ideas would help reduce the chance of an innocent person being put to death, but they would still not make the process full-proof.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Based on the 1000s of trials and court hearings I've participated in THE PROBLEM is incompetent defense lawyers and judges. Judges are lawyers who cant hack private practice, and public defenders are lawyers no respectible law firm will hire. I have literally kicked lawyers from the Attorney Generals Office who fail to catch shenanigans the judge pulls. Theyre terrified of judges, and afraid of pissing off any other lawyer who may be a path to a better job.

So defendants need competent counsel who know the facts, know the law, and arent afraid to throw a flag on a dopey judge.

Absolutely. But, given the lack of such paladins, the review board I suggested would do the job. Members would have no fear of judges or prosecutors and could examine evidence presented. And maybe even spot erors commited by incompetent defense counsel. They would not look for Constitutional violations, but there would be nothing to prevent somebody from pointing out one that is present.

 

[Weird Harold]

How do you define doubt? What would be enough that a governor should step in and overrule the due process of the people?

Criminal Justice convictions aren't, or at least shouldn't be, "due process of the people." They are, or should be, due process of the court.

Allowing "the people" to pass judgement is how lynchings happen.

My contention is that there are indisputable cases where the death penalty is appropriate. "Doubt" would encompass all other cases.

I think all of your ideas would help reduce the chance of an innocent person being put to death, but they would still not make the process full-proof.

Would you say there is any possibility of error in Charles Manson's conviction? Would you say his defiant assertion to the parole board that he would kill again if released had any possibility of coercion behind it?

Simply banning the death penalty does nothing to correct the problem of wrongful convictions. Refusal to work for changes in the criminal justice system to make it fail-safe simply because "no human designed system is perfect" is just taking the easy option.

Every wrongful conviction that could be averted by reform means one less person at risk of death because of that conviction -- whether formal execution or "just another victim of prison violence."

Every execution that can be prevented by changing the rules to make it tougher to get a death penalty conviction and forcing governors and judges to do a real review before signing a death warrant means one less possible innocent dies.

If executions are limited to the indisputably guilty then by definition no innocents will be executed.

 

[TE999]

Just as long as it's really the person who really did do it.

Which is the problem, because the anger we feel in such a situation is so great that we will sometimes act-- pick out a scapegoat to punish just to be rid of the anger.

That's what the legal system is for ... unless it's perverted for political gain like the Duke Soccer players or this current travesty with Martin/Zimmerman.

That don't wash. The Left views all persons accused of crimes (especially if they're radicals or minorities) as 'scapegoats' and 'victims of the system'.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's what the legal system is for ... unless it's perverted for political gain like the Duke Soccer players or this current travesty with Martin/Zimmerman.

That don't wash. The Left views all persons accused of crimes (especially if they're radicals or minorities) as 'scapegoats' and 'victims of the system'.

You have a couple of points, there-- not all accused, but many. Wonder why so many people get turned into political soccer balls?