Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 04:03:44 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 08, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 08, 2015, 10:21:17 PM
You didn't ask me - but I'm opposed to capital punishment, full stop. I don't know the case of the Perrywinkle child, but wouldn't support a death sentence in any case.
Are you for or against life imprisonment sentences?
I'm not 100% against life sentences - depending on the crime. I am against the idea of locking someone up for life and never reviewing the sentence, though. I think that a "life sentence" should be eligible for review at some point.
Fair enough. And since we're going completely off topic for the subject, I'm starting a new thread.
I'm sure you're at least familiar with the Aurora, CO shootings that happened a while back, the verdict is in - Life w/ no Parole.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/us/james-holmes-movie-theater-shooting-jury/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent)
The guy murdered 12 people. That's 12 families that will never get a chance to have any contact with the loved one that they lost.
Why should he and his family be spared that feeling? What purpose does the life sentence serve? If he lives to 100, then that becomes a 70 year burden on the taxpayers, supporting someone who will never see another day outside of a correctional facility.
I'm of the opinion that there are two types of crime - crime of intent and crime of circumstance, the latter typically being under a state of impairment or just with the wrong people at the wrong time. Crimes of intent are just that. He left the house with an intent to kill people that night. After it was determined that he was not mentally impaired, the punishment should have reflected that and he should have not been given the lenience of the jury's decision.
I'm opposed to killing - regardless of who's doing the killing. There's also the fact that police, prosecutors, judges and juries can make mistakes - but regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 01:31:52 PM
I'm opposed to killing - regardless of who's doing the killing. There's also the fact that police, prosecutors, judges and juries can make mistakes - but regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
I can respect that even though I don't agree.
It just so happens, based off what I've read, that the reason his life was spared was due to a single juror that wouldn't agree to the death penalty. Reportedly, 1 was completely against, 2 were on the fence and the other 9 were for it.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 01:31:52 PM
I'm opposed to killing - regardless of who's doing the killing. There's also the fact that police, prosecutors, judges and juries can make mistakes - but regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
I can respect that even though I don't agree.
It just so happens, based off what I've read, that the reason his life was spared was due to a single juror that wouldn't agree to the death penalty. Reportedly, 1 was completely against, 2 were on the fence and the other 9 were for it.
Yes, death sentences are required to be unanimous since it is such a serious verdict. I would have supported the death penalty in this case as long as that is what the victims' families wanted. In the case of the Boston bombings, some of the victims and victims' families did not want him to get the death penalty because they did not want him to be considered a martyr.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 01:31:52 PM
I'm opposed to killing - regardless of who's doing the killing. There's also the fact that police, prosecutors, judges and juries can make mistakes - but regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
I can respect that even though I don't agree.
It just so happens, based off what I've read, that the reason his life was spared was due to a single juror that wouldn't agree to the death penalty. Reportedly, 1 was completely against, 2 were on the fence and the other 9 were for it.
I think (for me) it's a lot easier to justify the death penalty in really clear-cut cases like this one (or the Lee Rigby killing, etc). But not all murder cases are so lacking in grey areas.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 09, 2015, 02:54:11 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 01:31:52 PM
I'm opposed to killing - regardless of who's doing the killing. There's also the fact that police, prosecutors, judges and juries can make mistakes - but regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
I can respect that even though I don't agree.
It just so happens, based off what I've read, that the reason his life was spared was due to a single juror that wouldn't agree to the death penalty. Reportedly, 1 was completely against, 2 were on the fence and the other 9 were for it.
Yes, death sentences are required to be unanimous since it is such a serious verdict. I would have supported the death penalty in this case as long as that is what the victims' families wanted. In the case of the Boston bombings, some of the victims and victims' families did not want him to get the death penalty because they did not want him to be considered a martyr.
About 12 years ago, a friend's father was shot and killed by his girlfriend's jealous ex. He fled and was eventually caught (years later). My friend was devastated by his father's death (as you would expect him to be) but still didn't want the killer to get the death penalty. I think he did, though.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 09, 2015, 02:54:11 PMIn the case of the Boston bombings, some of the victims and victims' families did not want him to get the death penalty because they did not want him to be considered a martyr.
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
About 12 years ago, a friend's father was shot and killed by his girlfriend's jealous ex. He fled and was eventually caught (years later). My friend was devastated by his father's death (as you would expect him to be) but still didn't want the killer to get the death penalty. I think he did, though.
Regarding specific cases when capital punishment would even be considered an option, what would your opinions be if the judicial process were allowed to play out - as is, and then move into a separate sentencing trial that would would decided by the victims / immediate surviving family?
Understandably, some would probably not want to bear that decision or even be a part of it, but I believe that many would. I wonder if the ability to have a say in the punishment of the offender would offer some actual closure or if would be unfair to ask them to have to make that decision?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 11:57:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 04:03:44 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 08, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 08, 2015, 10:21:17 PM
You didn't ask me - but I'm opposed to capital punishment, full stop. I don't know the case of the Perrywinkle child, but wouldn't support a death sentence in any case.
Are you for or against life imprisonment sentences?
I'm not 100% against life sentences - depending on the crime. I am against the idea of locking someone up for life and never reviewing the sentence, though. I think that a "life sentence" should be eligible for review at some point.
Fair enough. And since we're going completely off topic for the subject, I'm starting a new thread.
I'm sure you're at least familiar with the Aurora, CO shootings that happened a while back, the verdict is in - Life w/ no Parole.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/us/james-holmes-movie-theater-shooting-jury/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent)
The guy murdered 12 people. That's 12 families that will never get a chance to have any contact with the loved one that they lost.
Why should he and his family be spared that feeling? What purpose does the life sentence serve? If he lives to 100, then that becomes a 70 year burden on the taxpayers, supporting someone who will never see another day outside of a correctional facility.
I'm of the opinion that there are two types of crime - crime of intent and crime of circumstance, the latter typically being under a state of impairment or just with the wrong people at the wrong time. Crimes of intent are just that. He left the house with an intent to kill people that night. After it was determined that he was not mentally impaired, the punishment should have reflected that and he should have not been given the lenience of the jury's decision.
Dear N.R.W. THE JURORS IN COLORADO said life in prison. Even if it was one juror that said no it's the way the law is for Colorado. Case Closed!
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 05:16:10 PM
Dear N.R.W. THE JURORS IN COLORADO said life in prison. Even if it was one juror that said no it's the way the law is for Colorado. Case Closed!
Dear TC1, Please excuse yourself for a bit, some adults were having a discussion. Your input is noted. Thanks.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 05:16:10 PM
Dear N.R.W. THE JURORS IN COLORADO said life in prison. Even if it was one juror that said no it's the way the law is for Colorado. Case Closed!
Dear TC1, Please excuse yourself for a bit, some adults were having a discussion. Your input is noted. Thanks.
Screw you and your know it all attitude I'm 53 years old and my Opinion is just as good as yours!
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 05:34:54 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 05:30:38 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 05:16:10 PM
Dear N.R.W. THE JURORS IN COLORADO said life in prison. Even if it was one juror that said no it's the way the law is for Colorado. Case Closed!
Dear TC1, Please excuse yourself for a bit, some adults were having a discussion. Your input is noted. Thanks.
Screw you and your know it all attitude I'm 53 years old and my Opinion is just as good as yours!
My apologies.
Dear
Mr./Ms. TC1,
If you would like to have a discussion with the adults, then feel free to bring your opinion, but please leave your 'declarative statements' at the door. They're as unwelcome as know-it-alls.
Thanks again.
I have no problem with capital punishment for heinous offenders, and I'm not going to be shamed by some bleeding hearts for not giving a damn about evil people.
Quote from: I-10east on August 09, 2015, 05:50:28 PM
I have no problem with capital punishment for heinous offenders, and I'm not going to be shamed by some bleeding hearts for not giving a damn about evil people.
So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty. No question. On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP. How do you try and persuade them?
I'm not sure you can talk someone out of that position against CP. The point of view is so tighlty tied to core beliefs that you would have to unravel an entire belief structure to change that mind.
Quote from: AKIRA on August 09, 2015, 08:12:53 PM
I'm not sure you can talk someone out of that position against CP. The point of view is so tighlty tied to core beliefs that you would have to unravel an entire belief structure to change that mind.
Bravo!! Bravo!! Bravo!! I agree 100% with what you just said. ;)
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty. No question. On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP. How do you try and persuade them?
Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.
Quote from: I-10east on August 09, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty. No question. On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP. How do you try and persuade them?
Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.
Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.
Quote from: I-10east on August 09, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty. No question. On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP. How do you try and persuade them?
Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.
I don't think that really matters. Like AKIRA said above, the decision a juror has to make to put someone to death might go completely against their core system of belief.
I guess that the point that I'm getting to is that the system we have is inherently flawed, not that anyone has ever said it to be perfect, but leaving a punishment up to and including the death penalty to people who may be against it needs some tweaking, IMO.
I've never served or witnessed a capital trial, so I'll need some help from an actual professional or someone who knows. Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
If it comes down to one or two dissenting jurors, should/do they have to provide their reasoning to the judge?
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 11:47:15 PM
Quote from: I-10east on August 09, 2015, 11:27:48 PM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 07:08:11 PM
So you're on a jury and the defendant is clearly guilty. No question. On that jury is 1 person who is adamantly against CP. How do you try and persuade them?
Many times the evidence is clear cut in violent crimes (DNA, video, money trail etc). So not everything is this 'oh no, we might be executing an innocent person' crap that many are captivated with.
I don't think that really matters. Like AKIRA said above, the decision a juror has to make to put someone to death might go completely against their core system of belief.
I guess that the point that I'm getting to is that the system we have is inherently flawed, not that anyone has ever said it to be perfect, but leaving a punishment up to and including the death penalty to people who may be against it needs some tweaking, IMO.
I've never served or witnessed a capital trial, so I'll need some help from an actual professional or someone who knows. Can you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
If it comes down to one or two dissenting jurors, should/do they have to provide their reasoning to the judge?
I can tell you what happen to me as a juror on a Rape Case? After WE the jury found the accused Not Guilty the Judge in the case said he could ask us into his chamber and ASK WHY I CAME up to my Not Guilty verdict? He was trying to scare us. But none of us were scared. It just Pissed me off! :o We the Jurors said Not Guilty case closed. When I was called the three time as a juror in such a short period of time. I got out of having to serve as a Juror again when I told the sitting Judge that I NO LONGER BELIEVED IN THE SYSTEM OF A FAIR TRIAL! And I have never been called as a Juror since. Thank God!
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 09, 2015, 05:03:42 PM
Quote from: CCMjax on August 09, 2015, 02:54:11 PMIn the case of the Boston bombings, some of the victims and victims' families did not want him to get the death penalty because they did not want him to be considered a martyr.
Quote from: Adam White on August 09, 2015, 04:28:07 PM
About 12 years ago, a friend's father was shot and killed by his girlfriend's jealous ex. He fled and was eventually caught (years later). My friend was devastated by his father's death (as you would expect him to be) but still didn't want the killer to get the death penalty. I think he did, though.
Regarding specific cases when capital punishment would even be considered an option, what would your opinions be if the judicial process were allowed to play out - as is, and then move into a separate sentencing trial that would would decided by the victims / immediate surviving family?
Understandably, some would probably not want to bear that decision or even be a part of it, but I believe that many would. I wonder if the ability to have a say in the punishment of the offender would offer some actual closure or if would be unfair to ask them to have to make that decision?
I'm totally against the death penalty. I don't think the justice system should be used to exact revenge. We're meant to be better than the 'eye for an eye' lot and the victim's family shouldn't have any say in the matter. I'm not saying they aren't victims in a sense - but the punishment shouldn't be about them getting closure. It should (in theory) be an adequate punishment to fit the crime that was committed.
But to echo something Chris said earlier - I don't see how killing another person accomplishes anything. If killing is wrong (and I think it is), it's not justified as a response to a crime. It's just the commission of another crime.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 11:46:11 PM
Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.
You totally missed what I said. Of course everything goes though an extensive process in a courtroom. Like I said MANY cases are clear cut with the perps on video. I'm sorry but with DNA, video, money trails, social media (with tech nowadays)etc, reasonable doubt is very limited. Now if it was based solely on witness testimony, I would get what you're saying. Lets not act like there aren't many clear cut cases...
Quote from: I-10east on August 10, 2015, 05:23:31 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 09, 2015, 11:46:11 PM
Have you been a Juror i-10 east? I have been on a Rape case & a drug case. And with all the evidence shown WE the jurors found the people charged with the crime "NOT GUILTY". I wasn't the juror foreperson I was just a plain old juror. So see even if the prosecution believes what evidence they showed us We the Jurors found reasonable Doubt. Case Closed.
You totally missed what I said. Of course everything goes though an extensive process in a courtroom. Like I said MANY cases are clear cut with the perps on video. I'm sorry but with DNA, video, money trails, social media (with tech nowadays)etc, reasonable doubt is very limited. Now if it was based solely on witness testimony, I would get what you're saying. Lets not act like there aren't many clear cut cases...
I didn't miss your point but to be honest your point is lost on fantasy island. Tell a Defense Attorney that Reasonable doubt is very limited because of Modern technology. And he/she will laugh in your face.
^^^You must be in fantasy land if you haven't heard of incriminating evidence. You are gonna weasel your way out of a conviction while being caught on video and creating a money trail? Yeah, good luck with that case buddy....
I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.
My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.
So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence
QuoteCan you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty. Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.
Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.
I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.
One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.
Quote from: I-10east on August 10, 2015, 08:27:33 AM
^^^You must be in fantasy land if you haven't heard of incriminating evidence. You are gonna weasel your way out of a conviction while being caught on video and creating a money trail? Yeah, good luck with that case buddy....
Jesus Christ I have heard of incriminating evidence who in the Hell hasn't. But here is the problem a lot of this so called Prefect Evidence is thrown out of court all the time. Say hello to Tattoo for me.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 10, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
QuoteCan you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty. Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.
Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.
I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.
One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.
WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?
Quote from: Gunnar on August 10, 2015, 09:01:43 AM
I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.
My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.
So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence
Good points ^^^^^^ but it will never happen here in America.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 10, 2015, 10:01:09 AM
WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?
Your comprehension could use a little tweaking.
I'm going to type this slowly to help you understand it a bit clearer:
Putting a murderer in prison won't prevent him/her from murdering again whereas executing said murderer would.
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 10, 2015, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 10, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
QuoteCan you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty. Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.
Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.
I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.
One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.
WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?
No, you completely misunderstood.
My point was that by putting someone in prison,
they can still kill someone. They could kill a Corrections Officer, a fellow inmate or order a hit from the inside for someone on the outside. Many that argue against the Death Penalty use the argument that society is 'safe' because the killer is in prison. But that is not completely true. Obviously if someone was executed, they are NOT going to kill anyone else, ever. That was my point.
Quote from: Gunnar on August 10, 2015, 09:01:43 AM
I am split on the issue. When I am thinking about this in general (i.e. not tied to any particular case), I am against the death penalty but I must admit there are cases where in that particular case I would not be against it, but that is my emotional side speaking.
My issue with the death penalty are:
- to me it seems to be more about revenge than anything else. While this is understandable on a personal level, especially for those affected by the crime (and I would be no different), the justice system should be as free from vengeful emotion as possible.
- the death penalty is final, so in case an innocent person has been executed there is no way to make this right - and there have been (far too) many cases where innocent people were sentenced to death based on sloppy investigating, ulterior motives, giving wrong testimony, hiding / manipulation of evidence, people not doing their job properly...
- In many cases a death sentence is actually a double-punishment since convicts can sit in jail for 10+ years before the sentence is carried out.
So, from the above, if society feels that the death penalty should be allowed, then
- it needs to be ensured that all defendants have a proper legal representation
- there need to be certain requirements on proof (i.e. the smoking gun)
- it should be swift (no combination of a long prison term and an execution)
- it should also mean that anyone contributing to an innocent person being executed (i.e. because they were hiding, manipulating or ignoring exonerating evidence) should automatically receive the same sentence
Gunnar, I think your thoughts most closely resemble my own, with a few differences:
I agree that the state should not be a part of a victim's or victim's family revenge. While I can completely understand the desire to kill someone who has harmed a loved one, I still don't think the state should be a part of that revenge.
You correctly noted that many innocent people have been executed. Once that sentence is carried out, it can't be undone. In Jacksonville people have had many concerns with Angela Corey and her performance and tactics. However, she's an angel compared to some prosecutors who have falsified evidence and who have hidden evidence that would have exonerated defendants. Some of these people were only concerned with their own "win-loss record" and weren't interested in true justice. So they willingly participated in the execution of an innocent person while they left the true murderer out in the general population.
It's also pretty obvious that there's a justice system for rich people, and a different system for poor people. I can't remember who first said "if you're rich and guilty you get treated better than someone who is poor and innocent." (I just did a quick google search and Bryan Stevenson said it in a TED talk but I'm not sure if that was original or if he was paraphrasing someone else: https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript?language=en (https://www.ted.com/talks/bryan_stevenson_we_need_to_talk_about_an_injustice/transcript?language=en)).
To that point I agree with your assertion that all defendants should receive proper legal representation, but I'm not sure if that's realistic. (In which case, I think you and I might agree that abolishing the death penalty is reasonable).
I'm not convinced that the "smoking gun" requirement would work because there are still immoral prosecutors who can manipulate evidence.
As for the requirement that the execution should be swift, wouldn't that deprive the defendant of a fair and robust appeal process? I guess (assuming I'm a truly innocent defendant) I would rather deal with the mental anguish of spending 10 years on death row and eventually getting exonerated, than having a speedy execution that can't be undone.
I agree that people who are involved with wrongful convictions should be punished, but that is rare and I don't ever see that changing.
Since this has been brought up, what exactly are the moral problems with revenge, if it is justified within the legal system, for the victim;s family?
In what way? If it is with justifible CP, then it clearly does with the execuction.
Quote from: AKIRA on August 10, 2015, 02:28:14 PM
Since this has been brought up, what exactly are the moral problems with revenge, if it is justified within the legal system, for the victim;s family?
I am not a fan of that sort of thinking - it's akin to the code of hammurabi or whatever and isn't compatible with a supposedly 'enlightened' society. Regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Also - the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
Quote from: AKIRA on August 10, 2015, 02:28:14 PM
Since this has been brought up, what exactly are the moral problems with revenge, if it is justified within the legal system, for the victim;s family?
I am not a fan of that sort of thinking - it's akin to the code of hammurabi or whatever and isn't compatible with a supposedly 'enlightened' society. Regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Also - the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.
(the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.) Great Quote Adam White!
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
I am not a fan of that sort of thinking - it's akin to the code of hammurabi or whatever and isn't compatible with a supposedly 'enlightened' society. Regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Also - the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.
Using that logic, then how does locking someone away for the rest of their natural life serve society? Try and put aside your moral conviction regarding capital punishment and think about what you're saying.
The gist I get is: This person isn't fit to live among you, but since we're opposed to 'stooping to his level' we're just going to allow him to be a burden until he passes away on his own.
Now you have a human being, locked up, with no incentive to live other than a desire to be not dead? You wanna talk about cruel and inhumane.... End it. Quickly and justly if so deserved.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 10, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 10, 2015, 10:01:09 AM
WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?
Your comprehension could use a little tweaking.
I'm going to type this slowly to help you understand it a bit clearer:
Putting a murderer in prison won't prevent him/her from murdering again whereas executing said murderer would.
You think your cute talking down to me Redneck Westsider don't you Oops sorry I forgot Non. Putting anyone in prison doesn't prevent anyone from killing. Look Capital Punishment doesn't work in America........................................................ Case Closed NEXT!
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 10, 2015, 04:39:35 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
I am not a fan of that sort of thinking - it's akin to the code of hammurabi or whatever and isn't compatible with a supposedly 'enlightened' society. Regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Also - the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.
Using that logic, then how does locking someone away for the rest of their natural life serve society? Try and put aside your moral conviction regarding capital punishment and think about what you're saying.
The gist I get is: This person isn't fit to live among you, but since we're opposed to 'stooping to his level' we're just going to allow him to be a burden until he passes away on his own.
Now you have a human being, locked up, with no incentive to live other than a desire to be not dead? You wanna talk about cruel and inhumane.... End it. Quickly and justly if so deserved.
I don't think I can separate my problem with killing from the question. And I also have concerns about killing people who may be innocent. Better to let a million guilty people live than to execute one innocent person. But beyond that - I don't see the relatively minor cost of keeping one person incarcerated as being that big a burden on a society that wastes 100s of billions of dollars (if not more) on so-called "defense spending" and stupid things like the "war on drugs" (for the record, I don't really care that much about drug legalization - it's not a pet issue for me).
And as I said before, I am not opposed to the occasional life sentence, assuming there is a possibility for a review of the prisoner's sentence/incarceration in the future. I am opposed to the notion of locking someone up forever and never being willing to consider changes in circumstances, etc. And the ECHR agrees with me on that. (Well, I agree with them - I'm pretty sure they have no idea who I am).
Quote from: vicupstate on August 10, 2015, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: The_Choose_1 on August 10, 2015, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on August 10, 2015, 09:56:54 AM
QuoteCan you ask a juror if they would have a personal/religious objection to sentencing someone to death? Because in this case, and I'm sure many like it, just one juror makes a helluva lot of difference.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that it is not only allowed, but is standard procedure. A prosecutor seeking a Death Penalty conviction will usually not agree to seat someone that is opposed to the Death Penalty. Also, they would have already investigated the potential juror enough to have an idea of their response beforehand.
Of course, the juror can SAY one thing in the courtroom, and DO something different in the jury room.
I don't have a problem with the Death Penalty as far as it being the penalty For me to vote for it as a juror, I would have to have no doubt of their guilt, and it would have to be significantly heinous.
One thing to consider is that just because someone is in prison, doesn't mean they can't still kill someone.
WOW! So since this man in Colorado didn't get "Capital Punishment" it's OK for him to be Murdered in Prison?
No, you completely misunderstood.
My point was that by putting someone in prison, they can still kill someone. They could kill a Corrections Officer, a fellow inmate or order a hit from the inside for someone on the outside. Many that argue against the Death Penalty use the argument that society is 'safe' because the killer is in prison. But that is not completely true. Obviously if someone was executed, they are NOT going to kill anyone else, ever. That was my point.
OK I misunderstood what you said and thanks for not being a Jerk like Non Redneck Westsider was towards me. But when the trial is over whats the point of arguing about Capital Punishment? If you want to change the laws that are on the books good luck. Most of the people on here making comments will most likely be dead before any real change comes to Life Prison Sentences v/s Capital Punishment.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 10, 2015, 04:39:35 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:25:52 PM
I am not a fan of that sort of thinking - it's akin to the code of hammurabi or whatever and isn't compatible with a supposedly 'enlightened' society. Regardless, I'm opposed to killing.
Also - the criminal justice system doesn't function to serve the individual (or the victim's family). It should function to serve society.
Using that logic, then how does locking someone away for the rest of their natural life serve society? Try and put aside your moral conviction regarding capital punishment and think about what you're saying.
The gist I get is: This person isn't fit to live among you, but since we're opposed to 'stooping to his level' we're just going to allow him to be a burden until he passes away on his own.
Now you have a human being, locked up, with no incentive to live other than a desire to be not dead? You wanna talk about cruel and inhumane.... End it. Quickly and justly if so deserved.
You have a God like attitude towards people you don't agree with. Do you think all your double speak is going to change anyone's mind on this subject N.R.N.W.
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:45:24 PM
I don't think I can separate my problem with killing from the question. And I also have concerns about killing people who may be innocent. Better to let a million guilty people live than to execute one innocent person. But beyond that - I don't see the relatively minor cost of keeping one person incarcerated as being that big a burden on a society that wastes 100s of billions of dollars (if not more) on so-called "defense spending" and stupid things like the "war on drugs" (for the record, I don't really care that much about drug legalization - it's not a pet issue for me).
And as I said before, I am not opposed to the occasional life sentence, assuming there is a possibility for a review of the prisoner's sentence/incarceration in the future. I am opposed to the notion of locking someone up forever and never being willing to consider changes in circumstances, etc. And the ECHR agrees with me on that. (Well, I agree with them - I'm pretty sure they have no idea who I am).
Most of the statistics I've found regarding the subject agree with your train of thought as well. It's not surprising really. I can understand why many people would be against such a harsh punishment.
As I said to kick this whole thing off, there are crimes of intent and circumstance. For some crimes, I believe that we can't go far enough with the punishment and for many, many others I think we go too far. It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we've got, and even though I agree with you 1,000% on this, "Better to let a million guilty people live than to execute one innocent person.", we'll just have to agree to disagree over the death sentence in general.
Good discussion.
If you want some more info on kind of an obscure subject: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on August 10, 2015, 05:09:27 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 10, 2015, 04:45:24 PM
I don't think I can separate my problem with killing from the question. And I also have concerns about killing people who may be innocent. Better to let a million guilty people live than to execute one innocent person. But beyond that - I don't see the relatively minor cost of keeping one person incarcerated as being that big a burden on a society that wastes 100s of billions of dollars (if not more) on so-called "defense spending" and stupid things like the "war on drugs" (for the record, I don't really care that much about drug legalization - it's not a pet issue for me).
And as I said before, I am not opposed to the occasional life sentence, assuming there is a possibility for a review of the prisoner's sentence/incarceration in the future. I am opposed to the notion of locking someone up forever and never being willing to consider changes in circumstances, etc. And the ECHR agrees with me on that. (Well, I agree with them - I'm pretty sure they have no idea who I am).
Most of the statistics I've found regarding the subject agree with your train of thought as well. It's not surprising really. I can understand why many people would be against such a harsh punishment.
As I said to kick this whole thing off, there are crimes of intent and circumstance. For some crimes, I believe that we can't go far enough with the punishment and for many, many others I think we go too far. It's not a perfect system, but it's the one we've got, and even though I agree with you 1,000% on this, "Better to let a million guilty people live than to execute one innocent person.", we'll just have to agree to disagree over the death sentence in general.
Good discussion.
If you want some more info on kind of an obscure subject: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
It is an interesting thing to debate - and there are so many things to consider. I'll check out that link.
Quote from: Ajax on August 10, 2015, 01:48:50 PM
Gunnar, I think your thoughts most closely resemble my own, with a few differences:
As for the requirement that the execution should be swift, wouldn't that deprive the defendant of a fair and robust appeal process? I guess (assuming I'm a truly innocent defendant) I would rather deal with the mental anguish of spending 10 years on death row and eventually getting exonerated, than having a speedy execution that can't be undone.
I agree that people who are involved with wrongful convictions should be punished, but that is rare and I don't ever see that changing.
You make a good point - that is a difficult one. Assuming (in an ideal world) that the defendant had a proper process with irrefutable evidence presented, plus given the chance for an appeal (which would have to be prioritized for death sentence cases, i.e. need to happen as quickly as possible without long waiting periods this may work.
However, as a world is never ideal, I am not sure if it would even be possible to guarantee the defendant a fair and robust process and avoid double punishment (long prison term followed by an execution).
Me, personally, I would also like for the prison term to be used to better convicts rather than just serve as a sort of purgatory, but the question is what to do with people that are so inherently evil / broken that this will not work.
Definitely not an easy topic.
Quote from: Gunnar on August 11, 2015, 06:42:53 AM
Quote from: Ajax on August 10, 2015, 01:48:50 PM
Gunnar, I think your thoughts most closely resemble my own, with a few differences:
As for the requirement that the execution should be swift, wouldn't that deprive the defendant of a fair and robust appeal process? I guess (assuming I'm a truly innocent defendant) I would rather deal with the mental anguish of spending 10 years on death row and eventually getting exonerated, than having a speedy execution that can't be undone.
I agree that people who are involved with wrongful convictions should be punished, but that is rare and I don't ever see that changing.
You make a good point - that is a difficult one. Assuming (in an ideal world) that the defendant had a proper process with irrefutable evidence presented, plus given the chance for an appeal (which would have to be prioritized for death sentence cases, i.e. need to happen as quickly as possible without long waiting periods this may work.
However, as a world is never ideal, I am not sure if it would even be possible to guarantee the defendant a fair and robust process and avoid double punishment (long prison term followed by an execution).
Me, personally, I would also like for the prison term to be used to better convicts rather than just serve as a sort of purgatory, but the question is what to do with people that are so inherently evil / broken that this will not work.
Definitely not an easy topic.
(but the question is what to do with people that are so inherently evil / broken that this will not work.) Have you seen the movie "Minority Report" when a person accused of a future crime that hasn't happen is then "placed into a coma-like stasis inside the PreCrime facility." Maybe we should do this to all prisoners we wouldn't have to build huge prisons and have all those guards in which a lot of them are as bad as the prisoners themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_%28film%29
http://www.vocativ.com/news/221816/this-many-inmates-remain-on-death-row-in-each-state
It's interesting that one of the most liberal states (CO) has the most death row inmates. Of course they have the Supermax there in Florence.
Quote from: I-10east on August 15, 2015, 07:06:13 AM
It's interesting that one of the most liberal states (CO) has the most death row inmates. Of course they have the Supermax there in Florence.
I wouldn't say CO is one of the most liberal states. In fact, it's apparently average:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/181505/mississippi-alabama-louisiana-conservative-states.aspx)