Death Penalty

Maybe if we called the DEATH ENTITLEMENT it would be an easier sell?

Hey, I'm TRYING to think out of the box, here, folks.

Give me time, I'm sure there's a solution to this we can all sign onto.
 
Maybe if everyone had to prove their innocence? That would send a powerful message to everyone in society, you are are suspects for everything unless you can prove you didn't do what we said you did.
 
Maybe if everyone had to prove their innocence? That would send a powerful message to everyone in society, you are are suspects for everything unless you can prove you didn't do what we said you did.

WE presume you're innocent...we just don't know exactly what you're innocent of until we put you on trial.
 
Maybe if everyone had to prove their innocence? That would send a powerful message to everyone in society, you are are suspects for everything unless you can prove you didn't do what we said you did.

WE presume you're innocent...we just don't know exactly what you're innocent of until we put you on trial.

Yep. Hundreds of years of development and common law legal systems still haven't got past the trial by battle stage.

The presumption of innocence - that fabulous "golden thread".

Sankey:

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. When dealing with a murder case the Crown must prove (a) death as the result of a voluntary act of the accused and (b) malice of the accused.

DPP v Woolmington [1935] AC462.
 
I see in the news some states are considering doing away with the death penalty due to the costs involved. It seems it's cheaper to keep someone in prison for the remainder of their life. What a situation we have worked ourselves into. The statement by itself smacks of lunacy.

Why is it so expensive to put a convicted killer to death as his punishment for taking innocent lives?

It's the lawyers, judges and the bleeding heart liberals. Some people can't handle the idea of killing a killer, but they ignore the victims. The lawyers keep the appeals ongoing to line their pockets. Lawyers charge by the hour to represent the human predator and appeal after appeal insures them of a continuous paycheck paid by us hard working, law abiding taxpayers. We also pay for the prosecutors to continue returning to court to present the case against the killers. The judges have no backbone, think they're being fair, ignoring the victims.

Liberals who support killers may be winning. Those who care more for money than justice may be winning.

It's very simple. If we choose to execute these people, they must have time for appeals on every level. The problem is that there is always a chance we may execute an innocent person. Then what? It's bad enough that we send a substantial percentage of innocent people to prison, but to take someone's life on top of that who is innocent?

There is a saying that it is better to let a guilty person go free than it is to convict an innocent person. I am not against the death penalty, but there are good arguments against it, specifically the cost. Whatever the case, I am completely against speeding up the process to save money.
 
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.
 
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

There are still many cases where there is no DNA evidence. People who are killed by by guns during robberies or other instances are a prime example. In many of these cases, it still comes down to eye witness testimony. And we have seen over and over how eye witnesses have been wrong. They are certain of what they saw and whom they saw, but it turns out to be the wrong person. Every case is not solved by CSI.
 
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

There are still many cases where there is no DNA evidence. People who are killed by by guns during robberies or other instances are a prime example. In many of these cases, it still comes down to eye witness testimony. And we have seen over and over how eye witnesses have been wrong. They are certain of what they saw and whom they saw, but it turns out to be the wrong person. Every case is not solved by CSI.

As I said, those who have yet to have any solid evidence against, sure, let's hold off on the execution until such time as there is hard evidence. But those who we know for sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, why would you want to waste more money on them? Ever since the soft hearts stopped a lot of the work programs in prisons they are now absorbing more money and food than they produce, which makes the a burden, and one which no one can allow to be freed. This is the reason that the legal system originally followed rules, now that we have the technology to make following those rules possible soft hearts don't want to, while the black hearts are screaming for everyone to be put to death. The screaming on both sides has drowned out justice for too long. Let the death penalty stay, but just be sure.
 
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.



Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.
 
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.



Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.

No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.

My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.
 
My problem with "guilty" is that it's a sloppy notion. The prosecution only has to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That's still probability albeit a very high level of probability, it isn't certainty. And someone should only be executed if it was certain they committed an offence. Since that standard doesn't apply then no-one should be executed.



Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.

No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.

My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.


Maybe not overly cynical, but unless and until a perfect justice system is found, we have to work with what we have. You think the 99.9% probable dad, in the paternity example, is "set up"? Could be, but is that realistically probable?
 
Wouldn't you say that, given the advances that have been made (i.e. DNA evidence, etc.), "very high probability" pretty much equates "certainty"? If the standard is good enough for paternity judgments, why not executions? The accused, in this case, does at least have the benefit of a jury of peers.

No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.

My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.


Maybe not overly cynical, but unless and until a perfect justice system is found, we have to work with what we have. You think the 99.9% probable dad, in the paternity example, is "set up"? Could be, but is that realistically probable?

I don't have a problem with the paternity DNA testing, it's a genetic analysis and can identify parents, no problem. It's just we leave traces of our DNA everywhere. You go to the hairdresser for a haircut, there's your DNA all over the floor. I'm not trying to scaremonger, just point out that in terms of it being circumstantial evidence (which is far better than eyewitness evidence) it has its natural limitations. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great breakthrough (read Joseph Wambaugh's "The Blooding") and it's been used to great effect but it still can't prove someone killed someone beyond any doubt at all. I know it's a counsel of perfection but since there is an alternative to execution then until we develop the ability to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all then for me execution is off the table.
 
No I wouldn't. DNA isn't a magic bullet. It's essentially like fingerprints, just another form of circumstantial evidence going towards identification. In my country the process of identifying and dealing with fingerprints in situ has been developed because it's theoretically possible to move someone's fingerprints from place A to place B, so the courts won't accept any fingerprint evidence that hasn't been identified and photographed at the scene and then a match is made later. Now, you don't want to know how easy it is to set someone up with a DNA sample. And there's also the permanent presence of possible contamination.

My whole point is that in our common law-derived systems of justice there's no search for actual truth only procedural truth and it's stll a game and not a real inquiry into actuality. But I'm probably overly cynical about the system.


Maybe not overly cynical, but unless and until a perfect justice system is found, we have to work with what we have. You think the 99.9% probable dad, in the paternity example, is "set up"? Could be, but is that realistically probable?

I don't have a problem with the paternity DNA testing, it's a genetic analysis and can identify parents, no problem. It's just we leave traces of our DNA everywhere. You go to the hairdresser for a haircut, there's your DNA all over the floor. I'm not trying to scaremonger, just point out that in terms of it being circumstantial evidence (which is far better than eyewitness evidence) it has its natural limitations. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great breakthrough (read Joseph Wambaugh's "The Blooding") and it's been used to great effect but it still can't prove someone killed someone beyond any doubt at all. I know it's a counsel of perfection but since there is an alternative to execution then until we develop the ability to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all then for me execution is off the table.

What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?
 
Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

WHAT? Did human nature SUDDENLY change and human foibles evaporate?

SUDDENLY ALL police officers are honest, ALL lawyers are competent and ALL judges are dispassionate...

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...
 
One of the things that pschologists prove over and over again is this

EYEWITNESS TESTMONY IS OFTEN WRONG!

And now that we have DNA evidence, we discover--far too often!-- that we've had people sitting on death row who were innocent.

Look, I want murderers dispatched no less than any of you do.

But I would like to be SURE that we're not offing innocent people, and by doing so, allowing murderers to get off.

And what we're discoving is that our system to establish guilt is fruaght with problems, it's often wrong, and that beyond reasonable doubt just isn't good enough.

I see no solution to this other than better police work, and making god damned sure that the accused get truly GOOD defense, and that every possible means to establish guilt or innocence is followed up.
 
Last edited:
What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?

I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.
 
What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?

I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.


Dayum.... You really are cynical, aren't you? BTW, jury tampering is illegal, a prosecutor isn't likely to be lazy if he/she is the one working every so hard to convince the jury of guilt, and a judge doesn't weigh the evidence (the jury does) although he/she must pay attention to whether or not its admissible (which is generally determined outside the court room). Now an inexperience defense lawyer might be a point, but in a capital case? Not bloody likely....
 
Folks, let's face it, nothing, no system is perfect. But we take the best we got and accept it. Sometimes an innocent will be killed. I say that is rare. I was glad to see the likes of Ted Bundy meet his maker. Sometimes a Sunday school teacher is killed on the highway driving to church. But we don't stop driving. An innocent soldier can be killed by friendly fire, but we still call out the troops when there is a need.

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

It ain't murder. Murder is what the bad guy does for personal gain. What the government does is punishment to serve it's citizens.

Those who are against capital punishment, period, will dig up all excuses they can and that's fine, as we have free speech and they are entitled to their opinion. But they should be honest in their arguments. I say human predators are so evil they deserve to be removed from society and that don't mean have society work to earn money to pay for their housing, medical care, dental care, education, food, clothing, recreation, porno books and sex change operations. Why not calculate the cost to keep a murderer alive for 25 years, then just put the slug to death and give the money that is saved to the victim? Now that makes more sense and is more fair.:clap2:
 
Folks, let's face it, nothing, no system is perfect. But we take the best we got and accept it. Sometimes an innocent will be killed. I say that is rare. I was glad to see the likes of Ted Bundy meet his maker. Sometimes a Sunday school teacher is killed on the highway driving to church. But we don't stop driving. An innocent soldier can be killed by friendly fire, but we still call out the troops when there is a need.

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

It ain't murder. Murder is what the bad guy does for personal gain. What the government does is punishment to serve it's citizens.

Those who are against capital punishment, period, will dig up all excuses they can and that's fine, as we have free speech and they are entitled to their opinion. But they should be honest in their arguments. I say human predators are so evil they deserve to be removed from society and that don't mean have society work to earn money to pay for their housing, medical care, dental care, education, food, clothing, recreation, porno books and sex change operations. Why not calculate the cost to keep a murderer alive for 25 years, then just put the slug to death and give the money that is saved to the victim? Now that makes more sense and is more fair.:clap2:

Maybe we should double the death penalty...kill them TWICE!

The right wing PUNISH crowd will never look at the TRUTH... capital punishment costs WAY more, capital punishment makes society LESS safe, states WITH capital punishment LEAD the nation in murders per year and innocent people are TOO often caught in the Chinese finger misnamed the "justice" system.

BUT right wing authoritarian followers who STILL believe they're part of some mainstream thinking will justify MURDER and TORTURE because they're nothing but COWARDS too afraid to live in a free and open society...

BTW, Monica Lewinsky is an authoritarian follower...

Harry Truman said it best...
"Those who want the Government to regulate matters of the mind and spirit are like men who are so afraid of being murdered that they commit suicide to avoid assassination."


What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty

by Richard C. Dieter
Executive Director
The Death Penalty Information Center

Whether the death penalty constitutes a reasonable effort to prevent crime is considered from an economic standpoint. Resources directed toward this form of selective, legitimized killing of human beings are not available for crime prevention methodologies proven for their effectiveness. The death penalty not only fails as a solution to the problem of violence in the United States but, because of the excessive costs of implementation, capital punishment interferes with a spectrum of preventive programs that have been demonstrated to work well.

Throughout the United States, police are being laid off, prisoners are being released early, the courts are clogged, and crime continues to rise. The economic recession has caused cutbacks in the backbone of the criminal justice system. In Florida, the budget crisis resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners. In Texas, prisoners are serving only 20% of their time and rearrests are common. Georgia is laying off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey has had to dismiss 500 police officers. Yet these same states, and many others like them, are pouring millions of dollars into the death penalty with no resultant reduction in crime.

The exorbitant costs of capital punishment are actually making America less safe because badly needed financial and legal resources are being diverted from effective crime fighting strategies. Before the Los Angeles riots, for example, California had little money for innovations like community policing, but was managing to spend an extra $90 million per year on capital punishment. Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, but its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country.

The death penalty is escaping the decisive cost-benefit analysis to which every other program is being put in times of austerity. Rather than being posed as a single, but costly, alternative in a spectrum of approaches to crime, the death penalty operates at the extremes of political rhetoric. Candidates use the death penalty as a facile solution to crime which allows them to distinguish themselves by the toughness of their position rather than its effectiveness.

The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative -- life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials -- one on guilt and one on sentencing -- make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.

The high price of the death penalty is often most keenly felt in those counties responsible for both the prosecution and defense of capital defendants. A single trial can mean near bankruptcy, tax increases, and the laying off of vital personnel. Trials costing a small county $100,000 from unbudgeted funds are common and some officials have even gone to jail in resisting payment.

Nevertheless, politicians from prosecutors to presidents choose symbol over substance in their support of the death penalty. Campaign rhetoric becomes legislative policy with no analysis of whether the expense will produce any good for the people. The death penalty, in short, has been given a free ride. The expansion of the death penalty in America is on a collision course with a shrinking budget for crime prevention. It is time for politicians and the public to give this costly punishment a hard look.

The High Cost of the Death Penalty
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top