Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
(3) there are inadequate safeguards to prevent wrongful executions.

You call 20+ years of appeals not adequate safeguards? I would agree we need to do DNA testing 2 months before the date of the death penalty to ensure that they did commit the crime. If the tests come back positive, then the sentence should be carried out.

since you invited me to respond to your other points, i'll respond to this one. from googling, it appears the average length of stay on death row is 10+ years. you'll probably be delighted that in Virginia, it's less than 5 years, thanks in part to a rule that bars introducing any new evidence, except DNA, in an appeal once 21 days have passed since sentencing. i'd call 5- years inadequate. 10+ seems reasonable to me. BTW, there's a pretty good CNN piece on Virginia's death penalty law here:
link to CNN VA article
another interesting article, from the San Jose Mercury, points out that the California Supreme Court reverses 10% of death penalty convictions, whereas the nationwide average is 40%, and even Texas reverses 31%. you can read it here:
SJ Mercury article
in California, at least, i would consider a defense attorney negligent if he didn't appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

but as you know, courts tend to uphold jury convictions, so until poor defendants are guaranteed competent representation, it's a moot point how lengthy their appeals can be.

0 Replies

I could live with the death penalty provided two or three conditions were met:

1. Guilt has to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever. You cannot unhang somebody; the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

3. The defendant has to represent a continuing danger to society, and it has to be clear that you're not doing him any favors by keeping him around.

All of those conditions would be met in cases such as you cite, or cases such as Charles Manson, the Son of Sam killer, the two D.C. area sniper killers, and others of that genre. Nonetheless given those criteria. executions would be rare.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I could live with the death penalty provided two or three conditions were met:

1. Guilt has to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever. You cannot unhang somebody; the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

3. The defendant has to represent a continuing danger to society, and it has to be clear that you're not doing him any favors by keeping him around.

All of those conditions would be met in cases such as you cite, or cases such as Charles Manson, the Son of Sam killer, the two D.C. area sniper killers, and others of that genre. Nonetheless given those criteria. executions would be rare.

I think that's a very strong argument. I am particulary drawn to 2. The adversarial system of criminal justice is deeply flawed. I much prefer the inquisitorial form such as is used in Europe. But the other points are well made.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I could live with the death penalty provided two or three conditions were met:

1. Guilt has to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever. You cannot unhang somebody; the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

3. The defendant has to represent a continuing danger to society, and it has to be clear that you're not doing him any favors by keeping him around.

All of those conditions would be met in cases such as you cite, or cases such as Charles Manson, the Son of Sam killer, the two D.C. area sniper killers, and others of that genre. Nonetheless given those criteria. executions would be rare.

Would you agree to the death penalty being applied to adults who kill children?

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
I could live with the death penalty provided two or three conditions were met:

1. Guilt has to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever. You cannot unhang somebody; the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

3. The defendant has to represent a continuing danger to society, and it has to be clear that you're not doing him any favors by keeping him around.

All of those conditions would be met in cases such as you cite, or cases such as Charles Manson, the Son of Sam killer, the two D.C. area sniper killers, and others of that genre. Nonetheless given those criteria. executions would be rare.

Would you agree to the death penalty being applied to adults who kill children?

If all of those conditions are met.

Our present system convicts way too many innocent people for me to feel good about hanging people unless the controls are tightened substantially. The big freakout which the use of DNA testing has produced is the fact that it seems to eliminate the prime suspect in felony cases in something like 35% of cases. They expected that percentage to be more like two or three percent. Since the prime suspect in a felony cases usually goes to prison, that 35% figure translates into some fabulous number of people sitting around in prison for things they never did.

And then you get people like Janet Reno who managed to convict people of crimes which not only had they not done, but which had never even happened at all...

0 Replies

The fact is that the adversarial system of justice is broken. But no-one wants to listen because the vested interests are too strong. The inquisitorial system is far better but since the common law lawyers are in charge of the current systems of justice in the common law world it will be a huge fight to get rid of it and get something better.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

The fact is that the adversarial system of justice is broken. But no-one wants to listen because the vested interests are too strong. The inquisitorial system is far better but since the common law lawyers are in charge of the current systems of justice in the common law world it will be a huge fight to get rid of it and get something better.

agree with this, and ditto gungasnake. lots of cases depend on paid expert witness testimony, which handicaps indigent defendants. prosecutors also cut deals with jailhouse snitches, another consequence of a win-at-all-cost ethos that's at variance with an impartial search for truth. as i pointed out earlier, the most egregious example of the latter practice is the case of Mafia hitman Sammy the Bull Gravano; not only did he admit to killing 19, he took up drug distribution after he was placed in the witness protection program; and while there's howls of outrage over registered sex offenders moving into a neighborhood, is there anyone who want want a confessed Mafia hitman for a neighbor?

0 Replies

For a case in which guilt or innocent will likely never be established beyond any doubt whatsoever, there is always the David Camm case out there in Indiana. In other words, there is a case in which the first criteria I mentioned for hanging somebody will never be met. Do your own google searches on "David Camm" and check out some of what turns up.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

Remember that in the present adversarial system, both sides zealously advocate their respective positions in the adversarial manner. Would justice be served if only one side of the courtroom was fighting as hard as they could? Or is justice best served when both sides are fighting equally hard for their client?

Here is Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by most states, that applies to prosecutors:

Quote:

Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing, except that this does not apply to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal. Nor does it forbid the lawful questioning of a suspect who has waived the rights to counsel and silence.

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence of information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extra-judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6;

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_8.html

I can think of no reason why an inquisitorial system would be considered to be "far better."

0 Replies

In Florida if you are deemed by any gun totin' individual to be a threat you get the death penalty
with no costly trials or prison maintenance to pay for. Yee Haw!!!

0 Replies

I should have said ".... are supposed to ...."

Perhaps we should push for an age cap for capital murder defense attorneys?

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

hmmm, so the murder rate in countries with no death penalty should be higher than in countries with the death penalty, according to Baldimo's analysis.

... other things being equal, yes. But countries and states differ from each other in other ways than whether they have capital punishment or not, so you have to run a multiple regression to sort out these other factors. You can't simply compare murder rates in death penalty states with murder rates in non-death-penalty states.

The last time I looked at multiple regressions for the US was about four years ago, but a quick "Google Scholar" search for "Death penalty deterrent" suggests that the evidence hasn't changed much since. In the studies I looked at, the outcome was quite sensitive to the details of the statistical methodology used. More studies ended up showing a deterrent effect than not, but the results weren't conclusive enough to override my pretty strong intestinal aversion to capital punishment. I wouldn't expect the empirical data to change many other minds, on any side of the fence, either.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I wouldn't expect the empirical data to change many other minds, on any side of the fence, either.

An observation damned near of universal application, methinks. Laughing

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

I could live with the death penalty provided two or three conditions were met:

1. Guilt has to be established beyond any doubt whatsoever. You cannot unhang somebody; the usual criteria of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" is not good enough.

2. The present adversarial system of determining guilt or innocence probably has to be scrapped. There need to be major disincentives for DAs to convinct innocent people; at present, there are none.

3. The defendant has to represent a continuing danger to society, and it has to be clear that you're not doing him any favors by keeping him around.

All of those conditions would be met in cases such as you cite, or cases such as Charles Manson, the Son of Sam killer, the two D.C. area sniper killers, and others of that genre. Nonetheless given those criteria. executions would be rare.

OMG. Somebody check if Hell has frozen over... I've just agreed with one of Gunga's posts.

0 Replies

To the chorus of no capital punishment under any circumstance.
What do you think this individual deserves?

Soldier Convicted in Deadly Attack on His Camp
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Hasan Akbar could be sentenced to death for killing two of
his comrades and wounding 14 others in an attack on his own
camp in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22grenade.html?th&emc=th

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Here is Rule 3.8 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, adopted by most states, that applies to prosecutors:

That SOUNDS good, but in my view it is not enough and it's certainly not enough to make me feel good about dealing out death pentalties given our present system.

What I'd like to see are real incentives for DAs to refrain from prosecuting or convincting the innocent. In particular, there should be some major legal penalty for a DA who can be shown to have convicted an innocent person of anything. At present, there is absolutely nothing.

0 Replies

There's one other sort of consideration which comes up once in a while in death penalty considerations, and that's the sort of thing which you see in cases like that of Timothy McVeigh. It seems fairly obvious to me that there's more to the story of Oklahoma City than we read in the mainstream media and in my estimation the government was clearly in too much of a hurry to hang the guy (as in: dead men tell no tales).

All of the criteria for hanging somebody might have been met, but I'd still have kept the guy around for what we might have eventually learned.

0 Replies

A sense of constancy does a body good. I see at least one of my concerns has been allayed - The Snake has at last managed to insert conspiracy into the discussion. Its comfortin' to know there still are things on which one may rely. I was beginnin' to worry perhaps somethin' was wrong with ya, Gunga. I feel much better now. :wink:

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

To the chorus of no capital punishment under any circumstance.
What do you think this individual deserves?

Soldier Convicted in Deadly Attack on His Camp
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Hasan Akbar could be sentenced to death for killing two of
his comrades and wounding 14 others in an attack on his own
camp in Kuwait at the start of the Iraq war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/national/22grenade.html?th&emc=th

A 6x6 cell with a toilet, sink and a bed. No tv. No perks. No fun. A square, bland meal. Exercise privledge once or twice a week (only time allowed out of cell). No roomate. For life.

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know