Perspectives on the U.S. Criminal Justice System

[ercarta]

I don't believe the Criminal Justice System in this country is the most conducive to the well being and safety of all Americans. Why does it take our country so long to take measures needed to put an end to obvious and blatant evil?

I'm sure there are cases that need to drawn out for reasons beyond my comprehension, however some cases should be processed much faster.

Take this Peterson case for example. Is this not blatant evil? Should he not have died yesterday? How do we let evil roam & cost Americans money at the same time? I heard it cost tax payers something like $99,000 to keep one inmate on Death Row for 1 year.

A career criminal? Why do they exist? How do we Americans tolerate this? That's it, I'm emotional. :(

[sanity]

Criminal justice systems are a balancing act between civil rights and civil peace. The more restrictive and intrusive you make them, the safer your citizens are, but the fewer rights your citizens have.

The delays in gathering evidence, in arraignment, in processing, in prosecuting, in sentencing, and in punishment are designed to protect the individual accused.

Our system is designed that way. Trial by a jury of ones peers who must unanimously find guild beyond a reasonable doubt was designed to free 99 guilty criminals rather than acquit 1 innocent citizen.

It's not perfect, but few other systems come close.

[Nic]

Of over 100 death row prisoners who had DNA tests subsequent to conviction, around a quarter were subsequently found to be innocent. That's a lot of innocent people to be judiciously murdered. Just because we go around slaughtering a load of innocent Iraqis doesn't mean we should indiscriminately slaughter innocent americans.

[sanity]

Rounded numbers. 100. convenient 25. Where did you get your "statistics" from?

In case you might not have noticed, the United States is not Iraq, and in a republic the voters decide which laws they wish to have. Every state that has the death penalty has them because their voters wish to have them.

[sanity]

Of over 100 death row prisoners who had DNA tests subsequent to conviction, around a quarter were subsequently found to be innocent. That's a lot of innocent people to be judiciously murdered. Just because we go around slaughtering a load of innocent Iraqis doesn't mean we should indiscriminately slaughter innocent americans.

Oh, and before you go around throwing this "statistic" around, realize that due to the cost of testing, prisoners who are screened were thoroughly vetted by defense advocacy groups, ie people with marked incentives to exonerate to be the ones most likely wrongfully convicted.
See eg. http://www.innocenceproject.org. Even if your statistic is true, it wouldn't be a random sample of 100 prisoners as the cost of DNA testing is prohibitive of conducting random sampling. This would a sample of the 100 of the most likely to be wrongly convicted.


Incidentally, where does this "stastistic" come from? There have been only a total of 117 exonerations since 1973. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf

[Nic]

I suggest you read the factsheet you quoted. it gives a list of the 117 who were exonerated on DNA evidence.

The link between Iraq and US executions is the low regard for human rights associated with countries that have the death penalty - and in the USA the states concerned. I am relatively indifferent to the human rights of murderers compared to those of their victims, but passionate about the human rights of innocent people. One innocent person judicially executed in my book makes all those who supported the execution morally guilty.

I guess that's not a link you see, but I suspect you are a pretty insensitive individual, so you wouldn't. I don't see why you feel the need to be so casually offensive. What happened in your life to give you such a chip on your shoulder? Perhaps you find you can talk tough from behind a keyboard in a way you wouldn't dream of doing person to person.

[ercarta]

Gentlemen,

That will do! Enough with the hit & run insults! Let's get back to The Criminal Justice System in the United States, you know the topic we are discussing.

Let's disagree politely please. :D




I guess that's not a link you see, but I suspect you are a pretty insensitive individual, so you wouldn't. I don't see why you feel the need to be so casually offensive. What happened in your life to give you such a chip on your shoulder? Perhaps you find you can talk tough from behind a keyboard in a way you wouldn't dream of doing person to person.

[Nic]

Fair comment, Eric. I forgot myself.

Interestingly over the 117 capital convictions that were overturned, the average time to reach an acquital exceeds 9 years. It does suggest that even if you support the death penalty, a lengthy period of reflection, cooling down and legal process is necessary to ensure innocent people don't get killed. Unfortunately there are other cases on top of the 177 overturned convictions where the accused has since been executed but subsequent evidence significantly ch*****ges the original conviction. The UK has a pretty advanced legal system but it took almost 20 years, I think, before people finally figured out that a convicted child molester and some IRA killers were, in fact, competely innocent. The evidence at the time had seemed incontrovertible and most people would have gladly seen them hung.

I don't much like Scott Petersen from what I've read, but a certain distance between conviction and execution could save us the collective guilt of being indifferent to the rights of an innocent man.

[sanity]

Sorry Eric, I grow tired of contrite and repetative cheap shots. Resorting to prejudicial allegories while quoting fictional "statistics" is never a sign of intentions to have an honest discussion.


Nic,

I suggest you read the factsheet you quoted. it gives a list of the 117 who were exonerated on DNA evidence.
Reading is the key word. HERE (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) is a list of the 117 people exonerated. As you can plainly see, only 13 of the 117 were exonerated by DNA.

Second, even without actually digging any deeper, the exact wording is "released from death row with evidence of their innocence" with no mention of DNA or otherwise. However, as the surrounding statistics quoted were totals, there is no reason to assume that such statistics are only a partial count of exonerations.

Third, the 117 is the number released from 1973, with over 100 between the period of 1973 and 1993 --a period where DNA evidence was neither prevalent nor fully judicially accepted.

Fourth, if you actually had a working experience with or actual knowledge of the judicial side of the American criminal system, you'd know that the system is seriously favorable towards the accused.


The link between Iraq and US executions is the low regard for human rights associated with countries that have the death penalty - and in the USA the states concerned.
A prejudicial cheap shot.

This is an absurd generalization, given that you focus upon the end result without any consideration for the application. Are you honestly saying that that the American reputation for human rights is the same as Iraq's?

Let's test the honesty of your statement. Would you rather be accused of a crime in Texas, the state with the highest number of executions, or Saddam's Iraq? I'll even tip the odds in your favor. Supposed you were guaranteed that Saddam would not put you to death, would you rather be accused of a crime in Texas, or Iraq? Let's take Saddam out of the picture, even though that is a move to which you objected. Would you rather be accused of a crime in Texas or Karzai's Iraq?

Or are you merely yet again venting at the will of the American public?


One innocent person judicially executed in my book makes all those who supported the execution morally guilty.
By this logic, one innocent person judicially robbed of their life with a sentence of life without parole makes all those who supported the criminal justice system also morally guilty. What, then, do you have left if each and every punishment may be blamed upon the supporters of justice, for every and any mistake?

Under this argument, you either believe in all of the safeguards of the system and all of the advantages given towards the accused, or you reject punishing criminals all together.


It does suggest that even if you support the death penalty, a lengthy period of reflection, cooling down and legal process is necessary to ensure innocent people don't get killed.
Which is exactly why the system is the way it is, as I pointed out in my first post to Eric.

[sanity]

Oh, and Nic, I 'm the same behind my keyboard as I am away from it. I just call bull when I see it.

[ercarta]

I find this comment interesting and I'd like to expand on it...

I understand what you are saying about balancing civil rights & civil peace in America however, I also understand that the law cuts too much slack for those that elect to be American career criminals. Career criminals are good start to make some headway into correcting our criminal justice system.

I feel once you are convicted a few times the odds of you being innocent are slim to none. Furthermore, once convicted a few times you are no longer an average American rather, you are an American career felon. Therefore, American career felon's should not be covered under the same constitution that protects the rest of us Americans.

Restrictive and intrusive? An American career criminal should feel law in his life this way. The life of a criminal should be smothered hard American reprimand. In fact, a smaller book of rights should be written for just for career felons reducing their rights to bare basics. This will make becoming a career felon the unpopular choice.

Perhaps, explosive and unpredictable individuals who "have no control" would find control voluntarily having a knowing that their freedom is at stake and that the laws will no longer stand behind them.

We need tougher laws to control tougher repeat offenders of the law (outcasts), bottom line. The offenders continue offending and get recycled through our weak system just to be released and damage more American's lives.

I don't believe a general consensus is always the best method for making changes. A government should make some decisions to become stricter for the better of the country without a consensus of the people. People will always hem and haw, but we could be hemming and hawing in a safer country. Over the decades, things have only gotten worse where crime is concerned. We need a revamp. I don't think the current criminal justice system is adequate.



Criminal justice systems are a balancing act between civil rights and civil peace. The more restrictive and intrusive you make them, the safer your citizens are, but the fewer rights your citizens have.

[Nic]

Oh, and Nic, I 'm the same behind my keyboard as I am away from it. I just call bull when I see it.

Somehow I don't think so. You're a pedant and seem to have no desire to contribute to a discussion with me, rather resort to cheap shots and personal insults. I suspect you wouldn't say boo to a goose when you're not busy battling asteroids and tilting at windmills. Somewhere along the line something has clearly posioned your mind, a sense of inadequacy perhaps.

I'm also not interested in conducting a discussion with somebody so casually offensive. I wouldn't in a bar, or at a bus stop. I won't here. I don't respond to what you say because I find you beneath contempt. I don't bother with idiots offline, I don't need to here.

Sorry, Eric, I tied to let it go but an annoying little itch came back.

[ercarta]

Nic & Sanity,

The two of you are really intelligent. I don't see why both of you are being so combative with each other. End this bickering and stick to the subject matter. It's a shame to see to two adults having difficulty getting your point out there without offending one another. Being passionate doesn't warrant attacking other peoples views even if they are misconstrued in your eyes. STOP IT, it's silly!
:mad:

[Nic]

Eric, ironically there was a debate on capital punishment on WNYC this morning. One of the speakers claimed it was cheaper to keep somebody in prison for life than to keep them on death row and execute them (given all the necessary safeguards and the time it takes to follow them).

[sanity]

I feel once you are convicted a few times the odds of you being innocent are slim to none. Furthermore, once convicted a few times you are no longer an average American rather, you are an American career felon. Therefore, American career felon's should not be covered under the same constitution that protects the rest of us Americans.

Restrictive and intrusive? An American career criminal should feel law in his life this way. The life of a criminal should be smothered hard American reprimand. In fact, a smaller book of rights should be written for just for career felons reducing their rights to bare basics. This will make becoming a career felon the unpopular choice.

Perhaps, explosive and unpredictable individuals who "have no control" would find control voluntarily having a knowing that their freedom is at stake and that the laws will no longer stand behind them.

We need tougher laws to control tougher repeat offenders of the law (outcasts), bottom line. The offenders continue offending and get recycled through our weak system just to be released and damage more American's lives.

While I agree with you that career criminals should be punished more harshly than first time offenders, I must disagree that the system used to convict them should be any less advantageous than those use for other citizens. In historical context, the system is designed with the sole intent of safeguarding individual rights against governmental abuses. By eliminating safeguards for those who are already convicted, you're engaging in a dangerous slippery slope by eroding the civil rights and creating classes of secondary citizens.

There are actually current court rules of evidence which support this view. Unless very specific exceptions are met, the accused's prior convictions may not be introduced into trial as such information is deemed too prejudicial.

Additionally, by removing judicial safeguards from convicted criminals, neither goals of reform or the deterrent --the main goals of punishment-- are met.

Such bias is detrimental to the reformative aspects of incarceration and punishment. Current perception of police evidentiary abuses by the already discontent elements of society will only be increased. The incentive for reform is drastically reduced if the inmate perceives and believes that further unwarranted punishment is likely.

Similarly, the currently harsher sentencing guidelines for repeat offenders already serve this deterrent aspect. Increasing the chance of conviction by increasing the perception of police abuses only fractures society further.

[sanity]

Somehow I don't think so. You're a pedant and seem to have no desire to contribute to a discussion with me, rather resort to cheap shots and personal insults.
The cheap shot is the banal reference to Iraq along with the asinine comment about the American perception of human rights.

Had you really any inclination to have an actual discussion, you would have:
1. presented real, factual evidence to support your claim instead of conjuring numbers from your ass,
2. actually used a non-idiotic form logic that wouldn't have rendered the entire discussion moot, or
3. actually READ for yourself the only real evidence presented before lying about it's contents.


I suspect you wouldn't say boo to a goose when you're not busy battling asteroids and tilting at windmills.
My preferred area of law is not litigation, and I may not like being in a courtroom, but I did carry a winning record with indigent cases through law school. I've said boo to many geese.

Even without reading your facial expressions or watching your body language or even knowing your background, it was painfully obvious you never intended a "meaningful discussion."


Somewhere along the line something has clearly posioned your mind, a sense of inadequacy perhaps.
Actually, the inadequacy is your inability to accept that the vast majority of the population in your new home carries vastly different views than you. You conveniently resort to insulting the American sense of human rights when reminded that the death penalty has majority support, and yet you lack, or have yet to find and present, any factual evidence to support your differing view.

It might shatter your little world to know that even the staunchest blue states of California and New York have the death penalty.


I'm also not interested in conducting a discussion with somebody so casually offensive. I wouldn't in a bar, or at a bus stop. I won't here. I don't respond to what you say because I find you beneath contempt. I don't bother with idiots offline, I don't need to here.
So, basically you don't have a factual basis to support your point and resort to fake statistics to make your point seem more credible. Of course, when I present actual facts, you resort to fabricating new stories. And when you have nothing else, you use inappropriate logic and unsustainable metaphors. And when I call your bull, this is what you respond with?

Thanks for playing.

[sanity]

Sorry, Eric, I tied to let it go but an annoying little itch came back.
;)

[Nic]

Does anyone here actually bother reading this stuff? Is it worth my time even responding to this idiot? Anyone have a view?

[sanity]

Does anyone here actually bother reading this stuff? Is it worth my time even responding to this idiot? Anyone have a view?
Translated: Nic is unable to present a factual argument against the death penalty, and is unwilling to actually spend time to form a factual opinion. Can anyone help Nic out?

[ercarta]

The problem is those on death row are there for too long. I understand sanity's point on why an inmate can be there for decades but I'm thinking that maybe the process of putting someone on death row should be more extensive and involve cooling time and such, before one is sentenced to death row rather than after. The current method assumes inmates are still innocent after conviction but waits for evidence to prove it, that can't remain that way.

Once someone has made their way to death row they should die within the year. This is the way to punish evil, swift and without remorse. However, more needs to be done to decrease the defects in the criminal justice system that allow innocent people to slip through the cracks and be pushed along to death row. It is not realistic to expect a perfect system, but we do need a more forceful and rigid system with stricter tolerances. "Peace through strength!"

What about all the evil souls that are in fact guilty & evil, they must be removed off of the face of the earth! I don't think any system will ever be full proof yet I do believe that the swift punishment will decrease the number of cases where capital punishment is considered. I believe in instilling fear in guilty hearts, fear amongst the guilty will create peace. By removing basic rights given to them at birth, career criminals will not feel protected by the law any longer.

Repeat offenders are indeed, as sanity would say, secondary citizens. I don't believe they should roam the streets of our country with the same liberties that you and I have after a given number of felony offenses. Career criminals are not fit for this country, they damage so many Americans lives daily. They are killing, raping, steeling the youthes of children, & traumatizing Americans. It is indeed a full time career to ruin this country and destroy American lives day in and day out. 24 hours & 7 days a week, this is the agenda!

I believe the way to peace and organization for any large group is through methodology(planning) and strength(implementing), not constant pardoning and appeasement. Softy laws allows criminals to make a life victimizing others with undefined consequences. Stricter tolerances and hard law for secondary citizen's (career criminals) will turn the tables and make a repeat offender the victim, while making this country safer and better.


Eric, ironically there was a debate on capital punishment on WNYC this morning. One of the speakers claimed it was cheaper to keep somebody in prison for life than to keep them on death row and execute them (given all the necessary safeguards and the time it takes to follow them).

[Nic]

Nic is unable to present a factual argument against the death penalty, and is unwilling to actually spend time to form a factual opinion. Can anyone help Nic out?

You can't help but be casually offensive, can you? It looks like, apart from Eric who started this thread, nobody is really interested so why bother writing endless text and interminable links for so small an audience? However, as a favour I am prepared to provide you with a reasoned presentation of the case against capital punishment. In person. Face to face. As a bonus, you would almost certainly be pleasantly surprised about how knowledgeable I am about this country and how much I like about it even if I do see it as sometimes flawed.

[hkmax]

I think the major question is how can we make absolutely sure that the person on the deathrow is 100% guilty? Sure most are, but if there is even one case that is not it is one too many. How is the criminal justice system going to pay back the time to those who got exonerated?

In death penalty cases - that is if you are for it - in my opinion you should not complain how much tax dollar it is costing and how long it takes to excution. We're talking about someone's life here.

And Nic, relating US death penalty discussion with Iraq war was indeed a cheap shot. You are relating two issues not related to make your case against death penalty.

Sanity, you sound so combative. You could cool down a bit and make Nic see your points. By being combative you alienated Nic.

[sanity]

The problem is those on death row are there for too long. I understand sanity's point on why an inmate can be there for decades but I'm thinking that maybe the process of putting someone on death row should be more extensive and involve cooling time and such, before one is sentenced to death row rather than after. The current method assumes inmates are still innocent after conviction but waits for evidence to prove it, that can't remain that way.

Once someone has made their way to death row they should die within the year. This is the way to punish evil, swift and without remorse. However, more needs to be done to decrease the defects in the criminal justice system that allow innocent people to slip through the cracks and be pushed along to death row. It is not realistic to expect a perfect system, but we do need a more forceful and rigid system with stricter tolerances. "Peace through strength!"

HAH. Now you've placed me in the middle between Mr. "even judiciously applied death penalty violates human rights" Nic, and yourself who wishes to kill criminals faster.

Although I agree with you about the tardiness and cost of the system, here is my problem. Punishment takes years because of the legal remedies afforded everyone in almost every and any trial. Appeal, a basic civil right, is almost always available even for the most trivial of issues. Taking away someone's life should be no different. I believe that this rigorous process is necessary to address the concerns that Nic tries to raise with his "statistic."

I think a compromise might be to shorten existing time limits upon the procedural aspects of the appeals process, but I'm unfamiliar with the details of procedure.


In death penalty cases - that is if you are for it - in my opinion you should not complain how much tax dollar it is costing and how long it takes to excution. We're talking about someone's life here.
Exactly! Nor should we begrudge them all the avenues of appeal afforded by law.

[sanity]

Sanity, you sound so combative. You could cool down a bit and make Nic see your points. By being combative you alienated Nic.
Sorry, this is not the first nor only time Nic entered into a conversation with any other intention but to score a cheap shot and leave.

If and when he actually shows clear intent to join the discussion with more than insults and false statistics, I will treat him with more respect.




You can't help but be casually offensive, can you?
For you, the fault forever lies with the other side. Nevermind your offensive opinions from your very first post through your penultimate one.


It looks like, apart from Eric who started this thread, nobody is really interested so why bother writing endless text and interminable links for so small an audience?
The intentions of this thread was to discuss opinions with those who wished to join it. If you are not really interested in joining Eric's and my discussion, why are you here?

Thank-you for confirming that your intention for posting here on this thread was never to have a meaningful discussion.

And Nic, speaking of inadequacies, not everything is done for an audience. A simple discussion and a sharing of ideas has merits in and of itself. Your fifteen minutes of fame with the Nic club are long over.


However, as a favour I am prepared to provide you with a reasoned presentation of the case against capital punishment. In person. Face to face. As a bonus, you would almost certainly be pleasantly surprised about how knowledgeable I am about this country and how much I like about it even if I do see it as sometimes flawed.
And what prevents you from simply giving me this supposed presentation here and now? What have you shown to prove that such a meeting would be anything other than a complete waste of my time?

[Nic]

Your fifteen minutes of fame with the Nic club are long over.

Got it! Should have figured it sooner why you were so quick to hurl personal insults. Attention envy - and now I can see it, it runs like a vein through all your posts. I got so much hate mail and snide postings because of the envy my apparent "fame" netted me I thought it worth letting it pass over. A couple of my detractors were quite worrying, you may have been one of them. You're probably even nastier when you're anonymous, and I can't believe you are so obnoxious in person. IT WAS ONLY A BIT OF FUN. Nobody really took the Nic thing seriously, especially not me, except for the stalkers and loonies like you.

[Nic]

And Nic, relating US death penalty discussion with Iraq war was indeed a cheap shot.

It wasn't intended as a cheap shot. I do think there is a broad correlation between countries that abuse human rights and countries that use the death penalty, and it was a shorthand way of opening up a debate with a wry remark. I don't believe this medium lends itself to long postings, and the knack is to be relatively concise and engaging on some level. Unfortunately my clumsiness was matched by the sledgehammer humourlessness of the inappropriately named and tiresomely long-winded Sanity (maybe the nick is meant to be ironic?). I didn't intend to cause offence.

[sanity]

Got it! Should have figured it sooner why you were so quick to hurl personal insults. Attention envy - and now I can see it, it runs like a vein through all your posts.
Wrong. My posting has always been for my personal edification and for the attention of a select few. Need I not remind you, that YOU are the one who found this discussion not worth your time due to it's small audience?

As I've said repeatedly, I am who I am. I never post for attention nor have I ever envied your little club.


I got so much hate mail and snide postings because of the envy my apparent "fame" netted me I thought it worth letting it pass over. A couple of my detractors were quite worrying, you may have been one of them.
Grasping at yet more straws? If the old archives are reposted, you'll see that I actually defended you. Though in hindsight, that was my mistake.


You're probably even nastier when you're anonymous, and I can't believe you are so obnoxious in person.
Such a short memory. I was one of the first and strongest advocates of non-anonymous posting. I even suggested the code currently being used.

And I'm belligerent in person only when the situation warrants. Of course, and I'll repeat, you cite my insults, and yet you turn a blind eye to every single one of your posts. At least I had a valid point when I called your bull and your lies. Did you have a point in posting? Yeah, didn't think so.


IT WAS ONLY A BIT OF FUN. Nobody really took the Nic thing seriously, especially not me, except for the stalkers and loonies like you.
I never took it seriously. In fact I actually remember telling you to not take it seriously.

[sanity]

It wasn't intended as a cheap shot. I do think there is a broad correlation between countries that abuse human rights and countries that use the death penalty, and it was a shorthand way of opening up a debate with a wry remark.
A wry remark patently offensive to the population of this country. Of course, in your eyes, you are neither at fault or to blame for any of your inane and offensive comments.


I don't believe this medium lends itself to long postings, and the knack is to be relatively concise and engaging on some level. Unfortunately my clumsiness was matched by the sledgehammer humourlessness of the inappropriately named and tiresomely long-winded Sanity (maybe the nick is meant to be ironic?). I didn't intend to cause offence.

You can't help but be casually offensive, can you?
Oh the hypocracy.

And as for your "relatively concise and engaging on some level" contribution to this thread, have you said anything constructive to the topic that wasn't false, conjecture, or not based upon flawed logic?

This is page 2, and we're still waiting.

[Katie_Scarlett]

Wow Nic & Sanity you two really do go at it.

Nic- I've never seen the point in saying "boo to a goose," what's the goose going to do, talk back?
As far as responding to sanity, yea, I think he warrants a response.

Sanity- I think Nic is trying to say that the death penalty could be seen as outdated and barbaric. A view that is prevalent among many civilized countries. Without bothering to verify this information, I believe we are one of the very few modern countries that actually has it. . .Your point about California is mitigated by the fact that they are the most recalcitrant state to use it.

As for my view-
I believe in the death penalty. I believe you break a few eggs to make an omelet too. Sanity rightly points out that our judicial system is highly favorable to the defendant, and thus very few are wrongly convicted and given the death penalty. I don't see a need to get rid of it.

As for the point someone made about life in prison being cheaper - it is now, but if we remove the death penalty, all those zealots will need something to do, and will begin to raise money to appeal lifers. Then that will be ridiculously expensive, and 20 years from the time the death penalty is revoked, you'll see a call for 25-life to be the maximum because that's infinitely cheaper than life without parole. Get my meaning?

[Nic]

Oh the hypocracy.

The slight was intended, dude. There was nothing casual about it.

A lie is an intentional untruth, I haven't made one here. Bull? Your idea of logic is so twisted I just thought I'd let the other people on this board judge for themselves. As for the case of a quarter out of over a hundred which you reckon to be 14 out of 117, well I think you've made the point almost as well - if not for DNA testing many innocent people could now be dead, and I think only Illinois and New York even allow DNA testing for Death Row prisoners. Unfortunately my source was a radio broadcast, and I'm willing to entertain the possibility they exaggerated or I misheard, but I don't think so. I'm just not going to go trolling the web at your beck and call.

I have got involved in many debates here, but there's rarely a debate once you start posting. Occasionally you make a good point, but I liken it to the old philosophical point about monkeys typing Shakespeare.

Anyway, can't we just agree that we dislike each other and stop acknowledging each other's posts? I'm sure everyone else is fed up of this discussion, although I must admit to finding it pleasantly diverting myself. Maybe you do too? I just wish you were not such an intellectual pygmy, because then it really would be engaging.

[sanity]

The slight was intended, dude. There was nothing casual about it.
Again, the hypocracy. You of course are allowed to be as offensive as you wish from your very first post. When I respond in kind, I'm the one to blame?


A lie is an intentional untruth, I haven't made one here.
What a short memory even for such a small mind:

I suggest you read the factsheet you quoted. it gives a list of the 117 who were exonerated on DNA evidence.

Reading is the key word. HERE (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110) is a list of the 117 people exonerated. As you can plainly see, only 13 of the 117 were exonerated by DNA.
So were you lying or are you illiterate?


As for the case of a quarter out of over a hundred which you reckon to be 14 out of 117, well I think you've made the point almost as well - if not for DNA testing many innocent people could now be dead,
But the point I make destroys your argument against the death penalty. The REASON for your mistaken statistic was to support your claim that many people are wrongfully convicted with the implication that nearly a quarter of all death row inmates can be exonerated through DNA, something that the 13 out of 117 shows is categorically false.

But you would need to advance beyond your state of primitive evolution for such logic.


and I think only Illinois and New York even allow DNA testing for Death Row prisoners. Unfortunately my source was a radio broadcast, and I'm willing to entertain the possibility they exaggerated or I misheard, but I don't think so. I'm just not going to go trolling the web at your beck and call.
Intelligent people form their opinions based upon facts. But in your case, I even spoon-fed such facts for you.

In the list of the 117 exonerees, each are listed by name and state. Those exonerated by DNA are from Maryland, Illinios, Oklahoma, Indiana, Arizona, Florida, and Lousiana.

Why would any state ban DNA evidence? Are you still making up stories and merely copping out by attributing them to the "radio?"

I have got involved in many debates here, but there's rarely a debate once you start posting. Occasionally you make a good point, but I liken it to the old philosophical point about monkeys typing Shakespeare.
And your good point, singular, in this thread would be where? Incidentally, tell your monkey to brush up on his grammar.


Anyway, can't we just agree that we dislike each other and stop acknowledging each other's posts?
Translation: You still have no solid facts with which to support your opinion on the death penalty.



I'm sure everyone else is fed up of this discussion, although I must admit to finding it pleasantly diverting myself. Maybe you do too? I just wish you were not such an intellectual pygmy, because then it really would be engaging.
Ah, Nic, perpetually accusing others of your own sin.

Unable to read: You.
Offensive: You.
Inadequate: You.
Plays for the audience: You.
Unable to apply any form of logic: You.
Intellectual pygmy: Also you.


I'm still waiting for a factually supported and intelligent response from you on this matter, but I'll not hold my breath. Given your dimished capabilities, I'll even lower my expectations to, oh... a fact.

[Nic]

Now that's all your toys out the pram, what are you going to play with now? OK, let's go...

For me the death penalty is irrevocable and can, and has, been inflicted on innocent people - in the USA Joseph O'Dell is an example of somebody it is difficult to believe was guilty in hindsight. There are other cases from around the world. Capital punishment has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. Indeed, and I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong, US states with the death penalty generally have higher murder rates than those who don't. Capital punishment is almost invariably associated with countries with low regard for civil or human rights, but one can only speculate on the nature of that relationship. It is interesting to note that, according to AI, capital punishment in the US suggests a higher value for white life than a black one given the preference for hanging black prisoners in murders involving white victims.

[sanity]

in the USA Joseph O'Dell is an example of somebody it is difficult to believe was guilty in hindsight? Joseph O'Dell? You mean the guy in Virginia who drew all the attention from the Italians?

Oh, yes, DNA testing. The victim's blood matched that on the passenger's seat of O'Dell's car. O'Dell's tire-tread marks which were so rare that the expert at trial couldn't find them in the manual of other tread marks) were present at the body. Semenal fluids found in the victim matched his, and her pubic hair matched those found in his car.

The sole issue on appeal concerning DNA was whether or not the inconclusive DNA test on whether the blood O'Dell's shirt matched the victims was substantively probative for a retrial. Hmmmmm..... :rolleyes:

And by the way, this fact should appeal to Eric: O'Dell had 17 felony convictions including a prior one for murder. Key testimony at trial was from another woman who managed to escape O'Dell's previous attempt at kidnap, rape, and murder.

*not a legal opinon nor a case summary.

Capital punishment has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments.
Statistics here go either way. But it is intersting to note that homicides jumped during the period that the death penalty was being successfully ch*****ged as unconstitutional culminating in its ban in 1973. The increasing rates flattened and dipped in 1976 when the death penalty was reintroduced.

Economics have a distinct influence on crime, but the surprising correlation between the crime rates in those years shouldn't be ignored.

Indeed, and I'm sure I'll get corrected if I'm wrong, US states with the death penalty generally have higher murder rates than those who don't.
38 out of 50 states have the death penalty. The 12 who don't are not the most crime free states, and neither are the 38 the highest crime states. Even if you look at the number of executions carried out, Texas and Florida are not the most crime ridden states.


It is interesting to note that, according to AI, capital punishment in the US suggests a higher value for white life than a black one given the preference for hanging black prisoners in murders involving white victims.
Although sentencing shows racial bias, the majority of actually executed prisoners are white while the majority of the regular prison population is black. However, I'll agree that disparities do exist. Nonetheless, this calls for a revamping of the application, not abolishment of the tool.

See? A much better discussion when you respond without insults!

[bonacera]

Does anyone here actually bother reading this stuff? Is it worth my time even responding to this idiot? Anyone have a view?

I actually do bother reading it; however, I don't enjoy reading that a person calls the other person as 'this idiot' in this board. :(

It is fine to be passionate about something, but let's do it in a courteous manner. Okay? :)

[ercarta]

Can anyone revive this discussion? Somewhere between all the personal attacks & mediating I lost interest. I tried to go back and get to the meat of what we were discussing but it's hard to read through the name calling and sharp remarks.

We should all be salesman on this bulletin board: Selling ideas to one another rather than imposing ideas and attacking others for not sharing like views. Salesman also don't always close the deal. We are not here correct each other's personalities either. This is a discussion board not a consensus via aggressive manipulation board.

Does anyone have the patience to read back and find out where this discussion was left off? :confused:

[sanity]

Posts 20, 22, 23 are where you, hkmax, and I left off about streamlining the system.

[sanity]

Posts 32 and 33 are where Nic and I finally got to a decent discussion about the death penalty.

[ercarta]

Here's where I will pick it up from...

This is where my problem is, too many evil and repeat criminals are roaming the States that simply, in my eyes should have lost their rights as Americans or been put to death. Maybe I am out line but I own that opinion. There will never be a 100% security blanket to cover all those who never got exonerated and where put to death innocently. However, I don't believe that it is rational to put a whole system on hold and allow all this crime to occur in this country without slamming a foot down on these criminals.

Obviously all systems including a revamped criminal justice system will have defects and fallacies , a small percentage of people will die innocently and that is something that would have to be worked on. If you want a safer country virtually free of evil then that will come with the territory.

I don't believe a track record of heinous crimes should be irrelevant in the courts for current cases once a past case has been closed. Conversely, I don't believe that past cases should become a focal point however they should not be ignored. You must consider the track record of an individual upon deciding the individuals fate. I don't think people end up on trail all the time by freak occurence. The odds are the odds and we do need to evaluate probability in deciding what to do with career criminals.


I think the major question is how can we make absolutely sure that the person on the deathrow is 100% guilty? Sure most are, but if there is even one case that is not it is one too many. How is the criminal justice system going to pay back the time to those who got exonerated?

[sanity]

Here's where I will pick it up from...
I don't believe a track record of heinous crimes should be irrelevant in the courts for current cases once a past case has been closed. Conversely, I don't believe that past cases should become a focal point however they should not be ignored. You must consider the track record of an individual upon deciding the individuals fate. I don't think people end up on trail all the time by freak occurence. The odds are the odds and we do need to evaluate probability in deciding what to do with career criminals.

Ah, now you're talking about something different. While I disagreed with you that previous crimes should be used in determination of guilt or innocence, I do agree that previous crimes should be used in sentencing.

The law agrees as well. Sentences for repeat offenders are signifigantly higher than for first time offenders. Many states even have a three strikes policy, whereby any three felonies results in life without parole. Many people find it harsh that if someone with two felonies is convicted of a third, "minor" non-violent felony, that person is treated as a murderer with a life sentence, but this really is the system you seem to be advocating, and this really is the current system in many states.

[bonacera]

Ah, now you're talking about something different. While I disagreed with you that previous crimes should be used in determination of guilt or innocence, I do agree that previous crimes should be used in sentencing.

The law agrees as well. Sentences for repeat offenders are signifigantly higher than for first time offenders. Many states even have a three strikes policy, whereby any three felonies results in life without parole. Many people find it harsh that if someone with two felonies is convicted of a third, "minor" non-violent felony, that person is treated as a murderer with a life sentence, but this really is the system you seem to be advocating, and this really is the current system in many states.

I do agree that previous crimes should be considered in a sentencing phase of the trial. However, as you said, a three strikes policy can be very very harsh sometimes. I remember reading a newspaper article in Los Angeles Times few years back. There is a homeless guy who was previously convicted with larceny for stealing food, just like Les Miserable. When he was caught third time, a three strikes policy took effect and people were talking whether the policy is too harsh or not...

[ercarta]

Actually this is not entirely what I am advocating but we are getting there. I don't believe life w/o parole is adequate. This is costing American people money to keep these repeat felons fed, fit, educated, & comfortable over their lifetime in prison.

In fact, I don't even buy into this life sentencing at all. What I am advocating is a system where you are only allowed to attend a prison for violent federal offenses a given number of years and/or number of times. After you have exceeded that given limit and you are back in court and convicted of yet another charge then you should die immediately. Remember, prison is supposed to be a means of correction, not an easy new life handed to you that exempts you from responsibility forever.

These violent types are a constant threat to our society. They are sub-standard secondary citizens and they are costing American families money to keep them alive so they can continue to do more of the same. Criminals hearts are black with evil and they could care less what gets left behind if they kill you to get to your wallet. They could care less about the effects and the trauma left after they rape your daughter or your wife as a means to experience a moment of power. I pay for this? What a mockery! In what lifetime does it sound correct that I fund the life of the biggest fear ever for myself and my family: an encounter with the experienced criminal?


Many states even have a three strikes policy, whereby any three felonies results in life without parole. Many people find it harsh that if someone with two felonies is convicted of a third, "minor" non-violent felony, that person is treated as a murderer with a life sentence, but this really is the system you seem to be advocating, and this really is the current system in many states.

[hkmax]

I don't believe life w/o parole is adequate. This is costing American people money to keep these repeat felons fed, fit, educated, & comfortable over their lifetime in prison.

Excution also costs money. Also excution will probably cost more money then keeping someone for life in a prison. So IMO life sentence costs money is a quite a moot point. Both excution and life in prison cost money period.


In fact, I don't even buy into this life sentencing at all. What I am advocating is a system where you are only allowed to attend a prison for violent federal offenses a given number of years and/or number of times. After you have exceeded that given limit and you are back in court and convicted of yet another charge then you should die immediately.

I would venture out and say that this is easier said than done. The same question rises again. How do you make sure that this person is the one who committed the crime? Without the due process of our system we can never be sure. Just because this person got arrested and happened to use up his "credits" with the court doesn't necessarily mean that he is the one who committed the crime.


Remember, prison is supposed to be a means of correction, not an easy new life handed to you that exempts you from responsibility forever.

You're absolutely right on this. However, it makes me wonder why our prison system is not doing its job of "correcting". Why is it that after correction period the released inmates still go and commit the same or other crimes? Could it be that these individuals want to come back to the prison and have comfortable life (fed, clothed, roof on their head)? I really don't think so. This is the same line of thinking that people who are on welfare do not want to get off it. The core of the problem is that we do not have the support system for these people. When they get out of prison you have no training what so ever in anything and they are given some pocket money. And they're supposed to live a normal life. If you have any kind of record it is impossible to find any kind of job and lead a normal life. That's why they become repeat offenders. Our prison system is flawed and most are run for profit which extorts prison population.


These violent types are a constant threat to our society. They are sub-standard secondary citizens and they are costing American families money to keep them alive so they can continue to do more of the same. Criminals hearts are black with evil and they could care less what gets left behind if they kill you to get to your wallet. They could care less about the effects and the trauma left after they rape your daughter or your wife as a means to experience a moment of power. I pay for this? What a mockery! In what lifetime does it sound correct that I fund the life of the biggest fear ever for myself and my family: an encounter with the experienced criminal?

Well, again excution and life sentence both cost, so costs aregument is not really hitting the spot for me. I do acknowledge that there are some sick people out there. However, if what ticks you off is the fact that you are paying for inmates with life sentence you would be surprised that you are pying for execution too.


The following is the excerpt from ACLU

"The most comprehensive death penalty study in the country found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment (Duke University, May 1993). In its review of death penalty expenses, the State of Kansas concluded that capital cases are 70% more expensive than comparable non-death penalty cases."

[hkmax]

I didn't read thoroughly, but this site might an interesting read.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

Now, I'm somewhat neutral on death penalty issue. I just don't think that the cost argument is effective.

I support in cases where there is no shred of doubt and we make sure 100%. However, this is usually cost prohibiting. I'm of opinion where unless we can do a thorough job why do it at all.

[bonacera]

These violent types are a constant threat to our society. They are sub-standard secondary citizens and they are costing American families money to keep them alive so they can continue to do more of the same.
I actually do not have a strong opinion for or against death penalty. However, I do agree that it is unfair for a good, normal American family pay for keeping those felons in the prison.

So here is my funny thought: how about we make them work their butt off in the prison and pay for their prison facility and food, etc..

I know some people might argue that it would be against the civil rights and our Constitution that forbids the 'cruel and unusual punishment.' However, let's not forget that they are the ones who gave up their civil rights. Also, it is also 'cruel and unusual punishment' for American families to pay for keeping them in jail or execution. :)

I hope none of the felons in the prison would read this.. :p

[hkmax]

So here is my funny thought: how about we make them work their butt off in the prison and pay for their prison facility and food, etc..

They already work their butt off. Have you ever heard of prison labor? Most of the prisons in US are run for profit. These prisons bid for contracts for thinigs like, laundry, assembling, construction, etc. The inmates work for next to nothing and the prison that got the contract get to keep majority of the contract award. And most of the contracts are govenment contracts. Now where is our tax dollar going?

[bonacera]

They already work their butt off. Have you ever heard of prison labor? Most of the prisons in US are run for profit. These prisons bid for contracts for thinigs like, laundry, assembling, construction, etc. The inmates work for next to nothing and the prison that got the contract get to keep majority of the contract award. And most of the contracts are govenment contracts. Now where is our tax dollar going?

I know they are working, but I thought the money was not enough so that our tax money is going.. I'm really confused now.. :confused: :confused:

Is there some kind of embazzlement story like a movie, Shawshank Redemption?

[ercarta]

You know, I'm reading the thread that hkmax left and I'm thinking this current system is even more horsesh*t than I thought. How is it that a death penalty trial cost more money than a standard trial? You simply can not keep a nation safe or have a strict criminal justice system when you can not afford to punish evil with swift death.

Now with regards to question that goes back and forth, how do you know if they are guilty or not? If you read back in the threads, we've been over this in a few different posts. We did say a better system with less defects needs to be implemented and people should not be convicted if there is doubt. Some innocent people might still be punished however, my focus is only on violent career criminals that when in court highly improbable that they are innocent.

We need to end their career! That is the bottom line. However we get there & at whatever cost. We find the money and funds for a war effort to protect the US from outside threats and now we need to do the same from the inside. Security security security. Without basics like security covered the quality of life & our safety can never rise. The cost argument is a crutch, and an excuse to do nothing.