Supreme Court vs Lethal Injection - Page 4

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

While they may not want to die, it's costing us more money to execute them and not lessening the amount of crime committed, since studies have shown that it's not a deterrent.

Execution costs only the price of a bullet and paying a guy to fire it. Keeping them locked up for 10-30 years and giving them free, unlimited access to the legal system is what costs money.

motivez · 09-26-2007, 03:51 PM

And so long as we're going to make people pay the ultimate price, they must have that access to ensure proper carriage of justice, IMO.

One person wrongly executed is far too many, and while I'm sure it's been done, there's also been many let out / had convictions overturned because of that access.

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 03:54 PM

Also, as flawed as our implementation of the death penalty is, it certainly does seem to have some deterrent value:

Correlation coefficient is -.63, just so you know.

edit: Stand by while I rehost.

edit2: Rehosted.

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And so long as we're going to make people pay the ultimate price, they must have that access to ensure proper carriage of justice, IMO.

Not on our dime. Once you've been convicted, the system has fulfilled its responsibility to you. You've been proven guilty, and now the burden of proof is yours. Including court costs, paying for your own lawyer, etc.

And if you have evidence to prove that you're innocent, why didn't you present it in your trial?

motivez · 09-26-2007, 04:00 PM

We all know that the system isn't perfect, and innocent people are fairly routinely convicted.. overzealous DA's, cops who overlook evidence, corruption.. disparity between the quality of representation based on income (and race)..

Once you're in jail, how do you have earnings to pay for that stuff? You don't, and if there's any civil aspect to your case, you may not have anything left from before conviction anyway.

Stylerod · 09-26-2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And so long as we're going to make people pay the ultimate price, they must have that access to ensure proper carriage of justice, IMO.

One person wrongly executed is far too many, and while I'm sure it's been done, there's also been many let out / had convictions overturned because of that access.

I agree with this. I also think that with DNA evidence and more modern evidence gathering techniques this will hopefully happen less and less.

Also, if a person admits to a murder in court (in an open setting, not necessarily during a police interrigation) or there is obvious proof (like a video of the killing) the appeals process should stop and he/she should be put to death as soon as possible.

Donkey® · 09-26-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Execution costs only the price of a bullet and paying a guy to fire it. Keeping them locked up for 10-30 years and giving them free, unlimited access to the legal system is what costs money.

There are also studies that show the cost of putting someone to death > the cost of keeping them in prison for life.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:07 PM

Ok, I'm in conferences this week so my answer was a bit vague, but here's what I was getting motz...

Most of these studies have a disclaimer, whether they are arguing for or against the death penalty. First off there is almost always some sort of correlation between the death penalty and engaging in murder. Sometimes the correlation is substantial other times it is very small and you have a study that says "Death penalty may not be a deterrent" or something similar is what we'll read in the paper. Well first of all, all those studies are based on a system that has an action (aka the murder) then finally the result the death penalty 10, 12, 15, 20 or more years later.

Studies conducted revolving around a much faster process show a much higher deterrent factor. Now the problem with these studies is they're based on estimates of concious and subconcious effects on human behavior. So basically none of these studies are truly accurate or reflective of the deterrent that the death penalty may or may not provide.

Finally, I agree with Motz, if someone is convicted they SHOULD get an appeal, and more than one if necessary. If it makes it all the way up the food chain, then it is no longer the tax payers duty to fund their defense. Additional should be on them.

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There are also studies that show the cost of putting someone to death > the cost of keeping them in prison for life.

And as I've said many times before, the flaw in that reasoning is that we pay to incarcerate them, often for decades, PRIOR TO executing them. And then with the lethal injection bullshit, you have to have a team of doctors standing by, sterile facilities (wouldn't want them to catch an infection

), and expensive drugs and machines.

If it were up to me, it wouldn't work that way at all.

I'd revamp the entire trial process to make it more fair and remove potential bias from it (too much to write here for now).

You'd have one week from the day of your conviction to file an appeal with a panel of judges who evaluate the merit of your appeal. If the trial itself was flawed, or if you have new evidence that wasn't presented at trial for some reason, your appeal will be granted, and heard within a reasonable time. If you're just not happy with the verdict, you get no appeal.

If either the conviction is affirmed and you can't show either new evidence or a flaw in the appeal hearing (or the appeal is denied), you have 2 hours to say goodbye to family, after which you're taken to the courtyard and either shot by firing squad or hanged. Your choice.

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Finally, I agree with Motz, if someone is convicted they SHOULD get an appeal, and more than one if necessary.

I don't agree at all. Appeals should not happen just because somebody isn't happy with the conviction or sentence. If the trial was unfair or otherwise legally or procedurally flawed, or there's new evidence, THEN there should be an appeal. But otherwise, no.

This business of automatic appeals for every death sentence is nonsense, and it's unfair, IMO to the extent of violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Why don't ALL convicted criminals get to have 2 trials?

motivez · 09-26-2007, 04:24 PM

I'm not sure how that graphic really proves anything, it's a simplistic view of a complex issue.. it doesn't take into account any other factors as far as crime prevention, education, etc.. or even the number of cases where someone is convicted and sentenced to death, which certainly isn't all murders

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I don't agree at all. Appeals should not happen just because somebody isn't happy with the conviction or sentence. If the trial was unfair or otherwise legally or procedurally flawed, or there's new evidence, THEN there should be an appeal. But otherwise, no.

This business of automatic appeals for every death sentence is nonsense, and it's unfair, IMO to the extent of violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Why don't ALL convicted criminals get to have 2 trials?

Yeah but wrongful convictions happen everyday and if it weren't for an appeal and in a few rare cases the second or third appeal we'd be wrongfully convicting people. I'd much rather give everyone an opportunity to prove their innocent on multiple occassions than increase the risk of making a hideous mistake.

Scrum · 09-26-2007, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

And as I've said many times before, the flaw in that reasoning is that we pay to incarcerate them, often for decades, PRIOR TO executing them. And then with the lethal injection bullshit, you have to have a team of doctors standing by, sterile facilities (wouldn't want them to catch an infection ), and expensive drugs and machines.

If it were up to me, it wouldn't work that way at all.

I'd revamp the entire trial process to make it more fair and remove potential bias from it (too much to write here for now).

You'd have one week from the day of your conviction to file an appeal with a panel of judges who evaluate the merit of your appeal. If the trial itself was flawed, or if you have new evidence that wasn't presented at trial for some reason, your appeal will be granted, and heard within a reasonable time. If you're just not happy with the verdict, you get no appeal.

If either the conviction is affirmed and you can't show either new evidence or a flaw in the appeal hearing (or the appeal is denied), you have 2 hours to say goodbye to family, after which you're taken to the courtyard and either shot by firing squad or hanged. Your choice.

People are found innocent after years on death row.

We would be executing people who don't deserve it.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure how that graphic really proves anything, it's a simplistic view of a complex issue.. it doesn't take into account any other factors as far as crime prevention, education, etc.. or even the number of cases where someone is convicted and sentenced to death, which certainly isn't all murders

Thats an excellent point and based on the two crim justice classes I took in undergrad I think you've got to look at the entire picture of "crime" if that makes sense before drawing any conclusions. Having said that, there are NUMEROUS studies that show the correlation between the death penalty and deterring crime. However, as I said early most if not all of the studies have inherrent bias/flaws regardless of which side they're wanting to bolster with the results.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:27 PM

Oh and one more thing, I'd say that with RARE exception the only way people should be put to death is if DNA evidence helps to prove their conviction. Obvious exceptions would be admission of guilt and something like a video tape.

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Oh and one more thing, I'd say that with RARE exception the only way people should be put to death is if DNA evidence helps to prove their conviction. Obvious exceptions would be admission of guilt and something like a video tape.

Why does everybody act like DNA is a magic bullet that will solve every crime? Maybe I'm just uneducated on the issue, so can you help me out? How does DNA prove guilt or innocence?

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

People are found innocent after years on death row.

We would be executing people who don't deserve it.

Great. How many? Name a few, including how their innocence was proven, and why it couldn't have been at the time of the trial.

I'd suspect the majority of them were appeals 15 or 20 years after the fact, and because the evidence either had degraded or was misplaced during the intervening decades, the case was thrown out. That's bullshit.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Why does everybody act like DNA is a magic bullet that will solve every crime? Maybe I'm just uneducated on the issue, so can you help me out? How does DNA prove guilt or innocence?

Someone says they never stepped foot in a given house, yet their hair, dead skin cells, prints, urine or seminal fluid are there....seems like a pretty good indicator to me

Joe_Cool · 09-26-2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Yeah but wrongful convictions happen everyday and if it weren't for an appeal and in a few rare cases the second or third appeal we'd be wrongfully convicting people. I'd much rather give everyone an opportunity to prove their innocent on multiple occassions than increase the risk of making a hideous mistake.

When I appeal a traffic conviction, I have to pay a $150 appeal fee (refunded if I win). Why should capital murder be any different? I should sue for a violation of my 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law, since I don't get an automatic free appeal when I'm convicted of speeding.

If the most heinous criminals get an automatic 2nd trial to try to get them off, so should everybody, even the most petty traffic offender.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-26-2007, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

When I appeal a traffic conviction, I have to pay a $150 appeal fee (refunded if I win). Why should capital murder be any different? I should sue for a violation of my 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law, since I don't get an automatic free appeal when I'm convicted of speeding.

If the most heinous criminals get an automatic 2nd trial to try to get them off, so should everybody, even the most petty traffic offender.

Because if you're in prison you have no way of earning a living. Getting a traffic ticket doesn't take away your ability to earn a living.