Supreme Court vs Lethal Injection

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

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

That proves only that they (or somebody with their genetic material - say, skin cells or stray hairs on a shirt, for example) were in the location. It does not prove that they committed a crime. The worst thing you can convict somebody of on that basis is perjury.

And unless I'm mistaken, urine isn't genetically coded.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

That proves only that they (or somebody with their genetic material - say, skin cells or stray hairs on a shirt, for example) were in the location. It does not prove that they committed a crime. The worst thing you can convict somebody of on that basis is perjury.

And unless I'm mistaken, urine isn't genetically coded.

Correct...yeah sorry urine was a poor example, in a conference, typing fast, thinking faster

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

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.

Too bad, I guess. Equal protection is equal protection. EVERYBODY should have a free automatic do-over trial if convicted heinous murderers get one.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Too bad, I guess. Equal protection is equal protection. EVERYBODY should have a free automatic do-over trial if convicted heinous murderers get one.

What? You lost me bro

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

What? You lost me bro

Death penalty = automatic appeal. It's a do-over. People sentenced to death (heinous murderers) automatically get a 2nd trial, for free.

I don't get a free do-over trial when I'm found guilty of speeding, so my right to equal protection under the law is being violated.

And it's just too bad that you can't make a living when you're convicted of murder. But once you're convicted, in the eyes of the law, you're guilty. The state is no longer obligated to presume that you're innocent, because you've been proven guilty, and it has now become YOUR responsibility to prove that you're not.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Death penalty = automatic appeal. It's a do-over. People sentenced to death (heinous murderers) automatically get a 2nd trial, for free.

I don't get a free do-over trial when I'm found guilty of speeding, so my right to equal protection under the law is being violated.

I think you have a good argument there, but its irrelevant to the thread. Furthermore the pure economics of pursuing a case for a 150 dollar speeding ticket make ridiculous to push for another case.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think you have a good argument there, but its irrelevant to the thread. Furthermore the pure economics of pursuing a case for a 150 dollar speeding ticket make ridiculous to push for another case.

If it costs me hundreds or thousands of dollars in increased insurance rates for the next three years, it most certainly is worth it.

And it is relevant to the thread because of the argument that "putting somebody to death costs more than just imprisoning them for life". A huge piece of the cost is automatic cost-free appeals. If they were treated the same way everybody else is, i.e. pay for your own appeal, costs would go down. If we used more reasonable methods of execution that don't require full medical teams and equipment and drugs costing tens of thousands of dollars (or more), for example hanging or firing squad, costs drop even more. And if you speed up the appeal process by limiting the number of times you can retry the same case and setting time limits, you no longer have to pay to feed, clothe, and house death row inmates for decades, and suddenly execution costs hardly anything relative to life imprisonment.

That said, I'd rather pay $1 million to execute a murderer than spend 1 cent to feed and clothe him. I don't consider economic concerns valid at all, beyond where the money is going to come from. We should not let murderers live because it's cheap, nor should people be executed because it's cheap. Cost is irrelevant to justice.

If one person murders another, death is the right and proper penalty for the crime, regardless of the cost.

[6SpeedTA95]

And the cost of wrongly executing someone?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

And the cost of wrongly executing someone?

Innocent people are going to be convicted once in a while. It sucks, but that's reality. Locking up an innocent person for the rest of his life is no better than executing an innocent person, especially since you can't give him back the years you stole. All we can do is try to minimize the possibility that they're convicted wrongly. NOT go easy on all criminals just in case one of them might be wrongly convicted.

Letting all murderers off with jail time is worse than once in a while accidentally executing somebody who was wrongly convicted. The system can't work if you continually second-guess it. While he's accused, the defendant is presumed innocent and has all the protections and assistance in the world, and rightfully so. But once he's been convicted, the possibility that he's innocent is no longer the state's problem. Now he's presumed guilty and should be treated as such. You are no longer entitled to a presumption of innocence once you've been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember the UNTIL part? The time to worry about "what if he's innocent?" is before and during the trial. Not after a jury has ruled that the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Apparently you guys want everybody presumed innocent until... well, until nothing. Presumed innocent for the rest of your life? It doesn't and shouldn't work that way. If you're worried about convicting innocent people, then you should take all that money we waste feeding and clothing convicted murderers and drop it into a bucket that people can draw from to fund their defenses BEFORE the verdict, when they're still presumed innocent.

Either way, I see no reason why, if you have evidence showing your innocence, you can't present it at your trial. Why does it necessarily have to come up 20 years later?

And now I'll answer my own question: Because defense attorneys bank on the fact that evidence can't be maintained forever. It will eventually degrade or get mishandled, misplaced, or thrown out, and then they'll demand a new trial, and get PROPER convictions thrown out precisely BECAUSE the execution process takes so long.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

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.

Death Sentences Being Overturned in 2 of 3 Appeals

he most far-reaching study of the death penalty in the United States has found that two out of three sentences were overturned on appeal, mostly because of serious errors by incompetent defense lawyers or overzealous police officers and prosecutors who withheld evidence. The study, an examination of appeals in all capital cases from the time the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty, in 1976, to 1995, also found that 75 percent of the people whose death sentences were set aside were later given lesser sentences after retrials, in plea bargains or by order of a judge. An additional 7 percent were found not guilty on retrial....



The report is likely to intensify an already gathering debate about the death penalty, which has been provoked by the release of some death row inmates after new DNA technology helped exonerate them. Concerns about the death penalty were heightened by the decision in March by Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a Republican, to declare a moratorium on executions in his state after 13 men on death row there were cleared by new evidence.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

It's not even close, unless tribal blood feuds have courts and appeals courts and public/private defenders.

The motivation is the same. Revenge is an ugly emotion and a sensible society has no place vindicating it.

People have every right to feel upset and want revenge, but if society is to progress people have to be dealt with according to a set of fair and reasonable rules and leave emotion out of it.

Emotional responses should be dealt with via therapy, not the legal system

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

They should have thought of that before they committed their crimes, I guess.

Really, that response is only going to perpetuate the problem. Sure people should do many things, but by not working to fix the problem re-offending will occur and that will cause more harm to society and people in general. I cannot see why we would want that.

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I agree. We need to blind justice again. She seems to be getting her vision back.

Not sure what you are trying to say?

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If it costs me hundreds or thousands of dollars in increased insurance rates for the next three years, it most certainly is worth it.

And it is relevant to the thread because of the argument that "putting somebody to death costs more than just imprisoning them for life". A huge piece of the cost is automatic cost-free appeals. If they were treated the same way everybody else is, i.e. pay for your own appeal, costs would go down. If we used more reasonable methods of execution that don't require full medical teams and equipment and drugs costing tens of thousands of dollars (or more), for example hanging or firing squad, costs drop even more. And if you speed up the appeal process by limiting the number of times you can retry the same case and setting time limits, you no longer have to pay to feed, clothe, and house death row inmates for decades, and suddenly execution costs hardly anything relative to life imprisonment.

That said, I'd rather pay $1 million to execute a murderer than spend 1 cent to feed and clothe him. I don't consider economic concerns valid at all, beyond where the money is going to come from. We should not let murderers live because it's cheap, nor should people be executed because it's cheap. Cost is irrelevant to justice.

If one person murders another, death is the right and proper penalty for the crime, regardless of the cost.

Wait a second...no one is talking about taking it easy on criminals, not me, not motz, not anyone, at least not that I've seen.


My point is that we need to exhaust the options at our disposal before risking the execution of an innocent individual. I think our current system with modern technology is a good thing, now the issue is speeding up the executions.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wait a second...no one is talking about taking it easy on criminals, not me, not motz, not anyone, at least not that I've seen.


My point is that we need to exhaust the options at our disposal before risking the execution of an innocent individual. I think our current system with modern technology is a good thing, now the issue is speeding up the executions.

I agree, there is no justification for putting to death an innocent man. If there isn't clear-cut positive evidence someone is guilty it shouldn't be on the table in my opinion. But if it is on the table, the appeals process needs to take place a hell of a lot quicker than it does now.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Wait a second...no one is talking about taking it easy on criminals, not me, not motz, not anyone, at least not that I've seen.


My point is that we need to exhaust the options at our disposal before risking the execution of an innocent individual.

Then we should focus on not convicting innocent people in the first place, not on eliminating means of punishment JUST IN CASE somebody gets wrongfully convicted. The system doesn't work when you interfere with it. For our justice system to function, you MUST treat those who have been convicted as if they're guilty, and you MUST treat those who have not as if they're innocent. Anything else breaks it. You can't treat convicted criminals with kid gloves just in case they're innocent, and you can't treat people who have merely been accused but not tried, or have been acquitted, as if they're guilty. And the guilty MUST be punished according to the crime of which they've been convicted, not according to how sure you are of the conviction. If you're not sure he's guilty, then fucking let him go - you shouldn't be punishing him AT ALL. If you're sure enough to incarcerate him, then you're sure enough to execute him if the crime calls for it.

Our system is set up to make it difficult to convict, and presume innocence by default. THAT is how you keep innocent people from being convicted.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Then we should focus on not convicting innocent people in the first place, not on eliminating means of punishment JUST IN CASE somebody gets wrongfully convicted. The system doesn't work when you interfere with it. For our justice system to function, you MUST treat those who have been convicted as if they're guilty, and you MUST treat those who have not as if they're innocent. Anything else breaks it. You can't treat convicted criminals with kid gloves just in case they're innocent, and you can't treat people who have merely been accused but not tried, or have been acquitted, as if they're guilty. And the guilty MUST be punished according to the crime of which they've been convicted, not according to how sure you are of the conviction. If you're not sure he's guilty, then fucking let him go - you shouldn't be punishing him AT ALL. If you're sure enough to incarcerate him, then you're sure enough to execute him if the crime calls for it.

While I agree completely with the concept of treating those convicted as guilty, but I don't think execution is a punishment , but that is a different conversation

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Kytro

While I agree completely with the concept of treating those convicted as guilty, but I don't think execution is a punishment , but that is a different conversation

True, it's not exactly a punishment, since punishment implies altering future behavior. But whether you consider it a punishment, a penalty, or a pruning, it's still the correct response to certain crimes.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

True, it's not exactly a punishment, since punishment implies altering future behavior. But whether you consider it a punishment, a penalty, or a pruning, it's still the correct response to certain crimes.

I think it is shortsighted and wasteful - it serves little purpose other than to make people "feel better".

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I think it is shortsighted and wasteful - it serves little purpose other than to make people "feel better".

It reduces recidivism on serious crimes to 0%. When used properly, it deters future crimes of the same type. AND it makes people "feel better". Seems like it serves a purpose.