Reply With Quote
And how is that different than any other thing we do by accident?
happens. All we can do, is our best to not let that happen.
I think we generally put people in jail for too long of a time. I have no set idea, but mitigating reasons should play a role in sentencing. Some states have zero tolerance laws or minimum sentencing standards that are often unfair.
And how is that different than any other thing we do by accident?
happens. All we can do, is our best to not let that happen.
Cmon, throw out a number. If we do it your way, we're gonna need one.
There's no raising someone back from the dead if we realize we made a mistake.
Well of coarse, 100 years would be excessive.
Why the concern? If someone is going to jail for life, then they must not be seen as redeemable. A sentence may be so long that we expect someone would die in prison, but unless the sentence is life without parole, then prisoners often see much shorter sentences for good behavior.
Would you agree that if a person is deemed nonredeemable, that we should just "off them," putting them out of their misery, and society's misery?
Give a number or this is going nowhere.
Well it costs more money and does nothing good for society. It doesn't reduce violent crime much less murders. What's wrong with killing anyone if oyu are going to go that route?
Your life doesn't seem to be worth much why not kill you? What's wrong with it?
I'm for appeals when the case is not clear cut, but why should Dzhokhar Tsarnaev be able to appeal anything? Waste of taxpayer dollars imo.
Appeals are there to keep the prosecution in check.
I agree with most of these reasons for this guy's right to appeal:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/20...feature_pri_hp
1. The defense did not have fair access to the prosecution's evidence because they deemed it an act of terror
2. Since Mass is a non-death penalty state, the venue was bogus. Every one of the jurors had to sign a letter stating they were willing to go through with death penalty; if they didn't sign, they were excused from duty. Therefore the jury was skewed unfavorably towards the death penalty.
I don't like that the trial was potentially ed up, but that's why we have appeals.
Because of the cons ution and this whole thing called due process.
A few thoughts on the death penalty.
1. I don't support the Federal Death penalty. Have no problem with it at the state level.
2. It does cost more to execute than life in prison.
3. Appeals are absolutely necessary, even when there is no doubt on guilt.
4. It is a deterrent. Recent studies show that each execution stops about 5 murders. I can post the regression analysis and data if desired.
ter McGee
It wasn't intended to take on average 15 years and the cons utionality of that is being challenged already as cruel and unusual punishment.
I'd like to see the data on #4 thanks
Probably the seminal work was done by professor Ehrlich out of Buffalo in the 70's. This was the first time actual economic analysis was done on the subject. He found a deterrent effect of eight murders per execution. But honestly there were huge problems with his data set. He used aggregate data, which can really call into question some of his results. Anyway below is where you can find the paper.
The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and DeathAuthor(s): Isaac EhrlichSource: The American Economic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Jun., 1975), pp. 397-417
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/sourc...nd%20Death.pdf
A far better paper is by professor Gittings and professor Mocan. They used a far better data set making use of state level panel data and a regression model that I think is better.
"GETTING OFF DEATH ROW: COMMUTEDSENTENCES AND THE DETERRENT EFFECTOF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT"
Here is a working paper
http://www.econ.jku.at/members/Buche...%20penalty.pdf
I am pretty sure that was published in the Journal of Law and Economics but I don't have the info on that. Its also much more recent.
Sorry for the wait.
ter McGee
I think about the victims remaining and closure.
I watched a do entary with relatives needing the death of the assailant to go on mentally. It all lead to the inherent property of the brain desiring revenge, very interesting. Other victims got nothing out of the execution, the perceived closure never occurred.
The fact that some victims left behind did get closure and were able to function as normal human beings again changed my mind about the whole thing. So fck the economics.
again, the huge problem with executions, and the entire justice system, is its incompetence and outright corruption by damn near every member.
Justice Antonin Scalia is dead wrong about the death penalty — and here is why
In a 1994 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took a shot at fellow Justice Harry Blackmun’s concerns about the death penalty by citing a case in North Carolina where a man was convicted of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl.Referring to convicted killer Henry Lee McCollum, Scalia wrote, “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!”
The two men were prosecuted by Joe Freeman Britt, a Bible-quoting district attorney later profiled by “60 Minutes” as the country’s “deadliest D.A.” known for his frequent seeking of the death penalty.
McCollum, who was never executed by lethal injection for the rape and murder over 30 years ago, was exonerated last year after he and his half-brother, Leon Brown, were cleared by investigators using DNA evidence.
According to the News-Observer, both Henry McCollum and Leon Brown were officially pardoned by North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory on Thursday, making each of them eligible to now receive $750,000 in compensation from the state.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/just...e+Raw+Story%29
Problem is that a lot of cases seem "clear-cut" at the time until new evidence is released or someone else confesses and it exonerates the original guilty party - and if that original guilty party has already been executed, then the state is responsible for killing an innocent person. Not saying that's the case here, but it does happen. That's why we have an appeals process instead of marching people directly to the chair from the courtroom. Unfortunately, the side effect of this is that s bags like Tsarnaev get to drag things out in the court system forever.
IMO, the negatives involved in the death penalty by far outweigh the lone positive of the feeling of retribution and that justice was served. Mistakes can't be corrected, and the death penalty is far more expensive to taxpayers than life in prison while also lacking a moral or rational argument to reduce those costs.
SCOTUS%: #PrisonerLiveDontMatter
Supreme Court Allows Use of Execution Drug
[T]he Court today turns aside pe ioners’ plea that they at least be allowed a stay of execution while they seek to prove midazolam’s inadequacy.
The Court achieves this result in two ways:
first, by deferring to the District Court’s decision to credit the scientifically unsup*ported and implausible testimony of a single expert witness;
and second, by faulting pe ioners for failing to satisfy the wholly novel requirement of proving the availability of an alternative means for their own executions.
On both counts the Court errs.
As a result, it leaves pe ioners exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/30/us...drug.html?_r=0
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/sotomayor-death-penalty-burned-at-stake
Repug judicial garbage masquerading as SCOTUS judge
Justice Scalia: The death penalty deters crime. Experts: No, it doesn’t.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8861727...-death-penalty
OTOH, serious judges:
Breyer and Ginsburg: 'Highly Likely' Death Penalty Uncons utional
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/brey...+%28TPMNews%29
Here ya go splits.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
