you.
Personally I find the fact that whinehole and Chimp have lived this long and weren't lynched from the jungle jim by thier own underwear before they got out of grade school.As either a conformation of how generous Anglo-Saxon society is, or that the death penalty is a great deterent.
Why did you accept Chumpdumpers'
"alleged missing exculpatory evidence"
Who said it was missing?
Maybe it was there all along, and perhaps the prosecutor made a personal judgement call and ignored it. Perhaps the prosecutor was overzealous and wanted a conviction no matter what.
I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.
Guilty by what standard?
The death penalty only serves a purpose of vengeance IMO, but that is a legitimate purpose. My main problem is that it's irreversible, and the standard of guilt in a criminal court isn't comfortably high enough for me to think there will never be mistakes made that should be reversed.
This was the premise all along.
Try to keep up.
Bottom line, innocent people don't get put to death by mistake. At the very least, it's negligence -- at worst, it's deliberate.
If you discover someone innocent was executed, you find out what failed and you hold people accountable. If a deliberate act was involved, I think it should be a crime. If that deliberate act results in the execution, I think it should be a capital crime.
That doesn't make any sense.
How can you make that assumption?
Have you reviewed all the death penalty cases ever prosecuted?
Yes or no.
Vengeance?
Is vengeance only limited to killing, couldn't the same thing be said about other incarcerations like ones for theft?
It's not vengeance if the state is executing, they weren't the party that was harmed. The victims family was.
You talked about punishment that is irreversible, so is incarcerating alleged Pedophiles who were truly innocent. No system of correction will ever be 100 percent. And making a man stay in jail and putting him under stress that would come with being accused of child rape is something that can't be undone. Not to mention that it can ruin a person's life.
Theft, fraud, many cases have had innocent people go to jail. By the same standard some use towards the DP, does that mean we should do away with all forms?
Again i ask, is it wrong to execute a man like Charles Manson?
I completely agree
Prosecutors should be held accountable for sending innocent people to jail.
No it's the vengeance of the people. You can't tell me you never wanted some criminal dead -- that's precisely what we are talking about here. You had no personal stake in the Manson killings, but you seem ready to make a judgment on his life.
They can be released.You talked about punishment that is irreversible, so is incarcerating alleged Pedophiles who were truly innocent.
That person still has a life.No system of correction will ever be 100 percent. And making a man stay in jail and putting him under stress that would come with being accused of child rape is something that can't be undone. Not to mention that it can ruin a person's life.
Those people are still alive. The reversal of those convictions (release and compensation) are far from perfect, but they can actually take place.Theft, fraud, many cases have had innocent people go to jail. By the same standard some use towards the DP, does that mean we should do away with all forms?
If he's truly guilty, sure. I just have a higher personal standard of guilt in such cases. If you don't, that's fine.Again i ask, is it wrong to execute a man like Charles Manson?
Which ing Mr. Rodgers nieghborhood do you dwell in.
With what specifically are you taking issue, internets tough guy?
There will probably a day where i won't want a certain criminal put to death, be silly to make such claim.
It's not vengeance of the people since they don't decide on the individual executions. It's a stated law that is executed upon the right cir stance. It is a consequence, and in america it is a lenghty process so that the criminal has enough time to clear his name.
Cool story brosef!They can be released.
In all seriousness though, that person yes does have a life, but it has been ruined. Every case is different, a man could have been incarcerated at age 40 and released at age 70, what good is the remainding part of his life. How can the state pay him back in just?That person still has a life.
That's assuming they weren't raped, or beaten in prison. That's assuming many things, which i'm guilty of doing right now to. To say that we can totally reverse the penalty , or to guarantee it is foolish.Those people are still alive. The reversal of those convictions (release and compensation) are far from perfect, but they can actually take place.
If he's truly guilty, sure. I just have a higher personal standard of guilt in such cases. If you don't, that's fine.
What is that standard?
I said some criminal, not all.
Sure it is of the people since the state represents the people.It's not vengeance of the people since they don't decide on the individual executions.
Except there have been cases where it hasn't. And after the name is cleared in those cases there is no way to reverse it. That was my point.It's a stated law that is executed upon the right cir stance. It is a consequence, and in america it is a lenghty process so that the criminal has enough time to clear his name.
I said it was imperfect, but it's more perfect than if he had been killed by the state.In all seriousness though, that person yes does have a life, but it has been ruined. Every case is different, a man could have been incarcerated at age 40 and released at age 70, what good is the remainding part of his life. How can the state pay him back in just?
Again, I said it was imperfect, but at least there is the opportunity to make the attempt. I'm sure those who have been freed prefer it to nothing.That's assuming they weren't raped, or beaten in prison. That's assuming many things, which i'm guilty of doing right now to. To say that we can totally reverse the penalty , or to guarantee it is foolish.
I couldn't make a blanket one that covers everything on a message board. DNA has certainly been helpful in clearing the innocent in recent years, including many that were on death row. Something like that wouldn't apply to Manson though, so there is much to consider.What is that standard?
Dream on, Captain Persuasion.
Lynched for what? Pissing you off? That's not a capital offense. If it were, there'd hardly be anyone left to post here.
En serio, h4d, what I was referring to was the Anglo-Saxon justice as a subs ute for the blood feud. The system we have now more and more approximates it. People now expect and demand the bloody vengeance it was supposed to replace. American justice is descending into barbarity. You are one of the the cheerleaders. You and the fear addled masses are leading us back into the dark ages. Your response to barbarism is to outdo it. I feel sure you will take that as a compliment, but it isn't.
You're no better than the terrorists. In your zeal to one up them, you show your true colors. Not only that, but you desire to can the system of justice that once set us apart from them.
you.
I'd be surprised if prosecutors have it much harder than judges. The mice are in charge of the cheese.Just 12 chief federal judges wield almost exclusive power over secret misconduct investigations of more than 2,000 fellow jurists — though some have themselves been accused of botching reviews or committing ethical blunders, according to a Houston Chronicle review.
At least four current or former chief circuit judges have been the subject of recent high-profile complaints about their behavior; one posted photos of naked women painted to look like cows and other graphic images on his publicly accessible Web site; another manipulated the outcome of a vote in a death penalty case.
Not one faced formal discipline.
Nationwide, the integrity of the federal judicial misconduct system relies heavily on chief judges. Each oversees complaints — more than 6,000 in the last 10 years — against all circuit, district, senior, bankruptcy and magistrate judges in multi-state regions called circuits.
Third Circuit Chief Judge Anthony Scirica, who is also chairman of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, told the Chronicle, “The federal judiciary takes its ethical responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. Every misconduct complaint is carefully reviewed.”
He was the only chief circuit judge who directly responded to Chronicle requests for comment, though other circuits' staff replied.
In seven circuits, according to the Chronicle analysis, supervising judges took no public disciplinary action at all in the last decade, meaning not a single federal judge faced any sanctions in 29 states with more than 875 full-time federal judges, despite thousands of complaints.
Defenders of the system, like Scott Gant, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney, argue that under-enforcement is a small price to pay for strong federal judges.
“That's the nature of the system — anytime you have a group investigate itself. But if we want to have an independent judiciary, I think we have to accept that,” he said.
Error rate ‘far too high'
Most experts argue that the secretive self-policing helps protect judges who uphold the nation's laws from unfounded slurs and allegations slung by convicts and disgruntled citizens.
But a recent spate of well-publicized illegal behavior by judges — including frequenting pros utes, falsifying federal court records, molesting court employees and committing motor vehicle homicide — has prompted experts and members of Congress alike to call for reforms and more disclosure of federal disciplinary decisions.
One of those cases involved former U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent of Galveston, now imprisoned for obstruction of justice involving the sexual assault of two female employees.
In 2006, a Supreme Court committee, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, reported the system handled routine matters well, but botched five of 17 high-profile cases, an error rate “far too high.”
The report named no names but described matters bungled by four of 12 regional circuits: the Chicago-based 7th Circuit, the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit and the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit, the Chronicle found.
James B. Loken, who oversees the vast seven-state Midwest territory of the 8th Circuit, was among the supervising judges criticized for failing to properly investigate. Federal rules say chief judges should form a committee to probe matters “reasonably in dispute.”
But Loken has never formally investigated a complaint since becoming chief judge in 2003, according to Michael Gans, the 8th Circuit Clerk who works with Loken.
Early in his tenure, he dismissed allegations from an attorney as “signed by a person whose signature is illegible” and questioned whether he was even “a person … en led to file” it, records show. The system allows anyone to file a judicial misconduct complaint.
Later, Loken rejected published allegations that a U.S. district judge in St. Louis improperly urged 314 newly minted citizens at a public ceremony to register and vote for his congressman friend “so he can continue his good work.” Loken accepted the jurist's denials without formal review.
When asked about Loken's decisions, Gans said: “The court does not comment on its orders or opinions.”
Behind the scenes
Critics such as California-based attorney Lara Bazelon said the system leaves “the mice in charge of the cheese” and the emphasis on secrecy permits supervising judges to ignore, conceal or explain away embarrassing errors or even crimes by colleagues.
“Judges are human beings just like the rest of us, and putting on a black robe should not immunize them from legitimate punishment,” she wrote in a recent Kentucky Law Journal article.
Some chief judges pursued no disciplinary action even after confirming that colleagues improperly dished out insider information, slept during trials, hurled obscenities in court, or broke laws themselves, the Chronicle's review of more than 3,000 records stored in a little-known judicial archive shows.
Yet many complaints, on topics ranging from alcoholism to personality disorders, are successfully managed behind the scenes through counseling, and, when necessary, quiet resignations, circuit court officials say.
“There's a lot more being done that doesn't appear (in public records),” said Collins Fitzpatrick, a longtime 7th Circuit executive who has worked on complaints for years and studied the system.
A dramatic and unusually public example of proactive action came in July when Chief Circuit Judge Karen Williams of the Richmond-based 4th Circuit resigned at 57 and disclosed her own diagnosis of early Alzheimer's disease.
“Judge Williams' decision to retire while able to perform her judicial duties in order to avoid any questions about future decisions is an admirable example of action preempting any future conduct issue,” Patricia S. Connor, circuit clerk, told the Chronicle.
Taxpayers have no way to know about most behind-the-scenes fixes. Both Fitzpatrick's and Williams' circuits are among seven that took no public disciplinary action in a decade.
Most federal judicial misconduct complaints deserve dismissal. One, for example, blamed a judge for “loss of vision and loss of teeth,” the Chronicle's review showed.
David Pimentel, an assistant professor at the Florida Coastal School of Law, said frivolous complaints tend to “siphon off the energy from legitimate complaints that I'm convinced are out there — and when they do get voiced, they don't get treated properly.”
Nationwide, about 50 out of 3,000 complaints in the last five years were resolved quietly after judges took some kind of private and anonymous action, statistics and the Chronicle's public orders show.
Disclosures vary
Only a handful of federal judges apologized publicly or privately even after admitting they made mistakes or broke laws, records show.
In 2007, a potential juror in the Northeast admitted in a questionnaire that she'd recently been sexually assaulted, a disclosure she assumed confidential. Instead, a federal judge grilled her about it in open court.
“The people in that room did not have a right to know about a very personal and private crime that had been committed against me,” she wrote in a formal complaint, according to a 2008 order from the New York City-based 2nd Circuit.
The matter was dismissed after the judge privately apologized.
Generally, chief judges alone decide how much to reveal about reviews in public summaries. Only four of 12 circuits post them on Web sites.
Some disclose more than others. Lengthy orders and do ents of complaints get issued in the Northeast's 1st and 2nd circuits, as well as by the 9th Circuit in San Francisco.
5th Circuit stands out
The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit has most aggressively sought punishment — taking on rogue judges who lied to judicial investigators or broke laws.
The 11th Circuit oversees about 175 full-time judges in Alabama, Georgia and Florida. But it's hard to tell what — if anything — the circuit has done, based on public orders.
In 2005, the chief judge launched a probe into allegations that a Georgia magistrate judge abused his powers to enrich friends and family. Results were never revealed.
The incestuous nature of reviews gets more complicated when chief judges stand accused.
Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, based in San Francisco, turned critic breaking ranks with his 9th Circuit peers for failing to respond to reports of abuse of power by a senior Los Angeles district judge.
“It does not inspire confidence in the federal judiciary, when we treat our own so much better than we treat everyone else,” he wrote in a rare disciplinary dissent.
When he became the 9th Circuit Chief Judge in 2007, he began posting misconduct reviews on the Internet. But he also quickly drew complaints about his behavior: While overseeing an obscenity case in 2008, Kozinski ran a personal Web site that included lewd photos of women, an aroused donkey and other off-color content, a complaint disclosed.
In 2009, Kozinski was admonished, a public scolding considered just short of formal discipline, by the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit for showing “poor judgment” that “caused embarrassment” to the judiciary.”
That circuit has no reported disciplinary actions.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/6793055.html
Does anyone know how many innocent people have been wrongly executed?
While I do agree that this is something to be worried about, I'm pretty sure that 100% of aborted humans have comitted no crime and that doesn't appear to give most libs any moral dillema about the right to "chose".
That's precisely the problem, isn't it?
Isn't one hot-button issue enough for the thread?
Really? You'd kill off a prosecutor for making a mistake in good faith?
What about the cops who mistakenly arrested the wrong guy to begin with? Them too? What about the jurors or judge who make the final determination of guilt?
What if a convict gets the lethal injection but is determined later to have been innocent so the prosecutor gets lethally injected as well......only to find later that the original convict really was guilty after all......are you going to sentence the person(s) to die that were involved in sending the prosecutor to death row?
Which kid coming out of law school wouldn't want to aspire to be a prosecutor in your world? It sounds great
I'd be surprised too.
I wonder if Yoni would also want to kill the defense attorney that failed to keep his innocent client from getting the needle.
no surprises here.
How many is enough for you?
Cases are easily found if you are genuinely curious. Somehow I doubt it.
So amend the cons ution.While I do agree that this is something to be worried about, I'm pretty sure that 100% of aborted humans have comitted no crime and that doesn't appear to give most libs any moral dillema about the right to "chose".
Executing a guilty murder is just. But even one person being unfairly executed s every bit of justice associated with the process.
We are imperfect beings with an imperfect system of law trying to be perfect in the arena of death. High hopes, that.
Okay.
I disagree.
Mistakes happen. Policemen accidentally shoot innocent people. When it's not an accident, they are investigated and, if warranted, indicted, tried, and punished (if found guilty). Doctors accidentally kill people all the time...albeit, in many cases, in an attempt to save an already dying person. When it's not an accident, they are investigated and, if warranted, indicted, tried, and punished.
Executions, on the other hand, usually only occur after years and years of appeals and opportunities for the truth to come out. If, after all that, it doesn't, I'm more inclined to believe the truth was willfully and intentionally withheld by someone -- and that warrants an investigation and holding someone responsible.
I would draw the analogy that because some fetuses survive abortion attempts and must then be summarily executed -- outside the womb -- we should ban all abortions. More cynically, I could say that because a significant excuse for abortions is that it is feared the child will suffer an unbearable existence, we should execute children suffering an unbearable existence.
Capital Punishment works. Every time. Not one repeat offender...ever.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote