Eugene, I don't think anyone on here said that the system is perfect. Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.
Now, I should say. You make several EXCELLENT points. First the system is very flawed - you are correct. You are also correct that there is human error.
Now, here is where you are wrong. The foundation of our system of justice is the jury trial. There is a huge burden of proof on prosecutors and when a jury convicts you, there is a high level of sanctity placed on that decision. Likewise, when a jury acquits you, there is the same level of sanctity attached. We have to believe that juries are right 100% of the time or the system doesn't work.
Now, that isn't to say that guilty people don't go free, and innocent people don't get convicted. In reality, juries are people and are subject to non-objective opinions. That's why there are rules of law and procedure. Appeals aren't designed to determine proof or guilt, that's up to the jury. Appeals are designed ONLY to determine the level of integrity of the trial.
Convictions aren't overturned on the basis of innocence, but on the basis of error. Now, DNA evidence proving innocence, that generally indicates some sort of error. You have a valid appeal - but not a garaunteed appeal.
Appeals are based on reversable error. In death-penalty cases, the only reason there is an AUTOMATIC appeals process is not because there is a higher likelihood of error, but because there is a shorter time frame in which to discover that error. The state recognizes that death is the only punishment that cannot be reversed, and therefore, there is a most intense scrutiny of the process tobe sure there was no error.
In life cases, if there is a legitimate error, the defendant can appeal.
No, because the integrity of every prosecution in this state is in question, every conviction is in question. Sentences are not given out equally for every race. That's been proven. There is no equality in this system. To support it is to support the persecution of minorities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those questions can be answered through case review. There's been no charge of racial bias in this state. If a individual's case was bias due to race that can also be reviewed, case by case.
Meanwhile, life in prison - knowing you'll never again step outside of those walls, never again hod a woman in your arms, and that you'll most likely have to get used to having a 400 pound guy named Bubba stick his filthy prick inside your bleeding anus - has got to be quite a deterrent and a severe punishment indeed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kind of off-topic but isn't Bubba supposed to be being punished as well, instead of commiting more crimes and them being condoned because he's commiting them on someone we believe to be guilty?
Unless you mean Bubba's a guard. :eek:
Life imprisonment should mean till you die. Either change the sentence or change the name.
---
All you right wingers, is this what you are reduced to: arguing for a quick and painless death for baby-murdering scum?
Your wife and children could be next!!!
At least argue that we sell their kidneys and stuff, and broadcast the killing on the net. Maybe then our state sponsored murders will be cost-efficient.
If a individual's case was bias due to race that can also be reviewed, case by case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they're dead.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yes, of course there is a claim of race bias in Illinois.
EDIT: Eugene, I'm not quoting you and then responding to your post. I'm using your post to refute Scott's argument. Just thought you should know....
Illinois Republican George Ryan wasn't the only departing governor to declare a moratorium on executions; Maryland Democrat Parris Glendening, who left office today, did so as well. Unlike Ryan, however, Glendening did not clear out death row; and unlike Ryan's Democratic successor, Rod Blagojevich, Maryland's new governor, Republican Bob Ehrlich, promises to end the moratorium.
The basis of Glendening's moratorium was the claim of racially disparate sentencing. Baltimore Sun columnist Gregory Kane notes that Maryland taxpayers shelled out $225,000 for a study, which Kane calls "bat guano," showing that blacks who kill whites are more likely to get the death penalty than those who kill blacks. "Death-penalty opponents went immediately into poor, oppressed black man mode when they heard the news," Kane writes.
But it turns out the reason for the disparity is jurisdiction, not race. Prosecutors in suburban Baltimore County are much more likely to seek the death penalty than those in the city of Baltimore, which is independent from the county:
Baltimore County, in 20 years, has had fewer homicides than Baltimore City has had in the past two. The overwhelming majority of Baltimore City homicide victims are black. We should expect more white homicide victims in Baltimore County because more whites live there. . . .
With an African-American annual body count that should stagger the imagination, Baltimore's state's attorneys . . . routinely refuse to seek the death penalty. Adolf Eichmann couldn't get the death penalty here.
Here are a couple of suggestions for future studies that won't get done. Let's have a study of exactly why state's attorneys in Baltimore, where most of the black victims are, shy away from the death penalty.
Then--in the interest of investigating a real racial disparity--let's have a treatise on why black murderers choose white victims far more frequently than white murderers choose black ones.
<strong>Then--in the interest of investigating a real racial disparity--let's have a treatise on why black murderers choose white victims far more frequently than white murderers choose black ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's just dumb. There are almost 10 times as many whites as blacks. That explains that disparity.
Man, and I always had a fairly simple reason for rejecting the death penalty:
If it's wrong for a citizen to kill someone, then it seems to me to logically flow that the state, as a conglomeration of citizens, should be held to the same standard and shouldn't kill people.
(Oh, and I do agree that it's more expensive to house a death row inmate, but does that really matter to the debate?)
(Oh, and I do agree that it's more expensive to house a death row inmate, but does that really matter to the debate?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You agree with a claim that is completely ignorant of the facts. Like I said, I have yet to see any data that suggests the cost of life imprisonment is more than that of execution.
the death penalty is wrong, and anything done to weaken its infliction on america is good. nothing gives the state, or federation or any organization or inidividual, the right to kill one of its citizens. death is too permanent. and killing someone in a controlled environment doesn't help any situation. a person's punishment should be to be rehabilitated, or fixed in someway, so they can re-enter society. even life w/o parole is too much, i think. of course, releasing convicted criminals back into real life should be a controlled occurrence, perhaps favoring continued jail time; but people who can exist and be productive in society should be allowed.
serial killers and rapists, and whatever the state happens to consider avail for capital punishment, should be given some kind of treatment in jail. if treatment hasn't been perfected yet, or is yet to be invented, then jail time to separate them from potential victims seems reasonable to me. but murdering citizens should never be an option for the government; it makes the country a more dangerous place to live. i fear the day that the govt makes lesser crimes death-worthy, perhaps political crimes.
I love how the number has grown from the low single digit millions in Florida to 18 million dollars. Since thse studies can't even agree on a number, what should the reader believe? Since OBJRA10 is in the legal field, he should be able to shed some light on which number is closer to the real thing.
Another bogus aspect of all these numbers people throw around is that they are not the same number. So lets say ... $2 million for a death case but only ... $800,000 to keep someone is jail for life. Does that $800,000 include the prosecution? Are all the cases capitol murder cases?
I'm sure the numbers game is being played well here.
But then this brings up another point. Gov. Ryan just wasted the state's money. Many cases were thought serious enough to warrant the expense of a capitol punishment prosecution. The money was spent and everyone involved put in time and effort ... only to have the crook of a governor pardon them for his own selfish needs.
Eugene, you obviously don't take the time to read what you don't want to believe. $18 Million is for Illinois and that study was done this year. $3.2 Million was for Florida and that study was done in the late eighties, if I recall correctly. Florida is not Illinois and 2003 is not 1989.
It only costs the government of China a couple hundred US dollars to sentence and kill someone. It probably costs the Taleban $2. The cost is different depending on the jurisdiction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying inflation is one cause of that enormous jump? ...Or has the system really changed that much? What about the miniscule jump from $600,000 to $800,000 for housing? Considering population, land area, geography and what not, I'd guess it should cost more to execute somebody in Florida today vs Illinois today.
One or more of these sets of numbers seems bogus to me.
I have no great sympathy for the guilty and I am not opposed to killing, but the death penalty has always bothered me for its potential to err. Myself, having always thought the error rate to be somewhere in the thousandths, still found the prospect of executing that one innocent reprehensible. The plain, obvious fact that the error rate is many times worse -- orders of magnitude worse -- than what I had generously imagined should erase any doubt about the justice of Ryan's actions.
The plain, obvious fact that the error rate is many times worse -- orders of magnitude worse -- than what I had generously imagined should erase any doubt about the justice of Ryan's actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is beautifully worded and what I've been saying. I have yet to hear any refute for argument this though.
Comments
<strong>
That's why we need robots with laser beams.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Now, I should say. You make several EXCELLENT points. First the system is very flawed - you are correct. You are also correct that there is human error.
Now, here is where you are wrong. The foundation of our system of justice is the jury trial. There is a huge burden of proof on prosecutors and when a jury convicts you, there is a high level of sanctity placed on that decision. Likewise, when a jury acquits you, there is the same level of sanctity attached. We have to believe that juries are right 100% of the time or the system doesn't work.
Now, that isn't to say that guilty people don't go free, and innocent people don't get convicted. In reality, juries are people and are subject to non-objective opinions. That's why there are rules of law and procedure. Appeals aren't designed to determine proof or guilt, that's up to the jury. Appeals are designed ONLY to determine the level of integrity of the trial.
Convictions aren't overturned on the basis of innocence, but on the basis of error. Now, DNA evidence proving innocence, that generally indicates some sort of error. You have a valid appeal - but not a garaunteed appeal.
Appeals are based on reversable error. In death-penalty cases, the only reason there is an AUTOMATIC appeals process is not because there is a higher likelihood of error, but because there is a shorter time frame in which to discover that error. The state recognizes that death is the only punishment that cannot be reversed, and therefore, there is a most intense scrutiny of the process tobe sure there was no error.
In life cases, if there is a legitimate error, the defendant can appeal.
<strong>
No, because the integrity of every prosecution in this state is in question, every conviction is in question. Sentences are not given out equally for every race. That's been proven. There is no equality in this system. To support it is to support the persecution of minorities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Those questions can be answered through case review. There's been no charge of racial bias in this state. If a individual's case was bias due to race that can also be reviewed, case by case.
<strong>
Meanwhile, life in prison - knowing you'll never again step outside of those walls, never again hod a woman in your arms, and that you'll most likely have to get used to having a 400 pound guy named Bubba stick his filthy prick inside your bleeding anus - has got to be quite a deterrent and a severe punishment indeed.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kind of off-topic but isn't Bubba supposed to be being punished as well, instead of commiting more crimes and them being condoned because he's commiting them on someone we believe to be guilty?
Unless you mean Bubba's a guard. :eek:
Life imprisonment should mean till you die. Either change the sentence or change the name.
---
All you right wingers, is this what you are reduced to: arguing for a quick and painless death for baby-murdering scum?
Your wife and children could be next!!!
At least argue that we sell their kidneys and stuff, and broadcast the killing on the net. Maybe then our state sponsored murders will be cost-efficient.
Act now! Because of those damn liberals we can't even <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2056235.stm"; target="_blank">execute retards</a> anymore.
<strong>
If a individual's case was bias due to race that can also be reviewed, case by case.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not if they're dead.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>
The system should be consistent. It's flawed beyond belief. I don't know about you but I think it's a problem when DNA evidence or someone else's confession doesn't give you a real chance at an appeal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yes, of course there is a claim of race bias in Illinois.
EDIT: Eugene, I'm not quoting you and then responding to your post. I'm using your post to refute Scott's argument. Just thought you should know....
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
<strong>Not if they're dead.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The dead ones didn't get pardoned.
Here's something interesting for all you race baiters out there.
From <a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110002916"; target="_blank">Best of the Web</a>
[quote]<a href="http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.kane15jan15,0,2514410.column"; target="_blank">Behind the Death-Penalty Disparity</a>
Illinois Republican George Ryan wasn't the only departing governor to declare a moratorium on executions; Maryland Democrat Parris Glendening, who left office today, did so as well. Unlike Ryan, however, Glendening did not clear out death row; and unlike Ryan's Democratic successor, Rod Blagojevich, Maryland's new governor, Republican Bob Ehrlich, promises to end the moratorium.
The basis of Glendening's moratorium was the claim of racially disparate sentencing. Baltimore Sun columnist Gregory Kane notes that Maryland taxpayers shelled out $225,000 for a study, which Kane calls "bat guano," showing that blacks who kill whites are more likely to get the death penalty than those who kill blacks. "Death-penalty opponents went immediately into poor, oppressed black man mode when they heard the news," Kane writes.
But it turns out the reason for the disparity is jurisdiction, not race. Prosecutors in suburban Baltimore County are much more likely to seek the death penalty than those in the city of Baltimore, which is independent from the county:
Baltimore County, in 20 years, has had fewer homicides than Baltimore City has had in the past two. The overwhelming majority of Baltimore City homicide victims are black. We should expect more white homicide victims in Baltimore County because more whites live there. . . .
With an African-American annual body count that should stagger the imagination, Baltimore's state's attorneys . . . routinely refuse to seek the death penalty. Adolf Eichmann couldn't get the death penalty here.
Here are a couple of suggestions for future studies that won't get done. Let's have a study of exactly why state's attorneys in Baltimore, where most of the black victims are, shy away from the death penalty.
Then--in the interest of investigating a real racial disparity--let's have a treatise on why black murderers choose white victims far more frequently than white murderers choose black ones.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>Then--in the interest of investigating a real racial disparity--let's have a treatise on why black murderers choose white victims far more frequently than white murderers choose black ones.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's just dumb. There are almost 10 times as many whites as blacks. That explains that disparity.
If it's wrong for a citizen to kill someone, then it seems to me to logically flow that the state, as a conglomeration of citizens, should be held to the same standard and shouldn't kill people.
(Oh, and I do agree that it's more expensive to house a death row inmate, but does that really matter to the debate?)
<strong>
The dead ones didn't get pardoned.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you know why the Death Penalty should be abolished.
<strong>
(Oh, and I do agree that it's more expensive to house a death row inmate, but does that really matter to the debate?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You agree with a claim that is completely ignorant of the facts. Like I said, I have yet to see any data that suggests the cost of life imprisonment is more than that of execution.
[ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: ShawnPatrickJoyce ]</p>
<strong>
Now you know why the Death Penalty should be abolished.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The dead ones were also found guilty.
<strong>
The dead ones were also found guilty.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So were the 13 that were ultimately set free before the moratorium.
serial killers and rapists, and whatever the state happens to consider avail for capital punishment, should be given some kind of treatment in jail. if treatment hasn't been perfected yet, or is yet to be invented, then jail time to separate them from potential victims seems reasonable to me. but murdering citizens should never be an option for the government; it makes the country a more dangerous place to live. i fear the day that the govt makes lesser crimes death-worthy, perhaps political crimes.
I'm sure the numbers game is being played well here.
He should pay us back.
<strong>
Eugene, you obviously don't take the time to read what you don't want to believe. $18 Million is for Illinois and that study was done this year. $3.2 Million was for Florida and that study was done in the late eighties, if I recall correctly. Florida is not Illinois and 2003 is not 1989.
It only costs the government of China a couple hundred US dollars to sentence and kill someone. It probably costs the Taleban $2. The cost is different depending on the jurisdiction.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you're saying inflation is one cause of that enormous jump? ...Or has the system really changed that much? What about the miniscule jump from $600,000 to $800,000 for housing? Considering population, land area, geography and what not, I'd guess it should cost more to execute somebody in Florida today vs Illinois today.
One or more of these sets of numbers seems bogus to me.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
I didn't think so.
<strong>
The plain, obvious fact that the error rate is many times worse -- orders of magnitude worse -- than what I had generously imagined should erase any doubt about the justice of Ryan's actions.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is beautifully worded and what I've been saying. I have yet to hear any refute for argument this though.