Sentenced to death

The death penalty really does not work at present because we have allowed it to become a long drawn out process. To me it's like exercise-you have to do it regularly to get any benefit-once a year or every few years it is
not going to work. (Like range practice)
The examples I like to cite of an effective death penalty are from New Jersey. In December 1928 one David Ware killed an NJ State Trooper (slit his throat for all you gun control coocoos. On May 6, 1929, David Ware was electrocuted. In January 1904 two perps in Burlington County, NJ robbed and
murdered a governess for a wealthy family. They were tracked down, tried,
convicted and hanged in March 1904.
For those who cite those cases where individuals have been wrongly convicted and even executed,
I would make LEOs, prosecuting attorneys, and other government officials who fake evidence
and committ perjury subject to capital punishment, or at least life without parole. I read a story of
a case in Massachusetts some years ago where an individual was tried for an armed robbery in which
someone was killed, he took the stand, denied doing it, was acquitted, Sometime later, another
individual was tried for the same crime. The perp in the first case took the stand, admitted he
committed the murder. He could'nt be tried for that crime-double jeopardy, but one of the DAs did
some research, found an old Massachusetts law that provided for a life sentence for perjury committed in a capital case, they nailed him for that.
 
prison is a waste of money
Click to expand...

Do not know where you exactly meant to go with this but I would think that life in prison is cheaper than executions. When you get the death penalty you are allowed certain legal rights. lawyers and courts time costs $$$$$$.
I think that would exclude Capitol Execution as being cheaper from the argument.
 
When you get the death penalty you are allowed certain legal rights. lawyers and courts time costs $$$$$$. I think that would exclude Capitol Execution as being cheaper from the argument.
Click to expand...
System costs go through the roof just as soon as the decision is made to go after capital murder charges. A capital murder trial is a highwire act. The slightest mistake or miscalculation will derail the whole effort. Instead of the perp getting time in prison, he gets off. Secondly, various blissninny organization patrol the countryside looking for high profile capital cases in which to intervene. Because of their pocketbooks they have on call a host of veeeery expensive, highly skilled defense attorneys. When these third party hired guns ride into town the local DA won't stand there slackjawed. They too will go out and hire an equally expensive, highly skilled former prosecutor. So it becomes an arms race. DA's are political animals and do not want to be seen wasting public money on losing efforts. So rather than run the risk of the perp walking off or spending scads of money on a losing effort, prosecutors would just as soon as bag the capital charges and move to derated charges.

I guess what I'm saying is the system as it has grown up is rigged to avoid capital charges. Therefore when a prosecutor does go after capital murder charges he is reasonably certain of either a conviction (saying the evidence is really good) or a plea agreement in which the perp pleas down and gets a healthy term in prison. Again an example. A city has experienced a number of examples of perps arrested for murder eventually getting 15 years for manslaughter. Reason? The prosecutor can't afford a murder trial. Initial charges are derated and the eventual plea bargain is way down the scale. In such situations prosecutors give away their opening negotiation position by ruling out capital charges if appropriate. Outlying counties don't play the game. In some notable cases the prosecutor went out for capital charges and agreed to plea down to something less resulting in life without parole.

I am quite cynical of human institutions with particular emphasis on law. In spite of my cynicism of human institutions in general and law in particular I am reasonably comfortable with system in place governing the use of capital punishment. I am absolutely certain far more guilty perps have walked free than innocent people have been executed.
 
no repeat offenders

Lots of questions, including definition of terms;

Deterrent? If fear of the death penalty stops someone from committing a crime, how will we ever know? Unless they tell us, and why would they do that unless they had some agenda. In cases where a gun prevents a crime (without shots being fired), the potential victims will tell us "he ran off when he saw the gun" etc., so there we can have some basis to collect statistics. How can this happen with uncommitted crimes due to fear of the death penalty? No statistics, no "facts" to use in argument.

vengance? yes, of course. One of the most basic animal responses of the human animal. If something bites you, you want to bite it back. At the root, the basic survival instinct. Some people find this morally wrong, but I don't. Of course, this is just my opinion.

punishment? of course, how can it not be? If you take a life without permission, how can that be anything else. Note, punishment CAN be deserved.

The death penalty as it operates in the United States today is expensive, inefficent, and unequally applied. Still a bad system is better than no system in this case. For certain, executed criminals do not commit further crimes.

100 years ago, the death penalty was applied much more swiftly than today. Forensic science was less available/effective. No DNA, often no fingerprints. juries took the facts they were given, rendered their verdict, and the system carried it out shortly thereafter. Were innocents executed? certainly it happened. Were the guilty executed? certainly it happened.

I think that the general belief that, "if they thought you guilty you were hanged", was likely more of a deterrent, because everyone knew that you didn't have to BE guilty in order to be hanged, so a lote of people avoided situations where they could be put at risk. I don't think that is the case today.

In the old days, if a gang of outlaws was captured (those taken alive) often, we would hang the whole gang, not just the individual who pulled the trigger.

If I were the accused, and faced the death penalty, I would want the kind of system we use today.

As far as the idea of execution not being punishment, that spending the remainder of their life in jail under harsh conditions, that is not an argument about the death penalty being punishment, that is an argument about what is the appropriate punishment for the crime.

All that being said, the old eye for an eye, the idea that perpatrators should suffer the same fate as their victims, as punishment, has a certain appeal to me.
 
I'm for the death penalty when the crime is severe enough. Here in Wisconsin we havn't had the death penalty for 150 or so. Our crime rates aren't bad, 41.68% lower than the national average according to the National Institute of Corrections, but talk of re-instating the death penalty has come up because of a few recent high-profile murders in the state.

The cases in Wisconsin where I would've like to see a death sentence were Jeffery Dahmer and the Vang Case. In these two cases the evidence against them was overwhelming, and I think both deserve death for their crimes. For those that don't remember Vang, he's the guy that killed 6 deer hunters up here a few years back.

That being said, I think some states, cough, cough, Texas, cough, cough, over use the penalty. As for the death sentence as a deterent to crime I agree that it will not be a deterent if used to little, but it will also not be a deterent if it is used too often. Didn't the French Revolution start in part because the king was killing too many subjects?
 
Do not know where you exactly meant to go with this but I would think that life in prison is cheaper than executions.
Click to expand...

Not when you factor in medical costs.

Those who wind up in prison for extended terms have not taken the best care of their bodies. The inmate population begins to exhibit various medical problems about ten years earlier than their counterparts in society.

Medical costs for inmates typically skyrocket about age 50, and keep climbing from there.

LawDog
 
Not when you factor in medical costs.
Click to expand...

Plus you have to consider how often diseases like hepatitis spread among the prison population. Most of those that enter prison without it, will get it before too long.
 
The government didn't give you your life; it has no right to take it away.

However, if you approach me and, say, my beautiful Swiss exchange student girlfriend in a dark alley and have a knife, you WILL have several rounds of .45 ACP through your skull.
 
I'm generally in favor of the death penalty, but only in cases where there is direct, physical evidence. There are WAY too many potential miscarriages possible in sentencing someone to death based purely on circumstantial evidence, or even with potential eye-witnesses.

If there's not at least ONE piece of direct physical evidence that can tie the perpetrator to the victim at the time of the incident there will always be a doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top