Death Penalty

marg · 06-22-2005, 05:09 PM

Even thought there have been 2 prominent cases in my state recently (including one guy who was in jail in another state at the time of the crime, which the prosecutors knew) I was shocked by the number of people who were were taken off death row. Which raises the question: if the system is obviously so imperfect (and attorneyincompetence seems to be a big issue here) is it right to continue to execute people?

Y'all know my feelings on the death penalty so I won't bore you with them

Death penalty debate finally produces useful result
Wed Jun 22, 8:44 AM ET
USA Today

For the past half century, the nation has been locked - deadlocked might be a better word - in a bitter debate over the death penalty. But what if there is a middle ground?

With little fanfare, a compromise has been gaining favor more than a decade, drawing support as DNA evidence has exonerated inmates on death row. Last week, it reached a milestone. Texas, site of one in three executions, gave juries the option to sentence defendants in capital cases to life without parole rather than death.

All but one death-penalty state, New Mexico, now offers that choice, a marked change from the era when life sentences were a meaningless illusion. But why stop at making life without parole just an optional alternative to execution? It is a fitting replacement, assuring severe punishment for the worst of crimes but with a safety valve to protect those falsely accused or wrongly sentenced.

Evidence of the need pours in weekly now.

Five times in the past seven months, the Supreme Court has had to rein in state courts that mishandled death penalty cases. On Monday, the court ordered a new sentencing trial in a Pennsylvania case involving shoddy work by the lawyer for an accused murderer.

Last week, the court sent back cases from Texas and California that reeked of racial discrimination in jury selection. Earlier, the court ruled against Texas (again) and Missouri (twice) in cases of excluding relevant evidence, making defendants appear in shackles and executing juveniles.

Just last week at the state level:

• An Oklahoma appeals court ordered a new trial for a man sentenced to death in a 1982 murder on the basis of testimony from a police chemist who has since been fired for poor and unreliable lab work.

• An Illinois man jailed for eight months and facing the death penalty in his daughter's death was released when a long-overdue DNA test finally came back - negative.

• A former North Carolina judge urged the state Legislature to impose a two-year moratorium on executions.

Against this backdrop, the rate of executions has dropped 40% from its onetime high.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Supreme Court has tried to make clear that it is to be applied carefully and evenhandedly. Nevertheless, cases of incompetent lawyering, suppression of evidence, local prejudice and other affronts to justice keep appearing.

The result is evident in the numbers who narrowly escaped execution: While 972 people have been put to death since the 1970s, at least 119 have been taken off death row because of evidence they were wrongly convicted or sentenced.

According to a Gallup Poll in May, 74% of the public supports the death penalty, but backing for capital punishment drops to 56% when respondents are given the alternative of life without parole. Even in Texas, a Scripps-Howard poll last October found that while 75% supported the death penalty, 78% favored the option of life without parole.

Already, life without the death penalty is the norm in a growing number of states. In addition to the 12 that don't allow it, five others have had no executions in more than 30 years; six have used it only once in that time.

Abolishing the death penalty and using life without parole instead can't fix all the injustices exposed in courts across the nation. But at least no one would be executed as a result.

**BC-Maura** · 06-22-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marg

Which raises the question: if the system is obviously so imperfect (and attorneyincompetence seems to be a big issue here) is it right to continue to execute people?

No, it's not right!

Quote:

Originally Posted by marg

Y'all know my feelings on the death penalty so I won't bore you with them

I won't either....

But I will say, this reminds me of the Guantanamo Bay thread and the sentiment expressed there that the detainees must have been guilty if they were there... a lot of people think that people who get all the way to death row must be guilty... but innocents ARE sentenced to death (and after trials no less)....

+++++++++++++
Maura

AngelaM · 06-22-2005, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BC-Maura

a lot of people think that people who get all the way to death row must be guilty... but innocents ARE sentenced to death (and after trials no less)....

Yep, and guilty people walk out scott free too.

Oh...and you already know my opinion on the death penalty too....my only regrets with the death row in our prison system is that it doesn't cost less and that there is not an express lane to remove the scum from this earth more quickly.

robine · 06-23-2005, 05:55 AM

What Angela said

sheryl · 06-23-2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marg

Which raises the question: if the system is obviously so imperfect (and attorneyincompetence seems to be a big issue here) is it right to continue to execute people?

This is the main reason why I have moved my stance on this issue towards being against the death penalty. In a perfect (or even a nearly perfect) system, we would have everyone represented equally. Sadly, the poor are the ones that are not given the chance to properly represent themselves. Look at the rich: Michael Jackson, OJ, Blake, etc... Do you think they would have walked if they were poor? Do you think that EVERY person on death row is actually guilty of the crime that they committed? Are those people scum, and deserve to die?

Until we have a better system to treat people equally (which will never happen) then we can't be so quick to put these people to death.

And for the scum that ARE guilty of the crimes, then I think the death penalty is too good for them. I would rather that they spend every second in a miserable place, for years and years.

Just my opinion...

robine · 06-23-2005, 07:32 AM

quote:

I would rather that they spend every second in a miserable place, for years and years

Just not on my dime geting free education, better TV and entertainment than what many law abiding folks have..NO way...

**kutiepitutti - EMAIL BAD - PLEASE FIX** · 06-23-2005, 08:35 AM

Feel free to disagree but its not justifiable to me to kill one innocent person and to say "yeah but the other three we killed were guilty". One innocent life taken is one too many.

And by the way, I am someone who can speak directly about this....having already gone thru having my mother's killer on death row for a few years before his sentence was commuted to life in prison. I preferred it that way!!!!

sheryl · 06-23-2005, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutiepitutti

And by the way, I am someone who can speak directly about this....having already gone thru having my mother's killer on death row for a few years before his sentence was commuted to life in prison. I preferred it that way!!!!

Wow, I am sorry that you lost your mom that way. This is not the same, but I had a very close cousin get murdered about 20 years ago. He got life without parole. He is still in there. Most of my family members are content with the sentence.

sheryl · 06-23-2005, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robine

Just not on my dime geting free education, better TV and entertainment than what many law abiding folks have..NO way...

Yes, that bugs me, too. Big time... But I think that putting innocent people to death is much worse, IMO.... And the cost for inmates on death row is higher than having inmates in prison, serving life...

CrystalAZ · 06-23-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

my only regrets with the death row in our prison system is that it doesn't cost less and that there is not an express lane to remove the scum from this earth more quickly.

I agree!

I would be more likely to say "life without parole" is a fitting alternative if they could find a way to keep the cost of harboring prisoners way down a la Sheriff Joe Arpaio style. Even better if they could find a way to make the prisoners pay for their OWN ;iving costs by giving them a job in there - they could "earn" meals, mattresses, etc. by assembling parts, data processing (no internet access), or other work they could do in their cell.

Crystal

06-22-2005, 05:09 PM	#1 (permalink)
marg 5000-9999 post king of hearts Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6,611	Death Penalty Even thought there have been 2 prominent cases in my state recently (including one guy who was in jail in another state at the time of the crime, which the prosecutors knew) I was shocked by the number of people who were were taken off death row. Which raises the question: if the system is obviously so imperfect (and attorneyincompetence seems to be a big issue here) is it right to continue to execute people? Y'all know my feelings on the death penalty so I won't bore you with them Death penalty debate finally produces useful result Wed Jun 22, 8:44 AM ET USA Today For the past half century, the nation has been locked - deadlocked might be a better word - in a bitter debate over the death penalty. But what if there is a middle ground? With little fanfare, a compromise has been gaining favor more than a decade, drawing support as DNA evidence has exonerated inmates on death row. Last week, it reached a milestone. Texas, site of one in three executions, gave juries the option to sentence defendants in capital cases to life without parole rather than death. All but one death-penalty state, New Mexico, now offers that choice, a marked change from the era when life sentences were a meaningless illusion. But why stop at making life without parole just an optional alternative to execution? It is a fitting replacement, assuring severe punishment for the worst of crimes but with a safety valve to protect those falsely accused or wrongly sentenced. Evidence of the need pours in weekly now. Five times in the past seven months, the Supreme Court has had to rein in state courts that mishandled death penalty cases. On Monday, the court ordered a new sentencing trial in a Pennsylvania case involving shoddy work by the lawyer for an accused murderer. Last week, the court sent back cases from Texas and California that reeked of racial discrimination in jury selection. Earlier, the court ruled against Texas (again) and Missouri (twice) in cases of excluding relevant evidence, making defendants appear in shackles and executing juveniles. Just last week at the state level: • An Oklahoma appeals court ordered a new trial for a man sentenced to death in a 1982 murder on the basis of testimony from a police chemist who has since been fired for poor and unreliable lab work. • An Illinois man jailed for eight months and facing the death penalty in his daughter's death was released when a long-overdue DNA test finally came back - negative. • A former North Carolina judge urged the state Legislature to impose a two-year moratorium on executions. Against this backdrop, the rate of executions has dropped 40% from its onetime high. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the Supreme Court has tried to make clear that it is to be applied carefully and evenhandedly. Nevertheless, cases of incompetent lawyering, suppression of evidence, local prejudice and other affronts to justice keep appearing. The result is evident in the numbers who narrowly escaped execution: While 972 people have been put to death since the 1970s, at least 119 have been taken off death row because of evidence they were wrongly convicted or sentenced. According to a Gallup Poll in May, 74% of the public supports the death penalty, but backing for capital punishment drops to 56% when respondents are given the alternative of life without parole. Even in Texas, a Scripps-Howard poll last October found that while 75% supported the death penalty, 78% favored the option of life without parole. Already, life without the death penalty is the norm in a growing number of states. In addition to the 12 that don't allow it, five others have had no executions in more than 30 years; six have used it only once in that time. Abolishing the death penalty and using life without parole instead can't fix all the injustices exposed in courts across the nation. But at least no one would be executed as a result.

06-23-2005, 05:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
robine 10000-15000 post ace of hearts Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mountaintop Posts: 18,484 Blog Entries: 1756	What Angela said __________________ The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. - Peter Brimelow How many Greats have become the Least for me?

06-23-2005, 07:32 AM	#6 (permalink)
robine 10000-15000 post ace of hearts Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mountaintop Posts: 18,484 Blog Entries: 1756	quote: I would rather that they spend every second in a miserable place, for years and years Just not on my dime geting free education, better TV and entertainment than what many law abiding folks have..NO way... __________________ The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. - Peter Brimelow How many Greats have become the Least for me?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Would someone like to explain why this man should NOT get the death penalty?	Cheryllynn	Debate Board	36	03-25-2005 08:00 AM
Military Death Benefit Increases	BC-Tracik	Debate Board	9	02-02-2005 04:13 PM

VISIT OUR SISTER SITES:
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar	eHarmony Advice Dating Advice	Project Wedding Wedding Songs	Weddingbee Wedding Blog

Currently Active Chat Room Users: 0 \| Scheduled Chat Room Events
	Users in Chat Rooms: No one's chatting right now!

06-23-2005, 08:35 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutiepitutti - EMAIL BAD - PLEASE FIX email not working- contact dave@fertilethoughts.com Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Erie, Pennsylvania Posts: 2,150	Feel free to disagree but its not justifiable to me to kill one innocent person and to say "yeah but the other three we killed were guilty". One innocent life taken is one too many. And by the way, I am someone who can speak directly about this....having already gone thru having my mother's killer on death row for a few years before his sentence was commuted to life in prison. I preferred it that way!!!!