Another death sentence thread

[rasmack 0]

Doesn't it also add to the cost that the defendant will grasp at any straw within reach no matter how thin? It seems to me that the final appeals are often over procedural matters that would never have been explored in a non-capital case.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

What possibility is there that at least some of those 123 actually DID do the murders they were initially convicted of, but later got off for some reason or other? As in, is it 100% absolutely positively sure that they did NOT do the murders of which they were convicted?

-

so you would go ahead an kill 123 people because there is a
possibility that one of them is a crimial?

Cheers, T

We as a society cannot suffer the existence of "crimials" in our midst.

Yes, I want 123 people killed to eliminate one crimial.


Now, if we're talking about "criminals," no, I don't want to cast a wide net and kill innocents in order to kill criminals. Thanks for putting words in my mouth -- everyone knows there's a dearth of them there in the first place.

The problems that led to 123 people being exonerated (once again, this is not the same as their being proved not to have done their murders) could probably be addressed by getting real harsh on the people involved in the cases who either faked, botched, or otherwise messed with the system that was supposed to engage FAIR criminal prosecution of the suspected murderers.

Give people the death penalty for official corruption, I say. And I will stand by that. Politician takes a bribe? Execute him. DA fakes evidence or withholds exculpatory evidence which comes to light later on and could have spared an innocent the hassle of a trial and imprisonment (much less execution), execute him.

And be fuckin' serious about it, no bullshit forever-appeals, and you might see the will of the People triumph over corruption in government; you might see the People take the power back...


-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Give people the death penalty for official corruption, I say. And I will stand by that. Politician takes a bribe? Execute him. DA fakes evidence or withholds exculpatory evidence which comes to light later on and could have spared an innocent the hassle of a trial and imprisonment (much less execution), execute him.

yowzer - quite a bit of good in the speedy punishment, etc, and the idea of there always being a risk factor in capital punishment to the tune that we can't be 100% confident and we have to figure out the acceptable beta risk.

but the quote above crosses my personal line no matter how tough we want to be - but I tell you, the risk vs reward analysis for being corrupt certainly becomes less difficult to do.....

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Just a mear 100 years ago we didnt have these problems as complex as we have now. There was no "serial killers" so to speak.

No? Others are right; you have a very misshapen image of the past.

There's Elizabeth Bathory. She's alleged to have bathed in the blood of young maidens to keep herself youthful.

Vlad the Impaler

Quote

But, Vlad Dracula was more than just a medieval despot. Biographers Radu R. Florescu and Raymond T. McNally call him "a man of many faces". He was a politician; a voivode (warrior); an erudite and well-learned gentleman when the occasion-to-be fit; and, as has been indicated, he was a mass murderer. He spoke several languages – Romanian, Turkish, Latin and German – and steeped himself in the use of broadsword and crossbow. He was an equestrian, riding at the head of his attacking army like a Berskerker.

There were outlaws that killed many however they didnt just stalk people for thrils and fun and whack them. If you had a problem with someone you squared off outside in the streets and had a duel. Or you might just go outside and beat the piss out of each other, problem solved. Of course 100 years ago if you were convicted of murder or some otherserious crime. You were held in jail until a judge arrived, you were put on trial that lasted no more than 2 days at the most, convicted, and you were hung at high noon. NO appeals, no taxpayers money spent feeding you, keeping you alive in plush luxury conditions compared to the way some people live today who are not imprisoned etc etc etc. Just seems to me it would be much chaper if we went back to the hangin days. Might send a message to some of the other scumbags in the world who may get convicted that sit on death row for 23 years. Of course I could be wrong, just my two cents

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Then, there's a sentencing phase of trial. So, there are, in effect, three trials worth of evidence to put on, instead of one.

I hope that clarifies it a little.

Doesn't explain Kris's 32k versus 500k. Seems like it might account for a doubling of costs.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Then, there's a sentencing phase of trial. So, there are, in effect, three trials worth of evidence to put on, instead of one.

I hope that clarifies it a little.

Doesn't explain Kris's 32k versus 500k. Seems like it might account for a doubling of costs.

Read up in this thread. I told her there's no way in hell that it costs that little.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

Do you have other numbers? Like I said, all I've got is a class handout with a NIC stamp on it from 2003. I'm sure costs have probably risen since then. However, my chart was what the state spends on the trial, not the entire cost of the trial on both sides, as the cost of the defense (provided it's a private lawyer) isn't one that is paid by the taxpayers.