Death Penalty (or lack thereof) in California

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 3/3/2018 at 8:16 AM, Jason said:

I'm sort of indifferent to the death penalty. I really don't care if they keep it or abolish it. If they keep it then they need to follow through quickly and not all these BS appeals that are just wasting taxpayer dollars. Then again, wasting taxpayer dollars is probably part of California's mission statement. 

I am opposed to the death penalty. My main objection to it is not the execution itself (it is reserved for the worst of the worst), but rather the time and money that are expended on endless appeals that drag out for years. It would cost less to incarcerate these people for the rest of their lives than to pay the legal expenses involved in carrying out their sentences.

[RallyMo]

On 3/10/2018 at 8:29 PM, Lou said:

Yes, you needed to say it.

Read the rules. 

I read the rules. Unless ANAHEIMBOB is involved, you're allowed to assume that people will consider context.

[gotbeer]

On 3/10/2018 at 7:32 PM, Vegas Halo Fan said:

I am opposed to the death penalty. My main objection to it is not the execution itself (it is reserved for the worst of the worst), but rather the time and money that are expended on endless appeals that drag out for years. It would cost less to incarcerate these people for the rest of their lives than to pay the legal expenses involved in carrying out their sentences.

Too bad we can't just take away their citizenship, and banish them forever to some resort like Somalia or Iraq.  They can do their appeals at the consulate there.

[mtangelsfan]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dna-shows-he’s-not-a-killer-georgia-wants-to-execute-him-tomorrow/ar-BBKcbR5?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

[UndertheHalo]

3 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/dna-shows-he’s-not-a-killer-georgia-wants-to-execute-him-tomorrow/ar-BBKcbR5?li=BBnb7Kz

 

 

Pretty incredible.  If this guy ends up being executed it will be an ashtonishing miscarriage of justice. 

[Jason]

49 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Pretty incredible.  If this guy ends up being executed it will be an ashtonishing miscarriage of justice. 

Yeah, it's tough to argue with DNA

 

[Chuck U Farley]

This thread is a perfect representation of all the reasons why the death penalty is just wrong.

Due process guarantees years of frustration for those of us who really want those murderous SOB's to fry.  It's something that in America should never be subject to politics or compromise, and it must take precedent to our primal desire for revenge, punishment or whatever you want to call it.

And the slightest chance that an innocent person can get offed by our criminal justice system is just too much -- certainly too much to compromise the aforementioned due process.

I think a life sentence of productive (forced) labor and reparations to the victims, their families and society seems at the same time logical, effective and efficient.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Dino Ebel's Rotator Cuff said:

This thread is a perfect representation of all the reasons why the death penalty is just wrong.

Due process guarantees years of frustration for those of us who really want those murderous SOB's to fry.  It's something that in America should never be subject to politics or compromise, and it must take precedent to our primal desire for revenge, punishment or whatever you want to call it.

And the slightest chance that an innocent person can get offed by our criminal justice system is just too much -- certainly too much to compromise the aforementioned due process.

I think a life sentence of productive (forced) labor and reparations to the victims, their families and society seems at the same time logical, effective and efficient.

How does one make reparations for the loss of a loved one?  Or to society for the loss of a hero police officer?
If prisons weren't such freaking resorts these days with  room board cable TV and rec time factored in not to mention officials caring more for the right of the criminal than the victims i might agree. 
Plus the fear of the death penalty is leverage law enforcement needs.
I do however feel that unless the case is an absolute slam dunk no brainier it shouldn't be there... if based on circumstantial evidence and such it opens the door for mistakes, but if it is obvious, yeah, im fine with it 
 

[Chuck U Farley]

12 hours ago, floplag said:

How does one make reparations for the loss of a loved one?  Or to society for the loss of a hero police officer?
If prisons weren't such freaking resorts these days with  room board cable TV and rec time factored in not to mention officials caring more for the right of the criminal than the victims i might agree. 
Plus the fear of the death penalty is leverage law enforcement needs.
I do however feel that unless the case is an absolute slam dunk no brainier it shouldn't be there... if based on circumstantial evidence and such it opens the door for mistakes, but if it is obvious, yeah, im fine with it 
 

Let's parse these issues -- because I think you touch upon several valid questions.

1. There is obviously no way to replace a loved one or a hero to our society -- BUT, we can set a standard for redirecting the remaining years of the guilty party -- toward some redeeming effort such as repaying society and/or the survivors.  It's not a perfect solution, but it does represent a net positive.

2. Prisons are not resorts. You wouldn't want to live in one, would you? And they vary wildly, so I think the generalizations are kind of a red herring here.  A better argument could be made for defining specifically what the death row inmate's existence should be like. Which I've defined as consisting of value-deriving, physical work. I am not an advocate of being soft on prisoners, nor am I one for "cruel or unusual punishment" -- but I would argue that there's a LOT of room between the two extremes.  We just need to find the right one to make this work.

3. Fear of the death penalty is a broad misconception.  It may or may not deter you and me, but there are MANY factors that will override that deterrent -- poverty, mental illness, addiction, heated conflict, etc.  I believe the murder statistics in DP vs non-DP states would more than bear that out.

4. I think we can argue the merits of what defines "slam dunk" for ages and possibly never agree.  Being a life or death question, I find that to be the most troubling factor in the whole DP debate, and ultimately the primary reason why I have always been against it.  It is simply not acceptable for even ONE innocent person to be murdered by official decree -- that is not and should not ever be what we're about.  Which is why I keep going back to the question of what we hope for the punishment to accomplish.  Should it be about separating the danger from society (yes), punishing the guilty (yes), deterring the tempted (yes, if possible), revenge/retribution (I would argue NO). 

Objectively speaking, I think everything and more can be accomplished without putting anyone to death.  Lower costs (vs years of due process (which is non-negotiable)), plus potential revenue recovery via labor, plus a plausible enough deterrent based on a long and unpleasant existence -- that's the way I see it.  And then there's the question of what our penal system says about our society and where it's heading.  I firmly believe that every incarceration is a result of a societal failure of some kind, where the individual may have done the deed, but with some intervening breakdown providing either the impetus or the facilitation.  We need to always ask "why?" and own our failures if we are to actually make progress as a society.

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Dino Ebel's Rotator Cuff said:

Let's parse these issues -- because I think you touch upon several valid questions.

1. There is obviously no way to replace a loved one or a hero to our society -- BUT, we can set a standard for redirecting the remaining years of the guilty party -- toward some redeeming effort such as repaying society and/or the survivors.  It's not a perfect solution, but it does represent a net positive.

2. Prisons are not resorts. You wouldn't want to live in one, would you? And they vary wildly, so I think the generalizations are kind of a red herring here.  A better argument could be made for defining specifically what the death row inmate's existence should be like. Which I've defined as consisting of value-deriving, physical work. I am not an advocate of being soft on prisoners, nor am I one for "cruel or unusual punishment" -- but I would argue that there's a LOT of room between the two extremes.  We just need to find the right one to make this work.

3. Fear of the death penalty is a broad misconception.  It may or may not deter you and me, but there are MANY factors that will override that deterrent -- poverty, mental illness, addiction, heated conflict, etc.  I believe the murder statistics in DP vs non-DP states would more than bear that out.

4. I think we can argue the merits of what defines "slam dunk" for ages and possibly never agree.  Being a life or death question, I find that to be the most troubling factor in the whole DP debate, and ultimately the primary reason why I have always been against it.  It is simply not acceptable for even ONE innocent person to be murdered by official decree -- that is not and should not ever be what we're about.  Which is why I keep going back to the question of what we hope for the punishment to accomplish.  Should it be about separating the danger from society (yes), punishing the guilty (yes), deterring the tempted (yes, if possible), revenge/retribution (I would argue NO). 

Objectively speaking, I think everything and more can be accomplished without putting anyone to death.  Lower costs (vs years of due process (which is non-negotiable)), plus potential revenue recovery via labor, plus a plausible enough deterrent based on a long and unpleasant existence -- that's the way I see it.  And then there's the question of what our penal system says about our society and where it's heading.  I firmly believe that every incarceration is a result of a societal failure of some kind, where the individual may have done the deed, but with some intervening breakdown providing either the impetus or the facilitation.  We need to always ask "why?" and own our failures if we are to actually make progress as a society.

#1.  Net positive to whom?  not the victims.  Shouldn't they come first?
#2.  No, i would not, but they arent exactly hard labor any more either are they, thats the point.  Dont take me literal when i say resorts please.  
#3.  Obviously a case by case basis, but what else is there in place of it?  what leverage does law enforcement have?  Having spoken to lawyer friends and acquaintances it can be a valuable tool to getting information to give families some form of closure.   In my mind the victims and their families rights and needs trump the criminals rights, every time, in every possible way. 
#4.  We can agree to disagree.  It isnt about revenge or being cruel or unusual, its about punishment fitting the crime. 

You forget one key factor in your calculations though, the cost of housing that person for the rest of their life.  Not to mention prison over crowding.   

I disagree strongly on your point regarding incarceration being a failure of society.   I believe in personal accountability.  Noone makes a person do what they do, they chose to do so.  Weve seen to many examples of people seemingly snapping in an otherwise normal life as opposed to the recent FLA shooter where we definitely failed.  Regardless it still doesnt shift responsibility for his actions onto anyone but him.   

I do agree on asking why, its been one of my biggest argument regarding the increase in calls for gun control and hearing virtually nothing about root causes and calls for mental heath reform and other such things... everyone is laser focused on the tool, not the reason for the act, this make no logical sense to me.   BUT, im not asking why the community failed, im asking why the person failed.  

[red321]

On 3/15/2018 at 11:54 AM, floplag said:

#3.  Obviously a case by case basis, but what else is there in place of it?  what leverage does law enforcement have?  Having spoken to lawyer friends and acquaintances it can be a valuable tool to getting information to give families some form of closure.   In my mind the victims and their families rights and needs trump the criminals rights, every time, in every possible way. 
 

Not sure the constitution outlines "victims" rights...but it certainly has a number of provisions that related to people accused of a crime. While I understand the need for people to feel that justice was served, the reality is everyone accused of a crime deserves their full constitutional rights, in large part because there is a chance they may be innocent. No matter how overwhelming the evidence may appear to be, that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and within the guidelines outlined in the constitution. And in the case of capital punishment, this is doubly so, as there is no going back.

[floplag]

6 minutes ago, red321 said:

Not sure the constitution outlines "victims" rights...but it certainly has a number of provisions that related to people accused of a crime. While I understand the need for people to feel that justice was served, the reality is everyone accused of a crime deserves their full constitutional rights, in large part because there is a chance they may be innocent. No matter how overwhelming the evidence may appear to be, that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and within the guidelines outlined in the constitution. And in the case of capital punishment, this is doubly so, as there is no going back.

i agree, the point is if you take the leverage off the table the chances of getting the victims closure lessens, that to me matter more.  the death penatly can be used as a tool for this even if it isnt used as a frequent punishment.  When states make it a laughing stock that leverage is gone. 

[mtangelsfan]

Seriously man, they JUST EXECUTED AN INNOCENT MAN.  How can you still support it?

[red321]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

i agree, the point is if you take the leverage off the table the chances of getting the victims closure lessens, that to me matter more.  the death penatly can be used as a tool for this even if it isnt used as a frequent punishment.  When states make it a laughing stock that leverage is gone. 

I'm not sure I get your point...the leverage of threatening to apply the death penalty to get them to confess is important because it gives the victims closure?

I feel for victims...but that shouldn't be a consideration at all. Attempting to coerce a confession by threatening to apply the death penalty is just that, coercion. If the state is confident enough to send someone to death, they should at least have to prove their case.

Edited March 16, 2018 by red321

[floplag]

47 minutes ago, red321 said:

I'm not sure I get your point...the leverage of threatening to apply the death penalty to get them to confess is important because it gives the victims closure?

I feel for victims...but that shouldn't be a consideration at all. Attempting to coerce a confession by threatening to apply the death penalty is just that, coercion. If the state is confident enough to send someone to death, they should at least have to prove their case.

The death penalty in severe cases is often the only leverage prosecutors have to get them to reveal things like body locations or other information about other potential victims, thus allowing them to bury them or at least understand their fate and try to move forward.  
It isnt coercion, its bargaining, trading off information for a lesser sentence, happens all the time, ask any lawyer you know.   Noone forces them, to do it, if they would rather face the needle thats on them. 
In most of the cases the facts are already proven beyond reasonable doubt, there is little if any doubt they will be convicted, the trade off is a benefit to the victims and the criminal in the sense that he gets to live in exchange for helping others.
and im sorry but the victims should be a consideration, above the criminal in my opinion.  We all have certain basic rights, but you take anothers live you violated thier you should lose yours to a certain degree.  Hiding behind that is absurd under those circumstances. 
I suspect there is little i can say on this issue you would agree with, you are clearly against it in any situation, i ytuly hope you never have to learn what im talking about the hard way. 

[mtangelsfan]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

The death penalty in severe cases is often the only leverage prosecutors have to get them to reveal things like body locations or other information about other potential victims, thus allowing them to bury them or at least understand their fate and try to move forward.  
It isnt coercion, its bargaining, trading off information for a lesser sentence, happens all the time, ask any lawyer you know.   Noone forces them, to do it, if they would rather face the needle thats on them. 
In most of the cases the facts are already proven beyond reasonable doubt, there is little if any doubt they will be convicted, the trade off is a benefit to the victims and the criminal in the sense that he gets to live in exchange for helping others.
and im sorry but the victims should be a consideration, above the criminal in my opinion.  We all have certain basic rights, but you take anothers live you violated thier you should lose yours to a certain degree.  Hiding behind that is absurd under those circumstances. 
I suspect there is little i can say on this issue you would agree with, you are clearly against it in any situation, i ytuly hope you never have to learn what im talking about the hard way. 

An innocent man was just murdered by the state.  Nothing from you

[Crampknees]

I suspect there is little i can say on this issue you would agree with, you are clearly against it in any situation, i ytuly hope you never have to learn what im talking about the hard way. 

 

Even at my crazy best not sure I would have come up with that. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

An innocent man was just murdered by the state.  Nothing from you

Perhaps because i hadnt heard about it.  sorry i dont hear about every case.  Though assuming it to be true it doesnt change my view.  
Again im not suggesting it as a widespread thing and feel it should only be used in cases that are as close to beyond reproach as is possible, you act like im in favor of it for parking tickets. 

[mtangelsfan]

Just now, floplag said:

Perhaps because i hadnt heard about it.  sorry i dont hear about every case.  Though assuming it to be true it doesnt change my view.  
Again im not suggesting it as a widespread thing and feel it should only be used in cases that are as close to beyond reproach as is possible, you act like im in favor of it for parking tickets. 

Lol, yeah that's how I act.

[Crampknees]

I have no prob with the death penalty until I see how DNA now can bring the case into proving innocence.  Majority of these guys have done a long stretch and then well may not be him and the original prosecutor is either retired or dead and they still want to fight it. So fry before we admit we fucked up.  That is my selling point.  But hey soon drug dealers will be put to death so we good.  

[floplag]

2 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

Lol, yeah that's how I act.

If you are assuming i would apply it in cases that arent obvious, yeah, which you did.  
No matter, youre welcome to your view.  

[UndertheHalo]

Like I said before, the idea of executing some vile piece of trash that murders children etc.  I’m not troubled by the idea of it.  I doubt anyone here is.  The issue is that innocent people are executed.  Apparently a guy just the other day.  Freeing the innocent is more important then punishing the guilty.  For that reason imo it’s something to be against.  We can’t have certainty and one wrongful execution is unacceptable. It’s more then one.  Objectively.   It doesn’t matter how many times they get it right.  The system is fucked. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[Lou]

On March 16, 2018 at 1:16 PM, mtangelsfan said:

Seriously man, they white people JUST EXECUTED AN INNOCENT MAN.  How can you still support it?

There you go 

[RallyMo]

On 3/16/2018 at 8:59 PM, floplag said:

If you are assuming i would apply it in cases that arent obvious, yeah, which you did.  
No matter, youre welcome to your view.  

What is an obvious case? On live TV?

[floplag]

13 hours ago, RallyMo said:

What is an obvious case? On live TV?

does it matter what i think one is?  If i have to explain what should be obvious you wont agree.
This is one of those discussion s that people are either open to or absolutely not, there is no convincing those who are absolutely not of its merits.