The Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Phil306, Dec 13, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I was thinking (dosen't happen often) the other day about the death penalty, as used in the states.

    Why does it take so long to execute them after the trial. Surely it would be cheaper to just get on with it, as opposed to keeping them in jails for 20 odd years?

    Anyone know?
     
  2. I suppose it gives time for an appeal...a big one.
     
  3. I am not against the death penalty, in theory. I do have a problem with the way it's administrated, but I can't say that I have a problem with someone having to pay the ultimate price for depriving someone else of their life.

    But wouldn't a shred of remorse for the deaths of those four people have made all the difference here? I actually believe Arnie when he expressed that. True penitence would include being sorry for what you've done, and on a more cynical note, it might have saved his life.

    S_T: I'm not an attorney, but I think it has something to do with the automatic appeals system. Cases will get reviewed and re-reviewed, eventually going to the highest court, and that takes years. I don't know about the administrative side of it for the prisons, either. Maybe an American ARRSEr who actually knows what they're talking about can expand on it. :)
     
  4. By all means allow time for an appeal (the defendant will think this is quite important) but not 20 odd years.

    Say 2 years from guilty decision. That would minimise costs (both prison and legal) and free up room for more criminals/immigrants/those that are different to me.
     
  5. Bye bye tookie, all your 'celebrity' (read im jumping on the populist bandwagon) mates couldn't stop you biting the big one!
     
  6. Why so long:

    Once convicted of the death penalty, you have an automatic appeal to The California Supreme Court. Now, either the decision is affirmed or its not. After your appeals through the state court systems, you have appeals through the federal court systems. In California, it goes to the 9th Circuit (an EXTREMELY liberal court). After which, it can go to the US Supreme Court. They, again either affirm, or refuse to even hear the case.

    Now, here is the HUGE catch, people do not understand and/or believe: You can run ONE appeal through the following:

    California State Appeals Court
    California Supreme Court
    Federal Courts of Appeal
    US Supreme Court

    So, what the attorneys do is, run one appeal at a time. Meaning, "I didn't like juror X." That goes through all those appeals and you lose. Another appeal, "I didn't get a fair trial. The judge was biased." That goes through all of those appeals and you lose...And so on and so on and so on. As you can see, you can appeal anything, including the price of tea in China; going through all those appeals takes time; LOTS OF TIME. The attorney's know this and do it on purpose.

    Remember, all of those courts have other cases to hear, besides this one. Not to mention, the attorney's in the case, including the prosecution have other cases. So, the defense attorney gets a court date for appeal X. He asks for an extention of 3 months, because of Case Y and gets it. More delay's. Then the Christmas Holiday's, the dog is sick, granddaughter had a baby, et al. You get the point.

    Just recently legislation was passed which makes attorney's file ALL of their intended (read intended, something ALWAYS comes up at the last minute)at one time, in order to streamline the process. However, Mr Tookie here, was convicted prior to this legislation; therefore, no ex post facto.

    Is it cheaper? As it stand now, no, it is not. Its actually cheaper for life in prison, without parole, because of the attorney's fees involved in endless appeals, etc. Will it be cheaper once the new system is in place, up and running? Hell yes it will be. Although, I believe our death penalty laws need overhauling anyways...
     
  7. Jesus christ, what a pointless system.

    Overhaul? Just a lot. How about this:

    You're guilty > Appeal: Guilty=dead
    Not Guilty=not dead.

    Job done, loads of saved money, extra space in prisons, reduction in the number of lawyers required.

    Everyone's happy.
     
  8. I would agree with you. On cases which are CLEAR CUT, etc. It should be: guilty, ONE appeal. Then slot the moron. On cases where it isn't so clear cut, give them the appeals, etc. Then slot the moron :)
     
  9. I can't believe I'm agreeing with a yank. Who would have thought :D

    Surely, on the cases where it is not clear cut, the death penalty would be innappropriate anyway?
     
  10. What planet do you live on? Do you think with a punishment like the death penalty you should just kill them straight away?

    Look at how many people get convicted and sentenced to life in Prison, only for us to find out 20 yrs later that they were innocent. I do agree that the U.S appeals system needs a good overhaul but what you are suggesting is no appeal full stop. For a criminal conviction the jury only have to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. When a mans life is at stake I think it should be more than resonable doubt.

    What you are suggesting flies in the face of the rule of law and would be in breach of so many International Human Rights Covenants. Everybody has the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal.

    IMHO the American Legal system is pretty F*cked up as it is, (ours isn't much different, although not as bad) it can all go down to who has the better lawyer. you could kill a man and find out a few years down the line as you get better technology that he was actually innocent.

    Anyway, shouldn't you be in school? Didn't think they broke up until Friday.

    Edited to say, I'm so slow I got beaten to it but in a much shorter version.
     
  11. I live on Earth. Evidently, you do not:

     
  12. Stab has a point!! If there was a questionable conviction, the death penalty shouldn't be applied...if the murdered is found over the dead body, weapon ni hand shouting "I'm glad I did it!" then, well, it's pretty obvious, innit?
     
  13. Agreed. I am always reluctant to say someone should get the death penalty when there is no direct evidence proving guilt: CCTV, a body, multiple eyewitnesses, a weapon, DNA evidence. Circumstantial cases should have a much more thorough review.

    For example, Scott Peterson (for non-spams, you might want to Google this case). Is he a wife-killing cheating sh!tbag? Probably. Was there enough physical evidence to convict him of murder and sentence him to death? I really don't think so. I know we all wanted him to be guilty, because Laci Peterson was little and cute and pregnant, and he was clearly a c0ck, but can we really put him to death just because we don't like him?

    If only the cops could have found something that tied him directly to the murder...bloody weapon, saw, etc. Then: hang'im high.
     
  14. For the bleeding hearts IIRC tookie was done for 4 murders on two occasions (1x1, 3x1).

    Of course anyone who uses a name like tookie should be slotted anyway