I just wondered whether you (or anyone) was going to put forward another rationalization besides “we want our hands to look clean”. Which is blatant fucking bullshit.
Yes. But they could also be strongarmed into pleading guilty, be it by pure torture, or intimidation, or just because they’re being misled about what pleading guilty means and entails, or because they bargain pleading guilty for something else, or because they’re simply too tired, broken and hopeless to fight on… tons of unrighteous scenarios.
Yes. So ? It’s certainly less suspect than a written confession or any other form of non-public, behind closed doors guilty plea.
If the guy is vocal enough to be gagged in a non-threatening setting, with no one twisting his arm, I’m convinced beyond reasonable doubt. I’d still admit the possibility that a Gitmo detainee pleading guilty to a death verdict in a non-threatening, protected setting may be acting his ass out for some hidden reason or other, but it’d certainly be unlikely enough for me to buy the Occam version.
That what Saddam went for. I’m not sure Saddam’s trial was 100% unbiased or impartial, but the guy certainly was unrepentant enough in my non-American, non-Iraqi, apathetic eyes. I opposed his death penalty on general principle, but not the legitimacy of the verdict itself.
In short, I simply don’t buy the “but these guys obviously *want *to die, so there’s no reason to try them” rationale.
I’m happy to discuss any aspect of this (and I can perfectly rationally), but for the sake of this thread, can we agree that letting US citizens choose whether they want to plead guilty to crimes that have the death penalty as punishment are consistent with US law?
The motive for wanting this is debatable, but the actual procedure is totally consistent with US law. So, meh. I mean, it’s like arguing whether the death penalty itself it ok (I think it’s not).
Considering it’s not allowed by the existing martial law code, nor by civil law in the US (except in Kentucky, since 2007, apparently, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court), I’d say it’s by definition not fully consistent with US law ;).
Which makes sense to me, even in a vacuum - a guy who pleads guilty to actually get the execution (rather than the usual, pleading guilty to *avoid *it and get life with or without parole) is, almost by definition, insane and thus likely not competent to make that choice. At the very least, a guilty plea to the death penalty should trigger an in-depth psych evaluation and examination to make sure the guy is competent, intelligent and the plea is voluntary.
Coming at it from the opposite angle, I’d say a court is supposed to punish a guilty man, not give him what he wants. If a criminal wants to die to not bear the guilt of his crime, the State’s supposed (IMO) to keep him in jail, and on suicide watch. Which is possibly on the flip side of cruel and unusual punishment ;), but hey - even the guys that are actually sitting on death row are not allowed to kill themselves.
It’s not clear cut. And it isn’t cut at all when the guilty plea foregoes the trial completely - no matter the crime, the prosecution still needs to prove guilt, even when the defendant does plead guilty. And apparently, they can’t do that even for the supposed 9/11 guys.
Barry J. Fisher, Judicial Suicide or Constitutional Autonomy? A Capital Defendant’s Right to Plead Guilty, 65 Alb. L. Rev. 181 (2001) - “However, in reviewing the history of the capital guilty plea, Anglo-American law suggests that an across-the-board prohibition against capital guilty pleas violates the fundamental notion of due process. The right of an accused, even one facing the death penalty, to plead guilty unconditionally to the charges against him was explicitly recognized at common law. It has been widely and almost uniformly acknowledged and honored by state and federal courts since the Colonial period. Further, this right remains protected in the statutes and court decisions of all states but Arkansas, Louisiana, and New York.” “A convicted prisoner does not become a pawn of the state. Even a prisoner sentenced to death retains a constitutionally protected sphere of autonomy–of belief, expression, and, to a limited extent, action. The state is bound to respect a convicted prisoner’s inalienable freedom of conscience. He is free to admit his guilt and to repent, just as he is free to proclaim his innocence in defiance of the verdict under which he stands convicted. He is free to resign himself to the social decree, acknowledging the justice of the punishment, just as he is free to decry it.”
From the KY case:
“We have not been cited to any authority that moves us to find that a defendant loses the right to waive jury sentencing simply because that defendant has pleaded guilty to a capital offense. So we decline Chapman’s invitation to join the minority viewpoint found in Arkansas’s ban on a defendant’s right to waive jury sentencing in a case involving the death penalty.”
From NY times article in the original post:
“Federal civilian courts and courts in most states with capital-punishment laws permit such [guilty] pleas.”
I don’t purport to have done anything besides look to the linked articles, so I’m not saying this is correct. But I don’t see anything showing otherwise. If the case you cited supports what you say, then just point to where at.
My mistake - I fully admit my research wasn’t exactly thorough. Still, if Arkansas, Louisiana and NY don’t recognize that right, you’re still 3 states short of totally consistent (kidding, don’t worry - I may be an asshole, but I’m not a *fucking *asshole)
However, the last point stands, doesn’t it ? The one about the prosecution still needing to demonstrate guilt, even should the accused plead guilty ? Waiving defense and jury doesn’t equate with waving trial entirely, I should think.
Hell, before the guy can even say “yup, guilty, fry me”, the prosecution must first state what he’s supposed to be guilty of, and how/why it came to this conclusion, no ? IANAL, YMMV, Batteries not included etc…
Generally speaking, no. If you plead guilty, you’re guilty and that’s that (to the crime). You would plead guilty to receive a reduced sentence (plea bargain). You would plead guilty to a capital crime to receive life in jail (or at least use the guilty plea as a mitigating factor with the jury). Rarely, would anyone plead guilty to a capital crime and to the death penalty. But, the case you cited said it’s not inherently wrong to do so, as long as you’re found competent. That these guys want to exercise those rights, so be it. I would just make sure they have good lawyers to fully inform them of what they are doing and if they change their mind, a good lawyer would probably save their life.
Yes. Your quote pretty much sums up the grand jury process (most states use some form of them, the feds do for sure). Show enough against the accused to warrant a trial. It’s not hard to do though, and the prosecution can call a grand jury a hundred times if they need too. I’m not sure how this works in the current tribunals, but I bet we could find out. It’s an interesting point.
All the above is a generality and not specific to capital cases (which I don’t know that much about). Plus, all the above assumes these guys are treated as common criminals, which they are not. They are in no man’s land that is enemy combatant status.
(kidding, don’t worry - I may be an asshole, but I’m not a *fucking *asshole)