One more note on the “100%” standard – who is going to decide that the standard has been met? Juries? The same juries who have already been demonstrated to have put dozens of innocent people on death row? Are we going to do anything about the gross economic inequities which allow poor defendants to go inadequately represented (or sometimes virtually without any representation at all)? Are we going to be able to weed out the inherent prejudices in some juries which predispose them to a verdict of guilt before the trial even begins?
How many of the juries which have already put innocent defendants on death row do you think would have altered their verdicts if the standard was raised to “100%?” Do you think that very many people would really draw much of a distinction between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “100%” in how they rendered verdicts? Do you think this decision process can be freed of human error?
Anyways, as the OP, I don’t any problem with this thread going off on the tangent of debating death penalty.
This prosecuters are indeed seeking the death penalty in this case. And there has already been one crazed loon who showed up at the arraignment with a rope and a big metal pail, yelling, “String him up!” Security is high, so he only got as close as being on the news.
According to the local news reports, the defendant actually told the judge he did it, but the judge entered a plea of “not guilty” for him and appointed a defense. I’m guessing, tho it wasn’t said, that the prosecuter is wanting to have a complete death penalty trial and so was taking no deals or pleas. Should be an interesting case to watch, if for nothing else, to see just how the system handles such a case.
That’s already a problem. You’re not allowed to sit on a jury in a DP case unless you are willing to inflict the DP. The DA would dismiss you. Therefore 100% of a jury is pro-DP, a built-in bias.
This is, at least in my non-lawyer understanding, a requirement because a juror must be willing and able to consider all types of punishment which the law allows. Same kind of logic that makes a judge who is personally anti-abortion uphold the law of the land, and not uphold his/her own personal beliefs.
As far as I know, you can have personal qualms about the death penalty and still sit on a capital case, as long as you are willing to consider the application of the death penalty in a sentancing reccommendation should the accused be found guilty.
As a person who is anti-death penalty, I used to cite this argument myself, but I’ve recently discovered it’s not exactly true. My husband is a deputy warden in a prison, so I’m very familiar with the costs of incarceration.
If you just add up the costs of three-hots-and-a-cot, then the statement is true. It costs about thirty cents a day to feed, house and clothe an inmate. Most of the costs of a prison are fixed-- they need so much heat, electricty and staff no matter what the population is. (In other words, they’d have to have X -number of staff whether they had 500 inmates or 2000.)
The real costs start adding up when you figure in medical and dental treatment. Inmates are entitled to medical care, because they are wards of the state. The state is responisble for their health and well-being.
Some states are more generous than others. In my state, an inmate recieves what is best described as moderate care. (They are treated for their ailments, but not with the best-of-the-best new treatments or heroic efforts.) In some states, inmates can get organ transplants, the cost of which is actually higher than it would be for a civilian because of required security.
While prisons have their own doctors, they still have to buy medicines, send critical inmates to hospitals and buy drugs. The costs for treating a geriatric inmate, or one with a disease can be staggering.
I am against the death penalty because I think killing people is wrong (unless in self-defence when faced with imminent danger). If it’s wrong to kill in cold blood, there shouldn’t be “exceptions” for people whose crimes strike us as particularly egregious.
I’m with D_Odds and **Diogenes **(and, I suspect, many others) in opposing the death penalty. I just can’t believe we’d get it right every time, and there is nothing more permanent than death.
It’s odd, in a way. I used to be pro-death penalty. I figured that, (in clear cases like this one appears to be, or Dahmer), we’re talking about beasts, not people. But on further reflection, what I really want is for the rest of us to be safe. Lifetime imprisonment gives me that. Sure, some part of me wants retribution, but what does that really get me? Not much. I’ll take the lower satisfaction in return for the lower chance of killing innocent people.
I think DtC and I oppose the DP for different reasons. If we had a way to conclusively prove in every DP case that the defendant is guilty, no chance of error, I would be in favor. We can’t so I’m not. I am not morally opposed, just pratically.
As stated, I think life w/o parole, for an innocent person, is a worse sentence than the DP. The DP guarantees your case will be reviewed, hopefully with a fine-toothed comb. Life w/o parole means you get put in a hole, the key is thrown away, and you are forgotten.
The cost of capital cases is entirely a function of policy decisions as to exactly how many avenues of appeal are permitted before the justice system finally declares that the convict is <B>guilty</B>, already, and it’s time for his sentence to be carried out.
Obviously, there’s good reason to review an irreversible act extra carefully before carrying it out. However, adding review after review to the death penalty process and then using the cost of the reviews as an argument against the death penalty is like requiring that automobiles be built with solid gold diamond-studded steering wheels and then using their high cost as an argument for more public transit.
