It’s not wrong. The endless appeals in death penalty cases are constitutionally mandated. It is not that LWOP is not “endlessly appealed,” it’s that the Constitution does not afford the same protections to those sentenced to LWOP that it does to those sentenced to die.
Could you please quote the parts of the Constitution that affords special protections to those subject to the DP?
Regards,
Shodan
If the function of defense is to ensure a fair trial why doesn’t the defense have a duty to disclose evidence that shows their client’s guilt?
Because the “fairness” required is as to the defendant. The other party in a criminal case (the state) doesn’t have the right to a fair trial.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Could you please quote the parts of the Constitution that affords special protections to those subject to the DP?
[/QUOTE]
It’s the Eighth Amendment, as interpreted in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (2006), and Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), among other cases. Gregg essentially overturned a prior SCOTUS ban on the death penalty but only if the state satisfied a number of prerequisites that the court found were required by the Eighth Amendment. I trust you do not need me to quote the amendment itself.
Additionally, state constitutions mostly (all?) provide for an appeal to the state’s highest court as a matter of right in death penalty cases - often even if the defendant doesn’t want another appeal. See article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution, for example:
Shodan, can you answer me a few questions, please.
Do you accept that there are different types of homicide? (For simplicity, let’s call it manslaughter, 2nd degree and 1st degree.)
Do you accept that it is a moral and legal wrong if someone is convicted of the *wrong type *of homicide? (for example, if someone commits 2nd degree but is convicted of 1st degree.)
Do you accept that the above is a kind of wrongful conviction?
Do you agree that appeals against the type of wrongful conviction described above are justified, if they succeed?
Yes, that legal distinction exists.
Legally, yes. Morally, no.
No.
And, not quite a nitpick, whether or not an appeal succeeds has no relevance to whether or not it is justified. Appeals are only justified in cases of actual innocence.
All cases of murder and non-negligent homicide should be punishable by death. Also rape involving force, arson that results in the death of a person, and upon a second conviction of drunk driving that involves causing a death.
I argue the DP based mostly on actual guilt or innocence, not legal guilt or innocence. I am fully aware that actual innocence is not the basis for our legal system. IANAL.
You and your cousin rob a liquor store. You shoot a customer and your cousin shoots the manager. The customer lives, the manager dies. Both of you should die.
You shoot a member of a rival gang in a dispute over who gets to sell drugs on a given street corner. You should die.
You beat your girlfriend’s son to death because he won’t stop crying. You should die.
You rob a bank, and a cop shoots at you while you are fleeing the scene. You shoot back and kill the cop. You should die.
You kidnap, rape, and kill an eight year old girl and a ten year old boy. You should die.
You strangle and cut the throat of your girlfriend. You should die.
You murder a police officer and waste years and millions and a lot of oxygen on death row. You should have died years ago.
Regards,
Shodan
Guessing: as a professional rep of the accused, duty is to protect accused’s Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate.
Wow. Just Wow.
That is an extremist viewpoint that is kinda rare even among pro death penalty people.
I second that wow. (extra for the rape… thats just nutty.)
More accurately, it is an extremist view among modern American pro-death penalty people. Among third-worlders, the Chinese and religious extremists, its not so unusual.