And how much was spent on the trial and sentencing of the Boston bomber? What do you think of the sentence?
Finally, what stupid domestic terrorists attack a red neck event in Texas. 95% of the participants likely were carrying their own guns. Maybe we should host more these stupid events to serve as terrorist "mouse traps"... Thoughts?
I am puzzled at why we are spending money to arrest / incarcerate people who want to travel to Syria and join ISIS? Personally I think we should charter some planes and help them get there. No due process required in the war zone...
Bomber Sentenced to Die
ISIS and the Texas Shooting
Arrest of those trying to Join ISIS
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I am opposed to the death penalty.
As for ISIS, if recruits leave how successful would we be in catching them if/when they try to come back? It seems to me arresting them before they leave is the wisest choice.
I will never understand being opposed to the death penalty when the person is caught incredibly red handed. They make a choice to violate the #1 social norm in our country and society is expected to feed, shelter and care for this person for 50 years. It is strange.
And what do you want to do with these radical people once you have them?
It seems most of the develpoped world agrees with me when it comes to the death penalty.
from wikipedia: only 36 countries (18%) retain it in both law and practice.
I think jail is the logical place for would be terrorists, although this may be tricky for what charge to covict them of and how long to sentence them.
I've always believed in the deterrent effect of the death penalty. That is, after their death they never re-offend. I think it also entirely appropriate that someone who declares open war on innocent (OK, I'll restrict it for now to) Americans, deserves to be the first and hopefully only death in that war. In some cases they are ideologically driven, like these radical Islamists. In some cases they are just bad guys caught in the act, and in some cases they are outright terrorists plotting or attempting to carry out their heinous plans. Shoot them. Shoot them now.
Wiki Capital Punishment
That is an interesting map and I found this quote interesting.
"Russia retains the death penalty, but the regulations of the Council of Europe prohibit it from carrying out any executions. "
I think Europeans are definitely the ones leading the charge against the death penalty. It looks like their old colonies followed suit or maybe the Europeans tied aid packages to their changing the policy.
List of States
Death Penalty Becomes Rare
Just because Europe is "leading the way" is one of the poorest reasons I can think of to do anything. In this case, it doesn't even make sense. What is the moral argument here? If it is that murder is wrong (which it is), then it is doubly wrong for the State to commit murder in "all of our names." But if that is to be held as the moral precept, then how can we punish theft? Is it legal for the State to "steal" something back from the thief, or to levy a fine or property forfeiture of any kind, for any crime at all?
Now certainly we want to be certain before imposing the ultimate and irretrievable penalty, but is it really that much better to mistakenly limit someone's life by incarceration for 20 years than to shorten it by 40? You cannot "undo" either of them. In this case, we have the certainty. Tsarnev admitted guilt, and then it was proven. But this case is also an exception. Assuming Tsarnev is a true terrorist seeking martydom through death, it should be denied him with life in prison. Or offered only in some variant of the old Black Jack Pershing tactic.
Laurie,
What is your rationale for being anti-death penalty when we are absolutely certain we have the guilty party identified?
Death Penalty Focus
The Facts
I find it ironic that these anti-death penalty groups use the high cost of executions as rationale, when it is their efforts that cause the highest cost. A rope and a tree didn't cost much at all... I mean the rope is even recycleable / reuseable.
I think anti-death penalty&pro-abortion people have the same mental disconnect that pro-death penalty& anti-abortion people are accused of having. I think the latter is a more defensible position, frankly, with the distinction made between "innocent" and "non-innocent" life.
All of the other reasons are almost counter-persuasive, except the religious one. The death penalty should be applied only where certainty is proven, where the act was so heinous it is the only appropriate punishment, and where, because of the certainty, there can be no "capriciousness" involved. Those things together mean that "inadequate representation" shouldn't matter because nobody should "get off on a technicality," especially for heinous crimes. The long drawn-out appeals, for which opponents are responsible, should be unnecessary, and the "deterrent effect" is 100% for that individual. There seems to be total unconcern that someone who cannot be executed might kill again in prison-- a fellow inmate or guard-- and no deterrent from their doing so.
How does "absolutely certain we have the guilty party identified" differ from "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
To answer Jerry's question, yes, it is much worse to kill an innocent person versus falsely imprisoning them for 20 years.
And, our judicial system has shown we cannot equitably apply sentencing across various dimensions.
innocent people have been executed and are currently on death row
death penalty is more likely to be give to poor and minority defendants
at my church one of the principals is the dignity and worth of every person and I take the word every to mean every, no exceptions. I just don't think it is right for society to take a life when there is an alternative of life inprison without parole.
The people of Boston don't support the death penalty. The most recent poll, conducted last month for the Boston Globe, found that just 15 percent of city residents wanted him executed.
Jerry,
Yes it is ironic that the pro-abortion and the anti-death penalty people are often the same people.
Sean,
In the world of video cameras every where and DNA evidence, it is getting much easier to be absolutely certain.
Now why again did we spend years and huge amounts of money on the Boston Bomber, the Colorado Theater shooter, etc?
Or this "kid" for that matter
"...it is much worse to kill an innocent person versus falsely imprisoning them for 20 years.
And, our judicial system has shown we cannot equitably apply sentencing across various dimensions. "
It may be worse to imprison the innocent than to execute them, but better still would be to let the innocent go free and imprison or execute only the guilty. You are correct, out current system allows too much law and not enough justice to take place. One objection to the death penalty is that a defendant "lacks good representation." That is possible, but if the TRUTH is that the defendant is guilty, there should be no possibility that ANY lawyer can "get him off on a technicality." The reason our system seems inequitable is because we want to pay attention to everything but the truth.
The one place I would make an exception to swift and certain death in the case of certainty of guilt is for mental illness or incapacity. I hold that almost anybody that murders has some sort of mental illness, but there are certain kinds of that which cannot be cured. I would approve of sending those "out of their mind at the time of the crime" to permanent lock-up. If their mind comes back to their body, we'll know where it is.
I have one other acceptable solution to these sorts of heinous criminals aka "dangers to society." Call it "Coventry" or "Devils Island"; it would be a place where we could put such people and not kill them, while keeping the rest of us from worrying about them.
"Now why again did we spend years and huge amounts of money on the Boston Bomber, the Colorado Theater shooter, etc?"
Because that's the system. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
"One objection to the death penalty is that a defendant "lacks good representation." That is possible, but if the TRUTH is that the defendant is guilty, there should be no possibility that ANY lawyer can "get him off on a technicality." "
Defendants need attorneys to challenge the case of the government. What seems a technicality often isn't. We recently found out, for instance, that the FBI essentially made up hair evidence in hundreds of cases, including dozens of death penalty cases. We should expect police officers to get warrants, to tag and handle evidence properly, to not unduly coerce witnesses, etc. -- those aren't technicalities, that's the Constitution in living, breathing reality.
It's fascinating that those who often talk the loudest about liberty are frequently so willing to set it aside when it becomes inconvenient.
Inconvenient vs Wasteful.
If you have a surveilance video and DNA evidence that shows the individual killing another human. Hang them quickly and save the money to help feed those poor kids...
No one here is for executing people in the gray and fuzzy cases.
The people who believe government can't organize a one-car parade are willing to let them hang folks with minimal oversight.
Sean, you do have a point, that death penalty OR incarceration are terrible powers to entrust to a potentially tyrannical government (and they ALL are). There simply must be due process in a fair, speedy and open trial. But too often in our system, we allow criminality to escape judgment because of police error, and that is wrong IMHO. Let us have that trial and set out the punishment for the crime the criminal actually did. THEN let us have another trial in which any wrongdoing by police is adjudicated and punished accordingly. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Sure, it would be a vastly different justice system if justice were the goal, but shouldn't punishment of the guilty be as important as protection of the innocent?
"But too often in our system, we allow criminality to escape judgment because of police error, and that is wrong IMHO."
Federal prosecutions have had a success rate of over 90% since 2001. On the state level, most figures I've seen show that felony prosecutions get convictions about 70% of the time. What's your evidence that we have a lot of people going free because of such things?
I must confess that much of that comes from TV courtroom drama. But looking at your conviction rates, I would say that, were all of those not-guilty verdicts due to "getting off on a technicality" it would be far too many. I don't believe that, and was unable to find any real statistics on it, but I have to believe that the cases we do hear about, with defendants released because of poor Miranda warnings or the exclusionary rule, cry out for reform of those two egregious "technicalities" at least. Take an example:
A woman complains to police that she has not heard from her sister in 3 days and they usually talk daily. Police go to the house to question the husband, open the closet to see if her clothes are gone and her dead body falls out, with hubby's necktie tight around her neck. Police had no warrant, so the dead body and necktie are excluded from evidence. Now, is the husband guilty or not?
If the husband invites the police in the house, no warrant is required.
Not that he would meet the caught red handed criteria... But was justice served in the OJ Simpson case? Just curious.
"But was justice served in the OJ Simpson case? "
No, but that's because of lots of reasons, primarily incompetent prosecutors.
incompetent prosecutors, or shyster defense attorneys?
He can invite them in the house but deny them permission to look around. Which you might think he would.
Well there's no doubt the defense attorneys did a much better job, but there were a number of mistakes the Simpson prosecutors made (trying on the glove, downplaying the history of domestic abuse, not vetting Fuhrman before putting him on the stand, presenting an overly complicated scientific portion of the case, on and on and on...)
So, back to the original question: If incompetent defense is a reason to ignore guilt, should incompetent prosecution be a reason to rescind a not-guilty verdict? Where does the TRUTH enter into the pursuit of justice?
"If incompetent defense is a reason to ignore guilt, should incompetent prosecution be a reason to rescind a not-guilty verdict?"
Not without a change to the Constitution.
Post a Comment