Jump to content
El Diablo

Texas And The Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

micahel morton spent a quarter of a century for the murder of his wife, a murder he did not commit. 

had he been executed 45 days after conviction, he would have died an innocent man, one who went to his death knowing that the real killer of his wife still walked free.

but at least dr. beeper's perverted sense of justice would be satiated.

the death penalty is terrible, as are most aspects of our criminal justice system.

i have great sympathy for victim families, but the system is not there to serve them. the system (ostensibly) is there to serve society. there is no real utility to society for execution. 

it's barbaric, and history will not look kindly back upon it.

Edited by hayden_horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Yeah you did not read what I wrote in my initial post. From the day this guy murders his wife, he’d be dead within 45 days. So, what you “fixed for accuracy” was wrong, with the exception of “than” versus that, which I had already fixed. 

Reading comprehension.  You need it. 

Except....what if he didn't?  Asking for Michael Morton.

Every person on death row or in prison was found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  That's a really high burden.

But we also know that some of those folks DIDN'T [checks notes] murder his wife (again checking for Michael Morton).  That's it.  And no amount of "no, I only mean this for the cases where we're REALLY sure, like super-sure, that he's guilty" is meaningless.  Because we're already super-sure that someone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty.  Except we're wrong sometimes.

So, be super-sure, and rush to execute someone like Michael Morton.  And then, years later, when the evidence that proves him INNOCENT comes out, go apologize to his grave, I guess.

4 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Sigh. It’s a fucking hypothetical. I know it’s not a real, viable option. If I were king, it’d be what would occur in, likely, a small amount of cases. I’d also limit appeals and death row stays. Then, the disproven cheaper than life in prison would be reversed, and the deterrent effect absolutely would be/become stronger. 

No deterrent effect.  Even with instant execution.

There's no sound policy argument in favor of the death penalty other than bloodlust/vengeance.  Which I get.  Believe me, I fucking get it.  But I also get a LOT of other baser instincts and feelings we have.....many of which should not be indulged, as they are counterproductive to civilized society.

I've tried to defend the DP.  I tried to stick with my former position.  I even went through your sequence of thought -- "Well, maybe just for those cases where we're SUPER-sure."  But because there's no meaningful way to draw that line, I realized that my position was just to defend my bloodlust and past errors in judgment.  Which is not solid ground on which to stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Do you think that the criminal justice system should offer anything to the survivors at all? I'd hope that there would be some closure in knowing that the perp was given a clear punishment. But that's not the case. Closure to that particular aspect of their loss is part of the healing. 

I think consideration of the victim and survivors is worthwhile, but I don't think they should dictate policy or law.

I would think that apprehension, trial, and conviction should perhaps contribute to "closure," but getting into the punishment kind of gets to be none of the victim's business anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Do you think that the criminal justice system should offer anything to the survivors at all? I'd hope that there would be some closure in knowing that the perp was given a clear punishment. But that's not the case. Closure to that particular aspect of their loss is part of the healing. 

I think consideration of the victim and survivors is worthwhile, but I don't think they should dictate policy or law.

I would think that apprehension, trial, and conviction should perhaps contribute to "closure," but getting into the punishment kind of gets to be none of the victim's business anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any discussion really has to start as a discussion of Justice.  The core question is, Does the crime/criminal deserve this punishment?  Anything else is an afterthought.

The claim of it being wholly barbarous doesn't make sense when following the same logic forward.  All punishments are inhumane by their very nature.  The question cannot be looked at from one side only.  Such a declaration like "The State shouldn't imprison someone," doesn't make any sense unless weighed against the reasons why someone would deserve to be imprisoned.

Equally, making the foundation of your argument deterrence is a thousand times worse.  Let's kill the guy who takes the calculator off my desk.  That will guarantee me quick access to a calculator when necessary, but it still ignores the basic question and the balancing of crime and punishment.

That is why Lady Justice holds a scale - to balance out the crime with the punishment and exactly that.  No more and no less.

So if you ask yourself that bolded question above and reach the same conclusion, that's great.  But don't start the conversation with simple-minded declarations that execution is inhumane or effective as a deterrent.  You are completely missing the importance.

------

And if the system we use cannot be trusted enough to dole out correct punishments with such a finality.  That's a different point, but a far more reasonable one.

-------

And to give my own opinion.  I think the death penalty is warranted when the crime committed reveals such a low value for human life in general that your life should be judged equally.

Premeditated, revenge, and "passion" murders wouldn't meet that description for me.  Murder for hire does 100%.  "Reasonless" murders: i.e. killing the clerk after robbing their store when it was just as easy to walk out. Those meet my description as well, but that's something that warrants careful examination case by case.  I'm undecided for murder of children.  Surely, there's a standard to be found, but an 18yo killing a 15yo because of some relational breakdown is a lot different than a 40yo killing a 5yo for the same.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Any discussion really has to start as a discussion of Justice.  The core question is, Does the crime/criminal deserve this punishment?  Anything else is an afterthought.

The claim of it being wholly barbarous doesn't make sense when following the same logic forward.  All punishments are inhumane by their very nature.  The question cannot be looked at from one side only.  Such a declaration like "The State shouldn't imprison someone," doesn't make any sense unless weighed against the reasons why someone would deserve to be imprisoned.

Equally, making the foundation of your argument deterrence is a thousand times worse.  Let's kill the guy who takes the calculator off my desk.  That will guarantee me quick access to a calculator when necessary, but it still ignores the basic question and the balancing of crime and punishment.

That is why Lady Justice holds a scale - to balance out the crime with the punishment and exactly that.  No more and no less.

So if you ask yourself that bolded question above and reach the same conclusion, that's great.  But don't start the conversation with simple-minded declarations that execution is inhumane or effective as a deterrent.  You are completely missing the importance.

------

And if the system we use cannot be trusted enough to dole out correct punishments with such a finality.  That's a different point, but a far more reasonable one.

-------

And to give my own opinion.  I think the death penalty is warranted when the crime committed reveals such a low value for human life in general that your life should be judged equally.

Premeditated, revenge, and "passion" murders wouldn't meet that description for me.  Murder for hire does 100%.  "Reasonless" murders: i.e. killing the clerk after robbing their store when it was just as easy to walk out. Those meet my description as well, but that's something that warrants careful examination case by case.  I'm undecided for murder of children.  Surely, there's a standard to be found, but an 18yo killing a 15yo because of some relational breakdown is a lot different than a 40yo killing a 5yo for the same.

Certainly true from a criminal justice system standpoint broadly.

But, because we live in a real world where people's senses of justice are going to vary, I think we need to also temper it with reality and some goals other than achieving "perfect justice."

A wholesale reassessment of punishments and other aspects of the CJ system needs to be undertaken accounting for what we know of psychology and sociology.  Too much of it is/was guided by some intuition that is often shown to be dead wrong.  Some features of it, such as the jury trial, burdens of proof, etc. are probably sound and need to be retained.  Other features need to be redone and rethought.

A great example:  the M'Naghten rule governing insanity as a defense.  Although it makes some intuitive sense, it was formulated in the mid 19th century when we knew nothing of mental illness.

As I think I have said, I'm a patent lawyer.  The system is constantly under scrutiny and gets overhauled about every 50 years, with major changes several times in the interim.

As far as I can tell, other than adding new crimes and increasing punishments to satisfy pearl clutchers like MADD, no one in power has seriously reconsidered the CJ system since the founding.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you to determine that someone should be killed for a crime? Are you that arrogant? Are you willing to place your confidence in the State to mete out that justice?

The only logical conclusion is to put some away (forever if need be) to ensure that the perpetrator can never hurt a blameless human again but also ensure that no irrevocable decision is made in case of innocence.

How fucking hard is it to understand that basic logic? Have you never been unjustly accused of a thing in your life? Are you absolutely sure you're emotionally/psychologically equipped to make that decision as a jury member, speaking for the greater good?

What if you found out later you sent an innocent man to his death? Would you still be able to sleep at night, knowing you participated in state-sanctioned murder?

The only conclusion otherwise is to say that none of that matters and you only wish for death as revenge and that you trust the State enough to kill people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I find that this is a simple test. If you are an authoritarian, you're in favor of the death penalty. If you're opposed to it, you are a libertarian (I'm not talking about parties - just general philosophies).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Personally, I find that this is a simple test. If you are an authoritarian, you're in favor of the death penalty. If you're opposed to it, you are a libertarian (I'm not talking about parties - just general philosophies).

If you're a Christian then you think it was necessary for someone else to be executed in order to atone for your sins. How crazy is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think we need to also temper it with reality and some goals other than achieving "perfect justice."

Perfect justice should not really be the goal as much as the ideal.  Something that we strive for but know we can't reach.  And don't get me wrong, the "other" arguments are factors - they just shouldn't be the starting point.  Although I wouldn't favor over-punishing for deterence.  The failure to reach perfect justice should err the other direction.  "Perfect justice as the upper limit" if you will (with the reality that even that isn't obtainable).

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

(a) The only conclusion otherwise is to say that none of that matters and

(b) you only wish for death as revenge 

(c) and that you trust the State enough to kill people.

(a) I'm not trying to mischartacterize your post, but I read it as "justice is hard, so we shouldn't do it." If justice is impossible to get correct, why trust yourself to imprison someone for life?  The moral dilemmas and burdens you mention don't go away.

(b) If an execution meets your definition of revenge, so does imprisonment.  Using a different descriptor doesn't change the substance of either.

(c) I'm not sure I do trust the State to execute people correctly every time. Even in the demand for "perfect justice as an upper limit," this doesn't carry forward.  I can't trust the State to imprison people correctly everytime either. It breaks all approaches.

Despite these (a/c) the added degree of finality is the best argument, imo, against the death penalty.  There's no turning back once someone is dead.

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of good thoughts have been posted since I last had a chance to visit the thread. I've been thinking in the meantime though and it was precisely about what's been posted; Justice. Balancing the scales. It seems that all are in agreement that punishment is not morally objectionable, just the degree. Slippery slope to take high ground on when accusing others of blood lust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having worked as an assistant district attorney and a public defender, the notion that a defendant could be tried, convicted, and through even a cursory appellate process in 45 days is embarrassingly stupid. I seriously hope whoever suggested that notion did not graduate from UT. Further, the notion that a person would find that aspirational is morally repugnant. I hope they never have a family member accused of a serious criminal offense. Anyone who has worked within our criminal justice system knows how broken and unjust it actually is. The fact that some believe this broken system is equipped to fairly put citizens to death without any risk of murdering innocents system is truly frightening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zombie said:

Having worked as an assistant district attorney and a public defender, the notion that a defendant could be tried, convicted, and through even a cursory appellate process in 45 days is embarrassingly stupid. I seriously hope whoever suggested that notion did not graduate from UT. Further, the notion that a person would find that aspirational is morally repugnant. I hope they never have a family member accused of a serious criminal offense. Anyone who has worked within our criminal justice system knows how broken and unjust it actually is. The fact that some believe this broken system is equipped to fairly put citizens to death without any risk of murdering innocents system is truly frightening.  

I do have a degree and care about your criticism only to the extent I could muster enough interest to respond. I amended my admittedly hyperbole-laden initial post by extending my time frames well beyond 45 days but will within any multi-year period on death row. And I’ll say it again: I know this isn’t possible within the framework of today’s American society. It’s my utopia. It’s as if people have comprehension problems or think I think this could be implemented today  I don’t.  Or maybe you’re doing the typical message board cherry picking.

What line of work are you in now?  How long were you an ADA?  Why did you decide to go that route?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

micahel morton spent a quarter of a century for the murder of his wife, a murder he did not commit. 

had he been executed 45 days after conviction, he would have died an innocent man, one who went to his death knowing that the real killer of his wife still walked free.

but at least dr. beeper's perverted sense of justice would be satiated.

the death penalty is terrible, as are most aspects of our criminal justice system.

i have great sympathy for victim families, but the system is not there to serve them. the system (ostensibly) is there to serve society. there is no real utility to society for execution. 

it's barbaric, and history will not look kindly back upon it.

I also think y’all think I’d intend to eliminate all convicted murderers. I wouldn’t. Morton was sentenced to life in prison in a DP state. Why?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Except....what if he didn't?  Asking for Michael Morton.

Every person on death row or in prison was found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  That's a really high burden.

But we also know that some of those folks DIDN'T [checks notes] murder his wife (again checking for Michael Morton).  That's it.  And no amount of "no, I only mean this for the cases where we're REALLY sure, like super-sure, that he's guilty" is meaningless.  Because we're already super-sure that someone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty.  Except we're wrong sometimes.

So, be super-sure, and rush to execute someone like Michael Morton.  And then, years later, when the evidence that proves him INNOCENT comes out, go apologize to his grave, I guess.

No deterrent effect.  Even with instant execution.

There's no sound policy argument in favor of the death penalty other than bloodlust/vengeance.  Which I get.  Believe me, I fucking get it.  But I also get a LOT of other baser instincts and feelings we have.....many of which should not be indulged, as they are counterproductive to civilized society.

I've tried to defend the DP.  I tried to stick with my former position.  I even went through your sequence of thought -- "Well, maybe just for those cases where we're SUPER-sure."  But because there's no meaningful way to draw that line, I realized that my position was just to defend my bloodlust and past errors in judgment.  Which is not solid ground on which to stand.

Morton vehemently denied killing his wife. Guy in OP, ostensibly (I don’t know), did not. What about crimes that were witnessed, on video, terroristic murders like the dude in the Fort Worth church or Vegas or Denver or Orlando?  Where there truly is no question, and generally accompanied by a manifesto?  Or serial killers like Dahmer with heads in freezers?  Yeah, those people need to die and as expediently as possible. Those I’d say 45 days is too long a time frame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying they need to die? Why? What benefit does society gain from them dying that cannot be gained from life in prison? That’s the entire point here. It’s unnecessary and vindictive 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Morton vehemently denied killing his wife. Guy in OP, ostensibly (I don’t know), did not. What about crimes that were witnessed, on video, terroristic murders like the dude in the Fort Worth church or Vegas or Denver or Orlando?  Where there truly is no question, and generally accompanied by a manifesto?  Or serial killers like Dahmer with heads in freezers?  Yeah, those people need to die and as expediently as possible. Those I’d say 45 days is too long a time frame. 

They should reform the penal code to add in all the exceptions you just made up in your head. And then when you think of another just call the governor or whoever is in charge of that stuff and tell him to add it to the list. Like what if a guy kills someone and he's wearing a t-shirt that says "I DID IT" and holding a notarized affidavit admitting to the crime? That guy gets the electric chair immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hank Scorpio said:

They should reform the penal code to add in all the exceptions you just made up in your head. And then when you think of another just call the governor or whoever is in charge of that stuff and tell him to add it to the list. Like what if a guy kills someone and he's wearing a t-shirt that says "I DID IT" and holding a notarized affidavit admitting to the crime? That guy gets the electric chair immediately. 

I detect a hint of sarcasm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Rather quick escalation. 

I understand your blood lust to kill terrible people who do truly terrible things. Really I do. But we don't make policy based on emotion because that never works out well. Policy is, or should be, based on what is practical and serves the greatest good. Would you say a system that allows due process to be curtailed and innocents to be incarcerated and executed serves the greatest good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Cost. Riddance. Deterrence. 

Make Believe and Pretend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zombie said:

I understand your blood lust to kill terrible people who do truly terrible things. Really I do. But we don't make policy based on emotion because that never works out well. Policy is, or should be, based on what is practical and serves the greatest good. Would you say a system that allows due process to be curtailed and innocents to be incarcerated and executed serves the greatest good?

It’s not blood lust, though I understand that too. It would not be policy based on emotion. It would be with the express intent of being practical and serving the greatest good.* It would not curtail due process, would not cause any uptick in innocent incarcerations / executions.**
 

*people really exception to my repetitive “Cost. Riddance. Deterrence.” Mainly cost and deterrence, because 1) they’re unable to comprehend a scenario whereby Jeffrey Dahmer gets a bullet in the back of the head very quickly after bodies are discovered in his apartment. Instead they want to “educate” me on the reality now on cost, which I already know, and one of the key elements I’m trying to combat; and 2) Deterrence. I get what TwiceHorn is saying about deterring criminals/evil. But let’s say my plan would result in the swift execution of, say, 100 people per year. If it deters one person from killing his wife, or one person from opening fire in a church/theater/gay nightclub/concert - just one - then society will have benefitted. And we don’t know about deterrence because here because we’ve never had this. 

**I’m not talking about killing the Mortons or Averys of the world or really even Rodney Reed upon further reflection. In any instance where you have dispute, this would eliminate due process. I’m talking about limiting this to few instances after my charged up initial post. I don’t know how many but fewer than originally thought after further consideration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morton vehemently denied killing his wife. Guy in OP, ostensibly (I don’t know), did not. What about crimes that were witnessed, on video, terroristic murders like the dude in the Fort Worth church or Vegas or Denver or Orlando?  Where there truly is no question, and generally accompanied by a manifesto?  Or serial killers like Dahmer with heads in freezers?  Yeah, those people need to die and as expediently as possible. Those I’d say 45 days is too long a time frame. 
It's because Morton denied it? Lol. It's because Morton is white. People of color are disproportionately more likely to get the death penalty than white people. Another reason why the death penalty should not be permitted.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

**I’m not talking about killing the Mortons or Averys of the world or really even Rodney Reed upon further reflection. In any instance where you have dispute, this would eliminate due process. I’m talking about limiting this to few instances after my charged up initial post. I don’t know how many but fewer than originally thought after further consideration. 

What about those instances where the video is actually mistaken identity?  Or those cases where it turns out that the crystal clear confession....was actually induced by violence or threats from the cops that isn't in evidence?  Or you know, we just have another guy, who's clearly REALLY bad, we all feel it, so we'll make an exception for HIS case as well....except it turns out afterwards, we find out we all were manipulated by incomplete evidence?

Any system that involves human beings is infallible.

To make a decision of irrevocable permanence should require an infallible decision.

Because such infallibility is impossible in a human criminal justice system, we should not include irrevocable punishments in the menu of options.

We can always find the "one case" that supports our idea that THIS guy should be killed right away.  But as soon as you create a new rule around that one case....there's a chance that it will be applied in error to a case where the accused is not guilty.  It's okay to acknowledge our limitations as human institutions.  I believe in the rule of law -- I literally have made practicing in that arena my life's work.  I am passionate about it, I think it's important.  But I also acknowledge its limitations.  We all should. It's okay, we're not perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He obviously meant "fallible." Simple mistake. No one's perfect. 

...mother....fucker....yep.  In any discussion of human fallibility, I am clearly Exhibit A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote inflammable in a patent application when I meant non-flammable or not flammable.  That was a fuck me moment.  Thankfully it was clear from the context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I wrote inflammable in a patent application when I meant non-flammable or not flammable.  That was a fuck me moment.  Thankfully it was clear from the context.

It is weird that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

What about those instances where the video is actually mistaken identity?  Or those cases where it turns out that the crystal clear confession....was actually induced by violence or threats from the cops that isn't in evidence?  Or you know, we just have another guy, who's clearly REALLY bad, we all feel it, so we'll make an exception for HIS case as well....except it turns out afterwards, we find out we all were manipulated by incomplete evidence?

Any system that involves human beings is infallible.

To make a decision of irrevocable permanence should require an infallible decision.

Because such infallibility is impossible in a human criminal justice system, we should not include irrevocable punishments in the menu of options.

We can always find the "one case" that supports our idea that THIS guy should be killed right away.  But as soon as you create a new rule around that one case....there's a chance that it will be applied in error to a case where the accused is not guilty.  It's okay to acknowledge our limitations as human institutions.  I believe in the rule of law -- I literally have made practicing in that arena my life's work.  I am passionate about it, I think it's important.  But I also acknowledge its limitations.  We all should. It's okay, we're not perfect.

Good post. Making me think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I wrote inflammable in a patent application when I meant non-flammable or not flammable.  That was a fuck me moment.  Thankfully it was clear from the context.

 

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It is weird that flammable and inflammable mean the same thing. 

It goes back to safety labelling and people confused by it.

"Inflammable" was easily confused with "not flammable," so the powers that be created the word "flammable."

It is ironic that non-flammable has not been changed.

"Not flammable" does not equal "non-flammable" Twice:

35ZJ67_AL01?$smmain$

Edited by JBJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

It’s not blood lust

The fact that you repeat this lie over and over does nothing to mitigate the claim. This is a label that a DP advocate will never be able to shake: their position is entirely predicated on a  lust for blood. I've seen it done so many times by so many of them, and they have been absolutely wrong about absolutely everything they've said regarding the topic from start to finish. 

3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

 It would not be policy based on emotion.

It's based entirely on emotion. Thus far, you've given no objectively verifiable criteria to serve as a guide to separate the "clear cut" cases from the not-so-obvious. All you've given are vague, empty platitudes. 

3 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

my plan

What you're proposing isn't a plan; it's a wish upon a star. And that's not just rhetoric, either.

A plan involves an actual plan. A plan includes within it a tangible, feasible, and above all, realistic road map to start where we are end where you, in this case, want to be. You have not done so. Calling what you're talking about a "plan" is as responsible as calling "let's have peace, justice, and equality" a "plan." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Cost. Riddance. Deterrence. 

Dude, how many times must it be stated that those are proven untrue.

Cost - sure your dreamland is cheaper. It also isn’t possible so why are we discussing it. It costs more to put someone to death than life in prison.

Riddance - Life in prison accomplishes this.

Deterrance - Is not effected by type or severity of the penalty as has been proven many times. 
 

So please, just give me one reason other than vengeance. If vengeance is the answer then cool that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion but stop pretending it’s anything other than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I also think y’all think I’d intend to eliminate all convicted murderers. I wouldn’t. Morton was sentenced to life in prison in a DP state. Why?  

Well, for one thing, not all murders are capital murders.  Not all murders that are capital murders are charged as capital murders, or the prosecution charges capital murder, but doesn't seek the death penalty.  Morton did not commit a capital murder.

But the more important thing, even if you could feasibly create a class of capital murders where the guilt was sufficiently beyond cavil to warrant expedited execution, you are leaving out one critical piece:  the penalty phase.

Even when charged with capital murder and the death penalty is sought, a judge/jury is constitutionally required to sentence to death after a separate hearing considering factors in aggravation and mitigation of the offense, and  whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, or not.  This penalty phase is, itself, the subject of quite a bit of post-conviction litigation.

The whole thing is just fraught with difficulty, even without considering moral difficulty.  The game is not worth the candle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Dude, how many times must it be stated that those are proven untrue.

Cost - sure your dreamland is cheaper. It also isn’t possible so why are we discussing it. It costs more to put someone to death than life in prison.

Riddance - Life in prison accomplishes this.

Deterrance - Is not effected by type or severity of the penalty as has been proven many times. 
 

So please, just give me one reason other than vengeance. If vengeance is the answer then cool that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion but stop pretending it’s anything other than that.

I’m not repeating what I’ve stated probably four or five times. Reread my second to last post. You’re just wrong with respect to the changes - in those swift execution instances - that would occur on cost, and its blatantly obvious. Deterrence is up for debate because this hasn’t been tried since forever. So saying it’s proven is also wrong. I did not readdress riddance a fourth or fifth time: Life in prison with possibility of parole and media attention is not getting rid of someone. 

This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

Edited by Dr. Beeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, for one thing, not all murders are capital murders.  Not all murders that are capital murders are charged as capital murders, or the prosecution charges capital murder, but doesn't seek the death penalty.  Morton did not commit a capital murder.

But the more important thing, even if you could feasibly create a class of capital murders where the guilt was sufficiently beyond cavil to warrant expedited execution, you are leaving out one critical piece:  the penalty phase.

Even when charged with capital murder and the death penalty is sought, a judge/jury is constitutionally required to sentence to death after a separate hearing considering factors in aggravation and mitigation of the offense, and  whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society, or not.  This penalty phase is, itself, the subject of quite a bit of post-conviction litigation.

The whole thing is just fraught with difficulty, even without considering moral difficulty.  The game is not worth the candle.

In such capital murder offenses and particularly the egregious ones that I’ve listed (yes, I provided examples HP), I’d say expediting the penalty phase is a game worth the candle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’m not repeating what I’ve stated probably four or five times. Reread my second to last post. You’re just wrong with respect to the changes - in those swift execution instances - that would occur on cost, and its blatantly obvious. Deterrence is up for debate because this hasn’t been tried since forever. So saying it’s proven is also wrong. I did not readdress riddance a fourth or fifth time: Life in prison with possibility of parole and media attention is not getting rid of someone. 

This isn’t about vengeance or bloodlust no matter how many times HP writes an emotional novel about it. 

Again, your entire premise for the cost and deterrence points is based on fairy tales about what you think would happen if your fairytale scenario was the law so there is no point in debating them because the rest of us are debating reality.

So let’s talk about riddance, so if we took away the possibility for parole your riddance problem is solved while still leaving the possibility of not killing an innocent person. So if “riddance” is the goal it can easily be accomplished without the death penalty.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr. Beeper said:

In such capital murder offenses and particularly the egregious ones that I’ve listed (yes, I provided examples HP), I’d say expediting the penalty phase is a game worth the candle. 

I am a fan of the jury trial as a general proposition, to include jury trials of really complicated shit, like patent infringement.

I am not entirely comfortable with the jury and the subject matter of the penalty phase.

Nonetheless, you're missing the point.  Even if guilt is sufficiently certain, that doesn't end the inquiry.  A jury has to evaluate whether the defendant "deserves" the death penalty, which is an inquiry of an entirely different kind.  And gives rise to a whole passle of appealable and debatable issues in and of itself, no matter how guilty the defendant.  Like whether you can execute a mentally retarded person.  Or someone who committed the crime as a juvenile.  Both of which are penalty phase questions answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the last 20 years.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Again, your entire premise for the cost and deterrence points is based on fairy tales about what you think would happen if your fairytale scenario was the law so there is no point in debating them because the rest of us are debating reality.

So let’s talk about riddance, so if we took away the possibility for parole your riddance problem is solved while still leaving the possibility of not killing an innocent person. So if “riddance” is the goal it can easily be accomplished without the death penalty.

 

Disagree with everything you just said. I’ll just say I’m not trying to solve a problem. I’m telling you how I’d draw stuff up. If you wanna denigrate it by calling it a fantasy, it is, so it doesn’t bother me to hear that. I don’t work in criminal justice and would never seek to do so. I agree as a non-insider it’s broken, and it’s laughable that people have spent over 40 years on Death Row. So, I have no delusions about this being a real plan one could implement. I know we can’t. There are too many idiots heavily invested in maintaining the broken system while acknowledging that it is indeed broken. And there are too many anti DP advocates who will use a great deal of mental gymnastics why something like this is a pipe dream. I fully acknowledge this would never work in today’s American society, and therefore am merely talking shit. I also really don’t care - but when Charles Manson gets interviewed or CNN profiles Jared Loughner - I roll my eyes in disgust and turn the TV off. And then threads like this pop up and I chime in. Probably a wasted effort here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am a fan of the jury trial as a general proposition, to include jury trials of really complicated shit, like patent infringement.

I am not entirely comfortable with the jury and the subject matter of the penalty phase.

Nonetheless, you're missing the point.  Even if guilt is sufficiently certain, that doesn't end the inquiry.  A jury has to evaluate whether the defendant "deserves" the death penalty, which is an inquiry of an entirely different kind.  And gives rise to a whole passle of appealable and debatable issues in and of itself, no matter how guilty the defendant.  Like whether you can execute a mentally retarded person.  Or someone who committed the crime as a juvenile.  Both of which are penalty phase questions answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in the last 20 years.

No I understand your point. I’m saying expedite the penalty phase knowing full well the inquiry is far from over. And I wouldn’t advocate executing a juvenile or mentally retarded person. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Disagree with everything you just said. I’ll just say I’m not trying to solve a problem. I’m telling you how I’d draw stuff up. If you wanna denigrate it by calling it a fantasy, it is, so it doesn’t bother me to hear that. I don’t work in criminal justice and would never seek to do so. I agree as a non-insider it’s broken, and it’s laughable that people have spent over 40 years on Death Row. So, I have no delusions about this being a real plan one could implement. I know we can’t. There are too many idiots heavily invested in maintaining the broken system while acknowledging that it is indeed broken. And there are too many anti DP advocates who will use a great deal of mental gymnastics why something like this is a pipe dream. I fully acknowledge this would never work in today’s American society, and therefore am merely talking shit. I also really don’t care - but when Charles Manson gets interviewed or CNN profiles Jared Loughner - I roll my eyes in disgust and turn the TV off. And then threads like this pop up and I chime in. Probably a wasted effort here. 

“Idiots heavily invested in maintaining a broken system” is not why you’re idea is a fairytale. Due process is but that’s besides the point.

If parole is taken off of the table for capital murders, why is the death penalty necessary for “riddance”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

“Idiots heavily invested in maintaining a broken system” is not why you’re idea is a fairytale. Due process is but that’s besides the point.

If parole is taken off of the table for capital murders, why is the death penalty necessary for “riddance”?

Your. Due process requires average lengths of time on death row to be 15.5 years?

How often is it off the table?  Even so, media exposure influencing impressionable minds.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

No I understand your point. I’m saying expedite the penalty phase knowing full well the inquiry is far from over. And I wouldn’t advocate executing a juvenile or mentally retarded person. 

Not to belabor this, but the penalty phase.itself, happens pretty quickly in most capital cases.  

The point is that it can raise issues worthy of appeal or other post-conviction proceedings that can't be predicted in advance.  So if by "expediting" you mean curtailing the ability to make appeals or post-conviction litigation, you still run a high risk of executing someone who otherwise might be spared the death penalty.

An example.  You seem to agree that executing mentally ill persons is no bueno.  It took repeated appeals of similar cases and about 16 years of litigation in the one specific case Atkins v. Virginia, to get to that point.

Just in November, the Supreme Court had to tell our fair state's Court of Criminal Appeals, for the second time in the case, which has been ongoing for 39 years now, that they couldn't execute Bobby Moore because he's retarded.

The question of guilt was off the table.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to belabor this, but the penalty phase.itself, happens pretty quickly in most capital cases.  

The point is that it can raise issues worthy of appeal or other post-conviction proceedings that can't be predicted in advance.  So if by "expediting" you mean curtailing the ability to make appeals or post-conviction litigation, you still run a high risk of executing someone who otherwise might be spared the death penalty.

An example.  You seem to agree that executing mentally ill persons is no bueno.  It took repeated appeals of similar cases and about 16 years of litigation in the one specific case Atkins v. Virginia, to get to that point.

Just in November, the Supreme Court had to tell our fair state's Court of Criminal Appeals, for the second time in the case, which has been ongoing for 39 years now, that they couldn't execute Bobby Moore because he's retarded.

I understand and neither of those would be applicable in my fantasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think it’d be twisted to execute known evil people inside a year?  And don’t respond with parsing the word known. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Your. Due process requires average lengths of time on death row to be 15.5 years?

How often is it off the table?  Even so, media exposure influencing impressionable minds.  

It’s been explained several times in this thread the reason for lengthy appeals.

Im asking in your fantasy world why not just make murder non parole and don’t allow them to give any media appearances?  That seems like a simpler solution than the death penalty which still leaves the chance that you get it wrong and kill an innocent person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...