[Robinski]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 19:09)

QUOTE (Robinski @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 17:31) QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 16:05) Those found to be Guilty by a Jury should be executed two weeks after the conviction. Those found to be guilty by a Judge should be executed a month after the conviction. You're insane. What if the only piece of evidence that could prove innocence comes to light 32 days after the judgement? What do you do then? Well, they usually take 3 to 4 years to get to the trial stage, including the Pre-Trial, and depostions phases. Did you think they just arrest a person and step into the court room? This Ain't No TeleVision Movie we're talking about here.

Did you just think that you can't appeal when new evidence, or evidence gathering techniques surface? Look at anyone who's been exonerated after DNA evidence is found that wasn't available years, or decades even, ago.

You can free someone and say sorry, maybe even give them a little compensation. But you can't dig up the dead, brush the dirt off their shoulders and say "My bad".

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (El Zilcho @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 19:34)

[...] There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution. If they're proven guilty, they should serve their sentence. But at least a prison sentence is not final for someone later found innocent: execution is. [...]

Why bother with a trial for 'Capital Crime" if you aren't going to Execute the 'Guilty' party.

Are we truly interested in *if someday in the distent future*. The trial has been completed the sentence is *final*, or so it should be.
I don't like the UK system of Hanging, but at least it brought the business to an End.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

EXACTLY, we need to put a reasonable stop to these money making appeals. Stop the pay of all the lawyers make it a 'piece work job' and there need be no 'extra' expenses. Execute the Guilty promptly. I am glad you agree, the whole thing is just to make more money for the Lawyers.

I don't agree with the death penalty though. I was pointing out that in the end, someone on death row costs taxpayers more than someone in prison for life. It's not just to make more money for lawyers though I'm sure they don't mind. The point is people who are going to be receiving the ultimate punishment need to be able to appeal every piece of their case and present every piece of evidence they can. There are tons of criminals who are sentenced to death then commuted to life imprisonment after appeals.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 19:46)

I don't agree with the death penalty though. I was pointing out that in the end, someone on death row costs taxpayers more than someone in prison for life.[...] The point is people [...] need to be able to appeal every piece of their case and present every piece of evidence they can. [...]

And, why should that be? The Cell is the same, except it's single occupency, the guards, building, food, are all the same.
So... what were they doing during the depostions, pre-trial and then during the actual trial. Didn't they have a chance to refute the evidence?

The Appeal isn't to find 'new' evidence, it is to find Fault with the trial procedure, especially the actions/or failure of action by the trial Judge and Prosecutor.

This post has been edited by lil weasel on Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 20:12

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 21:10)

And, why should that be? The Cell is the same, except it's single occupency, the guards, building, food, are all the same.

There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 20:16)

There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story.

All too True. That's why after these years of being subjected to 'over' appeal, there needs to be an End to it. I should think that the Lawyers have been ripping the public off, and tying up the courts.

Now, back to the UK. Pretty much as I've said, the Death Penalty should be reinstated. If for nothing else recidivism is curtailed.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 21:39)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 20:16) There's far less impetus for 25 years of appeals if you have life in prison as opposed to if you are sentenced to death. You can question "why" it would be, but the statistics tell the story. All too True. That's why after these years of being subjected to 'over' appeal, there needs to be an End to it. I should think that the Lawyers have been ripping the public off, and tying up the courts. Now, back to the UK. Pretty much as I've said, the Death Penalty should be reinstated. If for nothing else recidivism is curtailed.

The UK is statistically far safer than the US. For that matter, so is the entirety of continental Europe. None of these nations have the death penalty. In fact, nations without the death penalty have statistically lower rates in pretty much all crime- especially violent crime- than nations that have the death penalty. And whilst the re-offending rate for petty and moderate criminal activity is generally quite high in Europe, the rate of re-offending amongst people who would have been subject to the death penalty in the United States is actually lower in Europe than in the US. So it's basically a myth that the death penalty offers a deterrent for serious violent crime.

[lil weasel]

I agree it isn't a deterrent. It actually only works to prevent recidivism. No criminally minded person actually believes a mere law will stop him/her. The Death penalty won't stop 'heat of the moment' murder either. But, as I have said, (s)he won't do it again, if the person is a would be career criminal.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 22:22)

I agree it isn't a deterrent. It actually only works to prevent recidivism. No criminally minded person actually believes a mere law will stop him/her. The Death penalty won't stop 'heat of the moment' murder either. But, as I have said, (s)he won't do it again, if the person is a would be career criminal.

Um, recidivism is repeat offending. Statistically, repeat offending for serious crimes is worse in nations with the death penalty than it is in ones that do not have it. So your argument is logically flawed. Unless you are advocating an arbitrary death penalty for all petty crimes too, it's not effective at reducing repeat offending generally.

[General Goose]

Even in America, the death penalty is applied to only a very small number of homicide rates, and other less-costly methods of preventing reoffending that actually allow mistakes to be reversed can do the role you are proposing the death penalty does.

[lil weasel]

QUOTE (General Goose @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 21:28)

[...] other less-costly methods of preventing reoffending that actually allow mistakes to be reversed can do the role you are proposing the death penalty does.

Very Interesting... Like what? Can you show an example?

[General Goose]

I refer you to my Norway example in my previous post.

[lil weasel]

Ah, Yes: The prison island of Bastøy in Norway. it sounds like a very nice place to vacation, while planning the next crime and improving skills.
But, I am proposing a total reduction of Capital Crime storage fees.
Execution of Convicted Capital Criminals isn’t an attempt to rehabilitate, retrain, or warm store them forever. I don’t expect to prevent Capital Crime by example. I do expect the removal of a ‘socially defective’ element from Society. Not revenge, just a removal, a final solution to a current problem.

[General Goose]

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law here, but your rhetoric is entering into Hitler territory now. "Removal"? "Socially defective"? "Final solution"?

Also:

QUOTE

it sounds like a very nice place to vacation, while planning the next crime and improving skills.

Reoffending rate of 18%. All I need to say to squash that moronic insinuation.

[El Zilcho]

lil weasel, I get the impression you'd have everyone shot for everything if you could.

[lil weasel]

Speaking of 30 years ago at a lecture, the instructor spoke of sending kids to prison. Part of the lecture was that confining criminals of various backgrounds in a general population was tantamount to giving them a free education on crime. They would exchange experiences and ‘train’ each other in their criminal activities so as to improve their skills when they resumed the life of crime on release. I doubt very much has changed.
A criminal mind doesn't expect to be nabbed.

[General Goose]

I am aware of that idea, and it is often true. Yet that speaks more about the current weaknesses of the prison systems in many countries (an exception being Bastoy Prison) than it does for the need for capital punishment.

[Irviding]

QUOTE

The Appeal isn't to find 'new' evidence, it is to find Fault with the trial procedure, especially the actions/or failure of action by the trial Judge and Prosecutor.

If it reaches the Supreme Court then yes, that is correct. Otherwise, at other appeals, new evidence can be presented.

Weasel, your idea is unfortunately not acceptable. You can't run a system where there are no appeals. It can't just be one trial and then boom death in a month.

[lil weasel]

Did I not say two weeks to a month to appeal (find fault with the trial.)
Yes, it is ever so much better to let the tax payers continue to warm storage criminals of Capital Crime, but there should be an end to it in a reasonable period of time.
It's not like we would be dragging the guilty person to the gallows right the minute the gavel drops.

[Robinski]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Tuesday, Jul 24 2012, 21:50)

I do expect the removal of a ‘socially defective’ element from Society. Not revenge, just a removal, a final solution to a current problem.

That is literally the rhetoric behind the WWII concentration camps. Not even Godwin-ing this, it's literally the same.