Jump to content






Photo

Ca Death Penalty Could Be On The Ballot


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:15 AM

We still have a death penalty?

I seriously had to think about that for a minute.

I agree with most of the posters above. I believe we should have a death penalty, but only if it's going to actually be enforced. If we are going to have an expensive system only to be haggled in court by a bunch of state lawyers milking every loophole in government, what's the point? Our current system is a joke. Something has to change, that is for sure.


#17 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:34 AM

The excessive costs associated with the death penalty are well documented and have to do with the lengthy judicial and appeals processes.


The appeals is separate from the judicial process. What is taking so long to off these low-lifes is the appellate court system. The judicial process is merely trying the man in court. Now you can complain about the length of time it takes to get evidence into trial and blah-blah, but that all happens priors to the triial. Those criminals usually sign a wainver of a speedy trial because they do not want the death penalty and they want as much time for their attorney's as possible to follow up on any evidence and have it sourced to a private lab. That is their right!

I think I read somewhere that it takes an average of 18-months to get to the point of an evidentiary hearing. It can take a total of 12 months to 72 months to try some one and convict them of murder; with a capitol penalty from date of arrest to conviction hearing.

Now when you consider that this is the time to really make sure that this really is the guy and he isn't being framed or coerced into a crime he may be innoncent of; well, I don't have a problem with the time-frame.

But I don't think very many other people do either. I think the problem that people are having issue with, is the appeals process afterwards. A capitol punishment can have appeals in California that must be answered by the courts if the criminal applies for the appeals, or the court does. There are times when the court may be the one who applies the appeal based on constitutional law in ensuring administration of justice is fair and equitable. The courts take a good deal of time researching prior to making judgment on each of the appeals.

If you read the article below you will see the difference if the way that California and Texas differ in the appeals and certification processes. The two states are literally light years away from each other on the tolerance of the defense's process of appeal exhaustion.

The article is well written and makes you pro and against the death penalty by the end of the read.
http://www.scientifi...ticles/1373.pdf

#18 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

If there is a false conviction, legal counsel for the defendant should fight tooth and nail through the appeals process to overturn the verdict.

If the conviction was the right outcome and legal counsel is just appealing on a process cause, let them fight the conviction. But then, let them also be accountable. If the convict is released and repeats a crime against humanity, let said legal counsel face the same penalties as the criminal. In my mind they are complicit, an accomplice, a co-conspirator.

People aren't perfect. Processes aren't perfect. But let the truth be known and those responsible for uncovering the truth be accountable.


That is one of the worst things I have ever heard anyone suggest.

!. Most capitol crime offenders are appointed counsel. The counsel's only vested interest in the case is if A) they have an ethical belief against the death penalty or an ethical belief in the person's innocence. B) More often than not they were assigned the case.

2. Such a system woudl leave attorneys more appreensive of their own skin, in that they have every right to never believe in the innocnece of any of their offenders (even if they do come across the rare innocnet)--and that would leave them to do do a less than fully attempted defense.

No, I do not think your suggestion is a good idea. It is a bit too open to abuse and miscalculation.

#19 Homer

Homer

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:23 AM

The last time the death penalty was eliminated it was a public safety disaster. It led to an increase in violence within the prisons, Which empowered the prison gangs, Then alot of the gang members, Some serving life were let out. It was during this era (the late 1970s) that the ground work was laid for the vertical integration between the street and prison gangs that exsists today.

#20 nomad

nomad

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,548 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:29 AM

The last time the death penalty was eliminated it was a public safety disaster. It led to an increase in violence within the prisons, Which empowered the prison gangs, Then alot of the gang members, Some serving life were let out. It was during this era (the late 1970s) that the ground work was laid for the verticle intergration between the street and prison gangs that exsists today.


Why would somebody serving life be let out? Are you saying that because the death penalty was eliminated they let lifers out? That doesn't sounds right.

#21 tsukiji

tsukiji

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Freedom. Family. Food. Funds.

Posted 09 March 2012 - 10:38 AM

That is one of the worst things I have ever heard anyone suggest.

!. Most capitol crime offenders are appointed counsel. The counsel's only vested interest in the case is if A) they have an ethical belief against the death penalty or an ethical belief in the person's innocence. B) More often than not they were assigned the case.

2. Such a system woudl leave attorneys more appreensive of their own skin, in that they have every right to never believe in the innocnece of any of their offenders (even if they do come across the rare innocnet)--and that would leave them to do do a less than fully attempted defense.

No, I do not think your suggestion is a good idea. It is a bit too open to abuse and miscalculation.


Gee, does everything have to be black and white? Do exceptions never exist?

I agree with some of the points you make. But perhaps you could recommend some protocol to encourage an appeal where the defense has cause above an acquittal based on a technicality?

If counsel believes in the innocence of the defendant, that's one thing. If the counsel is appealing because of an ethical disagreement with the penalty, appeal the penalty system but not a specific case.

There is some exceptions for appointed public defenders but I'm am just sick and tired of criminals properly convicted not receiving their just penalty and especially getting acquitted on a technicality of process. Lawyers voluntarily work for acquittals despite obvious guilt are just scum. There is something ethically wrong with this -- huge cognitive dissonance.

So, while my suggestion was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps you could offer some reasonable proposal to fix the disgusting mess of our penal system.

#22 Homer

Homer

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 697 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:07 AM

Why would somebody serving life be let out? Are you saying that because the death penalty was eliminated they let lifers out? That doesn't sounds right.

The elimination of the death penality led to more gang related violence within the prisons. The releases during that era had to do with pressure from the courts, Overcrowding and a push at that time for community based treatment programs. Alot of inmates were let out at that time that should not have been including some lifers. If you want to know more about this google Project Get Going Ellen Delia murder or look up Ramon "Mundo" Mendoza who wrote a good book about his involvement with the Mexican Mafia during that era.

#23 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:15 AM

Ok...Well, first I would enforce the 60 day certification after conviction law and not allow a re-write unless in fact the original summation was in violation of direct wording of constitutional law. I would do this by standardizing the form into a check block, so as that all convicts receive the same certification; once sentenced to death row.

Second, I would limit the exploratory evidentiary law into one session. A hit or miss. Either you have new evidence to bring forward or the evidentiary appeal expires no later than 12 months after initial conviction.

Third, I would set the Death Row Review Panel with the task of researching the constitutionality of the findings of the courts decision and enforcing a summation to no later than 12 months from the date of initial conviction. ( I believe this is already tasked to the CA DOJ Prosecutors office, which appears to be inundated with tasks due to a shortage of manpower-amazing how these popular cutbacks in manpower can have unintended and costly affects on taxpayers bottom dollar)

Four, I believe the only other appeals left to the convict then are(1) the Clemency appeals which under state law may be applied to each governor and US President that comes into office-therefore killing all death row inmates before the governor or president are reviewing their last six months in office would cut back in further paperwork with a person in office....

and (2) Disband the restitution and restoration appeal for death row convicts. A convicts claiming that he can't die because he has not made up to the victims families is just a bunch of BS. I don't care if they don't say sorry. How the hell could you believe them? They are Murderers!

Now in order to make sure that the convicts appeals are smoothly going through the processes in the timely manner in which they were initially intended; I would make capitol offenses into a separate appellate system from the rest of the over burdened appellate courts. I would have the appellate court in one location where it can truly specialize in capitol findings which will then streamline the processes. (Much like drug courts has pulled drug suspects out of the regular courts in some counties)


For those of you who are anti-death penalty---here is a site that completely negates my position. http://www.deathpena...s/FactSheet.pdf

Notice that the percentages are very close. The police chiefrs graph is quite telling. It makes me wonder why they didn't go to the prisons and ask the wardens if they think the death penalty has any social controls on men in prison. particularly in different stratifcations like criminal history, length of scheduled stay, age of convict, mental issues or chemical dependencies, etc.

I suspect the answer would be quite complex.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users