The Democrats Are the Problem

[Xavier_Onassis]

It's the only logical solution to the problem, and only false sentimentality, misdirected compassion, stands in the way.

The possibility of executing an innocent person seems to stand in the way for me.

The thing is, they tell the murderer that if he confesses, he'll get life. If not, he gets executed.

So the guilty confess, and the innocent refuse to confess to what they didn't do. Often they are the none-to-bright, and always they are poor and defended by incompetent public defense lawyers.

Many states will not allow DNA evidence to be admitted once they have a conviction.

Many prosecutors prefer to get convictions rather than to see that justice is done, and quite often these are different things.

[Michael Tee]

<<Many prosecutors prefer to get convictions rather than to see that justice is done, and quite often these are different things.>>

I think part of the problem is that your prosecutors are elected and ours are appointed.  They can only be removed for serious misconduct, usually of a criminal nature.  The Crown Attorneys up here (the equivalent of the American D.A.) have a saying, "The Crown never wins and the Crown never loses," meaning that their job is just to present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.  Nobody's job is dependent upon his or her conviction rate.

That said, we still have overzealous cops and prosecutors (even judges!!) who seek to curry favour with them, or maybe it's just a natural phenomenon, because the criminal court judges see the same Crowns and police in their courts all the time, whereas there is a passing parade of ever-changing defence counsel.  There is a real chance of prosecutorial or police misconduct, which can result in wrongful convictions and our legal system was always light-years behind yours in the protection of the rights of the accused.  I'm not so sure of the relative position of the two countries now, however, because your courts seem to be in retreat from the high-water marks of liberalism in this area while ours remain staunchly liberal and perhaps even still moving forward in that direction.

I would anticipate that in a capital punishment environment, guilty pleas on capital offences would not be allowed, if only because any plea would have been made under a threat of death.  I think in your system, which already employs capital punishment, guilty pleas to a capital offence must be viewed by the judge in the most skeptical way possible.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would anticipate that in a capital punishment environment, guilty pleas on capital offences would not be allowed, if only because any plea would have been made under a threat of death.  I think in your system, which already employs capital punishment, guilty pleas to a capital offence must be viewed by the judge in the most skeptical way possible.

==============================
This should happen, but it seems that if the accused is represented by a public defender, and/or is a member of a minority, this tends to not be observed.

When it is observed, a death sentence can take 25 years before it is finally given. That means that it is not really a deterrent, as everyone has forgotten about the crime. All the appeals mean that the process is extremely expensive as well.

[Michael Tee]

<<This should happen [judges should exercise extreme skepticism in the face of guilty pleas in capital cases], but it seems that if the accused is represented by a public defender, and/or is a member of a minority, this tends to not be observed.>>

Well, then you just need better judges.

<<When it is observed, a death sentence can take 25 years before it is finally given. >>

Even if the perp is 45 or 55 years old at the time, I'm sure it's still something he'd be extremely anxious to avoid.  I don't like that punishment is delayed that much, but the alternative is the execution of a possibly innocent man, which is intolerable.

<<That means that it is not really a deterrent, as everyone has forgotten about the crime. >>

I was never much on deterrence.  To me, capital punishment means a bastard getting what he deserves in return for the evil he's done and the elimination of the threat of more evil to come from him.  If it deters even one onlooker from doing evil, so much the better, but I'd view that strictly as a bonus.

<<All the appeals mean that the process is extremely expensive as well.>>

There you've put your finger on one of the weak points of capital punishment.  In order to eliminate the obscenity of 25-year waits for the executioner, you need to eliminate the haphazard, patch-it-up-as-you-go nature of the trial and appeal process for indigent prisoners, to ensure a first-class defence and appeal system where everything is done right the first time around.  That means more money for lawyers, so each accused is defended by first-rate counsel and private investigators and experts at all stages of investigation, trial and appeal.  Maybe it would cost too much.  That's a judgment every decent society has to make.  Justice is a commodity like anything else and if you're not willing to pay top dollar, you're not going to get the best available.  Otherwise you're stuck with capital punishment and the full protection of the individual's right to life, but at a cost of long waits for full justice to be done.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There you've put your finger on one of the weak points of capital punishment.  In order to eliminate the obscenity of 25-year waits for the executioner, you need to eliminate the haphazard, patch-it-up-as-you-go nature of the trial and appeal process for indigent prisoners, to ensure a first-class defence and appeal system where everything is done right the first time around.  That means more money for lawyers, so each accused is defended by first-rate counsel and private investigators and experts at all stages of investigation, trial and appeal.  Maybe it would cost too much.  That's a judgment every decent society has to make.  Justice is a commodity like anything else and if you're not willing to pay top dollar, you're not going to get the best available.

==========================
I agree totally.

But after the state pays a defense attorney $250 or $300 per hour of the taxpayers' money for the very first time to defens someone everyone "knows" is guilty, well, that will be the last times this is done.

[Cynthia]

My point was that Juniorbush was an asshole to publicly make fun of her plea for a commutation of her sentence.

XO, that is the direct point!

And NOW, he's going to become a Catholic.

I hope he understands the sins he has commited. Now, I am a Catholic. I am not going to throw my faith in anyone's direction, nor am I going to say that I am perfect;) BUt, this man is our leader! He was a jerk. That woman could have lived and helped one more soul. Bush is for he saving of souls. He let his "own God" down, quite frankly.

Standards. Interesting....teachers are held to such high standards, yet leaders can bullshit their way through many a platform.

[BT]

The point was you said he could commute her sentence and it has been proven he couldn't.

That woman could have lived and helped one more soul.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Supreme Court denied her appeal.

[Michael Tee]

<<But after the state pays a defense attorney $250 or $300 per hour of the taxpayers' money for the very first time to defens someone everyone "knows" is guilty, well, that will be the last times this is done.>>

You're joking, of course.  For a top-notch, first-tier criminal defence attorney?  Try $900 an hour for a more realistic figure.  With a $25,000 minimum paid up front.    For merely good representation, go down to five or six hundred.  There's a human life at stake.

[Cynthia]

The point was you said he could commute her sentence and it has been proven he couldn't.

That woman could have lived and helped one more soul.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the Supreme Court denied her appeal.

Well, my point is that Bush, Supreme Court if they had not denied her appeal....she could have helped souls in prison. THat's my opinion. The decision to let her die was in the hands of people who were not compassionate human beings, in the end. If anyone had made a terrfically positive change in life, it was she.

[BT]

The larger point is that you wrongfully accused Bush of not commuting her sentence, when it is common knowledge that he did not have that power. This has been gone over time and again in 2000 and 2004.

You do realize that Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life in prison, he had that power.

Are you saying he was not a compassionate human being?

[Cynthia]

The larger point is that you wrongfully accused Bush of not commuting her sentence, when it is common knowledge that he did not have that power. This has been gone over time and again in 2000 and 2004.

You do realize that Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life in prison, he had that power.

Are you saying he was not a compassionate human being?

No, not really, BT. I remember hearing that Bush was the one who was responsible for her final death call.
If Clinton could have commuted her sentence to life.....then shame on his ass, as well.

My bad.
 I don't want to jump into a debate against Bush on a personal level. There really isn't any sense in it, as things come down....most politicians are BS'ers. . . including Obama.
The real world is not on the top of the ladder. It is on the ground floor with those who want power to change the world one flexed muscle at a time.....with no regard to anyone, really. I sound like a skeptic, but I am a realist. Bush makes me mad. He seems arrogant, and he seems to be calling for more war than is necessary. Clinton was the opposite. So , go figure.
They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh


Ok, Jr. Bush has been our leader, and I tend to think of him as an arrogant Conservative Texan. But, hell, Clinton was no better. In fact, he was worse, imo. He was equally arrogant and self centered, and in fact a sexually driven male. Problem was ...he was in our scope. He wasn't smart, either. So...who will be the best leader in any element....local or state of national?


Tucker is dead...but in the eyes of Christ, she's not.

The rest is gravy.

[BT]

They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh

Is that so?

I thought most people run for public office because they think they can do good for the community.

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.

[fatman]

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.

Hmmm, reminds me of someone I know in here.

[Cynthia]

They all deserve shame. Targets are just THAT. Targets. Easy to shoot at because they exist for us to shoot at....d'oh

Is that so?

I thought most people run for public office because they think they can do good for the community.

Now i find out they they can be wrongly accused simply because they are in the public eye and petty people feel they are entitled to any wrongheaded slur they feel like uttering.

But the real fact is that the target doesn't lose credibility. The slurrer does, especially when they are flat out wrong.

Come on BT....define WRONG.

[BT]

Wrong - not right.
Incorrect.

In a colloquial sense, wrongness usually refers to a state of incorrectness, inaccuracy, error or miscalculation in any number of contexts. More specifically, being "wrong" refers to a situation wherein an individual has made an error or misjudgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong