|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2015 11:03:28 GMT
I'm guessing it is based on lost opportunity cost plus punitive damages. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 20, 2015 11:37:31 GMT
sounds way too little for someone who's been locked up in death row for 39 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2015 13:55:24 GMT
sounds way too little for someone who's been locked up in death row for 39 years. also since it was because of official wrongdoing. OTOH, assuming he lives to be around 80, that's $47,000 a year to live on, and it may well be tax free. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 20, 2015 17:09:36 GMT
sounds way too little for someone who's been locked up in death row for 39 years. also since it was because of official wrongdoing. OTOH, assuming he lives to be around 80, that's $47,000 a year to live on, and it may well be tax free. Rounded up, that's about $26,000 per year spent in prison. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a lot of black people in America made that kind of money back in the 70' and 80's, so compared to what he might have earned as a free man, I think it covers his losses pretty well. That being said, it's hard to put a price on 39 years of undeserved prison time. That's 39 years away from his family, 39 years of having people think he was a murderer when he really wasn't, 39 years of not having access to all the things the rest of us take for granted and 39 years of fear for when that moment comes when they stick in the needle and end your life for something you didn't do. Say what you will, but there's no amount of money that will ever make that right. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 20, 2015 19:12:17 GMT
He deserves 10 times that. Plus the police that pressured the 13 year old into false testimony should be prosecuted and given jail time. But they walk away scott free. The only way that we are going to send a message to prosecutors to stop the outright lying and suppressing of evidence, is to hold them responsible. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2015 22:43:51 GMT
He deserves 10 times that. Plus the police that pressured the 13 year old into false testimony should be prosecuted and given jail time. But they walk away scott free. The only way that we are going to send a message to prosecutors to stop the outright lying and suppressing of evidence, is to hold them responsible. the police and prosecutor may very well be dead, or close to it. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 20, 2015 23:07:50 GMT
He deserves 10 times that. Plus the police that pressured the 13 year old into false testimony should be prosecuted and given jail time. But they walk away scott free. The only way that we are going to send a message to prosecutors to stop the outright lying and suppressing of evidence, is to hold them responsible. the police and prosecutor may very well be dead, or close to it. That, they may. But prosecutors are still pulling the same stunts toady. And they keep getting away with it. I see nothing wrong with a prosecutor going full bore to convect someone if they have the evidence to back up that convection. I have absolutely no tolerance for a prosecutor that uses evidence they know is not accurate, hide conflicting evidence they may be aware of, or just make up evidence to support their case. These people not only need to lose their jobs, but spend some time behind bars. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 20, 2015 23:11:23 GMT
the police and prosecutor may very well be dead, or close to it. That, they may. But prosecutors are still pulling the same stunts toady. And they keep getting away with it. I see nothing wrong with a prosecutor going full bore to convect someone if they have the evidence to back up that convection. I have absolutely no tolerance for a prosecutor that uses evidence they know is not accurate, hide conflicting evidence they may be aware of, or just make up evidence to support their case. These people not only need to lose their jobs, but spend some time behind bars. to me, that would qualify as contempt of court, plus a few other things. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 20, 2015 23:44:09 GMT
That, they may. But prosecutors are still pulling the same stunts toady. And they keep getting away with it. I see nothing wrong with a prosecutor going full bore to convect someone if they have the evidence to back up that convection. I have absolutely no tolerance for a prosecutor that uses evidence they know is not accurate, hide conflicting evidence they may be aware of, or just make up evidence to support their case. These people not only need to lose their jobs, but spend some time behind bars. to me, that would qualify as contempt of court, plus a few other things. One would think so. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 21, 2015 8:58:44 GMT
So my Dad did some sideways thinking, went back to the evidence, grabbed the torch that had been left behind, which had been wiped clean, popped it open, and got a perfect set of fingerprints off the batteries....
The burglar had thought himself clever by wearing gloves and cleaning all his tools before he started.
The burglar had been seen on the scene, had been identified, but the [goit] had sworn that that homeowner had some kind of "problem" with him and had identified him out of spite.
When the evidence was presented, he folded, and admitted to breaking and entering.
Yes you are all right, being "accused" of a crime you did not commit, and being locked up for that for life, yes, its wrong.
But just how do the prove who dun wot to whom and wiv wot when chief of police is getting pressured from above (politicians) to "Get Results", and often by any means possible.....
Stand back and let them work.
You will find out who is "Dirty", but only by experience, you cant just accuse 'em all with the same six inch paint brush....
However.
I have a problem with the bloody solicitors and barristers who will celebrate a win, for win sake.
Even if the ba*[star]d is fully guilty and everyone knows it, they will get a "Technicality" and get it thrown out...
It has to be changed.
Dont all start looking at me, I dont know how.?!
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 21, 2015 11:49:35 GMT
Cases like these are why so many people are against the death penalty. "What if he'd been executed? How many people like him have been executed?" Fair questions and ones that should be taken seriously. Is the hunt for vengeance really so important that you're willing to "sacrifice the odd innocent" in order to feel good about yourself?
I'm not opposed to the death sentence myself. I think there are cases that justify taking a person's life. But I am against the way it's administered in many cases. I think more things should be taken into consideration before handing down such a serious sentence.
For one thing, you have to be ABSOLUTELY IRONCLAD CERTAIN that you have the right person. A single eye witness testimony should never be enough. Human beings are prone to making mistakes, especially in cases of extreme stress, like witnessing a violent act. There has to be physical evidence to support the claims made and if there are any discrepancies whatsoever between eye witness testimony and physical evidence, the eye witness testimony should either be thrown out as unreliable, or it should at the very least be considered unreliable enough that it can never be used to administer a death sentence. Any doubts at all should automatically be considered as "death sentence is out the window, can we go for life in prison?"
Another thing I think should be seriously considered is not only the nature of the crime, but the psychology of the perpetrator.
First off, the nature of the crime. Yes, it's horrible that someone has been killed, but I'm sorry to say that it happens every day and it has for as long as human beings have existed. What doesn't happen every day is someone dismembering their victim, just because they think it's fun, or someone having a back yard full of dead people that they've been stacking up for years. Shooting someone during a robbery is a horrible thing to do, but you have to look at how and why it was done if you want to sentence someone to death for it. Did they shoot a security guard or cop in an effort to get away, did they pull the trigger out of nervousness or fear, or did they cut someone down in cold blood without any other reason than they wanted to? There are nuances to this and that leads me to my second point about the psychology of the perpetrator.
Why did the perpetrator do the things he did? Did he kill in cold blood, just because he likes to kill and even more importantly, is there any chance that the person will ever feel genuine remorse for what he did? Not just remorse in the way of "Oh, poor me! I'm going to spend the rest of my life in jail. Had I known that before, I wouldn't have done it.", but genuine, "Holy crap, I can't believe I did that! I'll never forgive myself!" You have to look at why we put people in prison to begin with, and one of the main reasons is that we want them to sit there and be remorseful. If a person is utterly incapable of that, does it make any sense to spend the time and resources on keeping them in prison?
However, people do things in the heat of the moment or in a haze of drugs or alcohol that they will regret once they realize what they've done. Again, not from the "Oh no, now I'm going to prison, so I wish I'd never done that." standpoint, but actual regret, as in "How could I do something that horrible to someone else?" We know for a fact that many of the people who end up feeling this way will attempt (with varying success rates) to take their own lives. In cases like these, where the perpetrator's consciense will haunt them to the point that they can hardly stand the thought of being alive anymore, wouldn't the more effective punishment actually be to keep them alive?
What I'm trying to say is that there has to be more than emotions involved in administering the death sentence. Yes, you're sad that you father/mother/brother/sister/child/friend was killed and we all understand that, but putting the person responsible for it to death will never make anyone any happier, so we can't use that as motivation for doing it. There has to be more to it than that.
Giving the death sentence to a robber who just happened to shoot someone during the robbery and will regret doing so for the rest of his life might momentarily make you feel good, but is it really the best punishment?
Similarly, does sentencing someone like Anders Behring Breivik (the guy who bombed Oslo and shot up Utoya Island, Norway in 2011) to life in prison make any sense? Is there even the slightest chance of him ever feeling remorse for what he's done, or will he just sit in prison and feel like he's "being unfairly punished for doing what was necessary"? Will keeping him in prison deter any of his followers from doing something similar, or might taking his life possibly do that job just a little more effectively? Giving him the death sentence wouldn't just be about justice for the families. Nothing we can do to him will bring his victims back to life, so it has to about more than that. It has to be about sending a clear message to anyone who thinks like him and harbours thoughts of following in his footsteps. That, and about not wasting valuable resources on keeping a piece of biowaste like him alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 21, 2015 13:29:33 GMT
I've said it in another thread, but to my thinking the only valid use for the death sentence is in the same function as putting down a rabid animal. I.E. the person is dangerous, and will always be dangerous, to keep alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 21, 2015 15:54:13 GMT
In California, and in I think most states in the union, there are degrees of murder.
Manslaughter is usually the crime when you kill someone due to your negligence. Vehicular Manslaughter is probably the most common form--you hit someone with your car and they died. Punishment can be a few years in prison, fine, and/or probation depending on circumstances.
Murder Two (Crimes of Passion) are if you kill someone in the middle of a rage. If you come home and find your partner in bed with another person, grab a nearby gun, and shoot them both, that's a crime of passion--ordinarily you may not hurt a fly, but you were overcome with rage in the moment. Punishment is normally a serious prison sentence.
Murder One is next. You planned to kill someone (premeditation) and you did it. Punishment is normally a long prison sentence (decades) or even life in prison.
Murder One with Special Circumstances is the strongest offence. These circumstances are spelled out in the law: lying in wait (setting an ambush), torture, drug trafficking related murders, or murder of a law enforcement officer--there's probably more but these are the ones I remember. The sentence is usually life in prison or the death penalty. There are actually two trials in these cases--one to establish guilt, and the second to set the punishment.
Not everyone who kills gets the death penalty in the US. State law varies across the nation.
Personally, I oppose the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 21, 2015 16:03:57 GMT
I've said it in another thread, but to my thinking the only valid use for the death sentence is in the same function as putting down a rabid animal. I.E. the person is dangerous, and will always be dangerous, to keep alive. That's pretty much my thoughts on the death penalty also. It doesn't work as a deterrent and it shouldn't be used as revenge. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 21, 2015 18:46:10 GMT
I've said it in another thread, but to my thinking the only valid use for the death sentence is in the same function as putting down a rabid animal. I.E. the person is dangerous, and will always be dangerous, to keep alive. That's pretty much my thoughts on the death penalty also. It doesn't work as a deterrent and it shouldn't be used as revenge. my favorite line is that it is a 100% effective deterrent. nobody executed for murder has murdered again. the problem is that nothing is a truly effective deterrent. for those of us who are not sociopathic, the fact that murder is wrong is enough to stop us. for those who are, the difference between prison and execution is rarely a significant factor. those who are minimally affected will calculate the risk of not getting away with it; and those who are strongly affected will not. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Mar 21, 2015 19:50:42 GMT
To me, the death penalty should be reserved for the following situations: 1. The condemned has been convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, with the person finding for guilt stating - in writing - the exact thought process(es) that led to the conviction. (We had a case here in Texas where a judge admitted to finding a man guilty of murder not because of how compelling the evidence was but because he thought the man a Satanist.)2. The crime is particularly heinous in nature, indicating either a shocking degree of malice aforethought or a marked degree of criminal instability. (So at least murder one, if not more heinous.) 3. The condemned shows no remorse or otherwise gives no indication that reform and rehabilitation are possible. Here in Texas, we had a man named Kenneth McDuff. McDuff was found guilty of a triple homicide in which he carjacked the victims and then sexually violated & tortured one of the three before killing them all. He was sentenced to die, but when the Supreme Court put a moratorium on the death penalty his sentence was instead commuted to "life with the possibility of parole". In the 1980s, we had a massive crime wave in Texas, such that we couldn't build prisons fast enough to house the inmate population. As such, even guys like McDuff eventually got parole. At first he seemed like a reformed man, even attending a technical college. In reality, he was simply putting on a front until the cops weren't looking at him anymore, in which case he began taking more victims. 12 people died before the cops found him again. As you can imagine, this time he got the needle. I'm thinking he's the reason why Texas is so quick to hand down the death penalty: we don't want another McDuff loose. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 21, 2015 20:25:06 GMT
To me, the death penalty should be reserved for the following situations: 1. The condemned has been convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, with the person finding for guilt stating - in writing - the exact thought process(es) that led to the conviction. (We had a case here in Texas where a judge admitted to finding a man guilty of murder not because of how compelling the evidence was but because he thought the man a Satanist.)2. The crime is particularly heinous in nature, indicating either a shocking degree of malice aforethought or a marked degree of criminal instability. (So at least murder one, if not more heinous.) 3. The condemned shows no remorse or otherwise gives no indication that reform and rehabilitation are possible. Here in Texas, we had a man named Kenneth McDuff. McDuff was found guilty of a triple homicide in which he carjacked the victims and then sexually violated & tortured one of the three before killing them all. He was sentenced to die, but when the Supreme Court put a moratorium on the death penalty his sentence was instead commuted to "life with the possibility of parole". In the 1980s, we had a massive crime wave in Texas, such that we couldn't build prisons fast enough to house the inmate population. As such, even guys like McDuff eventually got parole. At first he seemed like a reformed man, even attending a technical college. In reality, he was simply putting on a front until the cops weren't looking at him anymore, in which case he began taking more victims. 12 people died before the cops found him again. As you can imagine, this time he got the needle. I'm thinking he's the reason why Texas is so quick to hand down the death penalty: we don't want another McDuff loose. which sounds like you fall in the same category as us - when you KNOW (beyond any shadow of doubt) that the person is too dangerous to leave alive. the specific phrasing of my formal opinion is "if you are certain beyond any shadow of doubt that the person cannot safely exist in society, then you are obligated to permanently remove him from society by the most expedient means available." |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 22, 2015 3:25:51 GMT
Sort of a side issue:
Texas governors often get a lot of flack for not granting executive clemency. It's not really their fault, though--they can only grant a full pardon if a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles give them a recommendation. Otherwise, they can only grant a single 30 day reprieve of execution.
This was supposedly done as a reaction to a time when governors showed favoritism when granting clemency (for political or personal biased reasons).
In the US, only about 1% of the prisoners on death row are executed. It's better odds than in Vegas that you'll die of old age rather than be executed.
It should also be pointed out that the federal government rarely executes anyone and only for a certain number of crimes (such as treason). The various states set their own policy on the death penalty for crimes like murder (including outright bans).
I was told that Utah is trying to reinstate the firing squad as an execution method for two reasons:
1. The companies who supplied the drugs for execution were from Europe, and stopped supplying them in reaction to objections by activists.
2. Because of the large devout Mormon population, they believed that to atone for spilling blood, you literally had to have your own blood spilt. Injection was too clean.
I know the first is true (it's in the papers), but I always wondered if the second was--a Mormon friend of mine assured me so, but I've never verified it. Ironhold, have you heard of this?
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Mar 22, 2015 4:21:44 GMT
Sort of a side issue: Texas governors often get a lot of flack for not granting executive clemency. It's not really their fault, though--they can only grant a full pardon if a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles give them a recommendation. Otherwise, they can only grant a single 30 day reprieve of execution. This was supposedly done as a reaction to a time when governors showed favoritism when granting clemency (for political or personal biased reasons). In the US, only about 1% of the prisoners on death row are executed. It's better odds than in Vegas that you'll die of old age rather than be executed. It should also be pointed out that the federal government rarely executes anyone and only for a certain number of crimes (such as treason). The various states set their own policy on the death penalty for crimes like murder (including outright bans). I was told that Utah is trying to reinstate the firing squad as an execution method for two reasons: 1. The companies who supplied the drugs for execution were from Europe, and stopped supplying them in reaction to objections by activists. 2. Because of the large devout Mormon population, they believed that to atone for spilling blood, you literally had to have your own blood spilt. Injection was too clean. I know the first is true (it's in the papers), but I always wondered if the second was--a Mormon friend of mine assured me so, but I've never verified it. Ironhold, have you heard of this? Don't know about the Mormon thing, but it's my understanding that it wasn't the European drug companies decision not to sell the execution drugs to the U.S., it was the EU that forbid the drug companies from selling them. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 22, 2015 4:40:42 GMT
Yes an export ban was put into place by the European Commission, the executive branch of the E.U., rather than the drugs companies deciding to stop, some had by them selves but not all.
|
|
