The death sentence.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
Just want to point out that capital punishment is supported by Christianity.

Really? Where does it say that?

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well actually, as far as i know, the government can not pronounce the death sentence. The deatn sentence can only be given by a jury.

Of the right color, of course

The prosecution struck four qualified black jurors assuring an all-white jury in this mixed-race case. These strikes were consistent with a pattern and practice of the prosecution to exclude black jurors from felony jury service. The unrebutted evidence shows the following:

Over a six year period, prosecutors accepted more than 80% of white jurors but struck more than 90% of black jurors.

Prosecutors used race-coded materials during jury selection.

Several defense counsel testified that it was understood that the prosecution would strike black jurors from felony cases.

this comes from the Delma Banks case in (where else) Texas, where he was given a stay of execution ten minutes before he was due to die - he was already strapped on the gurney.

Banks is black; the victim was white, and the case is full of holes to say the least:

Deliberate prosecutorial misconduct and egregious ineffective assistance by defense counsel prevented the jury from hearing much of the most important evidence in the case. A federal district court granted relief to Mr. Banks because of these errors but the court of appeals reinstated the death sentence.

The case against Mr. Banks depends upon the testimony of two unreliable witnesses who have since recanted their incriminating testimony, and is further impeached by scientific evidence law enforcement possessed at the time of trial.

The state's theory of guilt is that Mr. Banks hitched a ride with Mr. Whitehead on Friday evening, April 11, 1980, drank with him until the early morning hours of April 12, and then shot him three times at 4:00 a.m., stole his car and drove to Dallas, 180 miles away in time to meet the state's key guilt phase witness, Charles Cook, at 8:30 a.m. There is no dispute that Mr. Banks and Mr. Whitehead were together, and state witnesses saw no evidence of any problems between the two. Cook later testified that Banks told him that he had killed someone, and left with Cook the victim's car and the murder weapon.

We now know that Cook's testimony is highly unreliable:

At trial, the prosecutors suppressed a lengthy pretrial transcript of a rehearsal meeting with Cook where he could not keep his account straight. This document shows repeated coaching of Cook. Cook later told the jury he was not coached; this statement was not corrected by the prosecution.

In 1999, Cook recanted his trial testimony, and explained that he first told police that Mr. Banks was guilty because he feared prosecution, and later testified falsely at trial because he faced a serious charge in Dallas, and was told he would spend the remainder of his life in prison if he did not testify that Banks had confessed to him. This recantation was corroborated by a sister and former wife who also testified at trial.

Cook was a twice-convicted felon and drug addict.
The other key state's witness was Robert Farr. He told the jury during the penalty phase that Mr. Banks had told him that he wanted to commit other armed robberies and would kill the victims if necessary. He denied that he was a paid informant for the state.

We now know that Farr's critical testimony was unreliable:

In 1999, Farr testified that he was a paid informant in this case.

He also testified that his important testimony about Mr. Banks' intention to commit other violent crimes was a lie.
The State's assertion that Mr. Banks shot Mr. Whitehead at 4:00 a.m. on April 12 in time to drive Mr. Whitehead's car to Dallas to meet Charles Cook at 8:30 a.m. is flatly inconsistent with:

The state's autopsy findings: the state pathologist identified a number of factors that all but rule out an April 12, 4:00 a.m. time of death; unrebutted testimony from a distinguished pathologist places the time of death twenty-four hours later, a time when it is certain Mr. Banks was in Dallas.

Whitehead's ailing car: state witnesses told investigators that Mr. Whitehead's car was unable to run for long periods without the lights dimming and repeatedly needing a jump to start it. Unrebutted expert testimony from a mechanic confirmed that without repair that was not available during the wee hours of the morning, this car could not have driven 180 miles to Dallas. Moreover, the car was never found in Dallas.

The jury never heard any of this testimony.

http://justice.policy.net/proactive/...cccccac8cdc5cf

[miss_poet]

I found another one from 2001!

I do agree with the death sentence to a certain point. If something severe has happened, then I do believe they should get a death sentence, but if it is not very severe, then I disagree.

[Ornelírë Mistë]

I'm unsure about the death penalty. But I know it costs several million of people's money to kill one person. I think it could be from legal fees? It costs less to have someone in prison for many years.
But I don't really know how I feel about the punishment systems existing today. They are certainly quite flawed. A problem is just retribution (which we all have diff. opinions on) vs. infringement of basic human rights. And you could argue- that person doesn't deserve those rights because he took others away. But there's always arguments against these so I won't get into it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Ruinel
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Actually, I think age should have something to do with the penalty. The guilty party isn't as mature at 16, and is more likely to reform than someone older, who is more set in their ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

mature enough to rape old ladies, torture and kill them? I would say mature enough to be put on death row.

I think it depends on the severity of the crime.

A 16 yr old who kills someone, or two people... no. A 16 year old serial killer, who tortures people, yeah.

I'm no one to judge how old the person should be or what crimes have been committed by that person, when the punishment is death. However, age should be taken into consideration. It was taken into consideration when a judge was thinking about punishing my cousin for some crimes he committed. He's had a huge turn around since then, and is doing his best to live a good life.

I'm not informed enough to know what the proper time is for the death penalty to be used in all cases. What I'm saying is that age should be taken into consideration as you consider the penalty. What the penalty is after you've taken that into consideration is not what I'm saying. It could well be death.

[Elven Archer]

i found an article about the firing squad in Utah. and it is still being used.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91...xecutionm.html

and here's another article on it: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/05/22/Utah/

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elven Archer
i found an article about the firing squad in Utah. and it is still being used.
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91...xecutionm.html

Yes - it is still on the books - but did you read the article??? It says...

Two inmates have chosen to be executed by them, instead of a lethal injection.

You added this after I posted so I'm replying....

and here's another article on it: http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/05/22/Utah/

Exercising their right under Utah law, serial killer Roberto Arguelles and Troy Michael Kell, a white supremacist who stabbed a fellow inmate to death, have chosen the firing squad over lethal injection and are set to die at 12:01 a.m. on June 27 and 28, respectively.

However, Kell filed an appeal last week that will probably halt his execution.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
I disagree with you, there. I believe very much in justice, and that payment MUST be rendered for lawbreaking.

I believe very much in justice too. However, I also believe that mercy should have some role to play. More mercy is deserved for someone with less knowledge of the wrong they're doing than for someone who is more aware. That is my basis for thinking that someone younger doesn't deserve as harsh a sentence as someone older.

[Elven Archer]

yes i read the article. Just because it says "have chosen" doesn't mean they're not gonna get executed by a firing sqaud. i know there's a big possibility that they won't be but they still can be. If the article is correct "The nation's last execution by firing squad was in 1996." so someone did get executed by a firing squad in recent years. i'm gonna go try to find out more about this now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elven Archer
yes i read the article. Just because it says "have chosen" doesn't mean they're not gonna get executed by a firing sqaud. i know there's a big possibility that they won't be but they still can be. If the article is correct "The nation's last execution by firing squad was in 1996." so someone did get executed by a firing squad in recent years. i'm gonna go try to find out more about this now.

If they chose it I don't really care. I don't even care if they choose to have their eyes gouged out really and their brains slowly sucked out by a straw. If they want to choose a way to die - let them.

[Insidious Rex]

If you ask me rotting away in a cell for the rest of your life when you are 19 or something dealing with that living hell every day of your life knowing theres no chance you will ever see freedom again is far worse then merciful death. Ive never really understood why the worst criminals get the mercy of dieing when the semi-bad get 40 years or something.

[Coney]

There has been three hangings in the last 30 yrs as well :/

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cp00pr.htm

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
There has been three hangings in the last 30 yrs as well :/

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/cp00pr.htm

And it doesn't say why they were hanged either. YOu can see how rare hangings are. Did the prisoners request hanging?

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
And it doesn't say why they were hanged either.

That's the worrying thing..........were they given the option, or was hanging the specific sentence?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
If you ask me rotting away in a cell for the rest of your life when you are 19 or something dealing with that living hell every day of your life knowing theres no chance you will ever see freedom again is far worse then merciful death. Ive never really understood why the worst criminals get the mercy of dieing when the semi-bad get 40 years or something.

A very good point, Insidious Rex. I think I might have something of an answer for it, though.

Criminals sometimes get off. Some people have received three or four life sentences, and by circumstances have gotten out a few months later, instead. Many criminals were released in America earlier this year because the prisons were overloaded with people jailed for petty theft. It's more dangerous to keep real horrible villains alive then it is to keep someone responsible for stealing a car alive.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
That's the worrying thing..........were they given the option, or was hanging the specific sentence?

It doesn't happen that often - nor does it say when it actually happened, or the reason why. It is up to the people of Delaware and Washington to change their laws.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Criminals sometimes get off. Some people have received three or four life sentences, and by circumstances have gotten out a few months later, instead. Many criminals were released in America earlier this year because the prisons were overloaded with people jailed for petty theft. It's more dangerous to keep real horrible villains alive then it is to keep someone responsible for stealing a car alive.

Well one of the reasons our jails are so full is because some states - such as California - have the ridiculous "3 strikes" law. If you commit a crime three times - you are sentenced to life. Not to mention some of the stupid drug laws - even though I am not for complete legalisation. That's alway swhat's so annoying when people pull out stats that show how many people the US has in jail - they don't list for what crimes.

[Lief Erikson]

Yes, that's true. All those criminals being released for reasons of lack of room is a cause for major debate over those laws that condemn people to jailing.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
A very good point, Insidious Rex. I think I might have something of an answer for it, though.

Criminals sometimes get off. Some people have received three or four life sentences, and by circumstances have gotten out a few months later, instead. Many criminals were released in America earlier this year because the prisons were overloaded with people jailed for petty theft. It's more dangerous to keep real horrible villains alive then it is to keep someone responsible for stealing a car alive.

Well not if they get life without possibility of parole. and its been shown over and over that the death sentence in no way diminishes the crowding in the prisons because they dont kill them for a decade or so on average.

[Lief Erikson]

Good grief! I wouldn't advise killing off several thousand prisoners to relax the living space, if that's what you thought! No. The primary reason for executing dangerous prisoners though is that they simply might get off. Like those that were released last year. To relax the living space in prisons, you relax laws as to who goes to prisons, or for how long. The death penalty is to keep an individual from doing any more harm, not so much to punish them for the harm they've done. If the goal were to punish them for the harm they've done, we'd use the torture methods Coney was advocating.