Originally posted by zeeblebotThat all works only if the only purpose for your justice system is to punish people as opposed to turning them into people who won't re-offend. If that's the case, why use jails at all, just bring back whips and the stocks. (though I do believe there's a place for stocks in certain circumstances...)
there's no need for a jury in the sentencing phase, or a judge either, except to inform as to the permissible range of punishment prescribed by law.
Originally posted by agrysonhey, another convert!
That all works only if the only purpose for your justice system is to punish people as opposed to turning them into people who won't re-offend. If that's the case, why use jails at all, just bring back whips and the stocks. (though I do believe there's a place for stocks in certain circumstances...)
Originally posted by twhiteheadMuch of the empirical confusion about wrongful conviction rates has been driven by histrionics over the death penalty. Lost in the debate is any reliable data about the actual wrongful conviction rate, says Morris B. Hoffman, a Colorado district court judge and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado.
in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a part ...[text shortened]... icted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
But the innocence data can be mined for some approximations. And those approximations suggest that the actual rate of wrongful convictions in the United States is vanishingly small:
* In the first place, almost all criminal defendants plead guilty; the national plea bargaining rate is around 95 percent.
* That means that even if juries get it right only 80 percent of the time (an assumption at which most sensible scholars would cringe), the overall post-trial wrongful conviction rate would still be only around 1 percent.
But the real wrongful conviction rate is almost certainly lower, and significantly so, says Morris. Earlier this week the innocence project at Cardozo School of Law issued a press release celebrating the 200th person exonerated by DNA testing. But in the 20 years innocence projects have been operating, there were roughly two million criminal trials in the United States.
* Assuming as many as 25 percent of those trials resulted in acquittals (and ignoring, as the innocence merchants are wont to do, the problem of wrongful acquittals), the wrongful post-trial conviction rate is only 0.013 percent.
* Since only 5 percent of cases are tried, that would place the overall wrongful conviction rate at around 0.00065 percent.
Of course, this is just a lower bound estimate, based on several admittedly questionable assumptions, including that the innocence-project data is representative, and that no innocent people plead guilty. But even if this estimate is an order of magnitude or two low, it is still considerably less than the mythmakers would have us believe, says Hoffman.
Source: Morris B. Hoffman, "The 'Innocence' Myth," Wall Street Journal, April 26, 2007.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117755557361383042.html
For more on Crime:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=14
Originally posted by twhiteheadA series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years claim to settle a once hotly debated argument: whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a part ...[text shortened]... icted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.
Among the conclusions:
* Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University (other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).
* The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 -- imposed by then-Gov. George Ryan and continued by current Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.
* Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect; for every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.
* In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally; there were 60 executions.
So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy and critics have been vociferous. However, several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science. They say their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.
Source: Robert Tanner, "Studies Say Death Penalty Deters Crime," Associated Press/Chattanooga Times Free Press, June 11, 2007.
For more on Crime:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=14
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHow come, if this study is correct, that countries without a death penalty have a lower homocide rate (with the exception of Scotland)?
A series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years claim to settle a once hotly debated argument: whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer.
To explore the question, they look at executions and homic ...[text shortened]... e 11, 2007.
For more on Crime:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=14
Originally posted by Cartanhttp://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
Which countries?
For example.
Now look at the countries with the lowest homicide rates, they're all countries without a death penalty.
Look at the top 25 countries, and you'll notice that more than half of them have either death penalties or remarkably unstable situations.
But most both.
My (lifelong) understanding of the Death Penalty was that it was intended, much like nuclear weapons, as a deterrent....i.e., there is an ultimate price to pay if you do this.
Surely (and I am asking here, not stipulating), if you remove that ultimate price from the tariffs, do we not then remove any reason for a Guilty-with-premeditation perpetrator to think twice about his actions?
"Do they anyway?" would be a fair come-back question, and of course, I don't know.....likely as not, the answer is no.
If they are Guilty, to my mind, no further Earthly resources should be wasted on such a person...the same contempt they have shown for another's life should be visited upon them.
...however...
Let The Punishment Fit The Crime.
Turn The Other Cheek.
An Eye For An Eye.
Rehabilitation.
(etc)
Which of our nation's / civilisations' teachings do we go with?
If it were my family member, and the beyond reasonable doubt had been established, then yes, certainly, I would want The Perpetrator eviscerated.
But then, is this person ISN'T The Perpetrator, and a terrible error has been made, do I want his death on my hands?
No, of course not.
This is why we let The State decide the punishment, and let them employ the Executioner where relevant...it has always been this way, so that we may wash our hands of any guilt for the price, the life, we demanded in retribution.
Victims families want closure in such circumstances, and at the time, they will not care whether the life subsequently taken is The (actual) Perpetrator's or not.
There is likely too much rage to rationally consider the potential for innocence...."apparently he did it....that's good enough for us"....kinda thing.
So what is the answer?
All too obviously, probably, I don't know.
But it does strike me that if we continue to allow the erosion of the judicial systems and their basis for applying the ultimate deterrent....to allow killers to "walk on a technicality / loophole"....to spare those who would have no compunction to kill again...
...then we become a Lottery Of Victims and merely defend here our right to be exactly that.
(EDIT : Spelling, grammar...E&OE)