If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   While not as cool and flashy as marriage equality or legalization, CA is poised to dramatically shift its criminal justice system   (latimes.com) divider line 176
    More: Cool, criminal justice system, country legal systems, same-sex marriages, Arial, Steve Cooley, legalization, electionHeader, campaignNav  
•       •       •

4007 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Nov 2012 at 2:02 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 11:29:28 AM
I'd vote yes for both of them, but I'm not in California.

We shouldn't kill people.

We also shouldn't jail people for life for stealing three cars.
 
2012-11-06 11:59:52 AM

feckingmorons: We shouldn't kill people.


This country has such an odd relationship with the death penalty.
 
2012-11-06 12:43:57 PM
Huh, they really are greenlighting everything. Get your submissions in!

/subby
//was psyched to vote yes on those
 
2012-11-06 12:49:55 PM
That is because their 3 strikes law - among other things - has filled prisons far beyond capacity and their entire criminal justice system is stressed to the point of collapse.
 
2012-11-06 12:51:47 PM
Proposition 34 would save "several tens of millions of dollars annually" (one key study pegged it at $184 million a year).

So Republicans are against cutting a $184 million/year execution program that has killed a total of 13 people since 1976 and none since 2006. Good job, "conservatives".
 
2012-11-06 12:58:57 PM

Lumpmoose: Proposition 34 would save "several tens of millions of dollars annually" (one key study pegged it at $184 million a year).

So Republicans are against cutting a $184 million/year execution program that has killed a total of 13 people since 1976 and none since 2006. Good job, "conservatives".


Well, you wouldn't want to deny a survivor their revenge, would you?

/that's the way they've been playing it
 
2012-11-06 01:29:52 PM
Yeah, I was pretty psyched to vote Yes on both of these as well. It's a shame that 34 probably won't pass, but to be honest I didn't expect to even have the chance to vote on it any time soon.
 
2012-11-06 01:29:54 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lumpmoose: Proposition 34 would save "several tens of millions of dollars annually" (one key study pegged it at $184 million a year).

So Republicans are against cutting a $184 million/year execution program that has killed a total of 13 people since 1976 and none since 2006. Good job, "conservatives".

Well, you wouldn't want to deny a survivor their revenge, would you?

/that's the way they've been playing it


That's really, in my mind, the only true purpose for keeping the death penalty; but that goes square against the Bible: Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

/probably paraphrased
 
2012-11-06 02:04:58 PM
I've hears some hyperbolic political claims, but this takes the cake. making porn stars wear condoms is not a dramatic shift of the criminal justice system.
 
2012-11-06 02:06:32 PM
What death penalty?
 
2012-11-06 02:08:20 PM
Voted yes on both. End the death penalty. End three strikes.
 
2012-11-06 02:10:38 PM
I was so caught up in the national elections I hadn't paid attention to my local props.

I was really pleasantly surprised at our ballot initiatives.

I voted Yes on both of them.
 
2012-11-06 02:11:35 PM
The argument that the courts aren't infallible and some death row inmates may in fact be innocent doesn't seem to penetrate the conservative skull, perhaps because, with little experience in the criminal justice system themselves, conservatives actually think it is infallible.

Or because they feel that if you're convicted by the first trial and then convicted several more times with your mandatory appeals by entirely different judges/juries with all of them instructed as to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then it can be reasonably concluded that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they've even looked at the claims of the innocence projects and realized that their claims of false conviction rates are inflated by a factor of ten or two at best, entirely fabricated at worst.

Wait, I mean ALL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE INHUMAN MONSTERS MASTERFULLY SCHEMING TO KILL PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY AGREES, AND ALSO STUPID SOMEHOW.

//I actually didn't know that CA was a death-penalty state this week. I guess it's been five minutes so it was time to change it again.
 
2012-11-06 02:14:03 PM

Jim_Callahan: The argument that the courts aren't infallible and some death row inmates may in fact be innocent doesn't seem to penetrate the conservative skull, perhaps because, with little experience in the criminal justice system themselves, conservatives actually think it is infallible.

Or because they feel that if you're convicted by the first trial and then convicted several more times with your mandatory appeals by entirely different judges/juries with all of them instructed as to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then it can be reasonably concluded that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they've even looked at the claims of the innocence projects and realized that their claims of false conviction rates are inflated by a factor of ten or two at best, entirely fabricated at worst.

Wait, I mean ALL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE INHUMAN MONSTERS MASTERFULLY SCHEMING TO KILL PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY AGREES, AND ALSO STUPID SOMEHOW.

//I actually didn't know that CA was a death-penalty state this week. I guess it's been five minutes so it was time to change it again.


Tell us how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute in your opinion? Do you hold the innocence projects to a higher standards than the courts?
 
2012-11-06 02:15:22 PM
I'm a Californian in exile in Seattle. 3 strikes is a joke and costs CA billions, not to mention gives people life sentences for minor crimes. It needs to go. And while I'm not against the idea of a death penalty, I think our justice system is so messed up that we can't be certain that we've convicted the right person. I'm just not willing to risk an innocent person's life.
 
2012-11-06 02:16:56 PM
Speaking of same sex marriage votes - does anyone have a link to a more recent poll of MD's Question 6 than the 10/18/12 one I found by the googles?

That showed narrow support, but I'd like to see more than one poll.

Also, the breakdown on that was sharp by age. Old people are about the only big voting block stopping it.
 
2012-11-06 02:17:23 PM
Voting yes on changing the 3 strike rule and voting no on getting rid of the death penalty.

/as soon as I get off work I'll go vote.
 
2012-11-06 02:17:52 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Jim_Callahan: The argument that the courts aren't infallible and some death row inmates may in fact be innocent doesn't seem to penetrate the conservative skull, perhaps because, with little experience in the criminal justice system themselves, conservatives actually think it is infallible.

Or because they feel that if you're convicted by the first trial and then convicted several more times with your mandatory appeals by entirely different judges/juries with all of them instructed as to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then it can be reasonably concluded that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they've even looked at the claims of the innocence projects and realized that their claims of false conviction rates are inflated by a factor of ten or two at best, entirely fabricated at worst.

Wait, I mean ALL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE INHUMAN MONSTERS MASTERFULLY SCHEMING TO KILL PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY AGREES, AND ALSO STUPID SOMEHOW.

//I actually didn't know that CA was a death-penalty state this week. I guess it's been five minutes so it was time to change it again.

Tell us how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute in your opinion? Do you hold the innocence projects to a higher standards than the courts?


Suppose for a second that your house was ransacked by THUGS, your family was tied up in the basement with socks in their mouths, you try to open the door but there's too much blood on the knob! What then!? What then, huh!?
 
2012-11-06 02:18:48 PM

redmond24: I was so caught up in the national elections I hadn't paid attention to my local props.

I was really pleasantly surprised at our ballot initiatives.

I voted Yes on both of them.


But there's 11 of them...
 
2012-11-06 02:19:56 PM

mgshamster: Voted yes on both. End the death penalty. End three strikes.


You know who else would have voted against those things?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-06 02:20:07 PM

cgraves67: I've hears some hyperbolic political claims, but this takes the cake. making porn stars wear condoms is not a dramatic shift of the criminal justice system.


That was one of two county ballot measures for LA County: "B" and "J"

i.imgur.com

/snicker
 
2012-11-06 02:20:52 PM

Jim_Callahan: The argument that the courts aren't infallible and some death row inmates may in fact be innocent doesn't seem to penetrate the conservative skull, perhaps because, with little experience in the criminal justice system themselves, conservatives actually think it is infallible.

Or because they feel that if you're convicted by the first trial and then convicted several more times with your mandatory appeals by entirely different judges/juries with all of them instructed as to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then it can be reasonably concluded that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they've even looked at the claims of the innocence projects and realized that their claims of false conviction rates are inflated by a factor of ten or two at best, entirely fabricated at worst.

Wait, I mean ALL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE INHUMAN MONSTERS MASTERFULLY SCHEMING TO KILL PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY AGREES, AND ALSO STUPID SOMEHOW.

//I actually didn't know that CA was a death-penalty state this week. I guess it's been five minutes so it was time to change it again.


Ca has had the death penalty since 1978. I'm not sure why you think they're flip flopping on that. It's been 34 years. Also, killing one innocent person is too many, especially since the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free."
 
2012-11-06 02:22:20 PM
Meanwhile, I voted to legalize marriage equality and marijuana here in WA.
 
2012-11-06 02:22:49 PM
No on both.

Death penalty serves its purpose and the appeals system in California prevents abuse.
If you get three felonies and any of them are violent, sucks for you, maybe you shouldn't commit 3 felonies including a violent one. I don't care if you reformed enough to make sure your third strike isn't a violent felony.
 
2012-11-06 02:23:56 PM

Raging Whore Moans: cgraves67: I've hears some hyperbolic political claims, but this takes the cake. making porn stars wear condoms is not a dramatic shift of the criminal justice system.

That was one of two county ballot measures for LA County: "B" and "J"

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

/snicker


Only in Los Ageles, folks.
We''ll be here 'till the Big One.
Try the kimchi tacos.
Tip your waitress.
 
2012-11-06 02:23:58 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Jim_Callahan: The argument that the courts aren't infallible and some death row inmates may in fact be innocent doesn't seem to penetrate the conservative skull, perhaps because, with little experience in the criminal justice system themselves, conservatives actually think it is infallible.

Or because they feel that if you're convicted by the first trial and then convicted several more times with your mandatory appeals by entirely different judges/juries with all of them instructed as to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, then it can be reasonably concluded that you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps they've even looked at the claims of the innocence projects and realized that their claims of false conviction rates are inflated by a factor of ten or two at best, entirely fabricated at worst.

Wait, I mean ALL PEOPLE THAT DISAGREE WITH ME ARE INHUMAN MONSTERS MASTERFULLY SCHEMING TO KILL PEOPLE EVEN THOUGH NO ONE ACTUALLY AGREES, AND ALSO STUPID SOMEHOW.

//I actually didn't know that CA was a death-penalty state this week. I guess it's been five minutes so it was time to change it again.

Ca has had the death penalty since 1978. I'm not sure why you think they're flip flopping on that. It's been 34 years. Also, killing one innocent person is too many, especially since the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free."


There should be reforms as to how the death penalty is applied but it should remain an option. For example, the gang member that shot a highschool student because he happened to have a red backpack should be put to death. That gang member doesn't deserve the chance to cause even more violence in jail as many lifers do.
 
2012-11-06 02:25:44 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute in your opinion? Do you hold the innocence projects to a higher standards than the courts?


I hold them to roughly the same standards as the courts. If you tried to accuse someone of defrauding you twenty years ago, asked the court to ignore the entire body of contemporary documents on the transaction except for one, and then held up the fact that there was some coffee spilled on a two-decade-old receipt as proof positive that you'd been defrauded despite encyclopedias worth of affidavits, other evidence, etc that the contract was executed without a hitch... you'd be laughed out of court.

That's more or less what most of the innocence projects claims amount to, nit-picking some single piece of evidence not in itself particularly meaningful among a larger body of evidence and then claiming that their guy was railroaded, generally after he's been executed and the DoJ is under direction not to waste state money disputing the claims. The favorite line of reasoning is that a lack of DNA evidence means a lack of any evidence, a claim specifically designed to exploit scientific illiteracy in their audience.

Not that their work on actual, current cases is bad, that's actually quite helpful. It's just their claims about false conviction rates that are pulled from the ass.

//There's nothing wrong with opposing the death penalty, it's mainly the article's attitude that their side is unambiguously right in every way that I find insultingly simplistic, as the actual debate is more a matter of differing priorities.
 
2012-11-06 02:26:21 PM
I have absolutely no sense of how my fellow Californians are going to vote on these - no outcome would surprise me.
 
2012-11-06 02:28:49 PM

jso2897: I have absolutely no sense of how my fellow Californians are going to vote on these - no outcome would surprise me.


Here's a guess: people who live inland will vote to keep all of the expensive things that they don't pay very much for in taxes. That's why they live inland.
 
2012-11-06 02:30:17 PM
Californian.

Voted yes on both. Mr. Teeny shrugs his shoulders at the idea of accidentally killing an innocent, and says, "It sucks, but whatever..."

He didn't get laid that night.
 
2012-11-06 02:30:19 PM

bhcompy: Death penalty serves its purpose and the appeals system in California prevents abuse.


The problem with California's death penalty is that liberals have made it so inefficient/expensive that it's almost impossible to execute someone in California. You're more likely to win the lottery and be hit by lightening than be executed the California correctional system. That being said, it does execute legitimately guilty people because of that process. Actual dangerous people, not a black man who whistled at a white woman in 1986. So I'm indifferent into whether it passes or not. But I'm for ditching it because of the asinine amount of money spent on the process. So, long story short, you win, liberals....and you've probably made California a better place because of it.


3 strikes needs to go. Prison is for violent societal rejects.
 
2012-11-06 02:33:30 PM

Jim_Callahan: Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us how many innocent people is it acceptable to execute in your opinion? Do you hold the innocence projects to a higher standards than the courts?

I hold them to roughly the same standards as the courts. If you tried to accuse someone of defrauding you twenty years ago, asked the court to ignore the entire body of contemporary documents on the transaction except for one, and then held up the fact that there was some coffee spilled on a two-decade-old receipt as proof positive that you'd been defrauded despite encyclopedias worth of affidavits, other evidence, etc that the contract was executed without a hitch... you'd be laughed out of court.

That's more or less what most of the innocence projects claims amount to, nit-picking some single piece of evidence not in itself particularly meaningful among a larger body of evidence and then claiming that their guy was railroaded, generally after he's been executed and the DoJ is under direction not to waste state money disputing the claims. The favorite line of reasoning is that a lack of DNA evidence means a lack of any evidence, a claim specifically designed to exploit scientific illiteracy in their audience.

Not that their work on actual, current cases is bad, that's actually quite helpful. It's just their claims about false conviction rates that are pulled from the ass.

//There's nothing wrong with opposing the death penalty, it's mainly the article's attitude that their side is unambiguously right in every way that I find insultingly simplistic, as the actual debate is more a matter of differing priorities.


You didn't answer the first question. What rate of execution of the innocent is acceptable to you? Obviously 10% of the cases that the Innocence projects claim are innocent being executed is acceptable to you. How many more would it take for you to become concerned?
 
2012-11-06 02:36:08 PM

jso2897: I have absolutely no sense of how my fellow Californians are going to vote on these - no outcome would surprise me.


Pretty much this.

The three-strikes change has been tried a couple times and keeps getting voted down, mostly because the people who know why it needs changing and want it changed aren't the idiots and rubes voting on it. Cops, district attorneys, judges and social workers would LOVE to see three-strikes changed, because it's been nothing but an unmitigated disaster since day one: Clogging the courts, crowding jails and filling prisons with aging non-violent felons while young, violent thugs have to be given early release because there's no bed space for them. However, the prison guards' union, tough-on-crime zealots and any politician who needs votes is selling the old "if you don't want to go to prison you shouldn't commit crimes" line, with zero regard for reality.

Same thing with the death penalty. The simple fact is, we're not executing anyone; so why keep it around? If the appeals process means "a death sentence" becomes life in prison without parole, then let's stop allowing prisoners to drag out their appeals (at incredible cost to everyone) and just give them life without parole. It's easier to exhaust appeals for life--because the end result isn't that the guy is going to be killed, which is why the appeals process has to be so drawn out. The prisoner uses up his appeals, he gets life, done. But the same scaremongers and zealots get their votes with "what if it was YOUR family????" rhetoric. It's all b/s.
 
2012-11-06 02:36:14 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: bhcompy: Death penalty serves its purpose and the appeals system in California prevents abuse.

The problem with California's death penalty is that liberals have made it so inefficient/expensive that it's almost impossible to execute someone in California. You're more likely to win the lottery and be hit by lightening than be executed the California correctional system. That being said, it does execute legitimately guilty people because of that process. Actual dangerous people, not a black man who whistled at a white woman in 1986. So I'm indifferent into whether it passes or not. But I'm for ditching it because of the asinine amount of money spent on the process. So, long story short, you win, liberals....and you've probably made California a better place because of it.


3 strikes needs to go. Prison is for violent societal rejects.


The measure doesn't get rid of it - just limits it's application to violent major felonies. We have to do something, before our prisons turn into unaffordable geriatric nursing homes. We are letting violent, dangerous people walk to make room for aging, sick, expensive-to-care-for losers who may have never actually harmed another person.
 
2012-11-06 02:36:32 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Ca has had the death penalty since 1978. I'm not sure why you think they're flip flopping on that. It's been 34 years. Also, killing one innocent person is too many, especially since the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free."


No, the alternative is to confine them for the remainder of their life without possibility of release, in forced proximity to the most dangerous individuals that the courts can find, at the expense of the state.

Yeah, that's way more humane.

I guess I stand corrected on the duration of the DP in California, though. The flip-flops have apparently been judicial (74 -'76 and 2006-current), not actual changes in the law, according to wiki.

//Actually the biggest argument against the DP in CA currently is that they're essentially never carried out once issued, so they're basically really, really expensive versions of life imprisonment.
 
2012-11-06 02:39:31 PM

bhcompy: No on both.

Death penalty serves its purpose and the appeals system in California prevents abuse.
If you get three felonies and any of them are violent, sucks for you, maybe you shouldn't commit 3 felonies including a violent one. I don't care if you reformed enough to make sure your third strike isn't a violent felony.


Death penalty does not serve its purpose. It does not deter crime. In addition, everything we know about serial killers (early warning signs, psychology, and our ability to catch and convict other serial killers) was learned by interviewing those already in prison. If we had executed them, we would have never got that information. There were some who were executed. We didn't learn anything from them. Also, innocent people who were executed.

For the three strikes, we shouldn't be putting people in prison for life for committing non-serious felonies. Make the punishment actually fit the crime. I know a woman who got her "third strike" and is serving a life sentence for it. What was her third strike? She happened to be with a group who started a fight. The two people who started the fight made a deal to get no sentence if they blamed it on her. The three strikes law doesn't allow for rehabilitation - of course, with our current system, that's not really the goal, is it? We just want people in prison so the private prison industry can keep making money. Yes, California uses a private prison system. Other arguments: possession of drugs is a felony. Is that really worth a life sentence? 3 counts of possession? Really?
 
2012-11-06 02:39:31 PM

feckingmorons: I'd vote yes for both of them, but I'm not in California.

We shouldn't kill people.

We also shouldn't jail people for life for stealing three cars.


Then they shouldn't steal them here in the Excessively Deep South, where patriots also brag about the execution rate.
 
2012-11-06 02:40:01 PM
Death penalty...saving money is great, but on the other hand we get to kill people. How awesome is that!

/voted yes on both
 
2012-11-06 02:40:19 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: bhcompy: Death penalty serves its purpose and the appeals system in California prevents abuse.

The problem with California's death penalty is that liberals have made it so inefficient/expensive that it's almost impossible to execute someone in California. You're more likely to win the lottery and be hit by lightening than be executed the California correctional system. That being said, it does execute legitimately guilty people because of that process. Actual dangerous people, not a black man who whistled at a white woman in 1986. So I'm indifferent into whether it passes or not. But I'm for ditching it because of the asinine amount of money spent on the process. So, long story short, you win, liberals....and you've probably made California a better place because of it.


3 strikes needs to go. Prison is for violent societal rejects.


Not to sound paranoid, but it SHOULD be hard for our government to execute someone.
 
2012-11-06 02:41:56 PM

jso2897: Raging Whore Moans: cgraves67: I've hears some hyperbolic political claims, but this takes the cake. making porn stars wear condoms is not a dramatic shift of the criminal justice system.

That was one of two county ballot measures for LA County: "B" and "J"

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

/snicker

Only in Los Ageles, folks.
We''ll be here 'till the Big One.
Try the kimchi tacos.
Tip your waitress.


In Santa Clara County we have Measures A, 2, and M
 
2012-11-06 02:42:15 PM

xanadian: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lumpmoose: Proposition 34 would save "several tens of millions of dollars annually" (one key study pegged it at $184 million a year).

So Republicans are against cutting a $184 million/year execution program that has killed a total of 13 people since 1976 and none since 2006. Good job, "conservatives".

Well, you wouldn't want to deny a survivor their revenge, would you?

/that's the way they've been playing it

That's really, in my mind, the only true purpose for keeping the death penalty; but that goes square against the Bible: Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.

/probably paraphrased


Yeah, but they think their Sky Wizard talks directly to them, so he probably tells them which ones he wants killed.
 
2012-11-06 02:42:31 PM
Never vote for A2M.
 
2012-11-06 02:43:40 PM
I don't get how these "pro-life" conservatives think it's OK to do post-natal abortions on middle aged men.
 
2012-11-06 02:44:22 PM

Jim_Callahan: Mike Chewbacca: Ca has had the death penalty since 1978. I'm not sure why you think they're flip flopping on that. It's been 34 years. Also, killing one innocent person is too many, especially since the alternative to the death penalty isn't "set them free."

No, the alternative is to confine them for the remainder of their life without possibility of release, in forced proximity to the most dangerous individuals that the courts can find, at the expense of the state.

Yeah, that's way more humane.

I guess I stand corrected on the duration of the DP in California, though. The flip-flops have apparently been judicial (74 -'76 and 2006-current), not actual changes in the law, according to wiki.

//Actually the biggest argument against the DP in CA currently is that they're essentially never carried out once issued, so they're basically really, really expensive versions of life imprisonment.


The solution to the life in prison sucks isn't to just kill the inmates. It's to make prisons safer. Of course, California has privatized prisons, which is why we have so many people incarcerated. Companies making money off imprisoning other people. It sickens me.
 
2012-11-06 02:44:54 PM

Deneb81: Speaking of same sex marriage votes - does anyone have a link to a more recent poll of MD's Question 6 than the 10/18/12 one I found by the googles?

That showed narrow support, but I'd like to see more than one poll.

Also, the breakdown on that was sharp by age. Old people are about the only big voting block stopping it.


I've seen 2 ads and heard one anti-6. Maybe in the more religious parts of PG or Baltimore (or Western MD/the shore) there's some serious opposition, but the entire moneymaking apparatus of the state - where all the people live, too - are in support. If it passes with less than 60% support, I'll be upset.

// and nothing about CA's GMO labeling question?
// MD voter - yes on 6 (obviously), and I'm undecided on 7
// do I let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or do I suck it up and enjoy me some PG poker?

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Well, you wouldn't want to deny a survivor their revenge, would you?


Because laws in the US are all about revenge. That's why you're allowed to assault someone if they're convicted of assaulting you.

// I know that's not your position - it's still a stupid position
 
2012-11-06 02:45:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the first question. What rate of execution of the innocent is acceptable to you? Obviously 10% of the cases that the Innocence projects claim are innocent being executed is acceptable to you. How many more would it take for you to become concerned?


I would say that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard already in place is sufficient. Typical procedure is two mandatory appeals for capital punishment cases plus judicial review, iirc, with something like two years minimum for all parties to gather evidence and so on.

People and organizations are welcome to put in whatever evidence or arguments they want, or file briefs or whatever, both during the original murder trial and the appeals/sentencing appeals. As noted, the innocence projects do actually do this, and it's appreciated.

Basically, the safeguards in place are largely sufficient to prevent the execution of someone innocent of the murder of which they've been convicted. At some point you've got to stop burning resources on a five-year-old's game of "why?" and follow through on justice, or you're just gumming up the gears for no reason.
 
2012-11-06 02:46:36 PM
That's a sharp contrast with Proposition 34, which would replace the state's death penalty with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Putting people on death row, with its attendent costs in mandatory appeals, lawyers and judges times, and the increased burden on the court system is proven to be more expensive than simply tossing the key away until the convicted dies of natural causes.

So of course fiscal conservatives are completely against doing away with the death penalty.

If anything, their solution would be to get rid of the appeals process, put in an express lane, and not give a fark about the eventual certainty of finding out one of the men you executed was actually innocent at a slightly later date than would have done him any good.
 
2012-11-06 02:48:42 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-06 02:48:48 PM

Jim_Callahan: Philip Francis Queeg: You didn't answer the first question. What rate of execution of the innocent is acceptable to you? Obviously 10% of the cases that the Innocence projects claim are innocent being executed is acceptable to you. How many more would it take for you to become concerned?

I would say that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard already in place is sufficient. Typical procedure is two mandatory appeals for capital punishment cases plus judicial review, iirc, with something like two years minimum for all parties to gather evidence and so on.

People and organizations are welcome to put in whatever evidence or arguments they want, or file briefs or whatever, both during the original murder trial and the appeals/sentencing appeals. As noted, the innocence projects do actually do this, and it's appreciated.

Basically, the safeguards in place are largely sufficient to prevent the execution of someone innocent of the murder of which they've been convicted. At some point you've got to stop burning resources on a five-year-old's game of "why?" and follow through on justice, or you're just gumming up the gears for no reason.


In California, possibly. In Texas? Oh, hell, no. I'm surprised Texas doesn't televise that shiat. They really are execution-happy (and I typoed that as "fappy" which IMO is still appropriate) there, and they really don't do their due-diligence. In fact, I'm pretty sure they've already executed an innocent person, in the 90s.
 
2012-11-06 02:49:37 PM

Karac: That's a sharp contrast with Proposition 34, which would replace the state's death penalty with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Putting people on death row, with its attendent costs in mandatory appeals, lawyers and judges times, and the increased burden on the court system is proven to be more expensive than simply tossing the key away until the convicted dies of natural causes.

So of course fiscal conservatives are completely against doing away with the death penalty.

If anything, their solution would be to get rid of the appeals process, put in an express lane, and not give a fark about the eventual certainty of finding out one of the men you executed was actually innocent at a slightly later date than would have done him any good.


I would reconsider my objection to removing the death penalty if it is replaced with solitary confinment for the rest of the prisoner's life. They shouldn't enjoy socializing with anyone, even other convicts.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report