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.

(Yahoo)   For California death row inmates we have good news and bad news. The good news is that the death penalty in California has been found unconstitutional. The bad news is it's because they aren't executing you quick enough   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 78
    More: Scary, U.S., death penalty, Eighth Amendment, cruel and unusual punishment  
•       •       •

3339 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jul 2014 at 9:04 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-16 06:46:14 PM
And what is Gitmo?

And stateside, what about the guy a week or two ago who was exonerated after spending 28 years on death row?
 
2014-07-16 07:21:14 PM
This is not a repeat from 1972...
 
2014-07-16 07:48:19 PM
Um, they didn't find the death penalty unconstitutional, it was the waiting around on death row for 30 years.
 
2014-07-16 08:08:00 PM
A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

Like that Vandersloot who strangled the girl(s) in that island. He should be swinging. He caused harm, and has enough freedom to get married? Crazy is communicable. He's got a long life ahead. It's bad news what he could inspire or commit.

On the other hand, pretty much every conviction of a non-white baptist man in his hometown is suspect south of the Mason Dixon line. They don't like yankees, blacks, women, or anyone else really. Always a bad track record there. So it's not like the state can be trusted to really determine guilt.

So, I'd make the death penalty into a reward. Anyone, convict or not, can apply to die. They meet several psychologists whose job is to determine they're sane enough to chose this thing and "wise ones", philosophical men and women who decide if the reasons are sound.

If the person is sane and the reason good, like guilt for a murder they committed, they get a list of deaths to choose from. Firing squad, hanging, soft poison, guillotine. It's conducted in private with decorum by professionals. They can back out at any time. And it would be awesome for people who've always wondered what a guilotine felt like who've been diagnosed with stage 4 everything cancer and don't want to die in a hospital.
 
2014-07-16 08:45:47 PM

doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.


If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.
 
2014-07-16 08:50:46 PM
So it's not enough to just make them wish they were dead?
 
2014-07-16 08:53:37 PM

Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.


Yeah, when people say that the death penalty should only apply to people who are definitely guilty, they're thinking about Hans Gruber/ Clarence Boddiker/ Voldemort guilty. But then there are cases that are just a hair shy of that clarity. And then a hair shy of that. And so on. Until you get to the guy who was just released a week ago who spent 30 years on death row and was just now exonerated.

Me personally, I'd rather take a bullet than face life in prison but that's me, I'm delicate. But as long as there are people being wrongly convicted, the State shouldn't be murdering people.
 
2014-07-16 08:54:36 PM

Mugato: Me personally, I'd rather take a bullet than face life in prison but that's me, I'm delicate. But as long as there are people being wrongly convicted, the State shouldn't be murdering people.


I couldn't agree more.
 
2014-07-16 09:08:46 PM

doglover: And it would be awesome for people who've always wondered what a guilotine felt like who've been diagnosed with stage 4 everything cancer and don't want to die in a hospital.


Niche market.
 
2014-07-16 09:11:36 PM

Rumors has it that the California legislature has already found a solution:


kourdistoportocali.com

 
2014-07-16 09:12:02 PM
Life in federal prison is less humane than a swift execution.
 
2014-07-16 09:12:10 PM
static.tvtropes.org
 
2014-07-16 09:12:36 PM

skinink: Rumors has it that the California legislature has already found a solution:
[kourdistoportocali.com image 640x506]


No horse?
www.sondrakistan.com
 
2014-07-16 09:12:44 PM

Mugato: I'd rather take a bullet than face life in prison but that's me, I'm delicate.


You wouldn't survive five minutes behind bars. You'd be someone's prison culo, traded for cigarettes in the shower daily.
 
2014-07-16 09:13:44 PM
FREE TOOKIE!!
 
2014-07-16 09:13:48 PM
Maybe if they called it something nicer..... like the End of Life Consequence .
 
2014-07-16 09:16:02 PM
If California wanted to be honest, they'd just change their official execution method to "old age."

But for whatever reason, they want the appearance of a death penalty without the reality.
 
2014-07-16 09:18:16 PM
Stop giving prosecutors immunity for attempted murder (filing false charges in an attempt to get a death penalty conviction)
 
2014-07-16 09:21:09 PM
the death penalty is under increasing scrutinym

What's a scrutinym? Is that like a homonym?
 
2014-07-16 09:23:08 PM
Our heart hasn't actually been in it for thirty years.  We really like the idea of killing bad people in abstract, but when it comes to the messy business of actually deciding who deserves it and how it should be carried out, we punt forever and create circular dependencies to keep from having to actually go through with it.   Just get rid of it already.  The cost, logistics, and lack of deterrence is more than the self-righteous thrill of continuing to pretend we're for it.
 
2014-07-16 09:25:35 PM

hardinparamedic: Mugato: I'd rather take a bullet than face life in prison but that's me, I'm delicate.

You wouldn't survive five minutes behind bars. You'd be someone's prison culo, traded for cigarettes in the shower daily.


Would I get to smoke one of the cigarettes? You know, like a cork toll?

doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

Like that Vandersloot

...

I don't know who or what a Vandersloot is but, there is so much farked-upness in that sentence that the ACLU should examine it for Crimes Against Humanity.

MORAL death penalty. If your version of morality includes execution I think you should suck the cock of Hammurabi for all eternity.

Beyond DOUBT? Is that like human doubt? Your doubt? My doubt?

Without JOY?!?!?! Set yourself on fire, relay the joy to me.

"...prophylactic against future wrongdoing ..."

Seriously, die in a fire. Don't forget to wear your rubbers...
 
2014-07-16 09:30:38 PM

Rincewind53: There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.

Sure there is. Don't sentence people to death on the basis of paid informants, partial smudged prints, and single eyewitnesses.

Unless the entire crime was videotaped - ending with the perp saying "Hi, I'm John Smith, and I just killed all these people" - you don't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Put them in prison for life with no parole (and no farking cable TV).
 
2014-07-16 09:33:11 PM

fusillade762: the death penalty is under increasing scrutinym

What's a scrutinym? Is that like a homonym?


www.tellusventure.com

"Bend over, turn your head and cough."
 
2014-07-16 09:34:38 PM

Mugato: And what is Gitmo?

And stateside, what about the guy a week or two ago who was exonerated after spending 28 years on death row?


He should have had the same sentence commutation rendered faster.

Seriously it's a damn farce here. More likely to die of old age than be executed OR exonerated.
 
2014-07-16 09:35:29 PM
I've been saying this for decades. In cases with no doubt (a larger percentage than you'd think) there should be a maximum 1 year timeline from arrest to pulling the trigger. In the cases where guilt isn't certain just take it off the table and go with LWoP.
 
2014-07-16 09:35:44 PM

doglover: On the other hand, pretty much every conviction of a non-white baptist man in his hometown is suspect south of the Mason Dixon line. They don't like yankees, blacks, women, or anyone else really. Always a bad track record there. So it's not like the state can be trusted to really determine guilt.


Wrong.

The deep south convicts at a ratio of 3:1 per 100,000 of the respective black/white populations. The Northeast and Midwest convict blacks at 10:1 to 13:1.

i.imgur.com

States with the highest black-to-white [conviction] ratio are disproportionately located in the Northeast and Midwest, including the leading states of Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin. This geographic concentration is true as well for the Hispanic-to-white ratio, with the most disproportionate states being Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, and New Jersey
 
2014-07-16 09:37:47 PM

ImpendingCynic: Rincewind53: There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.
Sure there is. Don't sentence people to death on the basis of paid informants, partial smudged prints, and single eyewitnesses.

Unless the entire crime was videotaped - ending with the perp saying "Hi, I'm John Smith, and I just killed all these people" - you don't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Put them in prison for life with no parole (and no farking cable TV).


This fine gentleman would seem to meet your criteria:  http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/charlesng.htm
 
2014-07-16 09:38:22 PM

ImpendingCynic: Rincewind53: There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.
Sure there is. Don't sentence people to death on the basis of paid informants, partial smudged prints, and single eyewitnesses.

Unless the entire crime was videotaped - ending with the perp saying "Hi, I'm John Smith, and I just killed all these people" - you don't have proof beyond reasonable doubt. Put them in prison for life with no parole (and no farking cable TV).


That's not a  method to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the defendant admitting guilt.

method to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that is foolproof, and takes into account defendants who do not admit their own guilt, does not exist.
 
2014-07-16 09:41:03 PM

stirfrybry: Stop giving prosecutors immunity for attempted murder (filing false charges in an attempt to get a death penalty conviction)


Stop being so smart, justice craves more blood
 
2014-07-16 09:42:56 PM

hardinparamedic: Mugato: I'd rather take a bullet than face life in prison but that's me, I'm delicate.

You wouldn't survive five minutes behind bars. You'd be someone's prison culo, traded for cigarettes in the shower daily.


This is California. They'll have to pay an extra $500 for that shower.
 
2014-07-16 09:44:36 PM

Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.


As a Californian, I actually appreciate that by law in California you get a mandatory appeal no matter what your plea in a death sentence conviction. But 30 years of appeal and delay is ridiculous. The argument points out that the rare cases of actual death sentences in California being carried out are about as rare in the system as bring struck by lightning.

Hopefully in 20 more years as the more recent generations take over the court system the number of blatantly racist convictions will dwindle to near zero. That will dramatically reduce the number of false positives. We are still dealing with the aftermath of 20 year old race riots in our modern justice system.
 
2014-07-16 09:45:31 PM
img.4plebs.org
 
2014-07-16 09:45:56 PM

Elegy: doglover: On the other hand, pretty much every conviction of a non-white baptist man in his hometown is suspect south of the Mason Dixon line. They don't like yankees, blacks, women, or anyone else really. Always a bad track record there. So it's not like the state can be trusted to really determine guilt.

Wrong.

The deep south convicts at a ratio of 3:1 per 100,000 of the respective black/white populations. The Northeast and Midwest convict blacks at 10:1 to 13:1.

[i.imgur.com image 850x607]

States with the highest black-to-white [conviction] ratio are disproportionately located in the Northeast and Midwest, including the leading states of Iowa, Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Wisconsin. This geographic concentration is true as well for the Hispanic-to-white ratio, with the most disproportionate states being Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, and New Jersey


Blue states FTW!
 
2014-07-16 09:48:35 PM

Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.


There is. It's just that in order to work, the system needs good people doing their job well because they want the best results. It has to be a labor of love.

What you actually get is lawyers doing as much as they're paid to pad a resume.

Jurors should be trained professionals and lawyers randomly selected.
 
2014-07-16 09:53:53 PM
I don't see what's so wrong with life in prison. And don't say it's the cost of housing prisoners. If you're so concerned about that then be outraged about the cost of housing prisoners for victimless drug crimes that aren't even illegal in some states.
 
2014-07-16 09:55:25 PM
This creates an interesting situation here.  Gov. Brown and Kamala Harris (the AG) are both anti-death penalty, and there would be a strong temptation for them to let the ruling stand, and not appeal it to the 9th Circuit (which would probably uphold the verdict anyway).  However, to do so would be to hand the Repubs a campaign issue they might be able to use in the coming elections to score some big wins in the state legislature and, possibly, in congress as well.
The Republican party here is as lifeless as a decade-old corpse, but Brown doesn't want to do anything that might revive them even a little.  It's going to be very interesting to see how the Dems handle this.
 
2014-07-16 09:55:33 PM
The REAL reason for the delays?

i1.ytimg.com

"No no, sausage! No, wait........ pineapple and anchovie......pepperoni.... No wait!..........."
 
2014-07-16 09:57:49 PM
I don't care one way or the other, as long as we keep the guilty ones out of society.  If we're going to have the death penalty though, it should be the same through the entire country.
 
2014-07-16 10:01:10 PM

doglover: Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.

There is. It's just that in order to work, the system needs good people doing their job well because they want the best results. It has to be a labor of love.

What you actually get is lawyers doing as much as they're paid to pad a resume.

Jurors should be trained professionals and lawyers randomly selected.


In many ways, it  is a labor of love. Many prosecutors legitimately believe that they are doing the right thing by bringing people they think are guilty to justice. Many defense lawyers believe they are doing the right thing by fighting as hard as they can for the rights of their defendants. But people aren't perfect. Things go wrong. Entirely innocent people plead guilty. Science that "proved guilt" in one case may later turn out to be bullshiat. Even if every participant in the system is approaching the problem from the right perspective, and wants to do the right thing, innocent people may still be convicted.

The idea that jurors should be trained professionals eliminates the entire point of a "Jury of ones peers." This will lead to  really bad results, as jurors would bring information gained from previous trials into each new trial, which is a big no-no in the criminal justice system. Thus, a juror who had previous sat in on a murder trial might have listened to one expert talk about a particular scientific theory (which might be wrong), and bring his understanding of it into a new trial in a way that might be really bad.

Random selection of lawyers is pretty much how the public defense system works, but it's also a really shiatty idea for  every criminal trial, since if you're being tried for murder you damn well want to make sure you have the best possible lawyer you can get. There's also a right to choose your own counsel in the Constitution.

Basically, what you're proposing would require throwing out the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution and starting all over.
 
2014-07-16 10:18:43 PM
While there are mandatory appeals in place to prevent a miscarriage of justice this guys lawyer is the one who dragged it out per the article:

"In the California case, Jones was convicted in the 1992 rape and murder of his girlfriend's mother, and later sentenced to death. In 2009, his lawyers asked the court to review the sentence,"

It doesn't say what the interval was between his arrest and conviction. He may not have been arrested in 1992 but lets assume that he was, it can take up to  year from arraignment to conviction. Then there is a mandatory appeals process and it's not uncommon at all for the convicted lawyers to file appeal after appeal, one at a time instead of all at once to buy their client some more time.

I'm guessing that the one appeal mentioned in the article is only one of many not included in the states required appeal process.
 
2014-07-16 10:21:04 PM
"The bad news is it's because they aren't executing you QUICKLY enough."

/FTFY Subby. Adverb to modify the verb "executing"
//English major
///Can't help myself
 
2014-07-16 10:22:17 PM

skinink: Rumors has it that the California legislature has already found a solution:


At least the 2nd guy from the right got his chaw. The 2nd guy from the left wouldnt shut up.
 
2014-07-16 10:38:54 PM
img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-07-16 10:42:19 PM

Aces and Eights: "The bad news is it's because they aren't executing you QUICKLY enough."

/FTFY Subby. Adverb to modify the verb "executing"
//English major
///Can't help myself


Lemme have a large order of fries with that, please
 
2014-07-16 10:52:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9-7uLg-DZU

The appropriate audio part kicks in at around 32 seconds.
 
2014-07-16 10:57:20 PM

Rincewind53: doglover: Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.

There is. It's just that in order to work, the system needs good people doing their job well because they want the best results. It has to be a labor of love.

What you actually get is lawyers doing as much as they're paid to pad a resume.

Jurors should be trained professionals and lawyers randomly selected.

In many ways, it  is a labor of love. Many prosecutors legitimately believe that they are doing the right thing by bringing people they think are guilty to justice. Many defense lawyers believe they are doing the right thing by fighting as hard as they can for the rights of their defendants. But people aren't perfect. Things go wrong. Entirely innocent people plead guilty. Science that "proved guilt" in one case may later turn out to be bullshiat. Even if every participant in the system is approaching the problem from the right perspective, and wants to do the right thing, innocent people may still be convicted.

The idea that jurors should be trained professionals eliminates the entire point of a "Jury of ones peers." This will lead to  really bad results, as jurors would bring information gained from previous trials into each new trial, which is a big no-no in the criminal justice system. Thus, a juror who had previous sat in on a murder trial might have listened to one expert talk about a particular scientific theory (which might be wrong), and bring his understanding of it into a new trial in a way that might ...


My idea for modern society is basically burn it all down with the controlled flame of reason in academic research and use the heat to smelt the gold out of the ore. Once that's done, we start finding places we can get those golden idea in place for real.

I never really liked trial by jury of one's peers bit or a lot of the pantomime they do like not bringing in experience from the past or ignoring evidence. So we test it out. Run a few mock trials without telling those involved they are mock. See what happens.

Basically, my theory is lawyers should represent the law, jurors should represent reason, and the judge should represent constructive punishment. No one group could be laypeople and there should be very harsh penalties for abuse of the position.

At the very worst, we'd merely be changing the way the injustice system wrongs us. I doubt it could wrong us more. There are safeguards.
 
2014-07-16 11:03:58 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-07-16 11:04:14 PM

doglover: Rincewind53: doglover: Rincewind53: doglover: A moral death penalty would only be applied to those whose guilt is beyond doubt, but it would be applied swiftly and without joy not for revenge but as a prophylactic against future wrongdoing either in or out of jail.

If you want scary, don't forget that technically  every conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Meaning all those innocent people on death row were convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt."

There is no way to determine guilt beyond doubt in a way that will not allow people to slip between the cracks.

There is. It's just that in order to work, the system needs good people doing their job well because they want the best results. It has to be a labor of love.

What you actually get is lawyers doing as much as they're paid to pad a resume.

Jurors should be trained professionals and lawyers randomly selected.

In many ways, it  is a labor of love. Many prosecutors legitimately believe that they are doing the right thing by bringing people they think are guilty to justice. Many defense lawyers believe they are doing the right thing by fighting as hard as they can for the rights of their defendants. But people aren't perfect. Things go wrong. Entirely innocent people plead guilty. Science that "proved guilt" in one case may later turn out to be bullshiat. Even if every participant in the system is approaching the problem from the right perspective, and wants to do the right thing, innocent people may still be convicted.

The idea that jurors should be trained professionals eliminates the entire point of a "Jury of ones peers." This will lead to  really bad results, as jurors would bring information gained from previous trials into each new trial, which is a big no-no in the criminal justice system. Thus, a juror who had previous sat in on a murder trial might have listened to one expert talk about a particular scientific theory (which might be wrong), and bring his understanding of it into a new trial in a way that might ...

My idea for modern society is basically burn it all down with the controlled flame of reason in academic research and use the heat to smelt the gold out of the ore. Once that's done, we start finding places we can get those golden idea in place for real.

I never really liked trial by jury of one's peers bit or a lot of the pantomime they do like not bringing in experience from the past or ignoring evidence. So we test it out. Run a few mock trials without telling those involved they are mock. See what happens.

Basically, my theory is lawyers should represent the law, jurors should represent reason, and the judge should represent constructive punishment. No one group could be laypeople and there should be very harsh penalties for abuse of the position.

At the very worst, we'd merely be changing the way the injustice system wrongs us. I doubt it could wrong us more. There are safeguards.


Yeah look how well our three tierd seystem of checks and balances has worked out, you farking idiot!
 
2014-07-16 11:08:43 PM
You ensure accuracy and fairness by pitting sides against one another.

Train lawyers to argue the letter of the law. Train jurors to more or less ignore letter of the law arguments and look at the underlying situation and be skeptical of those who use them.

Basically, if it works, there'd be a bakers' dozen defense lawyers against one prosecutor so only really painfully guilty people would ever get convicted of anything. In the event of a conviction, the judge would find a way to punish the condemned that, while probably unpleasant, helped them become a productive member of society again. If it didn't work society would collapse around our ears and we'd have gloom, doom, and dark despair e'ery where before finally being kidnapped and having our brain eaten from out head while we were still alive by a cannibal warlord in what was Ohio.

That's why we test ideas first.
 
2014-07-16 11:13:37 PM

ragsthetiger: This creates an interesting situation here.  Gov. Brown and Kamala Harris (the AG) are both anti-death penalty, and there would be a strong temptation for them to let the ruling stand, and not appeal it to the 9th Circuit (which would probably uphold the verdict anyway).  However, to do so would be to hand the Repubs a campaign issue they might be able to use in the coming elections to score some big wins in the state legislature and, possibly, in congress as well.
The Republican party here is as lifeless as a decade-old corpse, but Brown doesn't want to do anything that might revive them even a little.  It's going to be very interesting to see how the Dems handle this.


You answered yourself the 9th circuit is unlikely to overturn it, so file an appeal, do it in such a way that it is pending during the general election, then walk away.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report