|
On September 23 2011 10:02 Patat0r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 09:48 Cel.erity wrote:
Personally I support the death penalty; I believe death to be more humane and more practical than a life in prison. Personally, if I were faced with that choice, I would choose death, so I like the death penalty. Additionally, it's a lot less money for the taxpayers to spend on someone who wronged society. Are you really sure ? Capital punishment cost 2 million dollars for the society and some states just don't do it because of that.
Yeah, you would think just killing someone would be cheaper than supporting them for the rest of their lives in confinement but it's not. Capital punishment is extremely costly, more so than prison.
|
On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: + Show Spoiler +
You also got take the fact that he "allegedly" killed a cop. (YES I said alleged.... I still don't believe he is 100% guilty) Killing a cop definitely raises a red flag against your court case.
|
I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life.
2. The reality of the justice system is that it is imperfect. It always has been, and always will be. Guilty will go free. Innocent will be punished. It continues to operate imperfectly by necessity; for the most part, the system gets it right. However, when you bring the death penalty into the equation you ultimately create a state of finality that cannot be changed. Injustice involving the death penalty cannot be undone because you have killed the (wrongully) accused.... When that DNA evidence is challenged a few years down the line, and found to be tainted evidence, which either proves the innocence of the accused or raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, there is no recompense...
3. The system of placing a person on death row is expensive and time consuming. It is expensive because there are legal costs as the numerous appeals take place, and because the accused remains in custody whilst this all takes place. The process can and often does take YEARS because the law is so concerned with not killing an innocent person that it will allow often frivolous appeals to be heard on the off chance that something of value comes from it. Most regard the cost of killing a man to be higher than keeping him imprisoned for his entire life (we lawyers are expensive fuckers, I know!).
4. Because of 3 above, it is traumatic for the victim's family, the accused, and the accused's family. The emotional cost to those involved cannot be underestimated.
5. Thinking it through, there is just as much, if not more, wrong with:
a) putting an innocent person through a trial
b) sentencing them for a crime they didn't commit
c) allowing them numerous appeals
d) stressing the involved parties with the procedure
e) and ultimately killing an innocent person, effectively cutting off any opportunity for true justice to be done (the real criminal remains free, remember?)
than there is with the crime that sees them put to death.
I see no justification for the death penalty other than a barbaric and primitive sense of retribution, which I can understand but not ACCEPT when the possible cost is so much higher.
|
On September 22 2011 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote:
I strongly believe in the quote:
"I'd rather let 100 guilty go free, than punish 1 innocent"
And therefore, since it is not certain it's his fault he atleast deserves to live.
Yes! You would say that! Until those 100 guilty rape and kill 100 innocent and you're thinking to yourself, "Oh, shit. Guess we shoulda' put a cap in his ***!" That quote is stuptaculous (yay made-up words)
Seriously though, the case was sketchy and a death penalty could not be "without a reasonable doubt" as there were too many cases where the evidence from both sides would turn out to be crap. This was a "wait and see" case, that the courts rushed and made a huge wrong call on. This entire outcry could have been avoided if the courts waited for conclusive evidence and simply kept the man in prison until such evidence was brought to either free/convict the man of his sentence.
|
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VmH1B.png) (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well?
ROFL...
I'm sorry but this is the most pathetic straw man I think I've ever seen in my life...
|
Well, just saw on google news that he was done in last night. Poor guy, hope he RIP, but its sad that his case ended this way.
|
On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W2F4S.png)
There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
|
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:
I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life.
I agree with your first statement. It's true 90% of the time at least, however, I think common sense dicates that capitol punishment for smaller offences would make a perpetraitor think twice. I have no backing evidence, and no data this is pure speculation. But the earlier post claiming that drug sales are low in singapore due to the death penalty sounds fairly realistic to me. Its most certainly a far more complicated issue than that. But think about it from a personal standpoint: for selling weed, you get killed. I'd personally think twice.
What's my point? Its not a strong determent, but I think the death penalty still functions as a determent when properly applied. Its more than broken in the US though, where you can dance on death row for decades and waste tax payer dollars. It simply isn't feared here.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:2. The reality of the justice system is that it is imperfect. It always has been, and always will be. Guilty will go free. Innocent will be punished. It continues to operate imperfectly by necessity; for the most part, the system gets it right. However, when you bring the death penalty into the equation you ultimately create a state of finality that cannot be changed. Injustice involving the death penalty cannot be undone because you have killed the (wrongully) accused.... When that DNA evidence is challenged a few years down the line, and found to be tainted evidence, which either proves the innocence of the accused or raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, there is no recompense...
You cannot undue locking someone away for 40 years only to find theyre innocent. A simple "oops! here's some money" that is currently done does not nearly suffice. Wrongfully punishing anyone for anything is wrong. This is beyond debate.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:3. The system of placing a person on death row is expensive and time consuming. It is expensive because there are legal costs as the numerous appeals take place, and because the accused remains in custody whilst this all takes place. The process can and often does take YEARS because the law is so concerned with not killing an innocent person that it will allow often frivolous appeals to be heard on the off chance that something of value comes from it. Most regard the cost of killing a man to be higher than keeping him imprisoned for his entire life (we lawyers are expensive fuckers, I know!).
the fault of that lies in the justice system, not capitol punishment.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:4. Because of 3 above, it is traumatic for the victim's family, the accused, and the accused's family. The emotional cost to those involved cannot be underestimated.
5. Thinking it through, there is just as much, if not more, wrong with:
a) putting an innocent person through a trial
b) sentencing them for a crime they didn't commit
c) allowing them numerous appeals
d) stressing the involved parties with the procedure
e) and ultimately killing an innocent person, effectively cutting off any opportunity for true justice to be done (the real criminal remains free, remember?)
than there is with the crime that sees them put to death.
I see no justification for the death penalty other than a barbaric and primitive sense of retribution, which I can understand but not ACCEPT when the possible cost is so much higher.
It was traumatic when the accused decided to kill the victim. This is simply a way of administering justice. Not revenge. Its righteous punishment for a heinous crime. If you knowingly take the life of an innocent man in cold blood, then you forfeit your own right to live. Murder is a serious thing to do and must be dealt with accordingly. It's not a primitive Hammurabi's code either. Its a higher punishment for a higher crime. Murder is severe, and is answered with a severe punishment.
|
You cannot undue locking someone away for 40 years only to find theyre innocent. A simple "oops! here's some money" that is currently done does not nearly suffice. Wrongfully punishing anyone for anything is wrong. This is beyond debate.
Of course it doesn't suffice. But it does allow them the opportunity to do something with their life. To taste freedom again. Perhaps most importantly it allows them the opportunity to be vindicated. Have you ever met a person who has been wrongly accused of a crime? Ever seen the satisfaction it can bring to see a person succeed on appeal against a conviction that should never have stood? I've never experienced it first hand of course, but I have seen it through clients, and even personally I feel fucking fantastic.. I can't imagine how good it feels for them.
If you kill the accused person and they were innocent.... the death penalty position is Woops? Sorry, but tough shit?
the fault of that lies in the justice system, not capitol punishment.
Of course it is the fault of capital punishment... It is an inherent and necessary flaw in the system which is only so very necessary in death penalty scenarios because of the gravity and finality of the sentence imposed. You could not possibly be advocating a system which included both the death penalty and a shorter, tougher appeal system could you? If the American statistic of 1.5% of people sentenced to death being innocent is correct in the current system, I cannot fathom what the number would jump to if you suggest a system that does not take its time coming to a final decision. Completely unacceptable.
It was traumatic when the accused decided to kill the victim. This is simply a way of administering justice. Not revenge. Its righteous punishment for a heinous crime. If you knowingly take the life of an innocent man in cold blood, then you forfeit your own right to live. Murder is a serious thing to do and must be dealt with accordingly. It's not a primitive Hammurabi's code either. Its a higher punishment for a higher crime. Murder is severe, and is answered with a severe punishment.
Umm... I suggest you go away and research the legal meaning of retribution with respect to sentencing... Because "righteous punishment for a heinous crime" fits the bill, friend. I never mentioned revenge, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it.
In fact, I'd suggest more people go away and research sentencing principles generally before entering this debate at all...
|
On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't
Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death.
|
I just don't understand the States in the U.S. that still are killing people.
With their "God-given" Rights to kill people even without evidence, they are really behaving like third world countries.
But i think that's just a statement from a guy, that is glad to live in Europe and not in the "land of the free".
Just ridiculous...
|
On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death.
Well, of course. But that doesn't change that fact. There have been black people in Georgia with death sentences that were commuted to life in prison as well.
|
On September 23 2011 14:01 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? ROFL... I'm sorry but this is the most pathetic straw man I think I've ever seen in my life...
If I didn't think he was serious id find it really funny actually.
|
On September 23 2011 14:18 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:
I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life. I agree with your first statement. It's true 90% of the time at least, however, I think common sense dicates that capitol punishment for smaller offences would make a perpetraitor think twice. I have no backing evidence, and no data this is pure speculation. But the earlier post claiming that drug sales are low in singapore due to the death penalty sounds fairly realistic to me. Its most certainly a far more complicated issue than that. But think about it from a personal standpoint: for selling weed, you get killed. I'd personally think twice. What's my point? Its not a strong determent, but I think the death penalty still functions as a determent when properly applied. Its more than broken in the US though, where you can dance on death row for decades and waste tax payer dollars. It simply isn't feared here.
If you don't have any evidence to back it up, why argue against it (while also bring up percentages)?
Also he stated that "...increasing the level of certainty of being caught" is what deters crime. You example does not speak against this possibility. How do you know without anything to back it up that he's wrong?
|
On September 23 2011 18:17 Schwammerl wrote:
I just don't understand the States in the U.S. that still are killing people.
With their "God-given" Rights to kill people even without evidence, they are really behaving like third world countries.
But i think that's just a statement from a guy, that is glad to live in Europe and not in the "land of the free".
Just ridiculous...
This country has a deep rooted culture of violence. As much as people even here are against a lot of it or even all of what happens it's not an overnight thing to stop it. Violence on all kinds of levels are just acceptable. You are bombarded by it on a constant basis here no matter where you turn and look. The media spreads the fear and the citizens watch and learn. It's almost educational with all the resources available to you here. Prisons don't work here. It's mixed population and you basically get an education in crime. That is your rehab if you get out. Then you can pursue a new avenue of crime.
|
On September 23 2011 18:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death. Well, of course. But that doesn't change that fact. There have been black people in Georgia with death sentences that were commuted to life in prison as well.
We can say that race is irrelevant to the crime as much as we want, because it's true, but statistically it's not irrelevant. It's irritating me the amount of people in this thread calling others out for playing the race card when the sad, awful truth is that it is very relevant and it's a problem. Just protesting that race shouldn't be an issue isn't helping. It shouldn't be an issue. It is.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ju4O1.png)
In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.
A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.
|
There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder?
Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person.
As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here (NSFW).
The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be.
|
On September 23 2011 18:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote +
There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder? Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person. As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here. The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be.
Why the fuck am I quoted here?
Did I say it was impossible? Have you read any of my other posts in this thread? Have I made a comment one way or another about whether the justice system is racist or not?
Hot tip: The answer to all of the above is no.
Really have no idea why you quoted me when launching into that tirade... If you weren't being so rabid, you'd see that I actually agree with everything you just said... EXCEPT I'm quite aware that there are other, more salient distinctions to be made between the two people in that picture other than Black/White. And it makes our anti-death penalty argument weaker when you use such SHITTY examples.
|
On September 23 2011 19:01 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:54 overt wrote:
There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder? Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person. As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here. The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be. Why the fuck am I quoted here? Did I say it was impossible? Have you read any of my other posts in this thread? Have I made a comment one way or another about whether the justice system is racist or not? Hot tip: The answer to all of the above is no. Really have no idea why you quoted me when launching into that tirade... If you weren't being so rabid, you'd see that I actually agree with everything you just said... EXCEPT I'm quite aware that there are other, more salient distinctions to be made between the two people in that picture other than Black/White. And it makes our anti-death penalty argument weaker when you use such SHITTY examples.
Because your quote in relation to the case presumes guilt on someone whom many people felt was innocent. Meanwhile a man who was guilty and admitted to it got clemency. Which is why that picture is still relevant. The only time someone's plea should be relevant to a case is if there are hard physical facts in relation. Your quote, despite your position, was offensive because it presumes guilt of Troy Davis. Even if you didn't intend it to. It was doubly offensive that you brought up guilt and never made mention of the race issue that was being presented. Race is a factor in the United States justice system. If the second man in that picture wasn't white he likely would not have gotten clemency imo.
That's why I quoted you. I probably could have separated my post to make it more clear that I wasn't addressing you in the second part of my post. I thought it was kind of obvious though.
|
The point is this:
The issue of his innocence or guilt is an entirely different consideration to his sentence. If you want to argue he was innocent. Great! Be my guest! Go through the evidence, absent any other consideration. Jurors cannot be worrying about whether they are letting a guilty person go free nor whether they are condemning an innocent one to death or life imprisonment because it obscures them from their real job; applying real world experience to the evidence. For me, I didn't sit in on that case. I haven't seen all the evidence. So I'm not going to make any personal judgment one way or another.
But I'm not presuming guilt, he was found guilty and all appeals were exhausted. As far as the law is concerned, he is guilty. So, taking that fact, we move onto the next issue; sentence.
Both men are guilty (in the eyes of the law, which is actually what matters, let's be honest) of a crime. They stand to be sentenced. The judge CANNOT take into consideration in any meaningful way the amount, or lack thereof, of evidence that leads to a conviction. Why? Because then you are introducing a variable which there is no control over, and yet can produce extraordinary differences.
Example: two people each abduct 3 women, rape them, and brutally murder them. Both are convicted at trial. One accused is convicted on the basis of eye witness accounts to the abduction, DNA evidence on the bodies, and physical evidence when the bodies are found in their basement. The other accused is convicted on the basis of nothing but one piece of DNA found at the scene of an abduction, and other circumstantial evidence. No eye witness accounts. No other DNA evidence. No bodies in his basement.
If the state of the evidence is taken into consideration the first criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole. The second criminal gets 35 years. Can you not see why person one would then have a justifiable grievance with his sentence? He effectively gets a worse sentence because person two was a fucking smarter criminal and covered his tracks better... Yet, they both did the exact same thing That is complete horse shit.
On the other hand, we come to the comparison of the two men in the picture:
One pleads guilty. He confesses to the crime. He does not go to trial. He demonstrates acceptance and remorse for what he did. This saves the Court's time, and the public's money. The victim's family's grief is reduced by not going through the worry as to whether the person is convicted or not.. They achieve some CLOSURE and they have it sooner.
The second pleads not guilty. He does not confess. He goes to trial and loses. He maintains his innocence and demonstrates no remorse. He spends the next 20 years on death row, attempting to reduce his sentence from death to life. He attempts to prove his innocence. The victim's family is put through trial, and appeal after appeal. Their closure takes 20 years.
The law presumes they are both guilty, as explained above, because it must. Once guilt is assumed, it is easy to see why those sentences are justifiable under your system.
Don't get me wrong... The death penalty is fucking ABHORRENT. I AGREE that it probably affects certain groups of people more than others (minorities more than white people, men more than women). But that picture is a poor argument against it, because their sentences actually make sense for other reasons. There are other ways to argue the racial issue than that dumb picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
