* Login   * Register
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 4:21 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 3:40 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:33 am
Posts: 656
Almost everyone I know shakes their head in disgust every time a murderer/rapist/terrorist gets the Death Penalty because we all know that nothing will happen for decades.

I think it would make an excellent show topic. Why the heck does this happen? At what point in our judicial history did this ridiculous slow-down manifest itself?

Who can we blame for this? Is there any way that the ridiculous appeals process can be amended and abbreviated?

This is another one of those issues like gay marriage and abortion where the powers that be will NEVER give the people the opportunity to vote.

How many of these bastards are living on Death Row now, costing us millions of dollars every year? In this economic crisis, I'm all for giving them one month from today...too harsh?..okay TWO months to prove themselves innocent.

Then let's run them through the gas chamber/electric chair/lethal injection/firing squat....whatever.....IMMEDIATELY!

What's that? Too many Blacks....unfair? Okay, just this once I'll vote for affirmative action. Let's boost our executions of murdering, raping White scum to equitable levels.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:19 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 2449
I want to point out, mark, that 2% of death-row inmates have been exonerated due to incontrovertible-DNA evidence since 1977, although only 47 states allow such evidence, and in most states, the impetus for reviewing such evidence depends upon the whims of the prosecution, not the defense.

This doesn't take into account the considerable percentage of crimes for which no DNA evidence exists.

Even if the error-rate of capital convictions was as low as 2% (I'm suggesting that it's probably somewhat higher), that's a pretty big number when we are talking about peoples' lives.

I don't object to the death-penalty on a moral ground. Hell, if the judicial system were perfect, I'd say, lets extend the death-penalty to rapists and child-molesters as well. However, I think that the system is as imperfect as anything else in government, and mistakes happen all the time.

_________________
So as long as there are a handful of americans allied with terrorist organizations we will continue this surveillance of all americans and these wartime authorities to detain enemy combatants indefinitely... or execute them summarily...

...Because terrorists might take their puny little militaries and conquer our country.

This is a war on fleas.

-DrYouth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:30 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:33 am
Posts: 656
Flynn,

I can live with a 2% margin. I figure that of that 2% that 99% have committed crimes that we just don't know about.

Yes, I am that heartless. More collateral damage.

But I realize that that kind of ruthless thinking represents a pretty small minority.

So, let's focus on the ridiculous length of the appeals process. Why so damn long?

Okay, so statistically speaking, you may be innocent, but you were found guilty by a jury of your peers. You have also had umpteen appeals. Now you must die.

Couldn't we just cut it down to five years for cryin' out loud?

Once Obama's medical rationing system gets up and running, mid-level government workers will be handing out death sentences without chance of appeal thousands of times a day, just like they do in England and Canada.

I say Off With Their Heads!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:42 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 2449
I think that the hold up is largely due to a swamped legal system. Because of habeas corpus, non convicted people are given priority over appeals.

If we adopted your plan for near-summary executions, and promptly executed the 3297 inmates on death-row, you are right, that's only 66 innocent people that we'd be electrocuting to death. However, without an appeals process, that 2% gets much much higher, doesn't it?

You are right: In reality, it costs many times more to facilitate the appeals-process for these people than it would to feed and house them for the rest of their lives. If your concern is about money, the smart move would be to lock them up, and put them to work.

_________________
So as long as there are a handful of americans allied with terrorist organizations we will continue this surveillance of all americans and these wartime authorities to detain enemy combatants indefinitely... or execute them summarily...

...Because terrorists might take their puny little militaries and conquer our country.

This is a war on fleas.

-DrYouth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:54 pm 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:06 pm
Posts: 576
Location: Metropolitan Swampland
Wanting someone to be killed makes one no better than the killer. I'm not saying the alleged killer should waste tax dollars money sitting in a prison being fed everyday, I'm saying that if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the victims' family or friends should decide the killers fate and carry it out with impunity. The same goes for rapists, although executing them really doesn't fit the crime. As for terrorists, it's way hypocritical of governments to claim, "It's not terrorism when we do it."

Good day to everyone! :D

_________________
Government Philosophy
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.-bumper sticker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:48 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 5749
Location: Hell
Why that's a great question. I, for one, find it offensive that I have to pay (as a taxpayer) for someone on death row to live for 20 years. Let's look at meals, alone. If there is a convict who stays on death row for 20 years, that constitutes 20*365.25 days. At 3 meals a day, that's 60*365.25 days which comes out to 21,915 meals on the nose. If you spend $3 on each of those meals (which is actually more than the US Navy allots its Sailors), this particular convict has now cost the American taxpayers over $65,000. At any rate, I think the long wait for death row is indicative of an over-burdened legal system. We need to rethink the things that are illegal ... I'm thinking specifically about certain drugs. However, this is unlikely to happen any time in the near future.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:56 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 2449
Quote:
this particular convict has now cost the American taxpayers over $65,000


The cost of appealing a death-sentence is many times this. Even inmates that don't want to appeal, are often forced to by the state. It costs much much more to house death-row inmates, than it does for general population. At least economically, it makes more sense to make them all general population prisoners, with only one opportunity for appeal.

_________________
So as long as there are a handful of americans allied with terrorist organizations we will continue this surveillance of all americans and these wartime authorities to detain enemy combatants indefinitely... or execute them summarily...

...Because terrorists might take their puny little militaries and conquer our country.

This is a war on fleas.

-DrYouth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:10 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 10169
Location: In the tropical Island of my own mind
I say we just stop killing people. All together.

"Hey! You killed someone! Now we are going to kill you back!"

Capital punishment is just something left over from the ancient days when laws were more akin to playground rules.

_________________
If you liked this post, give me some internetz!

Image

Heroes get remembered but legends never die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:13 pm 
Offline
Nomarch
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:12 am
Posts: 2449
Yeah, but you're not going to convince a lot of people with that argument.... Trying to show them a side of the issue they had maybe not thought of.

_________________
So as long as there are a handful of americans allied with terrorist organizations we will continue this surveillance of all americans and these wartime authorities to detain enemy combatants indefinitely... or execute them summarily...

...Because terrorists might take their puny little militaries and conquer our country.

This is a war on fleas.

-DrYouth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:01 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:03 am
Posts: 10169
Location: In the tropical Island of my own mind
Eh, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone of anything, I know, its a step away from my normal trying to make markp and clubgop see the other side, but really anyone who says they "Can live with a 2% margin" isn't going to see my viewpoint.

I think its wrong to kill convicted murderers, he thinks its alright to kill innocent people so long as we also kill murderers.

There is no way we are seeing eye to eye on this one.

_________________
If you liked this post, give me some internetz!

Image

Heroes get remembered but legends never die.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 4:36 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:42 am
Posts: 12159
Location: The police state
I was staunchly pro-death penalty until about 15 years ago (or so.) I was living in Illinois, and the radio was having (almost) daily reports about how a death row inmate was released because new DNA evidence proved the person innocent.

The numbers were staggering.

I'm personally not okay with us killing some innocent people to expedite the process. Anyone who thinks that is acceptable cannot turn around and claim to be a lover of freedom for all Americans. I find the position to be supremely hypocritical.

_________________
If you believe you can't do something, you are absolutely right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:36 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:33 am
Posts: 656
Okay, how about this:

Let's just execute (immediately) the ones that have confessed or that we have on film doing the deed. We can also execute those convicted of more than one capital crime that were committed at different times and places. You gotta figure that the DNA couldn't be be wrong twice.

And please, lets consider the justice component. Victims and their families deserve timely, if not swift, justice. Okay.....REVENGE! :SilentRage:

But other than just a discussion of whether the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I would like to see Mr. Carlin do a presentation about how this joke of an appeals process evolved into something that takes 20 years or more.

It didn't happen overnight, and the there must be some villains we can finger.

My guess--the stinkin' ACLU. Trollish? Just my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 6:54 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:36 am
Posts: 3530
Location: Houston, TX
markp wrote:
It didn't happen overnight, and the there must be some villains we can finger.

My guess--the stinkin' ACLU. Trollish? Just my opinion.

Is it necessarily true that there are villains in this? Is a villain always needed to obtain an undesirable result?

Are you interested in how to fix it, or just assigning blame and expressing dislike?

Since you brought up the ACLU, as a self appointed spokesman of the "Conservatives", can you please explain something to me? Do you feel there is any place for a private group that attempts to hold governments accountable? If we disbanded the ACLU today, should there be a group to take its place in your America?

Do you see any value in a group that defends the people who hold ideas we find most repugnant? I'm thinking specifically of the Neo-Nazis in Skokie back in the 80's. I would never agree with them in a million years, but I see the value in allowing them to speak freely, rather than allow overzealous local officials shut them down because they find the message repulsive. Isn't that the measure of freedom of speech, the freedom to say things people don't always want to hear?

The reason I ask is that, if nobody defends these outliers, how do you prevent the creep of bureaucracy from eventually stifling any speech those in power find objectionable?

_________________
Random Noise Generator 1390-B


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:11 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:33 am
Posts: 656
cblack.tx wrote:
markp wrote:
It didn't happen overnight, and the there must be some villains we can finger.

My guess--the stinkin' ACLU. Trollish? Just my opinion.

Is it necessarily true that there are villains in this? Is a villain always needed to obtain an undesirable result?

Are you interested in how to fix it, or just assigning blame and expressing dislike?

Since you brought up the ACLU, as a self appointed spokesman of the "Conservatives", can you please explain something to me? Do you feel there is any place for a private group that attempts to hold governments accountable? If we disbanded the ACLU today, should there be a group to take its place in your America?

Do you see any value in a group that defends the people who hold ideas we find most repugnant? I'm thinking specifically of the Neo-Nazis in Skokie back in the 80's. I would never agree with them in a million years, but I see the value in allowing them to speak freely, rather than allow overzealous local officials shut them down because they find the message repulsive. Isn't that the measure of freedom of speech, the freedom to say things people don't always want to hear?

The reason I ask is that, if nobody defends these outliers, how do you prevent the creep of bureaucracy from eventually stifling any speech those in power find objectionable?


Of course I'd love to fix the problem, but frankly, I'm not hopeful. It's very frustrating. It's one of those issues like gay marriage and abortion. We'll never get to vote on it. It will be decided by guys in black robes.

Yes, we need some kind of entity to defend free speech. However, the ACLU is corrupted and partisan.

And they've done worse than defend the Nazis at Skokie. They went all out defending the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). They defended that group's website with instructions to perverts on how to acquire children to abuse. NAMBLA materials were found in the possession of baby rapers.

The ACLU is a nasty, evil bunch of SOBs in my opinion.

They'll fight tooth and nail for the rights of terrorists, and turn around and fight like tigers to take down beloved religious symbols that have been displayed in public places for years. They often do the opposite of defending free-speech. They stifle it when it is the speech of those they oppose.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Why does it take 20 years to execute a convicted felon?
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:31 am 
Offline
Satrap
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 11:36 am
Posts: 3530
Location: Houston, TX
markp wrote:
cblack.tx wrote:
markp wrote:
It didn't happen overnight, and the there must be some villains we can finger.

My guess--the stinkin' ACLU. Trollish? Just my opinion.

Is it necessarily true that there are villains in this? Is a villain always needed to obtain an undesirable result?

Are you interested in how to fix it, or just assigning blame and expressing dislike?

Since you brought up the ACLU, as a self appointed spokesman of the "Conservatives", can you please explain something to me? Do you feel there is any place for a private group that attempts to hold governments accountable? If we disbanded the ACLU today, should there be a group to take its place in your America?

Do you see any value in a group that defends the people who hold ideas we find most repugnant? I'm thinking specifically of the Neo-Nazis in Skokie back in the 80's. I would never agree with them in a million years, but I see the value in allowing them to speak freely, rather than allow overzealous local officials shut them down because they find the message repulsive. Isn't that the measure of freedom of speech, the freedom to say things people don't always want to hear?

The reason I ask is that, if nobody defends these outliers, how do you prevent the creep of bureaucracy from eventually stifling any speech those in power find objectionable?


Of course I'd love to fix the problem, but frankly, I'm not hopeful. It's very frustrating. It's one of those issues like gay marriage and abortion. We'll never get to vote on it. It will be decided by guys in black robes.

Yes, we need some kind of entity to defend free speech. However, the ACLU is corrupted and partisan.

And they've done worse than defend the Nazis at Skokie. They went all out defending the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). They defended that group's website with instructions to perverts on how to acquire children to abuse. NAMBLA materials were found in the possession of baby rapers.

The ACLU is a nasty, evil bunch of SOBs in my opinion.

They'll fight tooth and nail for the rights of terrorists, and turn around and fight like tigers to take down beloved religious symbols that have been displayed in public places for years. They often do the opposite of defending free-speech. They stifle it when it is the speech of those they oppose.

I appreciate your answer. I find groups like NAMBLA offensive too. I'm not familiar with the case against them or the positions of their lawyers, but this would seem to be one of those hated groups that is the specific charge of the ACLU to defend.

Please clarify your last statement. Do you have an example of them trying to stifle specific speech, or are you referring to their efforts at removing religious symbolism from government buildings?

Also, I encourage you to join the discussion over at this thread http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16148

You seem to have some populist in you. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that topic.

_________________
Random Noise Generator 1390-B


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us