True, we could put a 5 year limit on appeals, or less. Then again, a court date might not be set for a few years depending on the backlog so you might get one chance, or none. I think we all agree criminals take advantage of the system. But I can't be in the minority that think one man being set rightfully free from appeals is worth the assholes who delay their death.
I don't think you understand how some people who have been in the correctional machine think. If guys are willing to get tattoos of gang insignia that is designated as "prison-only*" with used hypodermic needles in very obvious places, I'd be willing to bet you green money that pretty soon getting caned/lashed/whatever would become a badge of honor. Hell, haven't you ever hung out around a bunch of guys drinking? They show off scars all the time. *For people who don't know, some gangs, prison or otherwise, have designated tattoos to mark members of the gang who have done hard time. If you are sporting one of those tattoos and haven't done time, or if you aren't a member of the gang, you could get your ass beat or even killed.
Are you trolling? Please tell me you are trolling. The system has all that built in for a reason. As a country we don't exactly have a stellar track record for executing the right people. The innocence project has overturned 17 convictions of those on death row at one time. That number is way too fucking high. It doesn't work as an effective deterrence and we have sentenced people to death who weren't guilty and there is a strong chance we have probably carried out executions of a few (read this article about Cameron Todd Willingham. Sure does sound like a policy worth keeping.
Even though I could have predicted the outcome of that story before I started, I read the whole thing just in case I was wrong. I wasn't wrong. A biased journal took a biased journalist and wrote a sob biased story by questioning character testimonies and offering up a biased fire scientist to declare in no uncertain terms that the murderer was *Wait for it, wait for it* *GASP!* innocent! Shocking, I know. The death penalty will never work as a deterrent until 95% of all convicted murderers are executed. As it stands right now, less that 1% of them are executed. And that's not even taking into consideration the people that are never caught. You can't let your fear of something bad happening to good people prevent the punishment that bad people need. That doesn't mean you should stop being vigilant, however.
Focus There is not an easier fucking question to answer on this earth. I would take ten lashing from a fucking morning star rather than do ten MONTHS in prison, much less ten years. As much as I'm sure having your flesh stripped from your body would suck, forget not what prison is actually is: an unnerving, brutalizing, utterly unrelenting journey into the basement of Hell. It doesn't matter if it's the worst crotchbiter dungeon or a drunk tank: it sucks, 24-7, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Jail is called The Animal Factory for a very good reason. American prisons aren't in any rush to change their shitty set-ups because they have powerful unions like the Prison Guard Union and the Prison Builder's union pulling strings. Since either of them literally don't give a flying fuck about actual prisoners or their conditions, the system is in no hurry to change. More prisoners means more money for these systems, so fuck everyone else.
I thought the New Yorker article referenced this article from the Chicago Tribune, but maybe not. So here is some more information. In regards to biased scientists: The commission referenced there is the Texas Forensic Science Commission which Gov. Perry signed into law. So basically the state hired an expert to look into it and their expert said there wasn't clear evidence. On the character testimony from the Tribune article as well: Either way, I can concede the whole Willingham case. There are 17 others that have been overturned with DNA evidence. Is this an arbitrary percentage? Is there research to back that up. I'm open to it if there is. I will eat my words faster than Paris Hilton eats valtrex. I mean on it's face it makes sense. If people knew they were going to die for what they are doing then they wouldn't do it. Then again people smoke, eat big macs all day, drive their cars too fast etc. We aren't that smart of animal. he whole punishment concept is so far down the road I doubt most criminals spend that much time thinking about it. Are you arguing for a system that is immediate? Shopkeeper sees kid shoplifting, cops/judge get there listen to both sides for 5 minutes then take his shoes for the fine or lop his hand off or whatever? I haven't ever heard of a murderer saying "Well, I knew if I pulled the trigger there was a chance I wouldn't get executed, but just spend my life on death row, which aint that bad." I'd say people think about getting away with it completely, but the people who are calculating enough to say "even if I get convicted I can fight it on appeal for twenty years, so I'm going ahead and wax old mrs. cannery, because her 212 cats annoy the hell out of me." If the United States operated under the premise of guilty until proven innocent would we better off? More criminals would surely get punished. But so would most of the "good" people. I feel like the presumption of innocence is based on the idea that fear of bad things happening to good people is worse than making sure criminals are punished. If you don't agree...well, I'm not even going to attempt to change your mind. I will just hope you get convicted of a bogus felony, so you can't vote.
Yes, yes I can. Someone (perhaps you?) termed it cowardice in an earlier post, if I recall correctly. Fine, I'm a coward. I am a wimpering simpering scaredy cat when it comes to imprisoning or killing innocent people. I would rather spend the time and money to keep murderers locked up for life than risk someone suffering the absolutely ungodly and horrific fate of being put to death for a crime they did not commit. I would rather guilty people go free than innocent people get locked up. I do not accept that we must institute remorseless utilitarianism and I do not even think it would derive a net positive outcome for society if we did. And to be on focus, I would totally take lashes over years in prison and I am not generally good with pain tolerance.
My last post was perhaps tl;dr, so I'm going to be as concise as possible. If you believe the legal system is fair, competent, and not open to corruption, you are either living under a rock or your favourite snack is paste. Jail is an inefficient, dehumanizing, but correctable punishment.
When I was five, my great grandmother was raped, stabbed to death (27 times), and then her and her house were burned to the ground. They never caught the killer, but we all knew who did it. She was deeply religious and was "doing God's work" by taking this homeless man to church with her. We assumed and still do that he killed her. This was 1984 and if the police had ever found him, he would've been executed by now. Chances are he would have been the prime suspect because he was homeless. He probably had priors. He would have got a public defender attorney and probably lost. But, what if it wasn't him? I'm all for capital punishment, if only for revenge purposes. On the other hand, there's shit like this: Example One And Two Three There are a shitload more cases like these.
Guy loses his car and his job, spends 5 days in jail, waits more than a year for an apology, still waiting for any kind of reparations, because he tried to cash a legal check with the bank that issued the check. In unrelated news, he's also a black guy with a foreign sounding name In cases like this, I'm kind of in favor of corporal punishment... for the fucking bank staff. But in the current model, this guy could well be walking around with scars on his ass for the rest of his life, because he tried to cash a valid check with the bank who issued it.
First, the 95% chance is arbitrary. It takes it from where it stands now as there being spectacularly little chance a murderer will be executed, to a spectacularly little chance the murderer won't be executed. I've said it several times now in this thread, but the biggest problem isn't that innocents could be punished, but that the Prosecutors don't seek the truth, they seek the conviction. It doesn't concern them if someone may be innocent when they have enough evidence (even circumstantial) for a slam dunk case. So the solution is (even though it sounds very catchphrasey) to set up a Truth Commission that gets together to analyze the evidence and removes the whole part of anyone "Winning" the case, be they the prosecution or the defense.
Impressive. With one paragraph you have completely removed the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments from the Constitution. Well done.
You're not making a distinction that makes a difference. You keep trotting out this idea that 'oh, it's not innocents that may be wrongfully punished, it's prosecutors not seeking the truth?' What's the fucking difference? If a prosecutor isn't seeking the 'truth' then isn't he convicting an ... wait for it... INNOCENT PERSON? You make my head hurt. Oh by the way, we do have a 'Truth Commission.' It's called a jury, retard. Juries don't have vested outcomes in trials. Yes, a prosecutor wants to win, yes, a defense attorney wants to win, but ultimately it's a jury that decides innocence or guilt. And I will tell you this, sir, based on first hand experience, whatever Nancy Grace may say, juries get it right an overwhelming majority of the time. Can you trot out a few examples that they fucked up? Sure, it happens. But most of the time, they get it right. I would urge you to go to your local courthouse and watch a trial, then you might have some sense of how things really work.
Impressive. In one sentence you've just admitted to everyone that you've never read the constitution.
That's really not that impressive, anyone could say "I haven't read the constitution" and be done with it.
Focus: I'd take the ten lashes, easy. Ten years of my life is worth a lot more to me than a couple of weeks of healing and some permanent scar tissue. Alt Focus: For the most part, I don't think it's practicable. For the murderers and rapists, I suspect the threat of a couple of lashes or whatever will do nothing - there's enough crossed wires there that the threat of public shaming and physical pain isn't enough of a deterrent. Meanwhile, I just don't feel like small time drug offenders really deserve the lashes. That just leaves thieves/robbers (although there really needs to be a carrot in addition to the stick) and ... ... high-profile political/financial figures convicted of various crimes. In public office and convicted of taking bribes? That's a lashing. Insider trading / fucking over your investors and thousands of people in general? Lashing. I can really get behind seeing some Ken Lay / that Indian asshole / Sal(?) DiMasi looking motherfucker take ten-twenty lashes in the public square. Hey, you want to play with the big dogs, the pay off is big, but so should be the punishment.
A few people keep returning to the rapists and murderers in this scenario. Remember, the option of lashing vs. prison would only be made to NON-VIOLENT offenders. The violent scumbags still get put away for hard time. And the non-violent offenders who opt for prison? They go to the same place. Under this model, the "country clubs" of the prison system go away (actually, they get repurposed in my next paragraph). Don't you think this would be a deterrent to white collar crime? Ran a ponzi scheme that bilked thousands out of billions? Wiped out all of your employees' retirement savings? # of lashes/# of years determined by: overall financial magnitude, total number of people you screwed, and to what degree (% of net worth to total financial ruin). But if you opt for prison, it's not one with tennis courts, satellite TV, and cappuccino makers in the cafeteria. You do your time in gen pop in places like Sing Sing, Angola, San Quentin, etc. I think the Ken Lays and Bernie Madoffs (and you know there are still plenty of other unethical greedy MFs still out there) of the country would definitely think a lot harder about going down that road. Also, all convicted offenders choosing a caning are mandated to state-provided basic medical treatment afterwards until the wounds heal, precluding them from private treatment which could include pain medication and other "best therapies money can buy" that some can afford, but others cannot. State treatment would provide the basic medical care of treating the wounds, monitoring for and treatment of any ensuing infections. Both caning and the subsequent medical care are delivered in the former "country club" prisons.