This is what's wrong with our justice system.

[True Grit Farms]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/01/de ... aying.html

Right wrong or otherwise, justice needs to be served within 24 hours of the verdict.

 

[Margonme]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/01/death-row-inmate-indicted-for-1975-rape-and-slaying.html

Right wrong or otherwise, justice needs to be served within 24 hours of the verdict.

I agree 100%. That is appalling.

 

[farmerjan]

Worse than appalling. Why keep giving a new sentence that is the same as the last one. And why is it that mentally ill are given special consideration when they will never be able to function in society if they ever do get out, and then we are continually burdened paying to keep them for no good reason. Sorry, in a case like this he should have died immediately.

 

[Bestoutwest]

The problem is lawyers. They fight semantic battles all day long while wasting our tax dollars, and it's all b/c of their 'moral convictions that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.' Is it really, though? Or are they getting big fat paychecks for this? And, did the founding fathers intend that when they wrote the constitution or did they advocate for the execution of criminals?

I believe that if a person really believes they are innocent, then all, and I mean ALL, evidence must be tested for convicting DNA. If the state wholeheartedly believes they are guilty, do the same. Hold nothing back. If there is any reasonable doubt that the person didn't do it, they should be removed to the general population for further review. However, if someone is convicted by that evidence, they have 24 hours to get their affairs in order as tomorrow marks their final day on earth. Stop wasting time, money and effort.

 

[boondocks]

The problem is lawyers. They fight semantic battles all day long while wasting our tax dollars, and it's all b/c of their 'moral convictions that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.' Is it really, though? Or are they getting big fat paychecks for this? And, did the founding fathers intend that when they wrote the constitution or did they advocate for the execution of criminals?

I believe that if a person really believes they are innocent, then all, and I mean ALL, evidence must be tested for convicting DNA. If the state wholeheartedly believes they are guilty, do the same. Hold nothing back. If there is any reasonable doubt that the person didn't do it, they should be removed to the general population for further review. However, if someone is convicted by that evidence, they have 24 hours to get their affairs in order as tomorrow marks their final day on earth. Stop wasting time, money and effort.

All due respect, most public defenders start at about 30k (maybe a few grand more in a big city where cost of living is way higher) and top out in the 40s. Many barely make ends meet, especially considering student loans. They provide a very important "check and balance" to our criminal justice system, ensuring (as best they can, given their high case loads) that "the state" (prosecutors, cops) meet their burdens of proof and don't run roughshod on all of us. I don't always agree with their methods, and there will always be cases that get dragged out too long, but it's a dang better system than mob justice.

Although, yeah, there are sometimes criminals I'd like to let Raylan Givens loose on.
:tiphat:

 

[Bestoutwest]

All due respect, most public defenders start at about 30k (maybe a few grand more in a big city where cost of living is way higher) and top out in the 40s. Many barely make ends meet, especially considering student loans. They provide a very important "check and balance" to our criminal justice system, ensuring (as best they can, given their high case loads) that "the state" (prosecutors, cops) meet their burdens of proof and don't run roughshod on all of us. I don't always agree with their methods, and there will always be cases that get dragged out too long, but it's a dang better system than mob justice.

Although, yeah, there are sometimes criminals I'd like to let Raylan Givens loose on.
:tiphat:

I was referring to people like this:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/03/ ... aev-lawyer

I had a very good friend who is a public defender. I can remember him being on TV for every super crazy case b/c he's a pretty unlucky guy. And I've actually thanked a public defender for being a public defender b/c I vehemently believe that they are very important and probably one of the most underpaid members of society. But the people who try to limit the full extent of the law b/c of their personal beliefs, I'm not OK with that.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

What I don't understand....

The death penalty by lethal injection is labeled inhumane by a large section of the population that then turns around and argues that a person should have the right to end their life at the time of their choosing with "dignity" utilizing the same drugs. Euthanasia mean good death.

So which is it, are the drugs inhumane or good?


There needs to be plenty of scrutiny when committing an act you can't take back such as the death penalty. With the cost of it all, I'd rather see them spend their remaining time on earth working to repay society and carry their own weight. I'd run a system sorta like the Arizona sherrif. They'd get a tent after they worked enough hours to earn one. A cot and blanket after that. They wouldn't have time for cable and they wouldn't want to look at a weight after breaking their backs all day. I think that would be a better deterant than the thought of a quick, painless death.

 

[boondocks]

I was referring to people like this:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/03/ ... aev-lawyer ....

Best, I have read articles about her before, and her beliefs don't align with mine. I am not anti-death-penalty (although I think we have to be extremely careful with it--probably far more so than we've historically been, in terms of making sure it's not applied to some groups more than others). That said, she can only do what the law allows her to do--advocate zealously for her client, the same as you would want in any case you had (civil or criminal). Vanity Fair uses a lot of hyperbole (helps sell magazines), but (from a quick read) the article doesn't show that she has ever done anything which is not permissible under the law (nor have I ever read that about her). Rather, she requires that the prosecution and cops bring their "A" game.

In other words, there is no room for her to "impose her own beliefs," unless you also are willing to accept as a given that other public defenders are free to like the death penalty, don't care if their clients hang and purposefully provide incompetent representation.

Quite frankly, if we had very strong, equitable representation for all of those accused of capital crimes with the possible death penalty at stake, I think many Americans would feel less squeamish about the death penalty....

Either that or we need to require rich people charged with crimes to use public defenders as well. (Don't get me started on the OJ verdict)...

There is an old saying, Hard cases make bad law. A corollary (of sorts) applied here means that these very tough cases, like the Tsarnaev case (where we would all gladly string up the little ^%$@!) are exactly where we see what we, as a people, as a society, and as a system of governance and justice, are made of. And of course, he has been sentenced to death 9over the protests of the parents of one of the three victims, which does amaze me).

 

[TexasBred]

The problem is lawyers. They fight semantic battles all day long while wasting our tax dollars, and it's all b/c of their 'moral convictions that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.' Is it really, though? Or are they getting big fat paychecks for this? And, did the founding fathers intend that when they wrote the constitution or did they advocate for the execution of criminals?

I believe that if a person really believes they are innocent, then all, and I mean ALL, evidence must be tested for convicting DNA. If the state wholeheartedly believes they are guilty, do the same. Hold nothing back. If there is any reasonable doubt that the person didn't do it, they should be removed to the general population for further review. However, if someone is convicted by that evidence, they have 24 hours to get their affairs in order as tomorrow marks their final day on earth. Stop wasting time, money and effort.

All due respect, most public defenders start at about 30k (maybe a few grand more in a big city where cost of living is way higher) and top out in the 40s. Many barely make ends meet, especially considering student loans. They provide a very important "check and balance" to our criminal justice system, ensuring (as best they can, given their high case loads) that "the state" (prosecutors, cops) meet their burdens of proof and don't run roughshod on all of us. I don't always agree with their methods, and there will always be cases that get dragged out too long, but it's a dang better system than mob justice.

Although, yeah, there are sometimes criminals I'd like to let Raylan Givens loose on.
:tiphat:

Most public defenders do little more than hope and push for a plea bargain, collect their check and move on to the next one. They may have a dozen cases a day and never do a thing except show up with their "client". Got an acquaintance that has gotten wealthy doing nothing but this.

 

[midTN_Brangusman]

We need to get back to a tall ole tree and a short piece of rope after conviction, and not 40 years later!

 

[Bestoutwest]

In other words, there is no room for her to "impose her own beliefs," unless you also are willing to accept as a given that other public defenders are free to like the death penalty, don't care if their clients hang and purposefully provide incompetent representation.

There are several instances where someone is imposing their own beliefs into the equation. Take this woman, for example. Tsarnaev wants to die. He wants to be a martyr. Who am I to stop him? She doesn't believe in the death penalty, though, so she's going to prepare litigation after litigation after litigation to stall this thing up. All the while, you and I-the taxpayer, are on the hook paying for all this legal crap b/c she's not a fan of the death penalty.

I agree that Vanity Fair sucks. I just did a quick search for her and that was the first one I could find.

 

[boondocks]

In other words, there is no room for her to "impose her own beliefs," unless you also are willing to accept as a given that other public defenders are free to like the death penalty, don't care if their clients hang and purposefully provide incompetent representation.

There are several instances where someone is imposing their own beliefs into the equation. Take this woman, for example. Tsarnaev wants to die. He wants to be a martyr. Who am I to stop him? She doesn't believe in the death penalty, though, so she's going to prepare litigation after litigation after litigation to stall this thing up. All the while, you and I-the taxpayer, are on the hook paying for all this legal crap b/c she's not a fan of the death penalty.

I agree that Vanity Fair sucks. I just did a quick search for her and that was the first one I could find.

Her beliefs didn't protect him from the imposition of the death penalty. Surely you don't propose that only pro-death-penalty attorneys be allowed to represent defendants in death penalty cases?

As to his wanting the death penalty, no doubt he wants to be seen as a martyr, to draw more idiots to his "cause." Besides, if he so hates prison that he'd rather die than stay there (in solitary, where my understanding is that he's been, no doubt for his "safety"), maybe we'd be better off not giving him what he wants (death), but instead holding him in solitary til he rots.

At any rate, if he is mentally competent and wishes to stop all appeals, he will likely eventually get his way. (Here is an interesting article on how these issues are balanced: http://www.jaapl.org/content/27/3/471.full.pdf

 

[Dave]

I read an article about the most remote island on earth. Tristan da Cumba is in the South Atlantic. About 1,491 miles west of Cape Town. A supply ship comes in three times a year. We could just ship these people to some place like that. Bring in a boat load of supplies and any new inmates several times a year. No guards, no court appearances, they near to get along and survive or they kill each other. We don't care. All it cost us is a couple of shipments of food a year.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Her beliefs didn't protect him from the imposition of the death penalty. Surely you don't propose that only pro-death-penalty attorneys be allowed to represent defendants in death penalty cases?

As to his wanting the death penalty, no doubt he wants to be seen as a martyr, to draw more idiots to his "cause." Besides, if he so hates prison that he'd rather die than stay there (in solitary, where my understanding is that he's been, no doubt for his "safety"), maybe we'd be better off not giving him what he wants (death), but instead holding him in solitary til he rots.

At any rate, if he is mentally competent and wishes to stop all appeals, he will likely eventually get his way. (Here is an interesting article on how these issues are balanced: http://www.jaapl.org/content/27/3/471.full.pdf

Can we legislate a lawyer's beliefs? No, we wouldn't have any lawyers. But I'm sick of the litigation that is costing this country millions upon millions a year for this guilty, awful individuals. Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.nbcrightnow.com/story/155197 ... -in-prison

As for Tsarneav himself, I personally believe that life in prison without parole was the right decision for him. He wants death, he'll be a hero. And every few years he'll be brought back out in the news b/c of appeals and the crazies will go nuts. Just let him rot away into obscurity.

 

[Bestoutwest]

I read an article about the most remote island on earth. Tristan da Cumba is in the South Atlantic. About 1,491 miles west of Cape Town. A supply ship comes in three times a year. We could just ship these people to some place like that. Bring in a boat load of supplies and any new inmates several times a year. No guards, no court appearances, they near to get along and survive or they kill each other. We don't care. All it cost us is a couple of shipments of food a year.

It's already going: Australia!

 

[Dave]

I read an article about the most remote island on earth. Tristan da Cumba is in the South Atlantic. About 1,491 miles west of Cape Town. A supply ship comes in three times a year. We could just ship these people to some place like that. Bring in a boat load of supplies and any new inmates several times a year. No guards, no court appearances, they near to get along and survive or they kill each other. We don't care. All it cost us is a couple of shipments of food a year.

It's already going: Australia!

Too many flights in and out every day. Ships coming and going. A lot of them would be back here in a week.