B2Tall
Stirrer of the Pot
The subject of the death penalty has come up a few times in other threads and I was wondering what everyone's stance is.
I'm pro death penalty. That being said, I believe that there need to be a couple of changes. Each one cuts in a different direction.
1. Reduce the appeals process and cut down on the amount of time between sentencing and execution. We all know the ridiculous lengths some some of these people spend on death row so I don't need to go much into that. There's an underlying reason why the appeals process can take so long and my next point will address it.
2. Shrink the sphere of convictions that the death penalty covers. Make it more difficult to sentence someone to death. No more "beyond a reasonable doubt" when it comes to the death penalty. There can be no doubt whatsoever of the perp's guilt. It has to be absolutely, utterly, and completely doubt-free. No circumstantial evidence either (use it all you want in a non-death penalty case). The perp needs to be caught in the act or at least identified by eyewitnesses that are aquainted with him/her personally (i.e. co-workers, family members, etc.). Such eyewitnesses have to be impeachable as well......no thugs testifying for a lesser sentence, nobody who has anything to gain.
I firmly believe the reason the death penalty is such a long, drawn-out process is because the people who review such cases and set execution dates, etc. still have too many doubts in their mind over the perp's guilt. We need to make it easy for them. If John Smith goes over to his estranged wife's parent's house on Thanksgiving and opens fire, killing a 3 or 4.....well there's no question of guilt, is there?? He's going to be identified by survivors who know him very well. Ditto when the disgruntled employee walks into work and wastes half a dozen co-workers.....no question there, either. In cases where circumstantial evidence plays a large role or where there might be some doubt, no matter how small - life in prison(w/ or w/o parole).
The defense can file one appeal based on whatever factors they want. Give the defense 2 years from conviction 'til the execution date. That'll give them plenty of time. Each case can be reviewed by the respective state supreme court. SCOTUS wouldn't review any individual cases - only each state's death penalty laws (and that would only need to be done once unless a state changed its law). Appeal denied (most likely) - buh-bye! Appeal granted (unlikely) - sentence commuted to life w/o.
The time and money saved would be huge, the perps get what they deserve in a relatively quick fashion, and there would be no chance of executing an innocent person (which in all likelyhood has happened, and I'm not just talking about some schmuck in the '20s or '30s).
I'm pro death penalty. That being said, I believe that there need to be a couple of changes. Each one cuts in a different direction.
1. Reduce the appeals process and cut down on the amount of time between sentencing and execution. We all know the ridiculous lengths some some of these people spend on death row so I don't need to go much into that. There's an underlying reason why the appeals process can take so long and my next point will address it.
2. Shrink the sphere of convictions that the death penalty covers. Make it more difficult to sentence someone to death. No more "beyond a reasonable doubt" when it comes to the death penalty. There can be no doubt whatsoever of the perp's guilt. It has to be absolutely, utterly, and completely doubt-free. No circumstantial evidence either (use it all you want in a non-death penalty case). The perp needs to be caught in the act or at least identified by eyewitnesses that are aquainted with him/her personally (i.e. co-workers, family members, etc.). Such eyewitnesses have to be impeachable as well......no thugs testifying for a lesser sentence, nobody who has anything to gain.
I firmly believe the reason the death penalty is such a long, drawn-out process is because the people who review such cases and set execution dates, etc. still have too many doubts in their mind over the perp's guilt. We need to make it easy for them. If John Smith goes over to his estranged wife's parent's house on Thanksgiving and opens fire, killing a 3 or 4.....well there's no question of guilt, is there?? He's going to be identified by survivors who know him very well. Ditto when the disgruntled employee walks into work and wastes half a dozen co-workers.....no question there, either. In cases where circumstantial evidence plays a large role or where there might be some doubt, no matter how small - life in prison(w/ or w/o parole).
The defense can file one appeal based on whatever factors they want. Give the defense 2 years from conviction 'til the execution date. That'll give them plenty of time. Each case can be reviewed by the respective state supreme court. SCOTUS wouldn't review any individual cases - only each state's death penalty laws (and that would only need to be done once unless a state changed its law). Appeal denied (most likely) - buh-bye! Appeal granted (unlikely) - sentence commuted to life w/o.
The time and money saved would be huge, the perps get what they deserve in a relatively quick fashion, and there would be no chance of executing an innocent person (which in all likelyhood has happened, and I'm not just talking about some schmuck in the '20s or '30s).
