Should the federal government allow the death penalty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrice9

What do lawyers working for profit (this is only defense attorneys not prosecutors) and prisons being for profit have to do with the death penalty? How would this effect any justice regarding the death penalty.

This was a shot at capitalism/corporatism for no apparent reason (and I'm saying this as someone opposed to the death penalty)

---

Because when there is a profit motivation, then you can expect for innocent people to pay the price for actions they did not commit, on a regular basis. You can expect mistakes to be made in any system, but in this particular system you can expect them to be made with much regularity.

I could be mistaken, but prosecuters keep a win loss record, and their demand (aka salary) will be based on this win loss record, and the higher the wins the higher the satisfaction of the da. Which essentially boils down to a lawyer for profit scenario. Is this right?

Its not a shot for no reason, its a shot with the reason being that I do not believe the judicial system should be run by the same capital incentive as a business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA16Angels

I understand many of you "pro state-rs" are inherently against giving any type of additional power to the federal government or further limiting the power of states, but having state by state variance on an issue like this does not make sense. As a country, we're united completely in the realm of common law. All court procedures that are similar to past cases must take the precedent in the past case and apply it to the present one. In effect, all the states are bound to uniformity under common law. State variance on the death penalty would, in effect, disrupt the uniformity of common law proceedings.

For example, imagine that California outlawed the death penalty and Texas didn't. If the Texas court was trying to decide a punishment in a murder trial very similar to a previous murder trial in California, the Texas court would not be able to use the precedent set in the California case due to variance in capital punishment between the states. Uniformity among states, in terms of remedies for crimes, is needed to ensure that common law is upheld. Therefore, it should be within the federal government's power to determine whether or not the death penalty should be nationally outlawed or remain intact. This is not a state issue.

---

I completely disagree with this. You can make this argument for virtually any social, political or economic issue. If we were to follow your premise consistently, would completely negate the relevancy of state government, or the ability of citizens to affect these issues as they see fit. That is why we have states in the first place, each with its own constitution. Of course some things require consistency, but only a bare and select few issues should fall under this umbrella. If California can't reference Texas law, thats great! It shouldn't. The good people of Califfornia chose laws through their state consitution tht reflect how they want themselves to be governed- as do the people of Texas. There is no reason why those laws need to be identical, save to sooth the arrogance and high mindedness of those who would force others to live as they deem appropriate.

People also fail to recognize they, through their state level government are determining the sets of state laws that they themselves choose to live under. That is their right. People seem digustingly eager to take the proverbial dump on that crucial aspect to our system of governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA16Angels

I understand many of you "pro state-rs" are inherently against giving any type of additional power to the federal government or further limiting the power of states, but having state by state variance on an issue like this does not make sense. As a country, we're united completely in the realm of common law. All court procedures that are similar to past cases must take the precedent in the past case and apply it to the present one. In effect, all the states are bound to uniformity under common law. State variance on the death penalty would, in effect, disrupt the uniformity of common law proceedings.

For example, imagine that California outlawed the death penalty and Texas didn't. If the Texas court was trying to decide a punishment in a murder trial very similar to a previous murder trial in California, the Texas court would not be able to use the precedent set in the California case due to variance in capital punishment between the states. Uniformity among states, in terms of remedies for crimes, is needed to ensure that common law is upheld. Therefore, it should be within the federal government's power to determine whether or not the death penalty should be nationally outlawed or remain intact. This is not a state issue.

---

Pretty much the entirety of this post is inaccurate but especially the bold. There is no "uniformity" in the common law - that's why it's the common law. Crimes and sentencing differ among the states, and for some crimes even differ among circuits and counties. Where there is some degree uniformity (such as the rules of evidence) it is voluntary by each jurisdiction. Texas state law is never binding on California and never has been.

Quote:

---

Because when there is a profit motivation, then you can expect for innocent people to pay the price for actions they did not commit, on a regular basis.

---

Why is it profit motivation that does that?

Especially considering its trial by jury. You can argue the justice system is flawed for a number of reasons but I still don't see how apparant profit motivation (which is pretty minimal imo considering most of the people locking others up are public employees and there is almost always a jury in a death penalty case. More importantly, it doesnt serve anyone's profit to have people be executed at least from my understanding. You need to more specific and/or offer proof how the death penalty system is undermined by capitalist for profit individuals.

Quote:

---

You can expect mistakes to be made in any system, but in this particular system you can expect them to be made with much regularity.

---

But how does anyone benefit from having individuals convincted of the death penalty. You give an answer for prosecuters (which Ill defend in a minute) but havn't explained the application to judges, police or juries.

The flaws in the justice system, a good argument against the death penalty are largely independant of any kind of capitalism or economic system.

Quote:

---

I could be mistaken, but prosecuters keep a win loss record, and their demand (aka salary) will be based on this win loss record, and the higher the wins the higher the satisfaction of the da. Which essentially boils down to a lawyer for profit scenario. Is this right?

---

No its not. Stats are not the main determinant of promotion or salary from my understanding and I don't directly it has any effect at all. They are judged by performance but obviously stats are completely dependant on what type of cases and the specific difficulty of the cases themselves.

Also win-loss record hypothesis works the other way usually. It means that prosecuters won't prosecute cases they don't think they are a lock at winning to preserve their stats. Risking ethical violations to win one casee would not make sense if their motivation is purely stats. Ethical violations usually occur when the prosecuter has an emotional investment into the case not a financial one. Thats a flaw for the justice system but not one derived out of capitalism.

Code:

---

Its not a shot for no reason, its a shot with the reason being that I do not believe the judicial system should be run by the same capital incentive as a business.

---

But its not.

Everyone is a public employee who works in court except for the defendant's lawyers and he can get a public defender if he wants one.

I don't see how the justice system is run like a business at all.

I have a question for you pro-state's rights folks. If a state chose to execute on the basis of the race of the victim or on the race of the accused, would that be their right to do? What if it did so in practice, but not by law? Still their right to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat

I have a question for you pro-state's rights folks. If a state chose to execute on the basis of the race of the victim or on the race of the accused, would that be their right to do? What if it did so in practice, but not by law? Still their right to do?

---

How would that be compliant with any state constitution, or the US constitution for that matter? I'm pretty sure we've got that one covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patsfan56

How would that be compliant with any state constitution, or the US constitution for that matter? I'm pretty sure we've got that one covered.

---

The "in practice" part is apparently not covered at all, going by the incredibly disturbing racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in a number of states.

Rather than leave this issue in the abstract, I'll provide one of many concrete examples:

Quote:

---

Fewer than 40% of Georgia homicide cases involve white victims, but in 87% of the cases in which a death sentence is imposed the victim is white. White-victim cases are roughly eleven times more likely than black-victim cases to result in a sentence of death.

---

Source.

As a side note, not intended as a response to Patsfan, I'd encourage anyone under the delusion that racism is dead to explore further at that source.

The US Supreme Court heretofore hasn't seen an issue with the disparate impact on certain races in the penal system. This isn't a states' rights issue - it's a national problem that nobody (including the federal government) is addressing. I'm not sure why you're trying to use it as an argument against states' rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GA16Angels

1. You might want to say "pro capital punishment" instead. It makes you sound a little less like you're from biblical times

2. Could you please state the reasons why you're in support of it?

---

1. The thread is about the death penalty? Was the op from biblical times?

2. I'm obviously a Neanderthal.

To me the most glaring inefficiencies in the death penalty system are its excessive costs and the propensity to execute an innocent person.

To that end my plan would be threefold.

The first step is to leave it up to the states as to whether they want the death penalty, as it should be a state issue.

The second step would be to make it so that any state that does allow death penalties must meet the criteria set forth below:

A) That the act was premeditated.

B That the same person committed multiple murders and that the murders were callous or heinous in nature.

C) There is indisputable video evidence of the person committing the murder or

D) If Lack of video evidence is available there must be an overwhelming number of eyewitnesses that witnessed the murders. (NOTE: The exact number needed to obtain an overwhelming amount I'm still unsure about, but I'd envisioned over 5)

The third and final step to my plan is to minimize the costs and amount of appeals a person who has met all the above criterias is allowed, so long as it doesn't conflict with rights guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights.

That way there is absolutely 0% chance that an innocent man is executed and it greatly reduces the costs associated with the act while still leaving it up to the States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Labgrownmangoat

The "in practice" part is apparently not covered at all, going by the incredibly disturbing racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in a number of states.

Rather than leave this issue in the abstract, I'll provide one of many concrete examples:



Source.

As a side note, not intended as a response to Patsfan, I'd encourage anyone under the delusion that racism is dead to explore further at that source.

---

Alright, I was confused as to what your point was. Yes, I definitely will agree that the disparity between races in applications of the death penalty is huge. I wasn't thinking about race when I was considering the application of trhe law, but rather the balance between the application of federal vs. state law.

I think though, that the issue of race and law enforcement is much, much larger than the application of the death penalty. We could take this far beyond the context of this discussion, and into how and why minorities end up in the criminal justice system in the first place. But that is for another thread.

As to Valade's point, I would accept that. Excellent suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patsfan56

Alright, I was confused as to what your point was. Yes, I definitely will agree that the disparity between races in applications of the death penalty is huge. I wasn't thinking about race when I was considering the application of trhe law, but rather the balance between the application of federal vs. state law.

I think though, that the issue of race and law enforcement is much, much larger than the application of the death penalty. We could take this far beyond the context of this discussion, and into how and why minorities end up in the criminal justice system in the first place. But that is for another thread.

As to Valade's point, I would accept that. Excellent suggestion.

---

I have absolutely no proof for what I am about to write. It is entirely my opinion based on my gut level feeling. With that said, and me saying I have no proof, and it is just an unfounded opinion, I am guessing it has less to do with race per se, and more to do with wealth. The more money one has, the better legal representation one is going to get.

I could easily be wrong, but for me to believe it, I would have to see a race and wealth study, not just race.

I think it's important, for this issue, to not get bogged down in hypotheticals. What IF we had a perfect judicial system? What IF it was 100% obvious that the person is guilty? What IF it infringes on states' rights? What IF it was someone who committed extraordinarily heinous acts? What IF it was YOUR family member who was murdered?

Stick to what IS. It IS imperfect. It has and IS going to kill wrongfully accused individuals. It IS expensive. It IS not a deterrent. It IS used by *** backwards nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cabernetluver

The more money one has, the better legal representation one is going to get.

---

The obvious, but worthy example is of course OJ. If that was your ordinary angry black man, he'd be dead right now.

It's saddening that CA couldn't repeal it last month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrice9

Why is it profit motivation that does that?

Especially considering its trial by jury. You can argue the justice system is flawed for a number of reasons but I still don't see how apparant profit motivation (which is pretty minimal imo considering most of the people locking others up are public employees and there is almost always a jury in a death penalty case. More importantly, it doesnt serve anyone's profit to have people be executed at least from my understanding. You need to more specific and/or offer proof how the death penalty system is undermined by capitalist for profit individuals.


But how does anyone benefit from having individuals convincted of the death penalty. You give an answer for prosecuters (which Ill defend in a minute) but havn't explained the application to judges, police or juries.

The flaws in the justice system, a good argument against the death penalty are largely independant of any kind of capitalism or economic system.



No its not. Stats are not the main determinant of promotion or salary from my understanding and I don't directly it has any effect at all. They are judged by performance but obviously stats are completely dependant on what type of cases and the specific difficulty of the cases themselves.

Also win-loss record hypothesis works the other way usually. It means that prosecuters won't prosecute cases they don't think they are a lock at winning to preserve their stats. Risking ethical violations to win one casee would not make sense if their motivation is purely stats. Ethical violations usually occur when the prosecuter has an emotional investment into the case not a financial one. Thats a flaw for the justice system but not one derived out of capitalism.

Code:

---

Its not a shot for no reason, its a shot with the reason being that I do not believe the judicial system should be run by the same capital incentive as a business.

---

But its not.

Everyone is a public employee who works in court except for the defendant's lawyers and he can get a public defender if he wants one.

I don't see how the justice system is run like a business at all.

---

Well take everything with a grain of salt, I'm not schooled on this stuff or understand all the details, I just see things as an outsider

Lawyer wins cases, it is how he makes his money, it is what determines his worth as a lawyer. So you can expect one's motivation to win to trump one's motivation to serve justice. Not speaking for everyone, but this seems to be the mentality encouraged by this system.

Jury is a good thing, I appreciate what this move intends to accomplish, but what a jury does is listen to two professional persuaders try and persuade them of their position.

From my understanding, DA's generally try to prosecute as much as they can. I'm not certain, but I believe high prosecution rates usually lead to DA's being looked at more favorably if ever trying for higher positions in public offices.

My stance isn't necessarily limited to just the death penalty, but more on the system as a whole, with prisons for profit and the like. It is my understanding that the more prisoners a private prison has, the more it sees profits.

You mention that everyone is a public employee. So, are all prosecution lawyers just as in demand as one another? Is there no such thing as a prosecution lawyer who is broke? or very rich? I find that hard to believe.

You say stats aren't the main determinant for promotion or salary. I don't know, you could be correct, but again I find it kind of hard to believe. It just seems to be the nature of the beast here.

Again, I could be wrong about multiple things here, but this is my outsider point of view.