Death Penalty to Death Row

Why is it if a person is tried and convicted of a crime then sentenced to death, we put the criminal in a line that takes like 6 years for him to be killed?
Wouldn't it be easier and much much less on taxpayers if we just take the criminal out back and kill him right away? Pilate sentenced Jesus to death and he died within a couple hours. He didn't get tossed in a jail for 6 years did he?

You either get the best attorney possible and hope that they win (you'll get away with it but be broke due to attorney fees) or realize you're dead a few minutes after the sentence is read

Would you feel that way if you were convicted of a crime you didn't commit?

There's many of those coming out of Texas right now where they had a corrupt (and racist) county prosecutor in Dallas County. Now DNA has found many blacks being not guilty of their crimes. Some spent decades rotting in a prison just for being black.

Of course, they could just stop executing people altogether. And prison doesn't seem to work particularly well either as a deterrent or a form of rehabilitation. Perhaps the global approach to crime and punishment needs to be re-examined.

Executions aren't supposed to be a deterrent. It's to remove that person from society forever. I know the old argument though. You keep them locked up forever. But there was Kenneth McDuff. This is why he should have been executed the first time around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_McDuff

Nothing will change my views on capital punishment.

TexasBlue wrote:Nothing will change my views on capital punishment.

Not even your own argument from the previous post?

Because it's a strong argument. How do you consciously acknowledge that innocent people get executed, and still support capital punishment? Is it just a matter of breaking eggs to make omelettes?

McDuff wasn't innocent. He was on death row. Then the DP was ruled unconstitutional. Then he got out. Then he killed (again). He was put back in the clink when the DP was back in force.

Then McDuff is not included in the "innocent people" in my question, and the question remains the same. If you want a system that kills guys like McDuff, then you'll kill innocent people as well. Unless the system is perfect. Which it can't be.

Also, McDuff is not a strong argument against the proposal of simply locking murders up for life, because he wasn't locked up for life.

kronos wrote:Then McDuff is not included in the "innocent people" in my question, and the question remains the same. If you want a system that kills guys like McDuff, then you'll kill innocent people as well. Unless the system is perfect. Which it can't be.

I'm for a DP that takes care of people who are guilty without a doubt. DNA also plays a very big role these days. I also favor using DNA to confirm the guilt (or non-guilt) of those on death row who have been there far longer than DNA testing has been around.

kronos wrote:Also, McDuff is not a strong argument against the proposal of simply locking murders up for life, because he wasn't locked up for life.

He had 3 life sentences. He was in there during the constitutionality of the DP to begin with. When that was ruled unconstitutional, his death sentence were commuted to a life sentence. The Wiki article fails to acknowledge that he was under a death sentence until the unconstitutional ruling. While paroled, he killed again. Had the guy been executed before the unconstitutional ruling on the DP, 6 people would be alive right now.

Also, you may have read that a life sentence in Texas isn't life at all.

TexasBlue wrote:I'm for a DP that takes care of people who are guilty without a doubt.

The jury is already instructed to convict only if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet they err.

If what you really mean is you're in favor of a DP that doesn't make mistakes and only kills the guilty, that's not attainable as long as humans are making the determination. Humans fuck up. Humans can be absolutely convinced that something that is false, is true. So innocent people will be executed.

Is that a fair price to pay?

DNA also plays a very big role these days. I also favor using DNA to confirm the guilt (or non-guilt) of those on death row who have been there far longer than DNA testing has been around.

Yes, it's great that that can be done now. The fact that DNA has exonerated so many innocent people is proof positive that juries make false convictions often.

But most murder cases don't involve DNA at all. The conviction is reached through other evidence. DNA exoneration is not an option for innocent defendants in those cases.

kronos wrote:Also, McDuff is not a strong argument against the proposal of simply locking murders up for life, because he wasn't locked up for life.

He had 3 life sentences. He was in there during the constitutionality of the DP to begin with. When that was ruled unconstitutional, his death sentence were commuted to a life sentence. The Wiki article fails to acknowledge that he was under a death sentence until the unconstitutional ruling. While paroled, he killed again.

You said this in your post, so I knew.

Had the guy been executed before the unconstitutional ruling on the DP, 6 people would be alive right now.

They'd also be alive if he hadn't been let out.

Also, you may have read that a life sentence in Texas isn't life at all.

Then it's not an example of life sentencing failing as a deterrent,.

What I mean by guilty without a doubt is a guy who shoots a cop and it's witnessed by several or on camera. Or the lawyer who barged into a Ft. Worth courtroom back in the 90's and killed a judge and a cop. Those examples (one real life) are what I'm talking about.

I don't see fit to convict someone just because someone said they did such and such. Not do I like convictions of people when the "body" hasn't been found.

In Texas, the death penalty is clear cut and narrow. Kill a cop or a judge (elected official) and you die. Kill a child under age of 6, you die. Kill someone in the course of a robbery, you die. Kill someone after kidnapping them, you die.

Minnesota has no DP.

TheNextPrez2012 wrote:Why is it if a person is tried and convicted of a crime then sentenced to death, we put the criminal in a line that takes like 6 years for him to be killed?
Wouldn't it be easier and much much less on taxpayers if we just take the criminal out back and kill him right away? Pilate sentenced Jesus to death and he died within a couple hours. He didn't get tossed in a jail for 6 years did he?

You either get the best attorney possible and hope that they win (you'll get away with it but be broke due to attorney fees) or realize you're dead a few minutes after the sentence is read

When we had capital punishment they were hanged the following morning obviously with terrible results if that person was later found to be innocent. The most famous case of that here was when (not known until later) serial killer John Christie encouraged the grief stricken Timothy Evans to confess to his wife's murder when it was Christie himself who had murdered her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Evans

Of course these days with better concern for forensics and careful processes, the only thing we need be concerned about in murder trials is Police corruption and whether a person was framed.

In Texas, the death penalty is clear cut and narrow. Kill a cop or a judge (elected official) and you die. Kill a child under age of 6, you die. Kill someone in the course of a robbery, you die. Kill someone after kidnapping them, you die.

Yes and no. Those are just the elements of the offense that make the defendant eligible for execution, but it's not automatic. Once the guy is found guilty, a new phase of the trial begins in which the jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty. Three questions are asked of the jury, the most critical of which is, will the guy commit violent acts in the future?

I happen to know this because Oregon has almost the exact same system; in fact I believe it's modeled on Texas' system. Texas and Oregon are the only states in which the jury imposes the death penalty.

Unlike Texas, however, Oregon has never used it since it was legalized and since the system was developed, except for two guys who volunteered.

kronos wrote:Yes and no. Those are just the elements of the offense that make the defendant eligible for execution, but it's not automatic. Once the guy is found guilty, a new phase of the trial begins in which the jury decides whether or not to impose the death penalty. Three questions are asked of the jury, the most critical of which is, will the guy commit violent acts in the future?

True. It was getting time for me to go to bed and I didn't want to get into all that, but it s correct. Many cases where one is eligible for the DP, it's always up to the prosecutor. Some are obvious ones and other not so much.

kronos wrote:I happen to know this because Oregon has almost the exact same system; in fact I believe it's modeled on Texas' system. Texas and Oregon are the only states in which the jury imposes the death penalty.

Yep. In many cases where I lived at (Ft. Worth/Tarrant County), the jury usually gave the DP when requested by the prosecutor.