Why do people stay on death row for years and years?

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

She may be the Queen of England too.

But I would not let her in the castle without some evidence.

True is that

[geetrue]

"The judge and jury believed Saldate," said Kozinski of the verdict and sentence. "But they didn't know about Saldate's long history of lying under oath and other misconduct."

How can you even think it was the jury's fault when they didn't have all of the evidence.

It was the district attorney's fault for wanting to win a conviction and not giving a polygraph to the detective.

If the death penalty was removed from the courts decision making process there would be a lot more innocent deaths for sure.

Too many wacko's would wack someone if they thought they could read and watch TV and eat for the rest of their natural born lives.

[fireftr18]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Personally I think the entire system of dealing with criminals in the US is atrocious and needs work. Corrupt guards, prisoners being treated like animals, overall terrible conditions being based around containing the criminals instead of rehabilitating them. Its all horrid and half the time ends up turning normal people who screwed up into hardened criminals by the time they get out. Entire bloody thing needs a reformation.

I agree with you to a point. To attain true justice, then the convicted person would be fully rehabilitated, gets released, and goes on to become an honest, productive member of society.

With that said, my wife worked in a local jail. Her job was a counselor to women that had a good chance of rehabilitation. There were some successes, but most of them didn't take it seriously and wound up back in jail.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Too many wacko's would wack someone if they thought they could read and watch TV and eat for the rest of their natural born lives.

I know two people who have served time in jail. It is not the vacation you may think it is.

[Platapus]

One of the problems with our prison system is that it tasked with doing two very different things.

1. Provide punishment. This is an important part of society. If you choose to do something abhorrent to society (commit a crime), then society will provide an "unpleasantness" as a way of demonstrating the authority of society over the individual.

2. Rehabilitation. It is a benefit for society that abhorrent members become law abiding members. While punishment may communicate the consequences of abhorrent behavior, rehabilitation should communicate the advantages of conforming to the rules of society.

The objective is for the individual to feel that it is better to conform to societal rules than to engage in abhorrent behavior.

Is it reasonable to expect one institution (jail/prison) to provide both?

Is it possible for one institution to provide both simultaneously?

I am starting to doubt whether one institution can do both.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

What I don't understand is how you can give death penalty only based on testimonies? Without any hard evidence?

If its word against word then it goes down to speeching skills: honest may lose to good liar.

[Platapus]

I agree. As I posted, I would have a hard time convicting someone if the only evidence was one human testimony.

[Armistead]

We had a case in the 80's when a black man named Darryl Hunt was convicted of murdering and raping a white woman. Evidence was not that great, but due to the local media, the cry was fry the dude...It was an all white male jury.

When the new DNA testing came out, it wasn't his DNA and later someone else was charged with the crime. He finally got out around 2005. The only thing that saved him from being put to death a few times was the mass cry of blacks that the trial was unfair.

There are possibly 1000's of innocent people in prision. I think DNA testing is backed up for years testing.

I think we need two types of the DP. One like we have, but if you have DNA and video, they should be put to death weeks after conviction.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One of the problems with our prison system is that it tasked with doing two very different things.

1. Provide punishment. This is an important part of society. If you choose to do something abhorrent to society (commit a crime), then society will provide an "unpleasantness" as a way of demonstrating the authority of society over the individual.

2. Rehabilitation. It is a benefit for society that abhorrent members become law abiding members. While punishment may communicate the consequences of abhorrent behavior, rehabilitation should communicate the advantages of conforming to the rules of society.

The objective is for the individual to feel that it is better to conform to societal rules than to engage in abhorrent behavior.

Is it reasonable to expect one institution (jail/prison) to provide both?

Is it possible for one institution to provide both simultaneously?

I am starting to doubt whether one institution can do both.

When considering that most people sent to prison will be released back into society it is logical to at least try some form of rehabilitation.

I know a few people that are ex cons and they managed to adapt to societies rules.One man that I worked with once got busted for having an illegal sawn off shotgun.He got caught it just so happens while he was driving a car on the way to kill a rival drug dealer.He was actually thankful that the cops stopped him.He did not of course mention that his was on the way to commit a murder but the firearm violation got him 10 years he served 8 and got out on good behavior and work release program.When his parole time was up he moved to Florida.


The problem in the US is institutionalization when it comes to releasable inmates.Nothing of course is going to work on everyone.Having the system focus fully on harsh punishment may actually produce a more dangerous person but you cant be too lax either.Of course every state has different systems and in some states it can vary from prison to prison.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by geetrue

If the death penalty was removed from the courts decision making process there would be a lot more innocent deaths for sure.

Wrong.

That the deterring effect of death penalty is not supported by statistics, and also can be explained why it fails, is one of the biggest arguments against the death penalty.

It is a psychological truth that for most people the immediate present net effects counts more than the longterm future outlook. Since the deterrent necessarily is fixiated on the future consequences, it is in an ineffective position from all start on.

Also, many capital crimes sentenced by death penalty do not emerge from situations of intention and planning, but due to situational present context and emotional affect. In both cases, any deterrent to prevent such crimes living "a life of their own" necessarily must fail and get simply bypassed.