|
Termyn8or -> RE: Death penalty, another angle (11/7/2009 10:39:33 PM)
|
And what about those who can't make bail ? A county jail is alot more unsuitable. And these people are not even convicted yet. But a bail is imposed, to ensure they come back for court, but it has become to get the money. But that is still not the point.
I know someone who did alot if time, and deserves it. And he admits it. He did not think at the time of the crime of the consequences, and neither do serial killers. Everybody thinks they can get away with everything. That is the only point keeping the death penalty from being a deterrent. When they rob and rape you but leave you alive, they are not thinking of the thirty years they are going to have to do in the joint. That's if they leave you alive. So let's say they do.
So now they haven't killed anyone, and if you look back you'll see that I never said that should be a hard limit for the invokation of capital punishment. We got this guy in Cleveland, OK, now someone in Texas tried to outdo him but lost by I think two corpses, but it might only be one. Then again the search is not done. Note also that the shooting in Texas was done by people who had weapons legally. But that is neither here nor there right now.
However we have a case where a rapist was let out by mistake and went and removed his victim's face. She will never recover 100%. And years ago many have probably forgotten about the rapist who cut the eyes out of his victim(s) so they couldn't identify him in court. I think they should fry as well. Really, would you rather be dead or blind ? It would be a tough choice for me.
Now, though I do think omnidirectionally, the process moves in a forward vector. That means that I would like to see a solution or maybe come up with one. So I figure it this way.
At the first trial, innocence or guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt. It is then followed by two years of death row, no longer and no shorter. At the end of the two years a Capital hearing convenes. Any conviction from a crime that results in injury or death will have one. The points to ponder during this phase will be well defined in law.
Intent.
Remorse.
Impact.
Solidity of the proof of guilt.
When a court is charged with handling these things separetly, only a jury can invoke the death penalty. All court records are sent to the defendant and whatever he might consider an amicus. His defender in this matter does not need to be an LPA or member of the bar, anyone will do. The defense is allowed the same latitude as was afforded the collusion between prosecutors and judges, and in fact the whole phase is made public.
If that jury invokes the death penalty, and he is later found to be innocent, they are put to death. Also if they let someone go and they kill again they are put to death. This would happen very rarely, and a misrepresentation of facts or the obscuration of fact would be held as a valid defense. Then the ball falls in the lap of those who provided the innaccurate information.
And where the buck stops is anyone's guess.
Just an idea, I'm sure it will be picked apart, but does anyone have a better idea ? I am sure I left out something in the way of certain circumstances, but supposedly we pay people to make these decisions, to analyse the facts. This is just a new aspect of their job. Ever get on a grand jury ? The pay sucks, the reponsibily emormous and the rewards are simply non-existant.
The people who make these decisions are selected by the People, and serve only in the interest of justice, not just-us. They should be the most stoic of people, with a real sense of justice. Money should be nothing. They are carefully screened for anything before even being selected, and then in each case the possibility of a conflict of interest is thoroughly investigated.
In this day and age, with extant technology, that's the best I can do. This would be the only workable solution these days, and might not be perfect, but a damn sight better than what we have now. You got Texans who want to hang everybody and others who want to hang nobody, no matter what they did. Neither of these courses of action are going to succeed.
This type of systen could be implemented today, and would quell alot of the argument. But what of people who freely admit it and say straight out that they will do it again if given half a chance ?
If they purposely take a life, or maim someone, I don't mean accidentally, whack them. One of my buddies had a sordid past (to say the least) and did decades in the joint. He siad everybody told him he would have been better off if he killed the guy, rather than fuckung up his life so bad. THEY told him this. Now what kind of rationale is that ?
Enough.
T
|
|
|
|
