death penalty in Arnold´s land
- Thread starter el Ingles
- Start date
MountainPro said:
Judges and juries make desisions based upon the evidence at hand and prosecuters push for specific penalties if the law prescribes such penalties.
More or less the prosecutor ask for these penalities and juries decide and or judges.
Like the guy would set fire to a house, burn a child alive, and admit to it? He ran afoul of the 'imputed malice' legal concept, which states that if you plan and commit a crime, you are responsible for any side effects as if you had planned them as well. Say you hold up a bank, and run down and kill a person as you are getting away - you are guilty of premeditated murder. The theory being that if you hadn't committed the first crime, the rest would not have happened. Setting fire to a house is even more reprehensible - there is a reasonable expectation that someone might be inside.
I'm no expert in death penalty law, but generally speaking, it is applied in cases where the murder was planned, multiple deaths are involved, kidnapping and murder (indicating premeditation) is involved, or the murder is committed in a particularly horrific fashion - such as burning a child alive, murdering your pregnant wife, torture/rape and murder, things like that.
Some of this is determined by the state in which the crime was committed - not all states have the death penalty. Here is a hint - if you are going to commit murder in the US, don't do it in Texas or Florida. In premeditation cases, sometimes the person plea bargains their way to life, if the evidence isn't strong enough to assure a capital conviction. Hired killers often escape the needle by rolling over on the person who hired them - and that person usually gets the death penalty. The old man that Arnold wouldn't commute hired someone to commit multiple murders, though in that case the actual killer didn't roll over - he got the death penalty, too.
In the end, I'd have to agree that it doesn't really make much difference, one way or another, whether a nation has a death penalty or not. It is not a deterrent to crime. Probably more vengance than anything. I can't say I'm comfortable with letting the government decide life and death, but when I look at a few death penalty cases, and stifle the urge to puke when I read what those people did, I just don't feel motivated to political action.
I'm no expert in death penalty law, but generally speaking, it is applied in cases where the murder was planned, multiple deaths are involved, kidnapping and murder (indicating premeditation) is involved, or the murder is committed in a particularly horrific fashion - such as burning a child alive, murdering your pregnant wife, torture/rape and murder, things like that.
Some of this is determined by the state in which the crime was committed - not all states have the death penalty. Here is a hint - if you are going to commit murder in the US, don't do it in Texas or Florida. In premeditation cases, sometimes the person plea bargains their way to life, if the evidence isn't strong enough to assure a capital conviction. Hired killers often escape the needle by rolling over on the person who hired them - and that person usually gets the death penalty. The old man that Arnold wouldn't commute hired someone to commit multiple murders, though in that case the actual killer didn't roll over - he got the death penalty, too.
In the end, I'd have to agree that it doesn't really make much difference, one way or another, whether a nation has a death penalty or not. It is not a deterrent to crime. Probably more vengance than anything. I can't say I'm comfortable with letting the government decide life and death, but when I look at a few death penalty cases, and stifle the urge to puke when I read what those people did, I just don't feel motivated to political action.
It's not the government deciding life and death. It's twelve citizens. And the average American isn't particularly bright. The idea of a person's life being in the hands of a dozen people who are fascinated by "American Idol" is terrifying.JohnO said:
if a state does practice the death penalty, why do most murderers get life and not death? Some horrendous criminals are not sent to death and other lesser ciminals are?
cydewaze said:
some people do admit guilt for thier crimes...JohnO said:
i'll see if i can dig out the actual case. the reason i know it is becuase the guy is actually a scot, it gets reported on the news here.
----------------------------------------------
"Despite the fact that new evidence presented to the court in 1997 establishes that Kenny is almost certainly an innocent man, he remains on death row in Ohio and could have a date for execution some time this year."
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/action/camp/dp/richey.shtml
MountainPro said:
It is a surprising that Kenny got sentenced to death for only a single murder, but they did convict him of aggravated murder- ie murder was part of his intention, not just setting the house on fire without knowing the kid was inside.
Here's a general definition of Special Circumstances Such circumstances may include: rape, kidnapping or maiming prior to the killing, multiple deaths, killing a police officer or prison guard, or actions showing wanton disregard for life, such as throwing a bomb into a restaurant. The actual definition will vary by state but that's a pretty good example.
MountainPro said:
I am limited on my knowledge of criminal trials but am quite experienced in civil trials and know that reading about a trial and a crime is quite different than sitting through a trial where evidence is presented with a good dose of emotion and drama.
I don't believe that most of humanity wants to kill or be a part of killing but can be swayed by emotional manipulation.
A good prosecutor can paint an awfully good picture and make a person look inhuman.
Of course some need little potrayal since they do an excellent job themselves of being monsters
Let's just call some decisions "getting caught up in the moment".
Rather seems like the sentencing stands a fair chance of being affected by the vagaries of human perceptions - a more than negligible risk that a terminal sentence will be obtained by manipulating the emotions of a jury that is essentially untrained in recognising the presence of such manipulation techniques. That, in turn, seems to me like a valid reason for not having the State kill people.jhuskey said:
EoinC said:
Jury selection essentially is designed to select people that have no idea of anything related to the questions at hand ,let alone court rules and procedures.
Court rules can be very complex at times even for the trained as interpretation is a large part of the law.
Juries can also be manipulated or influenced by the strongest personality on the jury.
Just hope he or she is on your side.
I have more than a little criminal trial experience and I can tell you that jury selection is suppose to pick people with open minds, but it is now just a part of the game. Prosecutors want those that will favor the state, defense wants those that will favor their client. Blacks wants blacks, whites want whites, white collar want white collar, etc.jhuskey said:
District Attorneys and lead defense trial lawyers are usually not picked for the legal minds, they are picked because of their courtroom presence and charisma. The little guys sitting next to them (and their clients) are the legal minds.
I would encourage everyone to read up on a case and then go sit in and watch the proceeding for a while. It would enlighten and probably shock you.
It's more likely that he ran afoul of the legal concept of "malice aforethought",i.e. he had planned to kill someone and from that point onward it becomes legally irrelevant who he actually killed.If there was a reasonable expectation that someone was in the house then "malice aforethought" would also apply.The prosecution would have to prove that expectation to convict.JohnO said:
If "imputed malice" is the legal norm,then chief warrant officer lewis welshofer jr. should have been convicted of murder.He was a trained interrogator and should have recognised the reasonable expectation that confining a man with three broken ribs in a sleeping bag,head down and tied with electrical wire,then sitting on his chest and covering his mouth to prevent him breathing ,would result in death.His actions also imply a strong degree of pre-meditation.
Welshofer either acted according to law (such actions being lawful under USMCJ,the laws of the us and international law,which it is not),or he did not,in which case he has killed in the commission of another offence ("negligent dereliction of duty",of which he was also convicted.)If he acted illegally,then surely "imputed malice" would apply and he is guilty of pre-meditated murder for which the death penalty would apply under the USMCJ.If he acted legally,then the us government has just legalised torture and murder.
Is a $us 6000 fine,confinement to "home,office and church" and a reprimand an appropriate punishment for murder?
And slapping a man into a cage for the rest of his life IS ethical and moral? Whether you sentence them to death or to life in prison without parol, theyre going to die inside of the system, some sooner than later.JDub7 said:
Do the crime, serve the time. I wish they would expediate the process so it wouldnt be so expensive. A couple of appeals and its over. The people know the laws and willingly break them, why do they deserve to live a full and rich life when they took so much from others in the act of commiting their crimes?
You have obviously led a pretty sheltered existence.How you could possibly imagine that life imprisonment,particularly in the us prison system,probably the harshest in the western world and widely condemned by human rights organisations,is a "rich and full existence"completely escapes me.triguy98 said:
If you really believe that imprisonment is a "rich and full existence",there is nothing to stop you trying it for yourself ,just for the experience.Somehow,I know you won't.
(I put people in prison and it was a huge waste of the tax-payer's money.I would have served society better if I had been allowed to prevent crime in the first place.)
Any place where there is cable TV, access to the library and education systems, recreation, and three squares a day, doesnt exactly meet my definition of hell. Granted, thats not every prision, but its quite a few of em. Theyre alive, the people they killed are dead, thats more than enough for me. Thats a LOT richer of an existance than anything their victims have a shot at!stevebaby said:
Nonsense.Death penalty prisoners in the us spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement,no recreation,no education (what would be the point? the state intends to kill them.)Cable TV,if they get it ,which I doubt,isn't much consolation for the fact that they are going to be killed by the state.Actually,it's probably cruel and unusual punishment.triguy98 said:
Being deprived of cable TV might be your idea of hell,but I guess that says it all about you.Extremely naive.
As dostoeyvsky said,the measure of a civilisation is the way they treat their prisoners.
The us fails.
There are 38 states have the death penalty. There are 39 different policies for handling death row inmates (including federal prisoners).stevebaby said:
In some, like New Jersey, you sit in a cell for 23 hours. Others, like California, you have more rights and privileges than a lot of people of the outside. tookie williams did not obtain, or maintain, his massive biceps by doing push-ups in his cell. Nor did he 'write' his books with limited outside contact and no educational assistance. One state convicted a man with a seventh grade education. When he was executed he had a master's degree, paid for by the citizens of that state.
As you have stated on this forum,that calley should have been"hung on the spot" for the mass-murders at mylai,without a trial,what sort of penalty should welshofer receive?Chance3290 said:
Should all murderers receive the same penalty as welshofer,or should welshofer receive the same penalty as other murderers?
If death row prisoners in california have more rights and privileges than those outside the prison system,then why are people not clamouring to get in?
What a load of utter ****.
And you are too cowardly too respond.
