Quick question, does anyone know the real answer as to why we let the scum bags sit on death row while we pay the bill for 5,10,15,20 years before we kill em' ....that's if we actually go through with it? Acording to this little article, all though it's pretty sick but the Chinese government didn't waist to much time http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/china.knife.attack/index.html?hpt=T2
I don't have a complete answer for you, but I'll share what I know to be true: there's a mandatory appeals process for any death-sentence. the first appeal is automatic. The state only pays the attorney fees (provides a public defender) for that FIRST appeal. After that, the state will put up a small amount of money (my prof thought maybe $5,000) for a defense attorney of the defendant's choice, and the rest must be financed by the defendant. This is why the vast majority of inmates on death row represent themselves. (same goes for parole board hearings, etc.) as for why they sit in jail for X number of years, I am not certain, but I would think it has to do with the convict having the right to appeal for X number of years. If i have the right to appeal my death sentence for 10 years, it wouldn't really be fair to execute me after 2 years. or, if i file my appeal right away, it's not unreasonable for me to say, "i can't afford an attorney, so I should be granted more time to build my case." In a documentary called, "the farm: life in Angola maximum security prison" (angola, LA), one inmate waited for something like 12 years for the court system to find records he requested. He did legitimately need those medical records to argue his case. In that particular situation, he was convicted of raping 2 girls, and the medical records showed that they were both still virgins after the alleged attack. He wasn't on death row, but if similar evidence exonerated him for murder, it would be pretty shitty to have executed him just because the court system couldn't find the file he requested.
hahahahaha - you think people on death row have money to pay lawyers? you're dreaming. Nearly all death row inmates represent themselves. IF there's a particular case where the defendant is actually innocent, some pro-bono work could come into play.
but there lawyers in China as well....I guess it's the justice system as a whole that is the problem, the lawyers just eat up the money from it.
Uh yea, I'm just making that shit up cuz public defenders are a figment of my imagination. And just for the record, MOST justice systems highly look down on people who represent themselves, go ahead ask Rodger.
I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, but I would support "the Texas Rule" (my name for it) that basically says "if there are 3 or more eye-witnesses to a crime where the defendant is sentenced to death, there should be no appeals process, and the defendant should be executed immediately." the point of appeals is to allow for the possibility that the jury didn't have all the facts when they made their decision, or made a decision based off an improper interpretation of the law (usually based on jury instruction by the judge). 3 eye witnesses should eliminate any questions of fact. Maybe allow 1 appeal (immediately to the supreme court of the state?) to verify that the jury instructions were correct, and then carry out the execution.
see my earlier post. Public defenders really don't make that much money to begin with, but even if they did, public defenders are only available for the first appeal.
I agree with you, given time for this or that....but dragging it out to 10 years or more? the cost of "one" US prisoner for one fiscal year is 15 to 18K dollars. corrections, just found this: Mr Sendt said that the daily net cost of keeping a prisoner in NSW had risen to $187.80, or $68,547 a year. Maximum security prisoners cost $79,829 a year, medium security $61,813 and minimum security $63,061.
I think it's worth 18k/year to keep a murderer off the street. That said, i also think there are some ways we could seriously cut costs in prisons. Some of them have fucking cable TV! My parents didn't have cable until I went to college. I forget the stat, but the vast majority of prisoners get fat. they're not exactly eating light. Ultimately, I think the best course of action is to privatize prisons. I think the government would get more/better service for the same amount of money. Methinks I could find a way to feed/clothe a prisoner for $10k/year if the government was willing to pay me $12k/year. for those inmates who ARE going to get out before they die, I think they should be working the entire time they're in prison. You release a guy with a bus ticket and a $20, and he's basically got 1 day to find a job and feed himself. You pay him $.50/hour to work in prison, he leaves with a few grand to tide him over after he's been 'rehabilitated.' ...but that's just my opinion
this guy should have been killed a long time ago, but its tied up from lawyers and psych evaluations pa is a weenie liberal state that has a death penalty but it hasent been used since the early 70's, we can learn a thing or two from texas http://www.timesleader.com/news/Psychiatrist_says_Banks_delusional_04-28-2010.html
One thing the Chinese do much differently than us also, is their prisons are work camps...Go to prison and you're building things, for free, as it should be... Good way to keep manufacturing costs down when you don't pay the work force....Why our prisoners are not farming our food and building roads (ditch digging tasks) is beyond me...
because that won't help them with the rehabilitation process...eating hot dogs and cheesy mac while their watching TV is much more helpful
mental illness adds a totally different variable into the equation. The question shifts from "is he guilty" to "is he culpable?" murder statutes vary by state, but all require some specified state of mind. the logic behind punishment is either, "this person deserves to be punished," or "this person needs to serve as an example so others know they'll be punished." if he legitimately didn't understand what he was doing is wrong, it's hard to argue that he deserves punishment. if other people are just as nutty as him, they're not going to learn from his example. so there (arguably) becomes no legitimate reason to punish him. what purpose does it serve?
you sound like a lawyer....by the way. Why should we care if the person didn't understand what he was doing? he understood and was mentally stable to put the bullets in the gun and pull the trigger (example)....or does that not come into consideration at the trial? There is a fine line but your response goes right back to the first answer" "Lawyers"
i'm a law student, so i try to keep an open mind about things. I'm not sure I disagree with you, but part of law school is learning to identify the points your opposition will make, and have a convincing counter-argument. this is good practice to your question: we care if the person knew what he was doing because the statute requires it. You can't convict someone of murder if their crime doesn't fit the definition. in your example where the guy loads gun, shoots, and kills, there's nothing to suggest any mental disease or defect (which is required for an insanity defense). He'd be convicted. Now if he thinks that the person he's shooting is the devil, and God spoke to him and told him to kill the devil, he never really intended to kill that person. That intent is part of the definition of murder. I'm not a criminal law professor, so it's a poor example, but do you see my point? it's not that the conduct is excusable, it's that it may or may not fit the legal definition of "murder" in a given jurisdiction.
RK- I like your enthusiasm...is it safe to say tho, if the person is sitting in prison instead of a hospital that mental illness isn't an issue at this point?
