BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:29 PM

Backwoodsman: There is no such thing as "the US legal system." There is one federal system and 50 state systems. Then there criminal courts, civil courts, family courts, tax courts, military courts (courts-martial), each with their own rules of procedure. I don't even know how to count how many "systems" we've got.

If there is any uniformity at all, it is only because the US constitution sets some limits on what states can do. I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the US constitution that says that juries can't determine sentences. Therefore it is practically inevitable that some juries somewhere do determine sentences.

More than that, I can't tell you.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 02:47 PM

Looking back at the coverage I have seen in the media. I think in states that allow the death penalty it generally has to be decided upon by a jury.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:06 PM

"Is it not at least arguable that there are 'living humans' without whose continued existence the world can be a better, safer place?

That is what I alluded to in my prediction when I said ..." we will see a shift to MORE states allowing capital punishment...and for a wider variety of crimes. "

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 04:18 PM

Richard Speck died in prison some years ago now. But after many years in prison, someone taped an interview with him, which I've seen. I can't give precise quotes, but I believe these are legitimate approximations. When asked if he regretted slaughtering a group of young nurses, he replied, "No, why should I". He also said, "If people knew how much fun I have in here, they would be outraged".
I'll freely admit that I'm torn between my more general feelings about capital punishment and the part of me that asks why something like that should be kept alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 05:47 PM

"I'm torn between my more general feelings about capital punishment and the part of me that asks why something like that should be kept alive."
Why?

1) Because of what it says to our children. Here is a problem you can solve without descending to killing to someone. Adolf Hitler - you have to kill people. Richard Speck - you don't.
If you practice violence in this case - you are doing it from personal preference, rather than necessity.

2)Our society is churning out more and more of these social inadequates - we need to know why. Focus on the problem, rather than some medieval bollocks about good and evil.

3) Sadism - the desire to voyeuristically enjoy cruelty is deep within all of us.
True Crime Porn and public enjoyment of the execution - who hasn't turned to the gory details of Charles the 1st on the scaffold and poor Mary Queen of Scots, and a myriad others and enjoyed the grisly details?
It is a base strand inside the human make up - every manifestation of it should be resisted for the sake of human dignity.

4) I'm not up for it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 06:13 PM

>>>1) Because of what it says to our children.

It says don't torture and Rape and kill people or you will end up dead.

>>2)Our society is churning out more and more of these social inadequates - we need to know why. Focus on the problem, rather than some medieval bollocks about good and evil.

Bollocks and Bollocks. There have always been killers in our society and we don't have to know why to remove them.

>>3) Sadism - the desire to voyeuristically enjoy cruelty is deep within all of us.

Speak for yourself. I have no such desire. I am revolted by the crime and just want to know he is gone. I have absolutely no voyeuristic interest in how it is done. In fact, my interest is only in minimizing cruelty.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:10 PM

Dear Jack,

Your ideas aren't crap - and neither are mine. They are our considered opinions, and they happen to be different.

You rationalise this difficult issue your way and I, in mine.

Capital Punishment:

Your up for it, I'm not. Its simply a matter of differing sensibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: dwditty
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:29 PM

I live in New Haven. The state is providing trauma counselling to the jurors.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 10 - 08:36 PM

"Richard Speck died in prison..." etc...

I met Richard Speck's nephew...in fact, he tried to hide in my basement with the police chasing him.. *I* found him and showed to cops where he was. 2 years later, he chased my car, throwing bottles at me. Last I heard, nephew was in jail...and that's probably all that kept him from emulating Uncle Richard. He was a thoroughly nasty kid!

I know one can't really generalize from one example, but gee, sometimes it's easy to see the "there are 'living humans' without whose continued existence the world can be a better, safer place" argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:27 AM

Jim Dixon - thanks for the comments about the US Legal Systems. I hadn't taken into account the strange (to a Brit) legal structure over there.

I still believe that it's appalling that juries can, apparently, (and perhaps only in certain states) set sentences. That's very dangerous - it places seriously unfair responsibilities on jurors, and leaves the door open for unjust sentencing based on the personal biases of the jurors. It also increses the likelihood of revenge being taken by the criminal/his associates/family on jurors. It's barbaric.

Sentencing should be solely the responsibility of the Judge. That's what he's trained for, that's what he's paid for.

IMHO. YMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:28 AM

Increases, dammit!

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 03:59 AM

If anyone killed my children, I'd kill them.

Call me old-fashioned, or...simply a Mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:05 AM

I am glad to observe the reasonable, and reasoned, tone of recent postings on this thread ~ & thanks Bill for quoting my tentative efforts to come to terms with this all-too-complex controversy. Only too often this is a topic which gives rise to the most intense anmadversions and insults. I think the turn this thread has taken is a great credit to Mudcat & its Catters.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:09 AM

>>Sentencing should be solely the responsibility of the Judge. That's what he's trained for, that's what he's paid for.<<

1. I don't know of any Judges' training in this country.
2. Sentences can vary, Judge, to Judge, Enough money, and the right lawyer, or blind luck, can sometimes get you a Judge more favorable to your situation.
3. If the Jury is qualified to find you guilty. I don't see why they can't pick the sentence. Don't you say in for a penny, in for a pound over there?
5. I think the likelihood of bias is far lower for 12 people than one.
6. A lot of judges here are elected. Do you want to entrust sentencing to the lawyer that won a popularity contest?

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:50 AM

Well point 6 shows another big difference between your systems and the UK system, Jack, which I find appalling. Over here, ALL judges are trained, and very experienced, lawyers.

That's not to say that mistakes aren't made in sentencing, they sometimes are, but if I was in the dock and found guilty by a jury, I'd far rather my fate was in the hands of a qualified and, hopefully, dispassionate Judge than in the hands of a group of laymen whose decisions are liable to be hugely influenced by the media coverage of the case, and by their own, possibly wildly intemperate, views.

Also, if I was a juror, I would be horrified if I had to set the sentence. The offence is committed by the criminal against, and is prosecuted by, the state (that's the British meaning of 'state' - i.e. the nation). It's only right, therefore, that the state, personified by a judge appointed by the state, should set the sentence.

Obviously, we are each comfortable with our own systems, but I truly believe ours trumps yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 04:58 AM

Correction - should have said "Over here, the offence is deemed to have been commited by the criminal against, and is prosecuted by, the state".

It's very interesting how two systems which we assume to be very similar have some major differences.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 05:11 AM

Indeed they are different. Here it is unthinkable that the jury should have any say in the sentencing; the only exception was that, if a jury thought there were mitigating factors when murder was still a capital offence, they could add a "recommendation to mercy" to a Guilty verdict. Even then, the judge was not allowed to take it into account, but required to pass a mandatory sentence of death; but he could bring it to the attention of any Appeal Court, and of the Home Secretary, who was required to confirm any death sentence, and was empowered to recommend a reprieve to the King or Queen ~~ which, notionally, could only be granted by the Sovereign him/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Janie
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 07:28 AM

In nearly all criminal trials in the US, the judge does decide the sentence, although for some charges (drug charges, I think) they are required to follow mandatory federal guidelines.

It was a ruling made by the US Supreme court that is responsible for the two-phase jury trial in capital murder cases. The first phase is the guilt or innocence phase. If a guilty verdict is rendered, then the case proceeds to the penalty phase and the jury will hear evidence of both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. I'm not entirely certain about this, but in at least some states a judge may have the authority to override a jury's imposition of the death penalty under certain limited circumstances. The judge may not override a jury's decision to impose a sentence of life instead of the death penalty.   

Before bringing a murder case to trial the prosecutor must decide and announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. The state where I live specifies the conditions that may be considered aggravating circumstances that warrant a prosecutor seeking the death penalty.

Any potential juror who says they could not consider imposing the death penalty is excused from hearing a capital case.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 09:35 AM

Still sounds pretty wrong to me, Janie.

Our principle here is that the jury decides only the guilt or innocence of the accused, the Judge (who is qualified and experienced in the law and its application) sets the sentence in accordance with the sentencing rules and tarriffs set down in statute. Sounds right to me but, as I said earlier, we all tend to favour the system we're accustomed to over others.

Having said that, the death penalty is, IMHO, barbaric and has no place in any civilised 21st Century society. There's no way back when someone is wrongly found guilty, and one is one too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 10:47 AM

The jury's decision is fixed within the framework of law and the instructions from the judge.

But I see your point.

As to the Manichean determination that a human being should be put to death, I would offer the observation that such black-and-white judgements do not relate to the whole situation of a human life, but only to one part of it; they do not account for the consequences of his subtraction but wash their hands of the matter as soon as his corpse leaves the building. Most important they do not account for the consequences of presuming to have the authority to end a life at a time when it is no longer a threat. It is an entirely different thing to take out a killer who is placing you in mortal danger.

The revenge motive that Lizzy mentions is understandable because of the deep passionate feelings we have for our young and their protection. Whether it should be the basis of our group justice code is an entirely different issue.

Even within the context of a Christian belief system, it seems presumptuous to place this judgement in the hands of a group of human beings, especially in light of the governing Commandments.

But in the more normal secular perspective, I find it very hard to find a rationalization for snuffing someone whose every step is under the control of guards and whose range of motion is limited to a cell, a dining hall, and an exercise yard under armed surveillance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:01 AM

>>>it seems presumptuous to place this judgement in the hands of a group of human beings, especially in light of the governing Commandments.<<<

What "Commandments", Amos? Those of Moses, do you mean? Why, the book of Deuteronomy goes into enormous detail as to the crimes which warrant death, what particular form the death sentence should take for each particular offence, & so on. If you mean the "Shalt not kill" commandment of the boring old original 10; that surely means, in the context of the time, that, if you do, you will cop the like in your turn.

Anyhow, when didst thou last fret about coveting thy neighbour's ass, eh?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Death Sentence to Save a Soul?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Nov 10 - 11:27 AM

Coveting is not good for anyone. But I believe it was meant to apply to more than just donkeys.