Oklahoma Grand Jury Releases Execution Report

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dethork**

redleger wrote:

I am not going to lie. I think cane-ing (not sure how to spell it) is a great idea. I tell you when I was a teenager, and heard about that guy in thailand who got caned for the vandilism, I knew right then and there I would never ever vandilize anything, and we dont even do that.

That was Singapore. I only spent a couple days in Singapore but it is an absolutely beautiful city. Very orderly, very clean. They have numerous fines for civil infractions...there's a joke: Singapore is a fine city, anything you do gets a fine. That said, I found their customs police to be very polite and efficient. Only one in four it seemed was armed with an old .38. Getting through customs at the ferry terminal took about two hours with around a thousand people in line. A far cry from the TSA. My mother's friend's daughter went there a few months before I did and said that it was the only place where a 20-ish young woman could walk alone at midnight and feel safe. (Obviously, I felt safe the whole time, more than likely being the tallest and heaviest person in the country at the time.)

So whatever Singapore is doing, they're doing something right!

Regarding death penalty in general, at it's most basic I am pro-death penalty. There are some people that are such a detriment to society that the most efficient thing you can do is shoot them. Post execution, the rates of recidivism is practically zero and bullets only cost cents. I think the bizarre contraption executions miss the point and the most humane execution is putting a bullet through their head unexpectedly, then followed with a coup de grace, just in case.

But, nothing exists in a vacuum so here's why I am practically anti-execution once you leave the fantasy dethorktocracy. For starts, I trust the American justice system about as far as I can throw it. And if I could throw it, I probably would have already. Too many men are cleared by DNA evidence after the fact, and there are too many cases of prosecutors burying evidence. (I don't know the actual rates but let's say anything over 0.01% is too many. Yes, with justice I want perfection with no margin of error.) What really pushed me over the edge was talking with a defense attorney friend. Prosecutors use it as a bludgeon in the plea bargain. Someone may be arguably innocent but you throw the D-word out there and they'll usually plea to something, whether they did it or not. Just so the prosecutor doesn't have to do his bloody job. Juries are largely a joke because anyone with critical thinking skills is thrown out if at all possible.

When I think we have prosecutors who's job is not to get a conviction, but to discover the truth, I'll be all for the death penalty. I don't buy into the emotional arguments that "it's just revenge" or "we as a society are better than that". I think that people have a right to be free from victimization by criminal elements and have no concern for their rehabilitation. The time for living decently is before you commit a crime against a person. That said, I see too many cases where a crime ends up with two victims.

**jreilly89**

dethork wrote:
redleger wrote:

I am not going to lie. I think cane-ing (not sure how to spell it) is a great idea. I tell you when I was a teenager, and heard about that guy in thailand who got caned for the vandilism, I knew right then and there I would never ever vandilize anything, and we dont even do that.

That was Singapore. I only spent a couple days in Singapore but it is an absolutely beautiful city. Very orderly, very clean. They have numerous fines for civil infractions...there's a joke: Singapore is a fine city, anything you do gets a fine. That said, I found their customs police to be very polite and efficient. Only one in four it seemed was armed with an old .38. Getting through customs at the ferry terminal took about two hours with around a thousand people in line. A far cry from the TSA. My mother's friend's daughter went there a few months before I did and said that it was the only place where a 20-ish young woman could walk alone at midnight and feel safe. (Obviously, I felt safe the whole time, more than likely being the tallest and heaviest person in the country at the time.)

So whatever Singapore is doing, they're doing something right!

Regarding death penalty in general, at it's most basic I am pro-death penalty. There are some people that are such a detriment to society that the most efficient thing you can do is shoot them. Post execution, the rates of recidivism is practically zero and bullets only cost cents. I think the bizarre contraption executions miss the point and the most humane execution is putting a bullet through their head unexpectedly, then followed with a coup de grace, just in case.

But, nothing exists in a vacuum so here's why I am practically anti-execution once you leave the fantasy dethorktocracy. For starts, I trust the American justice system about as far as I can throw it. And if I could throw it, I probably would have already. Too many men are cleared by DNA evidence after the fact, and there are too many cases of prosecutors burying evidence. (I don't know the actual rates but let's say anything over 0.01% is too many. Yes, with justice I want perfection with no margin of error.) What really pushed me over the edge was talking with a defense attorney friend. Prosecutors use it as a bludgeon in the plea bargain. Someone may be arguably innocent but you throw the D-word out there and they'll usually plea to something, whether they did it or not. Just so the prosecutor doesn't have to do his bloody job. Juries are largely a joke because anyone with critical thinking skills is thrown out if at all possible.

When I think we have prosecutors who's job is not to get a conviction, but to discover the truth, I'll be all for the death penalty. I don't buy into the emotional arguments that "it's just revenge" or "we as a society are better than that". I think that people have a right to be free from victimization by criminal elements and have no concern for their rehabilitation. The time for living decently is before you commit a crime against a person. That said, I see too many cases where a crime ends up with two victims.

I think you raise a lot of good points about the death penalty. Part of the problem I have with it is A) the paperwork, time and resources involved in death row, B) the amount of people falsely charged: if they're executed, it's pretty hard to declare them innocent and C) the amount of brow beating prosecutors do to get a conviction. The justice system is a joke.

**whembly**

Removing Prosecutorial Immunity will go a long way to fix the justice system.

**Monkey Tamer**

whembly wrote:
Removing Prosecutorial Immunity will go a long way to fix the justice system.

If that goes away I'm moving to the dark side. Being sued left and right by every idiot I hold accountable for their actions will result in guys like me throwing in the towel and letting society deal with their criminals some other way. The job doesn't pay much to begin with. Unless the State is willing to pay for our defense for every idiot filing suit to try to get a quick pay day, the profession will vanish. There are ways to overcome prosecutor immunity, but there's a good reason why it's a high hurdle to get over. The only people that will wind up paying will be the taxpayers. They pay every time some lifetime felon sues a correctional institution. The bill will only get bigger if prosecutors get targets painted on their backs.

**jmurph**

whembly wrote:
Removing Prosecutorial Immunity will go a long way to fix the justice system.

Or you could just, you know, actually apply the law as it exists. Most states have exceptions for prosecutors who willingly engage in misconduct. In fact, in Texas, for example, prosecutors are statutorily mandated not to seek convictions, but "to seek justice" and not only do prosecutors have a duty (and that means a legal duty whereby they can be sanctioned, disbarred, fined, jailed, etc.) to disclose all exculpatory evidence they are aware of, they are treated as knowing everything the State has access to. So even if Bob the patrolman has something he stuck in his drawer that might be relevant to a defense theory (which they do *not* have to disclose to the State as the State only has a very limited right to discovery, basically just experts the Defense intends to call at trial), the prosecutor can be found in violation. Likewise, the Michael Morton Act compels the State to turn over just about everything they have. For those unfamiliar, several DA offices in the State have been active in investigating wrongful convictions and have divisions dedicated to it.

And, of course, all of this ignores that rogue prosecutors are a tiny fraction (that seems to have been more common in the past when things like racial prejudice were accepted), and much like any criminal, DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW! The solution is not to make all kinds of hammers to beat up the 99.999% doing it right, but to hold those accountable who aren't. Usually, those types don't make it very long anymore and don't make it to handling bigger cases, since the current environment of most offices is tuned towards justice, not convictions, (and, if not, the DA can be voted out). But, if it happens, apply the consequences. Unfortunately, there is no 100%, but to ignore the very real steps taken to address the problem is just as bad as ignoring the problem itself!

Part of the problem is that our justice system is based on an antiquated model that doesn't match today's reality. And juries are probably the worst part. Asking 6 or twelve random people to decide and area that they have no prior knowledge of and no real background in and will never see again is asinine and leads to erratic results. Defense attorneys sound good in theory, but in practice, it's one more obstacle for the poor and, in a trial situation means one side is not only able to encourage confusion, sow falsehoods, and generally obscure the truth, but is encouraged (and may be required) to! The State has no limits on prosecutor caseloads, and so risk handling so much that it would be malpractice were they on the other side, which can cause even the best intentioned attorney to overlook key facts, plea cases cheaply to move them, etc. Meanwhile, the number of cases keeps climbing, and Defendants largely just want to get out (which is generally much easier if you have money since making bond is kind of tough if you don't). None of that is good!

**jreilly89**

Relevant:

CLEVELAND (AP) — The father of a woman killed by a convicted sex offender dived across a courtroom table to attack him Thursday shortly after a judge sentenced the defendant to death for killing three people and wrapping their bodies in garbage bags.

Van Terry, the father of Shirellda Terry, had walked to the front of the courtroom to give a victim-impact statement and turned toward Michael Madison, who gave him a malicious smile. Terry lunged at Madison and was immediately swarmed by sheriff’s deputies as Madison and his attorneys scrambled to get out of the way.

Law enforcement officers dragged Terry out of the courtroom and ushered him out of the courthouse. A spokesman for the Cuyahoga County prosecutor said the situation was being reviewed.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy McDonnell declined to clear the courtroom, and after about a 15-minute delay the hearing continued.

The judge accepted a jury’s recommendation that Madison, 38, receive the death penalty. She could have chosen to sentence Madison to life in prison without parole. She said the horrific nature of Madison’s crimes far outweighed evidence presented to spare him, including an abusive and chaotic childhood.

The jury convicted Madison last month of multiple counts of aggravated murder and kidnapping.

Madison didn’t make any statements during Thursday’s hearing except to answer questions posed by the judge. Defense attorney David Grant declined to comment afterward.

Prosecutor Tim McGinty said the death penalty was meant for criminals like Madison, whom he called the “worst of the worst.”

Any execution is likely years away because of lengthy appeals. In addition, Ohio currently lacks supplies of lethal drugs, meaning it’s unclear whether it can even begin a new round of executions, currently scheduled to start in January and stretching into 2019.

The bodies of 38-year-old Angela Deskins, 28-year-old Shetisha Sheeley and 18-year-old Shirellda Terry were found in July 2013 near the East Cleveland apartment building where Madison lived. Madison told police he strangled two of the women but couldn’t remember killing the third. Prosecutors say the women were killed over a nine-month period: Sheeley in October 2012, Deskins in May 2013 and Terry in July 2013.

Other relatives of the victims spoke of their heartbreak and loss during the hearing.

Linda Deskins, the stepmother of Angela Deskins, spoke about the grief Angela Deskins’ father has endured.

“Nothing anyone can say or do can make it better for him,” she said.

The discovery of the bodies in July 2013 drew national attention to the possibility that another serial killer like Anthony Sowell had been killing women in and around Cleveland. Sowell was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to death for killing 11 women whose bodies were found at his Cleveland home. The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold his conviction and sentence.

Madison’s attorneys never contested his guilt at trial. They instead focused on saving his life by presenting evidence that he suffered lasting psychological damage from physical abuse as a youngster. There was testimony that Madison was abused by his drug-addicted mother, a stepfather, some of his mother’s boyfriends and other family members.

“This history of abuse and his dysfunctional upbringing certainly doesn’t excuse what happened here but certainly provides a basis for understanding the type of person Michael Madison evolved into,” Grant told the judge.

The case began when a cable television worker reported a putrid smell coming from a garage shared by Madison at the apartment building. Inside, police found the decaying body of a woman wrapped in garbage bags that were sealed closed with tape. The next day, searchers found bodies in the basement of a vacant house and in the backyard of a home nearby.

Prosecutors argued at trial and during the mitigation hearing that Madison deserved to die because of the circumstances surrounding the killings.

A death sentence “will send a message to the community that the strongest possible sentence will be imposed upon crimes of this nature,” assistant prosecutor Christopher Schroeder said.

Madison was classified as a sex offender in 2002, when he was sentenced to four years in prison for attempted rape.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-man-sentenced-killing-3-women-wrapped-bags-052516651.html

I think this guy deserved the death penalty. Already was convicted of attempted rape, tortured and murdered 3 women, and proclaimed guilt. There is no real rehabilitation for him. However, due to appeals and the typical stuff, he won't see execution for years, wasting lots of taxpayer time and money.

**SilverMK2**

Monkey Tamer wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Monkey Tamer wrote:
We've already had some reoffend. I have to keep telling myself only a small segment of society are habitual criminals. But when you see the same faces year after year it makes you lose faith.

You have to treat the sources and causes of crime, not just lock people up and then release them right back into the same situation again (or worse as they now have a criminal record and are unlikely to find work to support themselves/their families) and telling them not to do it again.

My repeat customers aren't doing their deeds out of necessity. That would create sympathy. They do idiotic things with no plausible explanation. I hear them try to stammer out an excuse in front of the sentencing judge. I've never prosecuted someone who sold drugs to feed their family or stole food.

Releasing dumbasses back into the exact same situation after doing little to nothing to help them change for the better and expecting a different outcome is as close to the definition of insanity as it gets... "feeding the family" was just an example of why someone may turn (back) to crime if their situation does not change on release.

Sorry for the delayed reply; been offline but saw you were still posting in this thread so thought I would reply.

**curran12**

jreilly89 wrote:
Relevant:

CLEVELAND (AP) — The father of a woman killed by a convicted sex offender dived across a courtroom table to attack him Thursday shortly after a judge sentenced the defendant to death for killing three people and wrapping their bodies in garbage bags.

Van Terry, the father of Shirellda Terry, had walked to the front of the courtroom to give a victim-impact statement and turned toward Michael Madison, who gave him a malicious smile. Terry lunged at Madison and was immediately swarmed by sheriff’s deputies as Madison and his attorneys scrambled to get out of the way.

Law enforcement officers dragged Terry out of the courtroom and ushered him out of the courthouse. A spokesman for the Cuyahoga County prosecutor said the situation was being reviewed.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy McDonnell declined to clear the courtroom, and after about a 15-minute delay the hearing continued.

The judge accepted a jury’s recommendation that Madison, 38, receive the death penalty. She could have chosen to sentence Madison to life in prison without parole. She said the horrific nature of Madison’s crimes far outweighed evidence presented to spare him, including an abusive and chaotic childhood.

The jury convicted Madison last month of multiple counts of aggravated murder and kidnapping.

Madison didn’t make any statements during Thursday’s hearing except to answer questions posed by the judge. Defense attorney David Grant declined to comment afterward.

Prosecutor Tim McGinty said the death penalty was meant for criminals like Madison, whom he called the “worst of the worst.”

Any execution is likely years away because of lengthy appeals. In addition, Ohio currently lacks supplies of lethal drugs, meaning it’s unclear whether it can even begin a new round of executions, currently scheduled to start in January and stretching into 2019.

The bodies of 38-year-old Angela Deskins, 28-year-old Shetisha Sheeley and 18-year-old Shirellda Terry were found in July 2013 near the East Cleveland apartment building where Madison lived. Madison told police he strangled two of the women but couldn’t remember killing the third. Prosecutors say the women were killed over a nine-month period: Sheeley in October 2012, Deskins in May 2013 and Terry in July 2013.

Other relatives of the victims spoke of their heartbreak and loss during the hearing.

Linda Deskins, the stepmother of Angela Deskins, spoke about the grief Angela Deskins’ father has endured.

“Nothing anyone can say or do can make it better for him,” she said.

The discovery of the bodies in July 2013 drew national attention to the possibility that another serial killer like Anthony Sowell had been killing women in and around Cleveland. Sowell was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to death for killing 11 women whose bodies were found at his Cleveland home. The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold his conviction and sentence.

Madison’s attorneys never contested his guilt at trial. They instead focused on saving his life by presenting evidence that he suffered lasting psychological damage from physical abuse as a youngster. There was testimony that Madison was abused by his drug-addicted mother, a stepfather, some of his mother’s boyfriends and other family members.

“This history of abuse and his dysfunctional upbringing certainly doesn’t excuse what happened here but certainly provides a basis for understanding the type of person Michael Madison evolved into,” Grant told the judge.

The case began when a cable television worker reported a putrid smell coming from a garage shared by Madison at the apartment building. Inside, police found the decaying body of a woman wrapped in garbage bags that were sealed closed with tape. The next day, searchers found bodies in the basement of a vacant house and in the backyard of a home nearby.

Prosecutors argued at trial and during the mitigation hearing that Madison deserved to die because of the circumstances surrounding the killings.

A death sentence “will send a message to the community that the strongest possible sentence will be imposed upon crimes of this nature,” assistant prosecutor Christopher Schroeder said.

Madison was classified as a sex offender in 2002, when he was sentenced to four years in prison for attempted rape.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-man-sentenced-killing-3-women-wrapped-bags-052516651.html

I think this guy deserved the death penalty. Already was convicted of attempted rape, tortured and murdered 3 women, and proclaimed guilt. There is no real rehabilitation for him. However, due to appeals and the typical stuff, he won't see execution for years, wasting lots of taxpayer time and money.

So appeals are wastes of money, then? If 'saving money' is the concern here, why not just shoot them as soon as the verdict is read?

**Kilkrazy**

I think the problem with "that guy really deserves to die" as an approach to the death penalty is that it requires another raft of laws to try and define a new class of convictions.

As well as that, people who are opposed to the ordinary death penalty on ethical grounds will also oppose the new special death penalty.

**redleger**

curran12 wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Relevant:

CLEVELAND (AP) — The father of a woman killed by a convicted sex offender dived across a courtroom table to attack him Thursday shortly after a judge sentenced the defendant to death for killing three people and wrapping their bodies in garbage bags.

Van Terry, the father of Shirellda Terry, had walked to the front of the courtroom to give a victim-impact statement and turned toward Michael Madison, who gave him a malicious smile. Terry lunged at Madison and was immediately swarmed by sheriff’s deputies as Madison and his attorneys scrambled to get out of the way.

Law enforcement officers dragged Terry out of the courtroom and ushered him out of the courthouse. A spokesman for the Cuyahoga County prosecutor said the situation was being reviewed.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Nancy McDonnell declined to clear the courtroom, and after about a 15-minute delay the hearing continued.

The judge accepted a jury’s recommendation that Madison, 38, receive the death penalty. She could have chosen to sentence Madison to life in prison without parole. She said the horrific nature of Madison’s crimes far outweighed evidence presented to spare him, including an abusive and chaotic childhood.

The jury convicted Madison last month of multiple counts of aggravated murder and kidnapping.

Madison didn’t make any statements during Thursday’s hearing except to answer questions posed by the judge. Defense attorney David Grant declined to comment afterward.

Prosecutor Tim McGinty said the death penalty was meant for criminals like Madison, whom he called the “worst of the worst.”

Any execution is likely years away because of lengthy appeals. In addition, Ohio currently lacks supplies of lethal drugs, meaning it’s unclear whether it can even begin a new round of executions, currently scheduled to start in January and stretching into 2019.

The bodies of 38-year-old Angela Deskins, 28-year-old Shetisha Sheeley and 18-year-old Shirellda Terry were found in July 2013 near the East Cleveland apartment building where Madison lived. Madison told police he strangled two of the women but couldn’t remember killing the third. Prosecutors say the women were killed over a nine-month period: Sheeley in October 2012, Deskins in May 2013 and Terry in July 2013.

Other relatives of the victims spoke of their heartbreak and loss during the hearing.

Linda Deskins, the stepmother of Angela Deskins, spoke about the grief Angela Deskins’ father has endured.

“Nothing anyone can say or do can make it better for him,” she said.

The discovery of the bodies in July 2013 drew national attention to the possibility that another serial killer like Anthony Sowell had been killing women in and around Cleveland. Sowell was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to death for killing 11 women whose bodies were found at his Cleveland home. The Ohio Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold his conviction and sentence.

Madison’s attorneys never contested his guilt at trial. They instead focused on saving his life by presenting evidence that he suffered lasting psychological damage from physical abuse as a youngster. There was testimony that Madison was abused by his drug-addicted mother, a stepfather, some of his mother’s boyfriends and other family members.

“This history of abuse and his dysfunctional upbringing certainly doesn’t excuse what happened here but certainly provides a basis for understanding the type of person Michael Madison evolved into,” Grant told the judge.

The case began when a cable television worker reported a putrid smell coming from a garage shared by Madison at the apartment building. Inside, police found the decaying body of a woman wrapped in garbage bags that were sealed closed with tape. The next day, searchers found bodies in the basement of a vacant house and in the backyard of a home nearby.

Prosecutors argued at trial and during the mitigation hearing that Madison deserved to die because of the circumstances surrounding the killings.

A death sentence “will send a message to the community that the strongest possible sentence will be imposed upon crimes of this nature,” assistant prosecutor Christopher Schroeder said.

Madison was classified as a sex offender in 2002, when he was sentenced to four years in prison for attempted rape.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ohio-man-sentenced-killing-3-women-wrapped-bags-052516651.html

I think this guy deserved the death penalty. Already was convicted of attempted rape, tortured and murdered 3 women, and proclaimed guilt. There is no real rehabilitation for him. However, due to appeals and the typical stuff, he won't see execution for years, wasting lots of taxpayer time and money.

So appeals are wastes of money, then? If 'saving money' is the concern here, why not just shoot them as soon as the verdict is read?

Curran, I think the point he is trying to make is that this person admitted to doing some of the most heinous crimes, which even prosecutors agreed was the type of behavior the death penalty was created for in the first place. Why allow someone who has admitted to the crimes, been linked with physcial evidence, and showed no remorse whatsoever to go one appealing with no real appeal possible due to overwhelming evidence and a confession.

This is the exact situation I was referring to where this person doesn't care about the penalties, he will probably continue doing it, and rehabilitation is not going to fix anything, but allow a sociopath the opportunity to move amongst the populace to commit more attrocities after he has convinced a psychiatrist he is "just fine".

I think the above poster was correct, there needs to be a new criteria where if you confess to capital murder, evidence is overwhelming, you can prove zero coercion, appeals are limited to 1, if any and you get an express trip to (your states prefereed method) and then you don't even get a pine box. you get buried out in the rose garden, because lets face it, your doing more for your planet as fertilizer than you did while living.

**SilverMK2**

What if the real killer used someone with mental issues as a patsy, with the person who admitted to the crime and with physical links to the scene actually being innocent? At some point in the future, the truth outs, but unfortunately the guy was sentenced to death by mau-mau live at 6 the day after the trial...

**redleger**

SilverMK2 wrote:
What if the real killer used someone with mental issues as a patsy, with the person who admitted to the crime and with physical links to the scene actually being innocent? At some point in the future, the truth outs, but unfortunately the guy was sentenced to death by mau-mau live at 6 the day after the trial...

I have learned a lot, going back and beating myself up over decisions made. Maybe if I had stepped left through the door instead of right, I could have had a better shot, maybe if I had trained them all better, we could have accomplished more. Maybe if we rehearsed more, the plan would have worked better. you can what if anything to death. I mean anything, NOTHING is fool proof. Nothing can be 100% in law or life.

However if he confesses, is not coerced, everything is video taped, on the up and up. Physical evidence is not refutable, then why not have a streamlined process. Im not saying from the frying pan to the fire, but lets not take a damn decade to kill this oxygen thief.

**SilverMK2**

redleger wrote:
However if he confesses, is not coerced, everything is video taped, on the up and up. Physical evidence is not refutable, then why not have a streamlined process. Im not saying from the frying pan to the fire, but lets not take a damn decade to kill this oxygen thief.

Except that in this (granted not particularly realistic example), the confession is not worth a damn, the physical evidence is a lie and you have just killed an innocent person.

Why kill anyone at all? Once they are locked up they are of extremely limited danger to society. With proper facilities they can undergo rehabilitation, care, or whatever is required at a reasonable cost.

**redleger**

OK, so in this scenario of yours, the defendant passed his psychological exam, was found competent to stand trial, but still decided that he wanted to confess to someone else's murder. There is literally, absolutely no system in the world that can prevent this scenario, which seems just a but like a long shot, like 1 in a million or more long shot.

secondly, if he confessed, he confessed. The reason for it is immaterial.

Now, as to the fabricating of evidence. Any LEO found guilty to tampering evidence in a capital case should then in turn be held to the same standard he tried to bypass. In other words that is attempted murder. You tried to get someone convicted wrongfully, willfully, and with prejudice, guess what. Life in prison for attempted murder.

**Chongara**

whembly wrote:
Removing Prosecutorial Immunity will go a long way to fix the justice system.

Holy crap! This can't possibly really be a thing? What's to stop any prosecutor from simply faking evidence and bringing charges on everyone he doesn't like from his high school bully to that guy who just hit on his girlfriend? There seriously has to be some kind of exception. I can't believe they're totally beyond all law when executing their duties.
EDIT: re-read "Civil" ok then, that is a lot less scary. Guess the "Absolute" title at the top threw me for a loop, knew I had to be reading something wrong.

**curran12**

redleger wrote:

I have learned a lot, going back and beating myself up over decisions made. Maybe if I had stepped left through the door instead of right, I could have had a better shot, maybe if I had trained them all better, we could have accomplished more. Maybe if we rehearsed more, the plan would have worked better. you can what if anything to death. I mean anything, NOTHING is fool proof. Nothing can be 100% in law or life.

However if he confesses, is not coerced, everything is video taped, on the up and up. Physical evidence is not refutable, then why not have a streamlined process. Im not saying from the frying pan to the fire, but lets not take a damn decade to kill this oxygen thief.

Well, as a matter of fact, there's a reason that a confession can fail as a slam dunk. This is more psychological, but the sources are:

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/09/12/why-people-confess-even-if-they-didnt-do-it/59450.html
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/07-08/upfront-crimes.aspx

The second article has a fairly telling statistic. Of those cleared by DNA evidence later on, 30% of those actually confessed to the crime. Interrogations can easily break a person down, even one of perfectly sound mind, into confession simply to remove the pressure and stress of interrogation off of them. This is especially true if those doing the interrogation are eager to get a confession, or perhaps want to 'get' the bad guy. And I don't think that is too hard to imagine, especially given the...let's just call it the PR issue that the police have been having with communities for years if not decades that is just now starting to move.

**Ouze**

curran12 wrote:
Of those cleared by DNA evidence later on, 30% of those actually confessed to the crime. Interrogations can easily break a person down, even one of perfectly sound mind, into confession simply to remove the pressure and stress of interrogation off of them. This is especially true if those doing the interrogation are eager to get a confession, or perhaps want to 'get' the bad guy..

Humans are incredibly suggestible as a baseline, even when not under the intense stress of a police interrogation. As a rule, people can generally be made to believe they did, saw, or experienced things that they did not, even if they otherwise have extraordinary memory.

**A Town Called Malus**

curran12 wrote:
Interrogations can easily break a person down, even one of perfectly sound mind, into confession simply to remove the pressure and stress of interrogation off of them. This is especially true if those doing the interrogation are eager to get a confession, or perhaps want to 'get' the bad guy. And I don't think that is too hard to imagine, especially given the...let's just call it the PR issue that the police have been having with communities for years if not decades that is just now starting to move.

You don't really need to imagine. Just go and look at the videos of the interrogation of Brendan Dassey in which he was led and guided through making a confession which fitted the facts by the interrogating police officers, an act which was later repeated by his own defence counsel in order to build the case against him.

**redleger**

What's weird is Im an atheist, and subscribe to the humanist point of view, that someday the human race will be better. I also believe some form of Darwinism is the only way we will get there. I know, yall are like, this dude is crazy, how can he believe this and call him self a humanist.

We must police each other up. That some times means for the greater good, your gene pool must be removed. I see it every day, kids, who are now playing Soldier, make it though basic, show up ready to learn apprentice level skills for their military specialty, and they are dumb as poodoo. Not faking it, not overwhelmed, literally drooling useless idiots. They survive because they run fast, and are super strong. They are the same times that fail to follow directions and step where they are not supposed to. They usually end up living or only slightly maimed while others die.

What is my point you ask? Why do we insist on keeping these sociopaths alive? What moral compass points you to we as a human race are better off with them alive?? Im genuinely curious, and I am not trolling. I really enjoy hearing from many different perspectives.

(Unless you call me a baby killer, then feth you and your horse. )

**Kilkrazy**

The moral compass points are:

(1) Utility is not the only moral compass point.
(2) If killing people is the absolutely worst crime in society then why is it good for society to do it to criminals?
(3) Genetics aren't the cause of crime, so the death penalty is irrelevant in that respect.
(4) If genetics were involved, life imprisonment removes you from the gene pool anyway.
(5) It also allows for a wrongful conviction to be reversed.
(6) As noted previously, the death penalty is more expensive than imprisonment,which reduces the value of your utility argument.

**redleger**

Kilkrazy wrote:
The moral compass points are:

(1) Utility is not the only moral compass point.
(2) If killing people is the absolutely worst crime in society then why is it good for society to do it to criminals?
(3) Genetics aren't the cause of crime, so the death penalty is irrelevant in that respect.
(4) If genetics were involved, life imprisonment removes you from the gene pool anyway.
(5) It also allows for a wrongful conviction to be reversed.
(6) As noted previously, the death penalty is more expensive than imprisonment,which reduces the value of your utility argument.

I would say killing is not the worse crime, murder amongst some that leave people alive are worse. If you remove someone from society who is a danger to society, that is not murder.

Most scientist would say genetics lead to a pre-disposition for a lot of mental illness, so yes genetics can be the cause of crime.

Life in prison allows certain personnel to still have conjugation if they are the last of their namesake. Change that rule, then I would agree with you.

Yes, wrongful convictions can be reversed.

The death penalty is more expensive because we allow it to be. If we make it so when certain conditions, stringent conditions are met, we can ensure there is a separate review board, who has to bless off on it, or say nope, hold the eff up, we could easily make it way cheaper.

**Kilkrazy**

You can remove someone from society by imprisoning them.

Mental illness isn't a crime.

Death penalties aren't going to get made cheaper because you want to remove the objection that they are expensive. The argument becomes circular at that point. There is a reason why the death penalty is so expensive -- because on the whole people don't want it to be cheap.

**jreilly89**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You can remove someone from society by imprisoning them.

Somewhat. Until they get out for "good behavior" and appeals, then go out and commit the same crime or worse. I'm all for rehabilitating criminals, this is just an aside.

Mental illness isn't a crime.

No, but kidnap, rape, torture, and murder of three women are crimes.

Death penalties aren't going to get made cheaper because you want to remove the objection that they are expensive. The argument becomes circular at that point. There is a reason why the death penalty is so expensive -- because on the whole people don't want it to be cheap.

Agreed. However, it still needs to be an option for the most heinous of crimes, like the Aurora Theater shooting.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
redleger wrote:
However if he confesses, is not coerced, everything is video taped, on the up and up. Physical evidence is not refutable, then why not have a streamlined process. Im not saying from the frying pan to the fire, but lets not take a damn decade to kill this oxygen thief.

Except that in this (granted not particularly realistic example), the confession is not worth a damn, the physical evidence is a lie and you have just killed an innocent person.

Semi agreed on confessions. They can definitely be coerced or forced out of people, but in this case I doubt it.

Why kill anyone at all? Once they are locked up they are of extremely limited danger to society. With proper facilities they can undergo rehabilitation, care, or whatever is required at a reasonable cost.

Because some people cannot be rehabilitated, due to mental illness, refusal to admit wrongs, etc. Again, I'm not advocating the death penalty for littering, but there is a point where some crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:
What if the real killer used someone with mental issues as a patsy, with the person who admitted to the crime and with physical links to the scene actually being innocent? At some point in the future, the truth outs, but unfortunately the guy was sentenced to death by mau-mau live at 6 the day after the trial...

That isn't a bit of a stretch? I'd imagine it can happen, but it'd be 1/10,000 or less times.

**Kilkrazy**

jreilly89 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can remove someone from society by imprisoning them.

Somewhat. Until they get out for "good behavior" and appeals, then go out and commit the same crime or worse. I'm all for rehabilitating criminals, this is just an aside.

Mental illness isn't a crime.

No, but kidnap, rape, torture, and murder of three women are crimes.

Death penalties aren't going to get made cheaper because you want to remove the objection that they are expensive. The argument becomes circular at that point. There is a reason why the death penalty is so expensive -- because on the whole people don't want it to be cheap.

Agreed. However, it still needs to be an option for the most heinous of crimes, like the Aurora Theater shooting.

Why?

What do you believe it will achieve that can't be done by other means?

**jreilly89**

Kilkrazy wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
You can remove someone from society by imprisoning them.

Somewhat. Until they get out for "good behavior" and appeals, then go out and commit the same crime or worse. I'm all for rehabilitating criminals, this is just an aside.

Mental illness isn't a crime.

No, but kidnap, rape, torture, and murder of three women are crimes.

Death penalties aren't going to get made cheaper because you want to remove the objection that they are expensive. The argument becomes circular at that point. There is a reason why the death penalty is so expensive -- because on the whole people don't want it to be cheap.

Agreed. However, it still needs to be an option for the most heinous of crimes, like the Aurora Theater shooting.

Why?

What do you believe it will achieve that can't be done by other means?

Right now? Nothing. The Death Penalty has been shown to be more costly and time consuming than Life in Prison. A revised Death penalty with less appeals and a quicker process for repeat offenders/heinous crimes/100% conviction (i.e. no circumnstantial evidence, no indication of coerced confessions, no disagreement of the jury, etc.) would be better used on criminals with no chance of rehabilitation.

I just don't see the point in sentencing a truly evil person to Life in Prison, when rehabilitation won't work on them, and they'll serve 40, then be released as a 70 year old convicted serial killer. What would be the benefit of that? Case in point: Charles Manson, who was scheduled for death, only reduced to life in prison due to the abolition of the death penalty. He was denied his 12 appeal in 2012. He won't be up for another appeal until 2027, when he'll be 92. What's the point in keeping him in prison?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson#Parole_hearings

Again, this is not for every crime, but only the most heinous.

**Kilkrazy**

One basic benefit about sentencing someone to life imprisonment rather than killing them is that it enables us to avoid killing them.

Of course if you don't see a problem with killing people then this argument loses some of its force, though the other utility arguments still are effective.

**curran12**

I turn that question back on you. What's the point in killing them? We've demonstrated that right now, it is not cheaper, it is more prone to flaw and has no value in deterrence. Because, at it stands, capital punishment serves one thing, and that is a need for revenge, to 'get that guy'. That is not something that I agree with, because I believe that the society should be beyond that.

But further to your points. You say things like: "A revised Death penalty with less appeals and a quicker process for repeat offenders/heinous crimes/100% conviction (i.e. no circumnstantial evidence, no indication of coerced confessions, no disagreement of the jury, etc.)" and "the most heinous crimes". These two things jump out to me as noteworthy, but let me break them down.

How do you scan for coerced confessions? As I've shown in my links, they are not just strongarm cops bashing a guy til he confesses, it is a mind breaking down and doing anything to escape. How do you test for that? Also, if there's disagreement in the jury, doesn't that render the entire process a matter of just convincing one member of a jury not to execute? Seems like it is a looser, less strict version of the law now. It is very easy to say this sort of thing, but when you look at it through a practical lens, it is an untenable situation, and does little to address my larger point that capital punishment does not serve any function beyond revenge.

Also, on the "most heinous of crimes", how do we determine that? Is there a number? Is there a scale? Or do we simply trust the gut instinct of a judge/jury? Is that something worth founding laws on?

**jreilly89**

Kilkrazy wrote:
One basic benefit about sentencing someone to life imprisonment rather than killing them is that it enables us to avoid killing them.

Of course if you don't see a problem with killing people then this argument loses some of its force, though the other utility arguments still are effective.

I don't, but I understand that some people do, hence why I think death penalty laws should be something that's voted on.

**d-usa**

Why are people pretending that life in prison doesn't exist and the only choice is killing them or releasing them?

**jreilly89**

curran12 wrote:
I turn that question back on you. What's the point in killing them? We've demonstrated that right now, it is not cheaper, it is more prone to flaw and has no value in deterrence. Because, at it stands, capital punishment serves one thing, and that is a need for revenge, to 'get that guy'. That is not something that I agree with, because I believe that the society should be beyond that.

Right, as it stands now it isn't cheaper, is more prone to flaw, and doesn't help with deterrence. That's why I'd be in favor of revising it. What's the point in killing them? Read the link I posted about Charles Manson. What's the point of having criminals in prison when we're going to deny their appeals up to 12 times and just keep them in lock up until they die of age. Is that really that much different from getting revenge? The guy is still locked away for life and effectively sentenced to death. Is an 81 year old man that much of a danger? If he is, then he should've been executed a long time ago.

But further to your points. You say things like: "A revised Death penalty with less appeals and a quicker process for repeat offenders/heinous crimes/100% conviction (i.e. no circumnstantial evidence, no indication of coerced confessions, no disagreement of the jury, etc.)" and "the most heinous crimes". These two things jump out to me as noteworthy, but let me break them down.

How do you scan for coerced confessions? As I've shown in my links, they are not just strongarm cops bashing a guy til he confesses, it is a mind breaking down and doing anything to escape. How do you test for that? Also, if there's disagreement in the jury, doesn't that render the entire process a matter of just convincing one member of a jury not to execute?

That's tough, but not something that I think a committee couldn't come to some conclusions on and then put to a vote, to be voted on at large by the public. I can be supportive of something without actually knowing every answer to said thing, hence I'm in favor of a cure for cancer even though I don't know how to solve cancer.

Scan for coerced confessions? More detailed videos of the prisoner and his interaction with law enforcement. Ensure that at no time was he undocumented with a law enforcement figure where he could be subject to coercion or brow beating.

Disagreement in the jury? Not sure where you're going with this. I was saying that jurors who come to a conclusion in unison that a person should get the death penalty with no disagreement should be a point in favor of the death penalty, but not an automatic. Again, these were ideas I just spitballing, not things I am 100% certain of.

Seems like it is a looser, less strict version of the law now. It is very easy to say this sort of thing, but when you look at it through a practical lens, it is an untenable situation, and does little to address my larger point that capital punishment does not serve any function beyond revenge.

Is it? There are already hundreds of problems with the justice system as it stands now. When you put most things into a practical lens, they fall apart due to human nature, corruption, political favors, etc. Is it really that untenable, or just something that hasn't been refined enough.

Also, on the "most heinous of crimes", how do we determine that? Is there a number? Is there a scale? Or do we simply trust the gut instinct of a judge/jury? Is that something worth founding laws on?

I would leave it up to the judge and jury, and that would be something where appeals come into play. If you're that trusting of the justice system that life in prison is okay, but the death penalty is not, then a sufficient appeal system with a limit of 2 or 3 times should suffice.

Again, I reference Charles Manson. What would have changed in the 12 appeals that he would been released. Either by the third or second he should have been released, or it should have been shown he is a danger and has no intention of changing and should have been executed.

Lastly, let me say thanks

I know this has all been hypothetical, but I want to say thanks for the intriguing and friendly discussion. I know this is a hot issue, but I'm glad we're approaching this as reasonable adults.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Why are people pretending that life in prison doesn't exist and the only choice is killing them or releasing them?

Reposting what I said to the other user. Read the link I posted about Charles Manson. What's the point of having criminals in prison when we're going to deny their appeals up to 12 times and just keep them in lock up until they die of age. Is that really that much different from getting revenge? The guy is still locked away for life and effectively sentenced to death. Is an 81 year old man that much of a danger? If he is, then he should've been executed a long time ago.