The Death Penalty?

[justin22g]

bj... arent VIS's only allowed in the sentencing stage?

I grabbed these from some notes I had from a con law class a couple years ago.

Booth v. Maryland - reversed - in capital murder trials, VIS?s are inappropriate. Trials focus on defendant... not the victim.

South Carolina v. Gathers - upheld - comments in capital murder trials pertaining to religion and other things associated can invalidate a death sentence.

Payne v. Tennessee - upheld - overruled booth and gathers, stating VIS?s during capital trials are Constitutional.

 

[justin22g]

I will go ahead and post these cases about capital punishment

Furman v. Georgia ? reversed ? stated that the death penalty sentences should not be arbitrary and capricious. You must have proportionality

Gregg v. Georgia ? upheld ? stated that the death penalty did not violate the 8th as long as it is not mandatory. The trier of fact must have discretion.

McCleskey v. Kemp - upheld - court stated that there is data stating that more blacks are sentenced to death. However you must be able to prove that racial discrimination occurred during a particular trial.

Atkins v. Virginia - reversed - executions of mentally retarded criminals violates the 8th.

Roper v. Simmons - upheld - court stated that execution of minors violates the 8th.

 

[bjfinste]

could you be more specific as to why they dont work?

No, they DO work, for what they are intended for by prosecutors. And that is getting the defendant killed. They are overwhelmingly prejudicial in my opinion. Here's why I think so:

The criminal justice system is set up by humans. It's a natural human emotion to want revenge. Hence the reason and need for "impartial" juries. Yet in capital trials, the victim's family is allowed to get in front of the jury and say whatever they want (outside of openly saying "give him death", although the intent of the statements is blatantly obvious). My argument is that the system itself is set up to give the harshest punishment because it is set up by other, regular, humans. Allowing in the victim impact statements (which only happens after a guilty verdict is found or plead to, and the only issue remaining is life or death) gives an overwhelming bias toward the sentencing jury. And the law is already set up, by regular human beings, to give the harshest punishment necessary for the crime. Allowing these statements makes the jury stop looking at the crime committed and instead makes them look at outside people who, while they may have been affected indirectly by the crime, were not victims of the crime.

The American legal system is designed to find justice, not revenge.

 

[bjfinste]

bj... arent VIS's only allowed in the sentencing stage?

You are correct.

 

[justin22g]

No, they DO work, for what they are intended for by prosecutors. And that is getting the defendant killed. They are overwhelmingly prejudicial in my opinion. Here's why I think so:

The criminal justice system is set up by humans. It's a natural human emotion to want revenge. Hence the reason and need for "impartial" juries. Yet in capital trials, the victim's family is allowed to get in front of the jury and say whatever they want (outside of openly saying "give him death", although the intent of the statements is blatantly obvious). My argument is that the system itself is set up to give the harshest punishment because it is set up by other, regular, humans. Allowing in the victim impact statements (which only happens after a guilty verdict is found or plead to, and the only issue remaining is life or death) gives an overwhelming bias toward the sentencing jury. And the law is already set up, by regular human beings, to give the harshest punishment necessary for the crime. Allowing these statements makes the jury stop looking at the crime committed and instead makes them look at outside people who, while they may have been affected indirectly by the crime, were not victims of the crime.

The American legal system is designed to find justice, not revenge.

could not have been stated better....


Justice is Blind

 

[TontoKowalski]

No, they DO work, for what they are intended for by prosecutors. And that is getting the defendant killed. They are overwhelmingly prejudicial in my opinion. Here's why I think so:

The criminal justice system is set up by humans. It's a natural human emotion to want revenge. Hence the reason and need for "impartial" juries. Yet in capital trials, the victim's family is allowed to get in front of the jury and say whatever they want (outside of openly saying "give him death", although the intent of the statements is blatantly obvious). My argument is that the system itself is set up to give the harshest punishment because it is set up by other, regular, humans. Allowing in the victim impact statements (which only happens after a guilty verdict is found or plead to, and the only issue remaining is life or death) gives an overwhelming bias toward the sentencing jury. And the law is already set up, by regular human beings, to give the harshest punishment necessary for the crime. Allowing these statements makes the jury stop looking at the crime committed and instead makes them look at outside people who, while they may have been affected indirectly by the crime, were not victims of the crime.

The American legal system is designed to find justice, not revenge.

Well I personally believe they are also victims, and I'm glad they are able to speak, and I'm glad according to wikipedia, VIS's are seemingly allowed in the vast majority of states, and laws are made to protect them.

 

[justin22g]

Well I personally believe they are also victims, and I'm glad they are able to speak, and I'm glad according to wikipedia, VIS's are seemingly allowed in the vast majority of states, and laws are made to protect them.

Don't believe everything you read from Wiki... do a search on oyez... it should bring up recent case law.

 

[TontoKowalski]

so what part of thsi is wrong then?

The first such statement in the United States was presented in 1976 in Fresno, California although it was not passed as law in California until 1982.

In 1982, the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime's Final Report recommended that "judges allow for, and give appropriate weight to, input at sentencing from victims of violent crime." In 1992, the United States Attorney General released 24 recommendations to strengthen the criminal justice system's treatment of crime victims. The Attorney General endorsed the use of victim impact statements and stated that judges should "provide for hearing and considering the victims' perspective at sentencing and at any early release proceedings."

In 1991, the United States Supreme Court held that a victim impact statement in the form of testimony was allowed during the sentencing phase of a trial in Payne v. Tennessee 501 U.S. 808 (1991). It ruled that the admission of such statements did not violate the Constitution and that the statements could be ruled as admissible in death penalty cases.

By 1997, 44 of the American states allowed the presentation of victim impact statements during its official process, although until 1991 these statements were held as inadmissible in cases where the death penalty was sought.

The law varies in different states, and while most states allow statements to be made during the sentencing phase of the trial, Indiana and Texas allow for statements to also be made after sentencing.

 

[TontoKowalski]

Obama:

Some heinous crimes justify the ultimate punishment
While the evidence tells me that the death penalty does little to deter crime, I believe there are some crimes--mass murder, the rape and murder of a child--so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment. On the other hand, the way capital cases were tried in Illinois at the time was so rife with error, questionable police tactics, racial bias, and shoddy lawyering, that 13 death row inmates had been exonerated
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p. 58 Oct 1, 2006

 

[bjfinste]

Gentlemen... good discussion. However, I must get to bed so I can make justice happen tomorrow. I can't even fathom what some of the regular nutjobs will do with this thread tomorrow... good night to all.

 

[justin22g]

that sounds pretty good... I know Payne overruled Booth which stated you can not use VIS's during capital trials.

I am firm believer that a trial is all about the defendant... not the victim.

I also have another latin saying...

let justice be done.. though the heavens shall fall.

 

[TontoKowalski]

Biden:

Death Penalty - Strongly Retentionist:
Biden's record on death penalty reform is the weakest of any of the 2008 Democratic candidates. He is a supporter of capital punishment, and holds the distinction of being the author of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (often referred to as the "Biden crime bill"), which expanded the federal death penalty to include drug trafficking, a nonviolent offense.

 

[TontoKowalski]

McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes. He has voted to prohibit the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals and to ban the death penalty for minors. He also supported legislation to allow the death penalty for fatal acts of terrorism abroad and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment for other crimes. McCain disagreed with the June 25, 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision outlawing the execution of child rapists.

 

[TontoKowalski]

Obama supports possible death sentence for child rapists:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/WireStory?id=5246858&page=1

 

[bjfinste]

Before I hit the sack... I don't care what the presidential candidates say about the death penalty. Surveys show American support for capital punishment to consistently be between 60-65 percent. It would be political sucide to oppose it in all cases in the case of a national election.

 

[TontoKowalski]

well as a firmly moderate citizen, I'm glad they reflect the public's support for it.

 

[TontoKowalski]

Palin:

During one debate before the primary, Palin said she was in favor of capital punishment in especially heinous cases such as the murder of a child. "My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah,? she said. Palin opposes abortion rights.

 

[TontoKowalski]

To the "we can't play god" argument - what if there is no god? or if there is, what if he isn't concerned with this kind of stuff, but just of creating the universe and its physical laws but nothing in the moral? then isn't society, and we, the closest thing to this perception of a moral god? then arent we not only the closest thing to god, but in fact obligated to carry out that duty?

 

[smurphy]

I think I like this Kowalski guy.

 

[TontoKowalski]

I think I like this Kowalski guy.

Thanks, if you are in fact an Arizona Cardinals fan, I like you too. I spent about 6 years living in Tucson.