Are you for or against the death penalty? - Page 8 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #**106** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Also, what about those who plead guilty and admit to it? There's no doubt then is there? (Aside of folks who wanna be made a martyr etc).

O'Sullivan Bere · #**107** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Also, what about those who plead guilty and admit to it? There's no doubt then is there? (Aside of folks who wanna be made a martyr etc).

People can and do plead guilty when personally denying their guilt to some, most or even all of the charges. Court decisions even allow that; they are called "Alford Pleas." And others will simply just plead guilty to avoid a scarier potential sentence if they believe they might lose at trial. That's true whether it's a DP case or any kind of case. Prosecutors have this ability:

With things like mandatory sentencing, sentencing guidelines, etc, defendants are regularly faced with the .44 magnum decision. If they go to trial and lose, they can often face far worse. That's definitely true in a DP case given the state actually holds a life or death ability over their heads.

Traveler · #**108** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

I was gonna add in the aside of taking the DP off the table for the sake of a lesser sentence, like with say Moussoui but he wanted the maryterdom.

Its difficult to find an example to explain what i mean; for example if someone pleads and excepts guilt, shows remorse and accepts the punishment that would give some reason to grant a lesser sentence. But that then gets into more complicated issues of manditory death sentences where the judge has no discression and or whether jury's have seperate deliberations for guilt and punshment.

O'Sullivan Bere · #**109** (**permalink**) 09-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

I was gonna add in the aside of taking the DP off the table for the sake of a lesser sentence, like with say Moussoui but he wanted the maryterdom.

Its difficult to find an example to explain what i mean; for example if someone pleads and excepts guilt, shows remorse and accepts the punishment that would give some reason to grant a lesser sentence. But that then gets into more complicated issues of manditory death sentences where the judge has no discression and or whether jury's have seperate deliberations for guilt and punshment.

It's often a Catch-22 though. If they plead guilty and 'fess up' they often do get such 'leniency' but if they actually assert their innocence and go to trial but lose then they get whacked for 'lack of contrition.' That's why some innocent people wind up copping a plea--they fear the actual or potential penalties of losing the gamble and would rather just go for the 'leniency.'

Let's break it down to real simple examples that many can attest--the 'bullshit citation' many people believe they have gotten from a cop in a traffic stop or some dispute, or a rotten ex-spouse's or lover's malicious, selfish, greedy and/or tactical family law petition requesting you be skinned of your money, locked up and/or have your kids taken away, etc, or the 'bullshit civil suit' by someone looking for a payday or looking to get something else from you or stop you from doing something, etc.

In criminal law, most know that even if you are innocent, the court and/or jury is going to ratify whatever the cop says, automatically presume that you must be guilty or else nobody would go through the trouble of prosecuting you, etc. Even when people have been acquitted of the charges or they were dropped, it's still so common for people to presume that you 'beat the charge' or they 'cut you a break' rather than being actually innocent of those charges that the topic of expungement and/or sealing of such records becomes very important to many people if it's available.

And in civil cases, the chance that the case still might go against you before the judge or jury--even if you believe or know the claims are bullshit--often results in a financial and/or some other form of settlement because the fear of the potential exposure makes the defendant opt for 'CYA insurance' by settling it with money and/or other surrenderings or forebearances.

Meritocrat · #**110** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by California Girl

I'm for it - with qualifications. I think it is too liberally applied and have concerns about the race issues - ie there are far more black men on Death Row than white. Why?

Because they commit far more murders than Whites, both in absolute numbers and per capita. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do brainwashed lemmings have an a priori assumption that no race is more violent than any other?

daddio · #**111** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meritocrat

Because they commit far more murders than Whites, both in absolute numbers and per capita. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do brainwashed lemmings have an a priori assumption that no race is more violent than any other?

A Cornell study from 2004. Interesting findings.

Among them...

Quote:

Race and sentencing is another subject that the study shed light on. Conventional wisdom holds that African Americans constitute a disproportionately large share of those on death row, noted the authors. The study did show that the higher the proportion of murders by African Americans, the higher the proportion of African Americans on death row. However, it also showed that African-American murder defendants represent 50 percent of all murder defendants in the United States but only 40 percent of those on death row, and the gap is even greater where least expected -- in the South.

"Death row's racial disparity, however, is not the result of a race-neutral application of the death penalty or a perverse form of affirmative action," they wrote, but rather a "racial hierarchy" that stems in part from prosecutors' reluctance to seek death in cases involving black defendants and black victims, and their eagerness to seek death in cases involving black defendants and white victims. Because the murder victims of black offenders are nearly always black, this "reluctance to seek the death sentence when the victim is black reduces the number of blacks in general on death row and more than offsets prosecutors' propensity to seek death sentences for blacks who murder whites."

Black defendants who murder white victims continue to receive the highest rate of death sentences across the board; whites who murder whites receive the second highest; whites who murder blacks receive the third highest; and blacks who murder blacks receive the lowest, the authors noted. The "broad race-of-defendant effect," shown by different death sentence rates for black defendant-white victim cases, was undetectable in 50 previous empirical studies, they noted. Because it drew some of its data from death row populations, their study offered a more in-depth perspective than the others, which only used data on capital sentencing.

TomBlaze · #**112** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

I am for it but only in cases where the is incontestable proof of guilt of a serious crime (such as DNA or video of the crime in progress). I am also for neutering sex offenders.

Hafke · #**113** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

I am also for neutering sex offenders.

That's really a topic for another thread, but it's an interesting question so I'll respond. I have a number of objections. One, what makes you think that they can't commit offences with something else? What about female offenders? Two, if the person has served the time for the crime they have already committed, then why are they being punished further? Why punish them for crimes they might commit in the future? Three, if they are too dangerous to be freed without being castrated/neutered (is there a difference?) then why are they being released in the first place?

daddio · #**114** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hafke

That's really a topic for another thread, but it's an interesting question so I'll respond. I have a number of objections. One, what makes you think that they can't commit offences with something else? What about female offenders? Two, if the person has served the time for the crime they have already committed, then why are they being punished further? Why punish them for crimes they might commit in the future? Three, if they are too dangerous to be freed without being castrated/neutered (is there a difference?) then why are they being released in the first place?

Castration (physical or chemical) is not assured of eliminating the problem.

I have no issue with capital punishment for these sorts. They cannot be cured and controlled is tenuous at best.

pramjockey · #**115** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meritocrat

Because they commit far more murders than Whites, both in absolute numbers and per capita. Why is this so hard to understand? Why do brainwashed lemmings have an a priori assumption that no race is more violent than any other?

Try controlling for poverty and examining the research again.

Meritocrat · #**116** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

That begs the question, why are Blacks poorer on average?

pramjockey · #**117** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meritocrat

That begs the question, why are Blacks poorer on average?

Because poverty is a self-feeding cycle. If you're poor, you're more likely to be a victim of crime, less likely to have good nutrition (vital for a growing brain), more likely to be exposed to pollution that negatively impacts development, less likely to have positive role models in the neighborhood, more likely to be a victim of violence, less likely to receive a good education, etc.

While there are clearly some individuals who have managed to break the cycle of poverty, those individuals are the exceptions to the rule. For the most part, if you're born poor, you're probably going to die poor.

daddio · #**118** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Because poverty is a self-feeding cycle. If you're poor, you're more likely to be a victim of crime, less likely to have good nutrition (vital for a growing brain), more likely to be exposed to pollution that negatively impacts development, less likely to have positive role models in the neighborhood, more likely to be a victim of violence, less likely to receive a good education, etc.

While there are clearly some individuals who have managed to break the cycle of poverty, those individuals are the exceptions to the rule. For the most part, if you're born poor, you're probably going to die poor.

I guess that "War on Poverty" hasn't gone so well...

Meritocrat · #**119** (**permalink**) 10-03-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Because poverty is a self-feeding cycle. If you're poor, you're more likely to be a victim of crime, less likely to have good nutrition (vital for a growing brain), more likely to be exposed to pollution that negatively impacts development, less likely to have positive role models in the neighborhood, more likely to be a victim of violence, less likely to receive a good education, etc.

While there are clearly some individuals who have managed to break the cycle of poverty, those individuals are the exceptions to the rule. For the most part, if you're born poor, you're probably going to die poor.

How did Blacks in North America become poor in the first place?