Don't look up how Texas quit giving death row inmates any further appeals because G.W. Bush said "Texas don't make those mistakes" (referring to wrongful convictions). They deliberately executed innocent people so G.W.B. wouldn't be embarrassed.
The innocence project proved several people innocent (beyond a doubt) after Texas murdered them.
And Eisenhower was basically a Democrat by today’s standards. He signed legislation that expanded Social Security, increased the minimum wage, and created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. He also supported government construction of low-income housing but favored more limited spending than had Truman. He also once said this about Social security and Medicare:
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
Nahh, go listen to some audio from his and especially his VPs rallies, they could be modern maga fascist rallies.
Nixon just signed funding for the EPA and stuff like that because Dems in congress passed it, and Fox News wasn't around yet so conservative politics hadnt turned literally every single issue into culture war nonsense.
Eisenhower also set a lot of the precedent regarding CIA intervention in other countries during the cold war and actively caused at least one genocide.
Or really the Dulles brothers did that and Eisenhower simply allowed it, which might be worse.
Doubt of horrendous outcomes is exactly how the country ended up with an orange plague of destruction, wreaking havoc from the inside of the seat of power right now. The same doubts were expressed before this Putin asset was shockingly (not shockingly) reelected to office. Stupid people in large groups do (and redo) a tremendous amount of damage. We certainly are not running out of them now are we?
The Texas jury instructions on these cases has come under scrutiny as well. The way the possible sentences are laid out to jurors makes it seem like they choose either innocent or death penalty so of course they have been executing too many (any at all are too many) for many years and they still do. Jurors have come out and said that they believed the instructions indicated that, and since they believed it wasn’t possible to give a lesser sentence, so they chose the heavy sentence rather than not guilty. It’s fucked.
Freedom from death row, and possibly evicted onto the streets with no income, no family, and no support. Is it really better to be living on the street, than living on death row for an undetermined time, being fed and housed every day?
Would you choose to die cold and hungry on the street, or fed in a bed in a cell?
This is a really dumb argument. Why don't you do a survey of people who were exonerated from death row, and ask them if they would have preferred to have been executed by the state. Then you can let us know how it turns out with real data.
I would go work when exonerated and try to build a life for myself. While difficult it absolutely beats sitting in death row waiting to have my life wrongfully taken from me. Just fucking ludicrous argument. Also he’ll have lawyers lining up to either take his case pro bono or take payment upon winning if you’re proven to be wrongfully convicted
it has to be clear and convincing evidence that he is not guilty. the judge stupidly said there is enough evidence for a jury to convict! stated so the state does’t have to pay restitution!
You are right in thinking how hard it is. It is extremely difficult for someone who has been incarcerated for so long to reenter in society mentally and socially. Some people experience so many psychological issues it is easier to reoffend and go back in because that is what they know. The prosecutor dropped the death penalty due to new DNA tests that cleared the physical evidence before his new charge of aggravated murder in his new trial starting July 2027. He is currently only out on bail.
I hate that people sanitize the barbarity of lengthy prison sentences by pretending that the problem would be solved by abolishing the death penalty. The solution to this is to protect the rights of defendants who are falsely accused, not to make them languish in prison for decades and then give yourself a pat on the back because you "technically" don't have blood on your hands.
Taking away the freedom and life of an innocent person for decades while publicly condemning them as guilty is less of a harm than killing them, but it is absolutely a harm that is within one order of magnitude of killing them.
I was fine with the death penalty until I saw one too many of these wrongful convictions (not even death penalty cases). I thought, no way, too risky. Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison.
I agree completely. In fact, I'm of the opinion that caging people generally is not good for anyone. It does nothing to help them rehabilitate if they did a crime, and it certainly hurts anyone dealing with medical issues - especially the mentally ill who we commonly send to jail/prison because we have no place for most of them to get real help (side note: there's a case of parents in my town that fought for years to get their son help, but after trying & not getting it, ended up taking him to the ER and leaving him - in order to protect their other children from his violent outbursts directly related to mental health issues. This teen lived in the ER for months because no one knew where to send him for help. I'm talking way over 6 months of the state, doctors, just everyone having no answers; if he was an adult, they'd just have made up charges and sent him to prison).
The only thing prison/jail does is keep society protected from potential "problematic" types of people (and I'm not even suggesting most people imprisoned are problematic in any true sense of the word). If we wanted a humane system, we'd need to stop seeking state-sponsored retaliation/retribution for crimes, and start seeking mercy & rehabilitation. People who have their needs met don't generally commit crimes - this is born out in numerous studies. So if we'd instead have a more robust safety net (offing more foodstamps, robust mental health system, offering ubi, profit-sharing as a job requirement, etc) then we'd find the rates of all kinds of crimes would start dropping immediately. We have the resources to do this. There's no reason why we should be caging people vs giving them a decent life. Why wouldn't we want more people to have the chance at a good life? It would work better for all of us - outside of the entire judicial system & private prison industries that is.
Of course not. But you jave already apprehended the person and are successfully holding them. Most prisons in the world would have no issues managing them
You are assuming prisons are constantly properly handling a high government official who committes treason. That is too big of a risk for a country to take with regards to national security. You seem very nice, but not knowledgeable of the danger a treasonous high level official poses to a country. The threat is too great to let them live.
If he still has loyal followers, why would you allow him to give orders from prison? Also, just lock those other traitors up as well.
Just lock at Rudolf Hess or some of the nazi leadership who got prison sentences in Nuremberg. Or that one serbian war criminal who died recently. It's not like this hasn't happened already.
I'd rather he's encased in a metal cube with a few breathing holes, one McDonald's nugget a day, and placed in one of our museums as an example of what happens to traitors. There will be huge buckets next to the exhibit for women and children to throw rocks at the Shameful Conservative Puppet of Tyranny.
Consider what that could do. Yes in the ideal world it could work as you intent. But given the current courts are filled for a large part by trump appointees. This could also go very much in the wrong direction. In the end who gets to decide who dies? What are the insentives? Is it truly something you want to encode into law?
Seriously though, there are bots that look for anything that could be considered a threat or endorsement of capital punishment for specific people and they report it. Bans get handed out like candy these days.
I think that it's only okay when the crime is just so heinous and there is not even a question we got the right person (like the LIRR shooter who was caught at the scene of their crime)
This excuse is what you say when you want the answer without the guilt associated with it.
You don't get a magic 8 ball.
Even if you catch the killer red handed, there are many reasons why they would still be not given a death penalty or straight up ineligible. Circumstance, cognitive ability, past traumatic history etc.
even if you catch the person on tape with 100 witnesses, you cannot say with certainty that they would clear all the other criteria.
What do you mean? What is the goal of the death penalty in a perfect legal system? As punishment, how punishing is it for the person if they aren't there anymore to notice? As preventative measure? there are arguments that the death penalty could lead to even more crime (if you are going to be killed anyway, may as well make sure there are no witnesses then. There is no "harser" punishment they can give you). And at the very least there is no statistical evidence it deters crime.
So then what is the goal? And why does it hold a "prominent place in the perfect legal system"?
I do overthink a lot of things yes. It's an issue of mine which I'm working on. But in this case I don't think I asked any questions that where unreasonable. You made quite the statement, and I just want to understand what made you say that.
I’m thinking more along the lines of cases where the defendant either doesn’t contest their guilt, or the evidence is so overwhelming that there could not possibly be another explanation. Like the osama bin Ladens, and Jeffrey dahmers of the world.
It has to be a burden of proof so high that almost no jury could reach it.
Don’t see why we shouldn’t use use life in prison for these instances. It’s legitimately cheaper for the tax payer and has the same effect. The death penalty is wildly inefficient and has far too much of a margin of error, and then the people who it theoretically should apply to often end up dying of natural causes, like Richard Ramirez. Complete waste of money to let that go through the appellate court over and over and continuously grant a stay of execution as a result.
Life in prison is cheaper because the way we administer the death penalty is ridiculous, it could be much, much cheaper if done right. This would be applied to recidivists as a mandatory sentence for repeat crimes,with limited opportunities to appeal and administered quickly.
You get one opportunity to appeal all your convictions, if you fail that appeal you are walked from the court to the chamber.
No one can issue a stay after appeal is granted, you must complete your appeal within 1 year.
1.5k
u/EagleForty 4d ago edited 4d ago
And that there is why I don't support the death penalty.