Death Penalty In Us?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 October 2003 - 03:12
[j2k4]   RELEASED FROM DEATH ROW--the appeals system works; no "innocents" were executed.

[ACLU]  According to a 1987 study some 350 of the people convicted in the USA of a capital crime between 1900 and 1985 were innocent. 23 of these people were actually executed

[Billy=cool]  A bit of selective copy\paste there j2?

[ACLU]  Where a death sentence is sought determines whether a defendant is sentenced to death, more than the circumstances of the crime.

[j2k4]   This is not clear; is this a question of individual circumstance and locale, or continental geography? A clarification is required.

[Info]  See here... the answer to your query.

[Billy=cool]  I find it hard to believe that you can claim that NO innocent person has been executed.

No cutting or pasting involved, Billy.

I think I'm making a judgement call here, and it is this:

There are "studies" and there are "studies"; likewise with statistics.

First of all, my point is/was that none of these cases has been proven, that is to say, to any extent greater than the ACLU saying, "We are not satisfied that justice was done in this case". One of the ACLU's favorite tactics is to call something into question, then make the opposition spend their money proving the ACLU wrong.

It may be that you don't live in the U.S. and have the ACLU under your critical microscope, as I do, but I would abjure you from quoting any of their rhetoric or "studies, as they have a very definite liberal/activist agenda.

For instance, they are currently bringing their legal weight and expertise to bear on the question of whether grown men should be able to have "consensual" sex with little boys-the ACLU is shilling for NAMBLA (National Man/Boy Love Association) on the pro side of the argument.

So, if you want to forward the notion that such an organization has no similarly wacky slant on their view of the death-penalty, feel free.

As to my sources (ref: my post), they are the work product of those who are "in the business", so to speak, and consist pretty much of pure numbers, assembled for no reason other than to discover the "who, what, why, when and where" of crime.

The question at the top of the thread, I think, had to do with the death-penalty.

I assumed the concern was the potential for executing innocent people.

The point that people are more or less likely to be convicted according to where they commit their crime is null, I think, as none of this precludes their access to the appeals system which has proven the saving grace; if they aren't guilty, the appeals system has proven reliable in revealing this.

As to your last, my supposition that no "innocent" has been executed is as legitimate as the ACLU's, without the liability of serving an "agenda".

[Billy_Dean]

Firstly, let me point out that I am playing devil's advocate here, I chose ACLU because their views opposed yours. As you say, I don't live in the States, never been there, so would hardly be able to debate from personal knowledge.

One point you do seem to have overlooked is the failure rate in court cases where someone's life is on the line. If the court system is so bad in the first place, what comfort can you gain from the appeals courts? If they are watertight, why isn't the rest of the justice system? However good the appeals procedure is, it still takes decades, in some cases, to come good. Cold comfort for the innocent, who were entitled to a fair trial in the first place.

[hooked]

keep the death penalty

the less americans the more joy

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@10 October 2003 - 10:44
Firstly, let me point out that I am playing devil's advocate here, I chose ACLU because their views opposed yours. As you say, I don't live in the States, never been there, so would hardly be able to debate from personal knowledge.

One point you do seem to have overlooked is the failure rate in court cases where someone's life is on the line.  If the court system is so bad in the first place, what comfort can you gain from the appeals courts?  If they are watertight, why isn't the rest of the justice system?  However good the appeals procedure is, it still takes decades, in some cases, to come good.  Cold comfort for the innocent, who were entitled to a fair trial in the first place.

You have hit directly upon the reason an appeals process is necessary, Billy.

Were the judicial system perfect, there would be no need for an appeal, would there?

It is precisely because of the flaws in the system the appeals process exists in the first place.

The fact of mistaken conviction is unfortunate, but also unavoidable; the system assumes mistakes will occasionally be made, and "safeguards" the second (and third, fourth, fifth, ad nauseum) chances that ultimately keep the system honest.

I make no excuses for the faults of the system; sometimes "cold comfort" is all there is; such is the inherent unfairness of life.

[J'Pol]

Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can't even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@10 October 2003 - 14:17
Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can't even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.

It is just as you say, JPaul-the system is rife with unfairness, at least as pertains to relative wealth.

When I say, though, that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and the percentage is within spitting distance of reflecting the relative difference in the rate of conviction, I am not being racist.

Blacks (as I said, for whatever reason, which reason is the subject of another thread) commit that many more crimes; it is a fact.

I will dig up the numbers if you wish (that will take a while), but this very subject was an extended part of some of my recent studies in criminology-I am not wrong.

I was myself surprised to learn of the magnitude of the numbers.

[Billy_Dean]

A good example of ones ability to buy a not guilty verdict was ably demonstrated by OJ Simpson. This arsehole murdered two people in cold blood and got away with it. He'd be on death row now if he weren't a famous footballer. The prosecution didn't even ask for the death penalty, because they feared a jury would be loathe to commit him to death.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+11 October 2003 - 02:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 11 October 2003 - 02:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@10 October 2003 - 14:17
Off topic, but in reply to j2

The fact that a higher proportion of any ethnic, or socio-economic group are arrested and/or convicted of criminal conduct does not necessarily mean that they commit that crime more often than others.

Or at least not necessarily by the same factor. I do not just accept that because Group A is convicted of 7 times the number of crimes as Group B, this means that they commit 7 times as many crimes.

Sorry, I think there are other factors. Primarily involving the law enforcement and judicial systems. Using your own argument, a less well off person can afford a cheaper (or state appointed) lawyer. This surely means their chance of winning their case is reduced.

Remember mate, you can&#39;t even afford a shed or a lobby. So think on.

It is just as you say, JPaul-the system is rife with unfairness, at least as pertains to relative wealth.

When I say, though, that blacks commit more crimes than whites, and the percentage is within spitting distance of reflecting the relative difference in the rate of conviction, I am not being racist.

Blacks (as I said, for whatever reason, which reason is the subject of another thread) commit that many more crimes; it is a fact.

I will dig up the numbers if you wish (that will take a while), but this very subject was an extended part of some of my recent studies in criminology-I am not wrong.

I was myself surprised to learn of the magnitude of the numbers. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t doubt your figures and wouldn&#39;t insult you by asking you to provide them I know you wouldn&#39;t post such a thing if you couldn&#39;t back it up.

I am just asking if it is the number of arrests / convictions you are speaking of. Since un-recorded criminal conduct is just that, un-recorded. As such is difficult to quantify.

So if a group of people were to be watched more closely, or prosecuted more vigorously, or defended less eloquently, one would naturally expect their crime rate figure to be higher.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@11 October 2003 - 04:51

I am just asking if it is the number of arrests / convictions you are speaking of. Since un-recorded criminal conduct is just that, un-recorded. As such is difficult to quantify.

So if a group of people were to be watched more closely, or prosecuted more vigorously, or defended less eloquently, one would naturally expect their crime rate figure to be higher.

There is still an unreported amount of crime, but much less than previously due to the institution of the NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey), one of the purposes of which was to address this trend, specifically relative to the crime of rape.

Crime information is gathered from crime victims for this survey.

It has been a resounding success, and is continually being refined as to crime "type" so as to enhance compatibility with computor-aided classification.

The quandary of lesser (I hesitate to say "inferior") legal representation in the case(s) of the "less-than-wealthy" is troubling, though, as I said earlier, the appeals process offers some (as Billy_Dean said) "cold comfort".