[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Personally I would rather have a death sentence than pay to house the Clifford Olson's of the world

It actually costs more to kill them than to jail them

Only because of the insistence of holding them for 20 years or so while they file appeal after appeal after appeal.
When it comes to the likes of Olson or Bernardo, there was absolutely zero question they were guilty. Those are the ones that should be safe to hand down a death sentence to be carried out within 1 year. I guarantee you it'll be WAY cheaper than jailing them for life.

Keep in mind that for me, the only acceptable time to hand down a death sentence is when it's so blatantly obvious the person is guilty even a blind person could see it.

[rickc]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

How is the confession of mentally deficient person acceptable? Welcome to the USA.

.

Or stay right in Canada if you will.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-s- ... s-1.783998

Click on the link about wrongful convictions (several who falsely confessed), and scroll down to Simon Marshall. Here we have a mentally deficient man who has to rely on his parents to take care of him to this day.That did not stop the criminal justice system from using his false confession to incarcerate him for almost six years for a string of sexual assaults in Quebec. The real kicker in this story is that the DNA collected during the investigation was never even tested. That has got to the epitome of laziness in police work.

[Delwin]

There is no grey area where we have the leeway to say well we are 100% sure he guilty in this case lets kill him. You are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or you are not.

Sentencing someone to life isn't like "well, we are pretty sure...., but that other guy, yeah he is very, very, very guilty. Hang him."

Degree of guilt is no basis for sentencing. You are either guilty or you are not and you couldn't remove someone's right to appeal even with a confession because as we have seen, that doesn't always equate to guilt either, nor would video evidence, nor would DNA evidence. As long as corruptions exist in the system, we will never be 100% sure. We have to settle for mostly sure and create an appeal process for times when we are wrong.

[andyt]

And, you know, not kill them at all, so if we get it wrong, at least we can sorta make it right instead of just shrugging our shoulders. "Oh well, guess he wasn't guilty after all, but we fried him. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." DNA can never prove somebody killed a victim. We've had victims ID their rapist, only to have DNA prove he couldn't have done it. There's no such thing as 100 certainty. So what if Bernardo spends the rest of his life in jail instead of being murdered by the state. Is that really so bad?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

There is no grey area where we have the leeway to say well we are 100% sure he guilty in this case lets kill him. You are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt or you are not.

Sentencing someone to life isn't like "well, we are pretty sure...., but that other guy, yeah he is very, very, very guilty. Hang him."

Degree of guilt is no basis for sentencing. You are either guilty or you are not and you couldn't remove someone's right to appeal even with a confession because as we have seen, that doesn't always equate to guilt either, nor would video evidence, nor would DNA evidence. As long as corruptions exist in the system, we will never be 100% sure. We have to settle for mostly sure and create an appeal process for times when we are wrong.

When you find cut up body parts in someone's freezer it's hard to suggest they're being set up by someone. That person isn't just guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because there's really no doubt about it.
That's the kind of degree difference I'm suggesting between life in prison and a death sentence.
For example, (and sorry to use you for such a horrible example here), let's say you murdered someone in their home. While the DNA evidence my prove you were there and maybe someone saw you in the area around the time of the murder, all the "T"s were crossed and the "I"s were dotted, I'd say the most the courts should be able to hand down is a life sentence.
If however you're actually caught in the act or immediately after while still being in the presence of the victim with all signs pointing directly and only at you then "zap".

Same if they found the body parts of missing and presumed dead people in your freezer like Jeffrey Dahmer had. "Zap".

[andyt]

Actually body parts in a freezer isn't all that conclusive if that's all you've got. Maybe the killer didn't have a freezer and figured he's store the parts at his neighbors. Certainly happens with drugs, why not bodyparts? Maybe the guy with the freezer in the basement never uses it, one of his sketchy buddies knows this and takes advantage while everybody is passed out upstairs. Maybe the guy with the freezer agreed to store the body parts there, thinking they're beef. Maybe he agreed to store body parts - he's guilty of something, but not first degree murder. Maybe he's Robert Pickton - Body parts all over his farm, the jury would only convict him of second degree.


Why this need to zap? You just want your revenge. No other reason to kill one convicted 1st degree murderer and not the other. Would just take one erroneous zap to throw your whole idea in the garbage.

[Delwin]

Exactly, even if someone walked into the CNN anchor room while cameras were rolling in high definition, shot the anchor in the head, pissed and crapped on the desk leaving his DNA everywhere made a video confession immediately after committing the crime and then surrendered directly to the police afterwards on camera, he could be not guilty by means of insanity, He could have been drugged, he could have been sleep walking, etc.

We'll never have it perfect. Even the invention of a "perfect" lie detector fails if you are delusional and actually believe your lie.

Mitigating circumstances are also important in sentencing, i.e. the guy raped your daughter, yeah you might be guilty but I don't think I am going to hang you for it.

Stephen Trescott was sentenced to hang and it was later commuted. His later acquittal was one of the strongest arguments we could have in Canada against the death penalty. He was very close to being our execution shame.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Delwin Delwin:

Exactly, even if someone walked into the CNN anchor room while cameras were rolling in high definition, shot the anchor in the head, pissed and crapped on the desk leaving his DNA everywhere made a video confession immediately after committing the crime and then surrendered directly to the police afterwards on camera, he could be not guilty by means of insanity. He could have been drugged, etc.

We'll never have it perfect. Even the invention of a "perfect" lie detector fails if you are delusional and actually believe your lie.

Stephen Trescott was sentenced to hang and it was later commuted. His later acquittal was one of the strongest arguments we could have in Canada against the death penalty. He was very close to being our execution shame.

Stephen Truscott was convicted on the absolute scantest of evidence, pretty much zero evidence really.
We studied that case in law class as I'm sure almost everybody who's taken law has. Actually, my law teacher told me I had put forward one of the most cogent arguments for his innocence than he'd heard by any of his other students.
However Truscott's conviction is hardly the same thing as there being absolutely no mistake they have the right person.
The expression "beyond reasonable doubt" is basically legalese for "we're almost 100% positive you did it." The sentencing to life or shorter in that case gives a person opportunities to prove their innocence.
In your CNN example, there's zero chance to prove innocence because the whole world saw it. However your scenario almost seems like I'm suggesting the police should have carte blanch to execute that kind of person on the spot and just do away with the court system in those kinds of cases. I'm not. The court still gets to decide their fate based on any extenuating circumstances like mental instability or being unwittingly drugged by someone else.

What I'm saying, that you and andy keep turning into a "what if" game, is that there are times when there is absolutely no mistake the person is guilty. Not merely guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but absolutely zero doubt.

Bernardo-zero doubt
Olson-zero doubt
Dahmer-zero doubt
Berkowitz-zero doubt
The list goes on.

Yep, we'll put down a dog that bites someone but God forbid we put down some human animal that's a serial killer or mass murderer.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

And, you know, not kill them at all, so if we get it wrong, at least we can sorta make it right instead of just shrugging our shoulders. "Oh well, guess he wasn't guilty after all, but we fried him. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." DNA can never prove somebody killed a victim. We've had victims ID their rapist, only to have DNA prove he couldn't have done it. There's no such thing as 100 certainty. So what if Bernardo spends the rest of his life in jail instead of being murdered by the state. Is that really so bad?

Your type of thinking is what lets innocent people get put in jail.

Well if we were wrong we can just let the person go. I'm mostly sure that person is guilty, and it's not like they are going to be put to death. Even if it is a death sentence it takes like 20 years for it to happen, so if I am wrong I'm sure it will come up.

[andyt]

It's how it has to be. We can't ever be 100 percent sure, so beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard we have to adopt. OToh, we can't just not lock people up because of this lingering doubt. Innocent people will go to jail under any system - mistakes will be made. The idea is to at least try to minimize those mistakes and not make the ultimate mistake of putting an innocent person to death.

[BartSimpson]

Xort Xort:

Who would confess to a crime they didn't commit that carried a death sentence?

You after 24-72 hours of non-stop interrogation, badgering, and denial of sleep.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Only because of the insistence of holding them for 20 years or so while they file appeal after appeal after appeal.
When it comes to the likes of Olson or Bernardo, there was absolutely zero question they were guilty. Those are the ones that should be safe to hand down a death sentence to be carried out within 1 year. I guarantee you it'll be WAY cheaper than jailing them for life.

Keep in mind that for me, the only acceptable time to hand down a death sentence is when it's so blatantly obvious the person is guilty even a blind person could see it.

Thus my proposal: If a man sentenced to death is found to be not guilty later, the Governor is charged with Capital First Degree Murder.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Thus my proposal: If a man sentenced to death is found to be not guilty later, the Governor is charged with Capital First Degree Murder.

I'd adjust that to: If the prosecutor and anyone else involved in a prosecution knows the person they're prosecuting is innocent and they even so much as seek a death penalty then they shall have committed a capital offense and shall suffer the exact penalty they had wrongfully sought to impose on another.

[Thanos]

Stories like this are troubling but they're still in the minority of overall cases. The vast majority of convicts are entirely guilty of what they were imprisoned for.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

The vast majority of convicts are entirely guilty of what they were imprisoned for.

And more, I'm sure. Keep in mind they only go to jail for the crimes they got caught for.