Although due process is an American legal entity, my debate is centered around the individual caught in the act of committing the crime. As an example, Sir Han Sir Han was caught in the act of killing Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968. His sentence of death was commuted to life in prison without parole. He's been in prison for over 41 years, which has been costing the tax payer a ton money, and to my knowledge Sir Han Sir Han did not, has not, and will not contribute anything that will benefit society. He's just eating, sleeping, reading, and can even (if not already) receive the highest level of education that exist (a PhD) and FOR FREE, which can't even be utilized anywhere. My position in terms of capitol punishment was centered around a person who is absolutely guilty with 100% accuracy of committing the crime, that at sentencing be taken directly from the courtroom to the gallows, and the sentence be immediately carried out. That would really deter crime, and doing it this way is what I call "due process".:) However, I do believe in due process when an alleged crime has been committed and new evidence may eventually appear that will exonerate the person accused.

To my knowledge Russia and China don't have a very high crime rate, at least not like it is here. When did I say it would completely stop all crime? I didn't. That's impossible anywhere. What I was implying was that it could deter crime. I just think it should be an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.

Again, I'm talking 100% accuracy. Like the DC sniper for example. He ran out of appeals and as far as I know, his death sentence will be carried out next month. How long ago did this happen? 7 years ago? We all know he's guilty, and 7 years later his sentence is being carried out based on the original evidence. So based on that, that 7 year period has been a complete waste of time and tax payer money, and the only people who benefit from this particular case are lawyers, and now they will proceed in seeking similar cases $$$$$$$$......:rolleyes:

The Manson Family (proven guilty), John Wayne Gacy (proven guilty) Ted Bundy (proven guilty) Jeffrey Dahmer (proven guilty) David Berkowitz (proven guilty) and you literally think these monsters should have had an appeal process???

China and Russia were brought up and I'm going to add Japan to that same list. Why is it that there are twice as many engineers and scientists in those countries than there are lawyers? as opposed to twice as many lawyers in the United States as there are engineers and scientists? $$$$$$$.....:rolleyes: Most, if not all of our missile control systems and technology are built in Japan. Hmmm I wonder why. All I'm saying is this country needs to find a better way to deter crime.

I understand that you and Kevin are preparing to become lawyers, and I think that's great, but this is a topic that we will have to disagee on. There just needs to be a better more effective way to deter crime in the United States. That's all I'm saying.

Sure crime is lower in China and Russia then it is here, but both those countries also are known for having very oppressive policing systems. Even Japan is a lot less free then we are. If you are unfortunate enough to go to trial in Japan, the conviction rate is something like 90 percent. There has to be a balance between freedom and suppression of crimes.

Russia's murder rate is over 4 times ours as well as being a major source and destination country for drugs and human trafficking. Maybe they have a higher rate of property crime, etc., but remember, crime rates only consist of reported crimes, and I'm just going to go out on a limb here and suggest that as much as no one trusts the police over there, most crimes go unreported except for murder which is rather difficult to hide.

As for China, no one really knows. The government there filters all data released to the public.

Bad examples.

Do you know that it would deter crime, though? I mean, as Kevin said, it seems like nations like the USSR still had comparable crime rates with an expedited execution process. I'm just skeptical of whether it would truly deter crime.

Put in a more practical sense - do you think a guy who is about to commit a murder is thinking about the appeals process?

You realize that a lot of these appeals are taken pro se, right? As in, the lawyer isn't getting paid for their work. That, or it's a public defender doing the work for low pay. These cases take up a lot of hours, with relatively little pay (hint: remember what Kevin said about the socioeconomic backgrounds of those on death row...are they going to be able to pay high fees for attorneys?).

It's incorrect to assume that all of these appeals are taken by fat cat lawyers filling their pockets.

I understand many people don't like lawyers, but I have no idea what the bolded part has to do with your argument. If you think that more kids should grow up to be scientists, or that lawyers don't add as much to society, that's a totally different argument.

As I said above, a lot of these appeals are being taken pro se or by the appeals branches of public defenders' offices. For example, my state (Connecticut) has an appellate division of the Office of the Public Defender. Those guys aren't running up billable hours on these files, and they're not being paid much for the number of hours that they're working on these appeals.

Again, for the most part, the lawyers who are taking these cases aren't greedy lawyers trying to run up billable hours and high incomes.

No one is telling you that you have to agree with us. What we are saying is that we disagree with you, and we are giving you our reasons why. Just because you disagree doesn't mean that we have to give up our arguments.

Here's a little anecdote that might help with some of the "deterrent" stuff, because it is kind of counterintuitive at first blush . . .

My research indicates that about 80% of people think they are better than average at determining when a person is lying. About 75% of people think they are less likely than average to be taken advantage of by an insurance company during a claims experience.

People think they are better at, well, everything than they really are. This is a pernicious and consistent effect. Criminals expect they are smarter than the 'average' criminal, and thus less likely to be caught - and that's when they're even examining the risk/reward axis, which generally doesn't happen. Now, combine this with a social science phenomenon known as the "Fundamental Attribution Error," which says that people are unfortunately driven to ascribe actions of an individual to some internal characteristic of that person, rather than to temporal or situational effects, and it's easy to paint a criminal with a broad brush and say "they simply don't fear the punishments enough - let's put the fear of God into them, and they'll get it!" Sometimes, it's even simpler.

Fair enough.

KSigkid, I understand what you're saying is true by the judicial elements established by our constitution. I understand that, I just disagree with that portion of the law. I simply believe that those people who commit crimes of this nature (such as the Manson Murders) should be executed at the time of sentencing.

No, I don't believe that if someone was committing murder that they would be thinking about an appeal process. However, I do believe if it was an "eye for an eye" they would certaintly think twice before committing a crime.

OJ is a perfect example of what I perceive as someone who has committed not one, but TWO murders and was not convicted. (I hate him) Most of the evidence at the trial as I view it pointed to his guilt, hence, a very good example of "money" talks and BS walks. In other words, in this country, poor people don't get away with the crime, rich people do and this so unfortunate but yet so true.

"If it doesn't fit you must acquit" whatever...:rolleyes: That glove is a good example of an element that there was a quirk in that trial. The glove that Johnny Cochran used had been soaked in water for a week and when it came time for OJ to try the glove on it didn't fit. And with OJ being an actor, he totally exaggerated trying to put on the glove that didn't fit.

KSigkid, I respect your opinion and Kevin's too, but you stated the facts as they should be, but not as they are....

So is your argument now that the death penalty, and convictions in general, are skewed based on the wealth of the defendant? If so, wouldn't that make for an even stronger argument against expedited executions?

In other words, if the poor are getting a shoddy defense, don't you think that's something that should be sorted out and reviewed before someone spends significant time in prison?

Also, the OJ case is a tough example for a number of reasons...if you're going to blame anyone for that case, you should probably start with the prosecution.

(Plus, not to get into a whole debate about OJ, but isn't there some disagreement about whether the gloves were soaked in water? Unless you have some inside info about the trial...)

What facts did I state in that manner?

I will say that I completely agree with this statement. When you a person who is mostly definitely--beyond a shadow of a doubt--guilty of committing the murder or (like Manson) being the 'mastermind' I believe that once the verdict is rendered that they should immediately be put to death. Why spend any more money on a person like that?

Every person who is convicted of murder is, technically, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

How do you define this stricter standard, and how do you enforce it, and who decides when/how to enforce it, and ... ?

This brings up the question of what exactly constitutes a reasonable doubt. Also isn't part of the appeals process to see if a convicted felon is actually remorseful and reformed. Somebody brought up the case of Tookie Williams, which is a good example. No one can deny he was guilty of what he was charged with. But he was also generally remorseful and attempted to atone for what he did. Wasn't he even nominated for the Nobel Peace Price for his actions after he was imprisoned?

True, I guess I mean like something to the caliber of the Manson murders (and even to use examples mentioned here---the OKC bombings and the DC sniper). Something that is so ridiculously heinous that there is no doubt that there would ever be forensic evidence (or any evidence) to prove otherwise.

You would enforce it when you have a murder that is similar in caliber to the ones mentioned....serial killers, or people that murder several people at once...etc.

You know it doesn't take as much comparatively to be nominated for The Nobel Peace Prize. Initially, every year I guess, thousands of people are asked to nominate. In other fields you've got a group of about five doing the nominations for work in the field.

I say that because I get tired of people mentioning it like it really means something about a given person's merit. It means you knew someone among the thousands of nominators who shared your agenda, IMO.

No, that's not my argument, KSigkid. The OJ Simpson case is an example of where there wasn't 100% accuracy based on the evidence to convict him. Because of his economic status he was able to secure very expensive, smart lawyers. Whereas a poor person in the same predicament would be at the mercy of the court. I'm not telling you anything that you're not already aware of, but you must recall that the OJ Simpson trial was the very 1st trial in the history of the United States where DNA was used as a tool to exonerate him, clearly a tool that would not be available to someone poor at that time. But since that trial, a number of people on death row have been proven innocent which ties into your argument that I happen to agree with. Now, DNA in all capital crimes (if it can be acquired) is utilized in convictions. Hence, DNA now strengthens my argument (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) which can be administered without question in a very timely manner. And this goes back to what I'm debating. Again, if it's 100% accurate that the crime was committed, that person should have all rights for appeal eliminated. What would be their argument? So, I still think they should be executed immediately and taken off of the tax payer's expense.

Regardless whether the glove was soaked in water or not, it still didn't fit, and that smart, simple trick performed by OJ's lawyers wouldn't have been thought of by a public defender. So, OJ walked. I have no inside information relative to this.

Maybe I misunderstood you, but to me, your facts were based on due process, and I've already addressed that.

DNA does not close the case though. There have been cases where DNA evidence was later shown to be planted. In fact, a savvy criminal can use DNA of a patsy to gift wrap a case for the police. We don't close the case at DNA. The state still has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state failed to do that in the Simpson case, the defense team did what good defense lawyers do -- they pointed out that the state failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you actually had an inkling as to how pro-prosecution most of our criminal laws and 4th Amendment law have become, you might be singing a different tune.

Kevin, I'm not saying to close a case based on DNA alone, because DNA is only an additonal recent tool available to the courts in determining a person's guilt or innocence. I was only speaking of all things being equal, meaning all the facts are in place to convict a person of murder. Once everything is in place and it's known that this person is 100% guilty of committing the crime, why the appeal? It's a waste of time and money. You're throwing in your assessment of the committed crime vs. my assessment of the committed crime. My argument is the person being 100% guilty of committing the crime of murder. Once that is established, there should be no appeal, no prison time, no bond, just a sentence being imposed and carried out that same day. That's all I'm saying. Let the sentence be carried out at the time it's imposed.

Not to bring the Manson Murders up again, but to my knowledge, that was the longest trial in U.S. history up to that point. It was a fact that they committed the crimes and even laughed about it, so why did the trial even need to continue, Kevin? And why are they still receiving the assets of everyday life without having to pay their debt to society? Susan Atkins even received a college degree at the tax payers expense without any hope of ever contributing anything positive to society. That education she received could have been allocated to a worthy student external to prison. This is the same disgusting monster who murdered Sharon Tate, tasted her blood, cut out her 8 month old fetus, called her a bitch and told her she doesn't care about her or her baby, dismembered the fetus and placed it front of the fire place, and then wrote "PIGS" on the door in Sharon Tate's blood. And she deserves due process???? Seriously??? Gimmie a break!