Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
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. |
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
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 $$$$$$$$......  |
You realize that a lot of these appeals are taken pro se, right? As in, the lawyer isn't getting paid for their work. That, or it's a public defender doing the work for low pay. These cases take up a lot of hours, with relatively little pay (hint: remember what Kevin said about the socioeconomic backgrounds of those on death row...are they going to be able to pay high fees for attorneys?).
It's incorrect to assume that all of these appeals are taken by fat cat lawyers filling their pockets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
China and Russia were brought up and I'm going to add Japan to that same list. Why is it that there are twice as many engineers and scientists in those countries than there are lawyers? as opposed to twice as many lawyers in the United States as there are engineers and scientists? $$$$$$$..... 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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek
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.
|
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.