None, because capital punishment is tried after the person is convicted of the original crime. You remove the capital punishment trial, and the person still has life in prison.
The Death Penalty.
- Thread starter Mulholland
- Start date
None, because capital punishment is tried after the person is convicted of the original crime. You remove the capital punishment trial, and the person still has life in prison.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Should be legal, but only for people without any trace of empathy.
... That means, psycopaths.
... That means, psycopaths.
Huh? Are you trying to say there are two separate trials in a capital case?
You have no idea how the death penalty is handled, do you? It requires a separate trial after the person has been found guilty.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
No, I have only worked in the legal profession for 20 years.
I assume you are referring to the practice of an automatic appeal in cases that receive a death penalty sentence.....
News for you.....you can also appeal cases in which the punishment is life in prison.....its just not required by most state law as in a death penalty case.
But as to your allegation, an appeal isnt exactly having a 'whole separate trial' as you put it.....the appeal process is there to review all aspects of the original trial to see if anything was done out of order or if the process was flawed in some manner and the accuseds rights were not properly considered. If found that the original trial was done correctly via the law and there are no outstanding discrepancies, the appeal hearing is largely a formality....not 'a whole separate trial'.
No, I have only worked in the legal profession for 20 years.
I assume you are referring to the practice of an automatic appeal in cases that receive a death penalty sentence.....
News for you.....you can also appeal cases in which the punishment is life in prison.....its just not required by most state law as in a death penalty case.
But as to your allegation, an appeal isnt exactly having a 'whole separate trial' as you put it.....the appeal process is there to review all aspects of the original trial to see if anything was done out of order or if the process was flawed in some manner and the accuseds rights were not properly considered. If found that the original trial was done correctly via the law and there are no outstanding discrepancies, the appeal hearing is largely a formality....not 'a whole separate trial'.
I am referring to sentencing hearings, which are a much more elaborate affair regarding the death sentence. Essentially they are a trial in their own right to determine whether the death penalty will be used and is appropriate. Again, the point is that murderers aren't let go just because they aren't put to death.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
A sentencing hearing is still part of the original trial process. Its usually held a couple of days after a guilty verdict has been issued. It is not really a 'separate trial' as you put it, but final arguements are made in order to justify or not justify positions on the various punishments allowable under the law.
The guy has already been found guilty. The hearing is merely to lay out the facts to the jury as to why (or in the defense case, why not) the death penalty should be given in that particular case.
Again, its not a trial as they are not trying to prove the accuseds guilt or innocence. Its a hearing to give sentence to the guilty party.
And you are also incorrect as to your final sentence...because on appeal, if a murderer who has been found guilty, but his rights have been violated in some manner in the original trial, will most likely indeed have the guilty verdict removed.
Wait a second then. So you are saying there shouldn't be capital punishment, because then we wouldn't be letting murderers go? I can't believe you are advocating that we should eliminate safeguards and thereby kill innocents.
(Un)fortunately such mistakes in the original trial can overturn the verdict whether or not not it is a capital case.
Jury sentencing isn't a common procedure except for capital punishment, though. It is certainly quite a bit different from sentencing is most cases. I couldn't find information quickly on how long the sentencing process of capital punishment takes, but I'll keep looking. Though, I don't think this is a critical issue for the current discussion.
MjM
Deity
But what is there after death? As far as we know, nothing. And until proven otherwise, any sort of life is better than none at all.
I was responding to the idea of whether someone's mind will change in a couple days and (if it doesn't) whether a similar change could happen over a series of years. I was responding to a generic concept of a soul with material facts, that yes, it does take time for people to change.
But, no, I very much do not care for killing people. And thus I have distaste for arguments that rely on "surely God will work it out" as solutions to moral dilemmas. You've brought in a specific god variant into the discussion to make the claim that the Creator will handle things just fine. This same variant then answers the question "if people's fates are sealed whether I kill them or not (for surely You are mighty), then what is the harm in killing people?" with a "just because!"
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not necessarily. It depends on State Law. For example, in Arkansas and also in Virginia (I found a reference saying there were 6 such states), jury sentencing is used for non-capital cases. In such states, it most certainly is a common procedure.
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
But you were implying that if they didn't get the death sentence then they would be released, or something, then tried to wriggle out of it saying people get acquitted on technicalities, which can happen even if you are not sentenced to death, or something. Maybe this is some new kind of logic that I am not aware of however.
I love how die-hard Christians have the balls to call other Christians luke-warm, or not even real Christians because they don't attend church every day.
Yet when it comes to upholding the values advocated by the religion's most prominent figure, they somehow overlook the moral ramifications of their support for the execution of another human being.
Yet when it comes to upholding the values advocated by the religion's most prominent figure, they somehow overlook the moral ramifications of their support for the execution of another human being.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I didnt imply anything...I asked a question. Apparently no one is able to answer it.
We did answer it, the person you just quoted answered it in his quote. Try rereading.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Which die-hard christian around here called anyone not a real christian because they dont attend church every day. Please, be specific, because I think you are making this crap up.
Again...I remind you...without the death penalty, Jesus could not have sacrificed himself for the world.
warpus
In pork I trust
Well, I will grant that appeals regarding the Death Penalty might be approached with greater caution by the judge (who'd probably prefer to err on the side of caution) compared to appeals regarding a Life Sentence. Of course, appeals [note: the term "appeals" being used for simplicity] with 'new evidence' are more likely to be successful if the convict is still alive.
So, in this regard, I'd think that the rare appeal that results in the (actually guilty) convict being released (vs. having their sentence reduced to 'Life in Prison') will happen occassionally. If it's more likely to occur in a Death Penalty case, that would probably be because the judges are being extra careful.
I guess you have to decide which system you prefer:
"Better a hundred guilty go free, lest an innocent be punished"
OR
"The innocent must suffer so the guilty can be punished"
I agree. That's why he stoned that harlot too, when no one else met his criteria! He wanted to send a clear message, that yes, he still was completely in favour of the death penalty. I mean, he was totally clear with the "Let he without sin cast the first stone" and then BLAMMO He forgave the nearest Pharisee his sins and they tag-teamed the whore to death.
Because, by golly, He was going to go down in the history books as being "pro-death penalty". He wasn't going to waive it the first time someone asked His opinion on it, nosiree.
So, in this regard, I'd think that the rare appeal that results in the (actually guilty) convict being released (vs. having their sentence reduced to 'Life in Prison') will happen occassionally. If it's more likely to occur in a Death Penalty case, that would probably be because the judges are being extra careful.
I guess you have to decide which system you prefer:
"Better a hundred guilty go free, lest an innocent be punished"
OR
"The innocent must suffer so the guilty can be punished"
I agree. That's why he stoned that harlot too, when no one else met his criteria! He wanted to send a clear message, that yes, he still was completely in favour of the death penalty. I mean, he was totally clear with the "Let he without sin cast the first stone" and then BLAMMO He forgave the nearest Pharisee his sins and they tag-teamed the whore to death.
Because, by golly, He was going to go down in the history books as being "pro-death penalty". He wasn't going to waive it the first time someone asked His opinion on it, nosiree.
Similar threads
- Locked
