Executions largely confined to the southern US

[FUCK THE POLICE]

False.
The most violent cities in America: Detroit, DC, Chicago, etc... are all Liberal Democrat strongholds where Conservatives and Republicans are near non-existent and few believers in the DP.

Yeah but they're inner cities. And the support for the death penalty is by no menas low in those areas either, just lower than the rest of the country.

You want to pick convenient facts to back your arguments up; like that cities have a higher murder rate the rural areas, but try to ignore incovenient but more accurate fact, like the fact that states themselves without the death penalty have lower murder rates than states with.

And Singapores murder rate is 0.01 lower than Japan's currently. In 2000 Singapore's murder rate was twice Japans. Seriously, it in no way justifies the atrocity that is mandatory executions. You are an evil person Damo. Just accept it. You and murderers are two sides of the same coin. There are those that wish to perpetuate violence and those who choose to transcend it. That's what good vs. evil is. And you chose your side a long time ago.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That's not true brother, and the Innocence Project has the proof.

DNA and other forensic evidence is not always available, and many of those on death row are there because of the most unreliable of all evidence, eyewitrness evidence.

I think the middle ground, if there has to be one, is ..

1. Death sentences must be handed down by a panel of judges under review.
2. Death sentences must be accompanied by solid DNA and forensic evidence.
3. All death sentences are subject to review by the US Department of Justice.

good god BAC, why on earth do you want to remove even more power from the hands of the people?

In order for the death penalty to come in to play, there should be a 3 step process, done by actual citizens.

grand jury, when it convenes, instead of just the prosecutor showing evidence, the defense must be allowed to present any mitigating factors. If the grand jury agrees unaminously, then the death penalty can be sought after.

jury trial, the jury must decide unanimously during sentencing phase if defendant should be put to death. This ensures that it's the same jury that convicted defenant upon the evidence presented at trial and ensures that the same jury can hear any exculpatory evidence during sentencing hearing.

review by paneled judges, the ONLY thing this panel should do is ensure that the evidence presented at trial and sentencing is sound physical evidence and not circumstantial in any way. If the evidence is not pyhsical or sound, then the death sentence can be turned in to life without parole with no possibility for the sentence to be revisited for death penalty purposes.

appeals courts, can only review later evidence presented to either remand for a new trial or remove conviction if later evidence exonerates defendant.

This will reduce the number of death sentences while maintaining the integrity of the justice system

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

If we could maintain the twelve person, unanimous jury as a constitutional right while also getting rid of the death proofing requirement, we could effectively abolish capital punishment, or make the death sentences extremely rare.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If we could maintain the twelve person, unanimous jury as a constitutional right while also getting rid of the death proofing requirement, we could effectively abolish capital punishment, or make the death sentences extremely rare.

Leaving the power of the jury intact could make this not only a possibility, but highly likely. It would ensure that only the most egregious and heinous criminals would be put to death while preserving the possibility for people who were wrongly convicted, opportunities for clemency or outright reversals.

Of course, this would also have to leave open jury nullification as well, something the legal machine does not like.

 

[Socrtease]

Leaving the power of the jury intact could make this not only a possibility, but highly likely. It would ensure that only the most egregious and heinous criminals would be put to death while preserving the possibility for people who were wrongly convicted, opportunities for clemency or outright reversals.

Of course, this would also have to leave open jury nullification as well, something the legal machine does not like.

I have a friend that was just this last week held in contempt of court for telling the jury to nullify. His client had a piece of cellophane that had cocaine residue. I mean just dust, and he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, which New Mexico Law allows. My friend told the jury how ridiculous the charge was and how it was wasting resources and they should send a message by acquitting his client in spite of the law. Mistrial and 1000 dollar contempt fine.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I have a friend that was just this last week held in contempt of court for telling the jury to nullify. His client had a piece of cellophane that had cocaine residue. I mean just dust, and he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, which New Mexico Law allows. My friend told the jury how ridiculous the charge was and how it was wasting resources and they should send a message by acquitting his client in spite of the law. Mistrial and 1000 dollar contempt fine.

yeah, that legal machine REALLY hates it when the people express their power.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I have a friend that was just this last week held in contempt of court for telling the jury to nullify. His client had a piece of cellophane that had cocaine residue. I mean just dust, and he was charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, which New Mexico Law allows. My friend told the jury how ridiculous the charge was and how it was wasting resources and they should send a message by acquitting his client in spite of the law. Mistrial and 1000 dollar contempt fine.

At least he didn't do the night in jail. Still, $1000 is a bitch move on the judge's part. Does your friend and the judge have a bad history or something?

And, yes, my knowledge of the courtroom process is limited to Law & Order and Raising the Bar!

 

[Jarod]

Death sentences are still handed in down in many liberal states including California, Oregon and Washington. However, the legal procedures in these states tend to be more favorable toward trial lawyers as opposed to victims and their families, explaining why death sentences aren't handed down as quickly as in more conservative states. It has nothing to do with being more "civilized." If I'm not mistaken South Korea and Japan also carry out executions. Do you believe these countries are uncivilized?

More favorable to "Trial Lawyers" or more favorable to the Accused? Which is it, because I am willing to bet its not rich Trial Lawyers handeling many death penalty cases.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Unless you're talking about OJ Simpson or some other rich guy, the most defense a person in a death penalty trial usually gets is the public defenders and maybe some guys from the innocence project if they're lucky. I have no idea where Tab got it in his head that it's some sort of glamorous money-making position that every lawyer wants to barge in on.