The Death Penalty

[ironmanwife]

Lawyers argue for a living. They're professionals. Even if they know their client is guilty, or if a prosecutor knows the defendant is innocent, it doesn't matter to them. They will argue their case, twist and distort the facts, and a person with lesser verbal skills will lose the argument. It doesn't mean the loser of the argument is guilty, but it looks that way to a jury. That's why in most cases, a defense attorney will advise their client not to take the stand. If the defendant takes the stand, the prosecution will make them look guilty if the defendant lacks the verbal skills the prosecutor has, or gets nervous when speaking publicly. A jury will interpret stage fright as guilt too.

Argue for a living..darnnn I missed my calling..
Winning lawsuits is what gets them the "big" cases therefor more money..getting an obiously guilty person off is like a dream achievement..and if everybody KNOW they where guilty..a dream! It means they the best at what they doing..

 

[rebel]

That's a very compelling argument. But your finger is on the button either way. If the guy way walks and goes out and kills somebody else, then you are an accessory to that murder. You really can't win.

Yes. That was the essence of the dilemma.
The only mitigating factor, was that although I let the murderer free, it is HIS decision as to what to do with that freedom.
I'm an accessory to his freedom, but not his choice to do the crime.
A small difference between the two, I admit, but enough to ease my own conscience.
As I said, just my own personal way of looking at it. Your mileage may vary.

My biggest complaint is that there is often no recourse for officers/ lawyers who suppress exculpatory evidence. Many times this discovery is not made till years after the person is retired. In my opinion: anybody who who suppresses exculpatory evidence should be held liable to crime greater than that of the original crime they suppressed, and this liability should extend their entire for their entire life. That would mean they would have to stand trial for their crime(s) even after retirement and would have their pension yanked as well.

That is something I've said for years and would certainly increase that 99% to an even higher level.
Agree 100%

 

[j911brick]

Yes. That was the essence of the dilemma.
The only mitigating factor, was that although I let the murderer free, it is HIS decision as to what to do with that freedom.
I'm an accessory to his freedom, but not his choice to do the crime.
A small difference between the two, I admit, but enough to ease my own conscience.
As I said, just my own personal way of looking at it. Your mileage may vary.

You make very good arguments.

But! if you convict based on the evidence provided, then you have done your job and should be able to live with a clear conscience.

Yes, small difference.

 

[Duck]

The job of a prosecutor is not to seek the truth. That's the investigator's job. The prosecutor's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, regardless of the truth.

Innocent people end up behind bars when the investigators don't do their jobs either because they're too lazy or not skilled enough. Lots of times if they can't figure out the truth, but are pressured to "find the killer" they'll simply focus on the most likely suspect and find ways to produce circumstantial evidence in order to pin it on that person.

Another problem with people not getting treated fairly by the judicial system is the fact that in cases that attract media attention, as soon as ANY arrest is made, or even a possible suspect is named in the media, that person is automatically considered guilty by the media and the public, long before jurors are chosen.

 

[ironmanwife]

The job of a prosecutor is not to seek the truth. That's the investigator's job. The prosecutor's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, regardless of the truth.

Innocent people end up behind bars when the investigators don't do their jobs either because they're too lazy or not skilled enough. Lots of times if they can't figure out the truth, but are pressured to "find the killer" they'll simply focus on the most likely suspect and find ways to produce circumstantial evidence in order to pin it on that person.

Another problem with people not getting treated fairly by the judicial system is the fact that in cases that attract media attention, as soon as ANY arrest is made, or even a possible suspect is named in the media, that person is automatically considered guilty by the media and the public, long before jurors are chosen.

OOkay Mr Duck..ALL of the media had Casey Antony already burried..did they not?

 

[patriciajnsn]

Most choose not to speak by the request of their lawyer.I think the hole dug is from their lawyers ,not the defendant.Heck if the defendants testified they may get off with a lessor sentence.Seems the expensive lawyers are always the ones that win even if the court appointed attorney had some good arguements.Court like everything else is all about money.

you do have the right to speak at your trial most choose not to they dont want to dig a deeper hole for theirself

 

[Racer X 69]

The job of a prosecutor is not to seek the truth. That's the investigator's job. The prosecutor's job is to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty, regardless of the truth.

And the same can be said for the defense attorney, that regardless of the innocence or guilt of his client, he must convince the jury of the client's innocence.

Innocent people end up behind bars when the investigators don't do their jobs either because they're too lazy or not skilled enough. Lots of times if they can't figure out the truth, but are pressured to "find the killer" they'll simply focus on the most likely suspect and find ways to produce circumstantial evidence in order to pin it on that person.

There ya go.

Another problem with people not getting treated fairly by the judicial system is the fact that in cases that attract media attention, as soon as ANY arrest is made, or even a possible suspect is named in the media, that person is automatically considered guilty by the media and the public, long before jurors are chosen.

Again and again. Wouldn't it be great if the media was prevented from "investigating" and reporting these things, or at least limited enough that the accused is afforded the fair and unbiased process that is supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution?

 

[coachman]

[h=1]Convicted Murderer Looks to Speed Up Execution Date in Oregon[/h]

Read more: Convicted Murderer Looks To Speed Up Execution Date In Oregon | Fox News


What about this PJ? Whats you answer for this guy?
​

 

[jamesc]

[h=1]Convicted Murderer Looks to Speed Up Execution Date in Oregon[/h]

Read more: Convicted Murderer Looks To Speed Up Execution Date In Oregon | Fox News


What about this PJ? Whats you answer for this guy?
​

i say give him what he wants

 

[Duck]

[h=1]Convicted Murderer Looks to Speed Up Execution Date in Oregon[/h]

Read more: Convicted Murderer Looks To Speed Up Execution Date In Oregon | Fox News


What about this PJ? Whats you answer for this guy?
​

I think all death row inmates, as well as anyone serving a life sentence, should be granted the right of suicide any time they choose. Why in the hell do they put so much effort into preventing death row inmates from killing themselves???

 

[jamesc]

I think all death row inmates, as well as anyone serving a life sentence, should be granted the right of suicide any time they choose. Why in the hell do they put so much effort into preventing death row inmates from killing themselves???

they have to spend your tax dollars somehow

 

[Duck]

they have to spend your tax dollars somehow

I think it's just some sick fascination with death. An execution is more dramatic than an inmate doing it his own way with no audience and popcorn.

 

[jamesc]

drama makes good ratings for tv

 

[Road Dust]

Most choose not to speak by the request of their lawyer.I think the hole dug is from their lawyers ,not the defendant.Heck if the defendants testified they may get off with a lessor sentence.Seems the expensive lawyers are always the ones that win even if the court appointed attorney had some good arguements.Court like everything else is all about money.

Not everyone is capable of defending themselves, even if they are innocent. Sometimes even a court appointed lawyer is better than none at all. Would it be fair if an innocent person, with no education whatsoever, went up against a (more than likely experienced) government appointed prosecuting attorney?

 

[patriciajnsn]

I thought this thread was put to rest, u just had to open it did'nt ya,LOL,kidding.I see what you're saying but if it were me i'd be wanting to get up on the stand and plead my case.You deffinately need a lawyer but i'm just saying the accused should be able to tell his or her side afterall only they know what really happened not any lawyer or prosecuters.

Not everyone is capable of defending themselves, even if they are innocent. Sometimes even a court appointed lawyer is better than none at all. Would it be fair if an innocent person, with no education whatsoever, went up against a (more than likely experienced) government appointed prosecuting attorney?

 

[Rigjockey]

Not everyone is capable of defending themselves, even if they are innocent. Sometimes even a court appointed lawyer is better than none at all. Would it be fair if an innocent person, with no education whatsoever, went up against a (more than likely experienced) government appointed prosecuting attorney?

True enough,When it comes to lawyers money talks.Some people actually try to defend themselves as is their right to do so.They should be aquited or deamed insane,Going against a Philidelphia lawyer.

 

[Road Dust]

I think it's just some sick fascination with death. An execution is more dramatic than an inmate doing it his own way with no audience and popcorn.

The death penalty is deeply rooted in primitive forms of biblical barbaric vengeful punishment - death for certain crimes. We have advanced to some degree, but still for the most part primitive. I often wonder why so many choose to attend executions. I could never choose to watch another die at the hands of so called justice. Too me. that is sick. I m not a religious fanatic but I do believe in a higher power, and it is not up to me to condemn anyone. If someone is a danger to society, that guy that recently died in prison from cancer, is an example that a life term can work. If as many people supported life in prison, rather a death sentence, chances of parole for violent crimes would be non-existent.

 

[Duck]

True enough,When it comes to lawyers money talks.Some people actually try to defend themselves as is their right to do so.They should be aquited or deamed insane,Going against a Philidelphia lawyer.

There's an old saying: A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

 

[j911brick]

If as many people supported life in prison, rather a death sentence, chances of parole for violent crimes would be non-existent.

This makes no sense. The whole problem with a life sentence is that the convict gets out on parole after a few years and commits crimes again. That doesn't happen with a death sentence. Also, why should i have to pay my hard earned money to support the lives of the dregs of society? In some country's, inmates are expected to be cared for by their families.

 

[rebel]

There's an old saying: A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.

Yes.
And it is likely to have originated by a group of lawyers.

As has been pointed out, if you ARE innocent, the worst thing you can do is remain silent and not take the stand.
The jury automatically assumes you are guilty.


I speak from personal experience.

The first trial, I insisted on taking the stand and embarrassed the prosecutor with his inaccurate information.
I was convicted on 1 out of 3 charges (was innocent of that as well) and would have been sentenced to jail had I not spoke for myself. That coming from the judge himself.
To long a story to relate here. I had a public defender and he was useless.


The second time, I hired an attorney who was a retired judge of 30 years, but I did my own research anyway.
The result?
As the jury walked into the box, my lawyer informed them they didn't have a case, due to the law I found in the Florida statutes regarding weapons manufactured prior to WWI.
My lawyer didn't know about it, neither did the judge or prosecutor.
I think the state legislature changed it a few years later.

Trial #3 was just recently here in NC and just a traffic case - bad tag and running a stop sign.
I took it all the way and once again embarrassed both the cop and prosecutor on the stand acting as my own attorney - "pro se".
Know anyone else who beat charges like that in a trial?
A cop says your tag is expired and you ran a stop sign.......your word against his?

The fool is the one that listens to his attorney when common sense says otherwise.