Monster - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #31 12-20-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

The Constitution has nothing to do with it. Murder and the punushment of murder is a state, not federal matter unless it occurs on federal property.

Back in the 1970s the Supreme Court made ruling or two that invalidated most, if not all, state death penalty statutes on Constitutional grounds. States that wanted the death penalty had to go back and re-write their statutes to conform to Constitutional requirements. When I get a minute, I can probably find a link that talks about it, but it is all about the Constitution.

Quote:

Sure it will be an expanison. That's what I want. Any first degree murder should qualify, I mean, is there like a "nice" first degree murder or something? I want the obviously guilty quickly put to death. I want the system that they clog up to continue to function for those who might be innocent.

Now, that's radical. On that one, we can agree to disagree.

Honus · #32 12-20-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

The Constitution has nothing to do with it...

Here's a link to a website that goes through the history of the Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s concerning the constitutionality of the death penalty: Death Penalty Information Center. As you can see, the Consititution has everything to do with the death penalty. The system that you and MM are proposing is, thank God, contrary to the Constitution, which does not mean you can't do it. You just need to amend the Constitution first.

Caveat: I can't vouch for the Death Penalty Information Center. It seems to be anti-death penalty, but the historical discussion in the linked website is factual.

boneheaddoctor · #33 12-20-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Yeah, the semen can put you at the scene of some little kid with your knife sticking out of his back. Or some dead girl with your teeth marks in her skin. Come on dude. Some of these cases take the jury fifteen minutes to decide, and thats only because they had to wait for the coffee.

True.....and then you had the OJ jury......with far more damning evidense to the publics knowledge than Scott Petersons had. But time will tell if there are things we don't yet know.

KirkVining · #34 12-20-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Here's a link to a website that goes through the history of the Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s concerning the constitutionality of the death penalty: Death Penalty Information Center. As you can see, the Consititution has everything to do with the death penalty. The system that you and MM are proposing is, thank God, contrary to the Constitution, which does not mean you can't do it. You just need to amend the Constitution first.

Caveat: I can't vouch for the Death Penalty Information Center. It seems to be anti-death penalty, but the historical discussion in the linked website is factual.

The decisions you cite dealt with technical issues - the Supreme never actually decided that the death penalty was unconstitutional - it decided that certain states allow the death penalty in a "capricious or arbitrary way" - in other words similar cases often had different outcomes. The death penalty was reinstated when the SCOTUS felt the states had reformed their procedures. It is my belief that a system based on evidence would pass constitutional muster - it is not arbitrary at all. I cannot think of what Constitutional Amendment it would violate - why would an amendment be required?

Honus · #35 12-20-2004, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

The decisions you cite dealt with technical issues

That sounds like something Ed Meese would say. The "technical issues" at stake in the death penalty cases are also known as "Constitutional Rights."

Quote:

- the Supreme never actually decided that the death penalty was unconstitutional

I never said they did.

Quote:

...It is my belief that a system based on evidence would pass constitutional muster...

Of course, any death penalty statute is going to be based on evidence, but your proposal goes way beyond that. Your proposal is that execution become automatic upon a clear finding of guilt. That is precisely the issue presented in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) which invalidated North Carolina's death penalty statute because it attempted to remove the jury's discretion by mandating the death penalty for everyone convicted of a capital crime. For you and MM to get your system into law, you will need to amend the Constitution to overrule Woodson and a slew of other death penalty decisions.

I'm no death penalty expert, so I can't recite to you all of the relevant case law that controls today, but I do know that the Supreme Court has decided that death penalty defendants have a Constitutional right to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase.

mikemover · #36 12-20-2004, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

It is my belief that a system based on evidence would pass constitutional muster - it is not arbitrary at all. I cannot think of what Constitutional Amendment it would violate - why would an amendment be required?

You're right, of course....It is obviously not in conflict with the Constitution, and would not require any amendment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that many states have long-standing death penalty laws, and they have not been struck down by the feds.

What puzzles me more is: Why is he so opposed to the idea of amending the Constitution in the first place? It has been done many times, for many very good reasons.....Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc.......

Mike

mikemover · #37 12-20-2004, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

I'm no death penalty expert, so I can't recite to you all of the relevant case law that controls today, but I do know that the Supreme Court has decided that death penalty defendants have a Constitutional right to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase.

That is one of the changes we're advocating....or I am, at least.

Either present your "mitigating circumstances" evidence during the actual TRIAL, or not at all. Eliminate the ambiguity of the sentencing phase altogether....Either it qualifies as a "100%", airtight case (overwhelming, undeniable physical evidence, etc.), or it doesn't. Death, or life in prison. There would be no other options. No chance of discrimination, or undeserved sympathy, or any other decisions to screw up during the sentencing phase.

Mike

KirkVining · #38 12-21-2004, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

That sounds like something Ed Meese would say. The "technical issues" at stake in the death penalty cases are also known as "Constitutional Rights."

I never said they did.

Of course, any death penalty statute is going to be based on evidence, but your proposal goes way beyond that. Your proposal is that execution become automatic upon a clear finding of guilt. That is precisely the issue presented in Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) which invalidated North Carolina's death penalty statute because it attempted to remove the jury's discretion by mandating the death penalty for everyone convicted of a capital crime. For you and MM to get your system into law, you will need to amend the Constitution to overrule Woodson and a slew of other death penalty decisions.

I'm no death penalty expert, so I can't recite to you all of the relevant case law that controls today, but I do know that the Supreme Court has decided that death penalty defendants have a Constitutional right to present mitigating evidence during the sentencing phase.

Perhaps you are right, but I don't see it as much of a hurdle. In this country, an amendment like that would garner wide support. It's probably even necessary - the Constitution needs to evolve with science, and it is science that makes these new proposals desireable and possible. Discretion still goes to the jury - they can execute the convicted defendent or allow him to live. But an important element would be to limit the appeals allowed the condemned, but not to those sentenced to life. I have read that the SCOTUS has been very friendly to limiting the rights of appeal of DR inmates, so I doubt an amendment would be necessary to get over that hurdle. But if one was, people in this country are ready for it.

KirkVining · #39 12-21-2004, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

That is one of the changes we're advocating....or I am, at least.

Either present your "mitigating circumstances" evidence during the actual TRIAL, or not at all. Eliminate the ambiguity of the sentencing phase altogether....Either it qualifies as a "100%", airtight case (overwhelming, undeniable physical evidence, etc.), or it doesn't. Death, or life in prison. There would be no other options. No chance of discrimination, or undeserved sympathy, or any other decisions to screw up during the sentencing phase.

Mike

After locating and reading the decision on mitigating circumstances DC is refering to, I now believe he is right - a constituional amendment would be required that "mitigating circumstances" be excluded from court proceedings, and a more scientific standard basd on certainity of evidence replace it. In fact, it gets to the heart of the matter of why this whole system is wrong. "Mitigating circumstances" is a circus side show. This decision (and an eariler one shown as a link in this decision) is worth reading - it is a powerful display of why victims get no justice and the obviously guilty get to live to possibly kill again:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-5323

mikemover · #40 12-21-2004, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

After locating and reading the decision on mitigating circumstances DC is refering to, I now believe he is right - a constituional amendment would be required that "mitigating circumstances" be excluded from court proceedings, and a more scientific standard basd on certainity of evidence replace it. In fact, it gets to the heart of the matter of why this is whole system is wrong. "Mitigating circumstances" is a circus side show. This decision (and an eariler one shown as a link in this decision) is worth reading - it is a powerful display of why victims get no justice and the obviously guilty get to live to possibly kill again:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-5323

Yes, after reading that case and some other sources, I agree that an amendment would most likely be required to eliminate the provision for "mitigaging curcumstances".

I also agree that such an argument by the defenders of the accused is merely a distraction. The right to such an argument is usually just exploited as an opportunity to generate some kind of undeserved sympathy for the defendant.

The ONLY "mitigating circumstance" that should be allowable is SELF-DEFENSE. Law should specify that if a killing was not demonstrably self-defense, or done in the legitimate defense of the life of another human being, then it is MURDER. Period.

While we're on the subject......I've never understood, or agreed with, the leniency granted to those convicted of "attempted murder".

Why should someone convicted of "attempted murder" receive a sentence less than life in prison? The person's intent was obviously the same--to kill another human being--was it not? Why should they be REWARDED for being a lousy shot? Or for not knowing the proper way to beat/strangle/poison/whatever someone to death? It's ridiculous. Any person taking violent/harmful action with the obvious intent to murder should receive the same charge as a "successful" murderer.

Mike

Honus · #41 12-21-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...What puzzles me more is: Why is he so opposed to the idea of amending the Constitution in the first place? It has been done many times, for many very good reasons.....Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc...

Odd question, coming from a libertarian. In fact, amendments intended to increase the power of government are rare. The only ones I can think of are the 16th (income tax) and the 18th (prohibition of alcohol). I'm liberal on some things, but not when it comes to the Constitution. The drafters did a good job on that document. We should leave it alone unless we have a compelling need to change it.

Honus · #42 12-21-2004, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

...Either present your "mitigating circumstances" evidence during the actual TRIAL, or not at all...

Such a system would certainly make the prosecution's job much easier and would force defendants into some difficult decisions. They would have to try to convince the jury that they didn't do it while simultaneously convincing them that they had a good excuse.

Honus · #43 12-21-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining

Perhaps you are right, but I don't see it as much of a hurdle. In this country, an amendment like that would garner wide support. It's probably even necessary - the Constitution needs to evolve with science, and it is science that makes these new proposals desireable and possible. Discretion still goes to the jury - they can execute the convicted defendent or allow him to live. But an important element would be to limit the appeals allowed the condemned, but not to those sentenced to life. I have read that the SCOTUS has been very friendly to limiting the rights of appeal of DR inmates, so I doubt an amendment would be necessary to get over that hurdle. But if one was, people in this country are ready for it.

Will this brave new world that you and MM are constructing include provisions to ensure that defendants have access to all this great technology, or at least that defense attorneys stay awake during trial?