REPORT: The Death Penalty Debate - By Bob Enyart
- Thread starter webby
- Start date
And this is WHY I said that God is pretty good at condemnation. He's done it before, He will do it again. And you say God does not condemn. Even if He did not want to condemn, by making salvation exclusively through Christ as Savior, He does.
Yup, and God qualifies who is going to be saved--"whosoever believes in Him." The rest go to Hell.
Why do they need a Savior? If there is no law for them to break, then they aren't sinning, and they're not condemned to Hell because they are sinless...
Because I read the end of the Book!
Last edited:
taoist
New member
Crow
Plea bargains are most often used to enable prosecutors, who live and die by their conviction rate, to gain a conviction on a weak case for a lesser crime. Jailhouse snitches are more likely to receive reduced prison time for what's most likely perjured testimony. Come on, these guys wouldn't be coming forward without either coercion from the prosecutors or in personal hope of avoiding the full weight of justice themselves.
I would go further than you in this instance and subject prosecutors to punishment for using this kind of testimony. This is actually the law of the land, but it's almost impossible to win a conviction against a corrupt member of the justice establishment. A recent case involving the prosecutors, detectives and police officers involved in manufacturing evidence in the Jeanine Nicarico case against Rolando Cruz returned no convictions.
Here are archived columns by the Tribune's Eric Zorn regarding the trial of the "DuPage Seven."
The Nicarico Case
Rolando Cruz, hoping to make up a good enough story to reap a bit of the reward offered in the brutal abduction and murder of this 10-year-old girl, instead found himself framed for the murder. Remember, each time an innocent man is sent to Death Row, a guilty man walks the streets.
I would not like to see a return to the days of the chain gang. There is an inescapable law of cause and effect in all of our actions. Brutality in punishment brutalizes the punisher as well. This is the law of karma.
Certainly, the systemic problems with administration of the death penalty require an ongoing review and correction. This should be a never-ending task. But until such time as we as a society take serious responsibility in meting out this most serious of punishments, I cannot support what has become a criminal enterprise.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Plea bargains are most often used to enable prosecutors, who live and die by their conviction rate, to gain a conviction on a weak case for a lesser crime. Jailhouse snitches are more likely to receive reduced prison time for what's most likely perjured testimony. Come on, these guys wouldn't be coming forward without either coercion from the prosecutors or in personal hope of avoiding the full weight of justice themselves.
I would go further than you in this instance and subject prosecutors to punishment for using this kind of testimony. This is actually the law of the land, but it's almost impossible to win a conviction against a corrupt member of the justice establishment. A recent case involving the prosecutors, detectives and police officers involved in manufacturing evidence in the Jeanine Nicarico case against Rolando Cruz returned no convictions.
Here are archived columns by the Tribune's Eric Zorn regarding the trial of the "DuPage Seven."
The Nicarico Case
Rolando Cruz, hoping to make up a good enough story to reap a bit of the reward offered in the brutal abduction and murder of this 10-year-old girl, instead found himself framed for the murder. Remember, each time an innocent man is sent to Death Row, a guilty man walks the streets.
Now I find myself commenting on biblical punishments. As you've mentioned almost tangentially, jailtime is a relatively modern invention, one that, in my humble opinion, has been instituted in half measures resulting in a system of warehousing. Without rehabilitation, it becomes a school for the wicked in how to harden oneself as a criminal. There are no easy answers.
I would not like to see a return to the days of the chain gang. There is an inescapable law of cause and effect in all of our actions. Brutality in punishment brutalizes the punisher as well. This is the law of karma.
Certainly, the systemic problems with administration of the death penalty require an ongoing review and correction. This should be a never-ending task. But until such time as we as a society take serious responsibility in meting out this most serious of punishments, I cannot support what has become a criminal enterprise.
Last edited:
Freak
New member
Crow:
What does this part mean to you (the bold part): For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
What does this part mean to you (the bold part): For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
taoist
New member
Final note. Brian Dugan, the actual killer of Jeanine Nicarico, remains untried for this heinous crime. Please sign the attached petition demanding justice.
Indict Brian Dugan for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico
Indict Brian Dugan for the murder of Jeanine Nicarico
philosophizer
New member
What does God's condemnation have to do with earthly punishments and legal responsibilities?
Snitch testamony from fellow criminals combined with plea bargaining should not be allowed in a criminal case. It is a blatent incentive to lie. Justice is a search for truth, and dealing fairly with issues the truth raises when it is discerned. Testamony that has been subject to pollution by promise of personal benefit does not belong in a search for the truth, nor admisistration of penalties for lawbreaking.
And I believe that anyone involved in a trial who willingly misleads the judge, by his own witness, suppression of evidence, etc, should suffer the exact penalty the accused would if he were to be found guilty. If that won't induce a bit of honesty, nothing will. If a prosecutor was in danger of standing in front of, say, a firing squad if he lied, I'll bet there would be less money wasted in cases where evidence was flimsy. Much less. Taoist, I'll bet you if the penalties for lying in a trial that I have proposed stood in the Nicario trial, a lot of money and grief would have been spared. By insisting on truth and putting a harsh penalty on lying for both the accused, witnesses, defense, prosecution and judges, we would in fact change the goal of a trial from just finding someone to prosecute to searching for the truth and administering justice correctly
Ok, I'm going to overlook karma, as you have overlooked Biblical references, as we both agreed to look at this from a non-religious/belief-based standpoint, and we both have slipped up here--it's difficult to separate your mind from your beliefs. I would characterize life in prison as much more brutal than swift death. For other crimes, such as theft, work might just be the thing to use, and monies gained from work could be used to pay restitution for all stolen items/money, but I digress--this thread is about capital punishment. I agree with you that chain gangs are not appropriate for murderers and others who commit capital crimes.
You're right, there is not an easy answer. Jail time has not proven to be an answer, rehab does not work in most cases, and there is a lack of accountability on prosecutors, which probably indirectly contributes to grossly prolonged trials and appeals. Because the answer is not easy does not mean that the criminal justice system should continue to limp along in it's current degenerated state, and capital punishment allowed to perish from disuse because it is too expensive to administer due to countless appeals, or because the justice system has lost moral authority because it has scorned responsibility to seek soley the truth on the part of it's own players. Rather, the lacking elements such as judicial accountability should be introduced. The corrupting elements such as allowing plea bargains and snitch testamony secured by offering inducements to lie should be purged. Prisons should cease to be cesspools of foerment and criminal activity which suck resources from the community, and instead serve as temporary holding areas during trials.
As flawed as our system currently is, taoist, I believe that it still is more accurate than it is not. You are right, there are some cases where there is some reasonable doubt as to the guilt of an accused--under our current system they should go free, but the convenience of prison and the appeals system and a lack of judicial accountability encourages warehousing these doubtful cases rather than just to say "We don't have enought evidence here to tell who did it." And there are too many folks in the system right now who are not questionable, who have been excedingly well proven to be guilty as hell, and those cases should move forward now.
Last edited:
taoist
New member
Crow
I remember a black honor-roll student who got picked up off the street and accused of murder. The cops often just grab people at random on the southside. Watching that case and reading about others leads me to take a rather cynical view of police work.
Anytime I hear about a confession after more than 48 hours of custody, I figure it was coerced. If they're presenting a jailhouse snitch, it means they couldn't tie the case to the defendant in any other way. Guilt and innocence seem to get lost in the shuffle of competing to close cases and pumping up conviction rates for re-election.
I can't fault the theory, but I know the practice. The "DuPage Seven" were given a show trial in a friendly courtroom by a weak prosecutor with a glaring conflict of interest. When it came time for a civil trial in which they couldn't shop the venue, they paid up rather than take the witness stand. Cops and prosecutors hiding behind the fifth amendment is a scandal.
I don't see any real reason to increase the penalties for perjury. Why bother if it just means the jury has that much more reason to give a corrupt prosecutor a break? Had these men been fired even, the message that business as usual was not acceptable would have been delivered.
But yes, it's hard to avoid a spiritual framework when speaking of capital crime.
Following the rash of exonerations, our former governor ordered a blue ribbon panel to look into the issue and propose reforms. I read their report. Apparently, so did the governor and that's always a surprise. Inquiries are usually meant to take the heat off on political issues so an officeholder can point at it as something they're doing.
But he actually appointed good people who came back with good recommendations. I'll see if I can't scrounge up a link after a bit. Then he asked the legislature to enact the recommendations. And there it sat. In perspective, since the death penalty was re-enacted in Illinois, we'd executed a dozen from Death Row and exonerated just as many. This problem was not going away.
Finally, in desperation at the lack of action, the former governor granted clemency to all of Death Row, changing all of their sentences to life without parole. There is talk about trying to enact some of the changes under the new administration, but until they do, I support the moratorium.
The county jail in Chicago is run by the gangs. A five-pointer in the six-pointers' area is just another name for dead man walking. A buddy of mine who spent some time as a county sheriff before he walked away from the brutality showed me some of the gang rules that get distributed to the members. They follow the rules or receive on the spot punishment. The rules are exceedingly strict. Its ironic that the lawbreakers enforce a higher standard of conduct than the jailors.
Attempts to change the system result in riots, not a pretty thing in a jail where every cell includes at least one mattress on the floor to handle overcrowding.
It's common knowledge that innocent men in Chicago's County Jail will plead guilty to escape to the less brutal environment of a state pen. A year in a state prison is a small price to pay to avoid another six months at County waiting for trial.
Thank you for giving me a chance to present the facts we often overlook in these discussions. More often than not is a good enough standard for unimportant things, like brushing teeth or taking out the trash. I can't help but think that the standard should be near certainty when seeking the absolute punishment of death.
A friend of mine practices medical malpractice law. He can go for months without movement on any cases. In the meantime, he sometimes picks up a case that just plain needs defending.
I remember a black honor-roll student who got picked up off the street and accused of murder. The cops often just grab people at random on the southside. Watching that case and reading about others leads me to take a rather cynical view of police work.
Anytime I hear about a confession after more than 48 hours of custody, I figure it was coerced. If they're presenting a jailhouse snitch, it means they couldn't tie the case to the defendant in any other way. Guilt and innocence seem to get lost in the shuffle of competing to close cases and pumping up conviction rates for re-election.
I can't fault the theory, but I know the practice. The "DuPage Seven" were given a show trial in a friendly courtroom by a weak prosecutor with a glaring conflict of interest. When it came time for a civil trial in which they couldn't shop the venue, they paid up rather than take the witness stand. Cops and prosecutors hiding behind the fifth amendment is a scandal.
I don't see any real reason to increase the penalties for perjury. Why bother if it just means the jury has that much more reason to give a corrupt prosecutor a break? Had these men been fired even, the message that business as usual was not acceptable would have been delivered.
Hmm, perhaps the term itself is misunderstood. The law of cause and effect is called karma in eastern thought. It's nothing more than observing your friend yelling at the kids and asking whether she had a bad day at work. We all use it whether we name it or not.
But yes, it's hard to avoid a spiritual framework when speaking of capital crime.
Following the rash of exonerations, our former governor ordered a blue ribbon panel to look into the issue and propose reforms. I read their report. Apparently, so did the governor and that's always a surprise. Inquiries are usually meant to take the heat off on political issues so an officeholder can point at it as something they're doing.
But he actually appointed good people who came back with good recommendations. I'll see if I can't scrounge up a link after a bit. Then he asked the legislature to enact the recommendations. And there it sat. In perspective, since the death penalty was re-enacted in Illinois, we'd executed a dozen from Death Row and exonerated just as many. This problem was not going away.
Finally, in desperation at the lack of action, the former governor granted clemency to all of Death Row, changing all of their sentences to life without parole. There is talk about trying to enact some of the changes under the new administration, but until they do, I support the moratorium.
The county jail in Chicago is run by the gangs. A five-pointer in the six-pointers' area is just another name for dead man walking. A buddy of mine who spent some time as a county sheriff before he walked away from the brutality showed me some of the gang rules that get distributed to the members. They follow the rules or receive on the spot punishment. The rules are exceedingly strict. Its ironic that the lawbreakers enforce a higher standard of conduct than the jailors.
Attempts to change the system result in riots, not a pretty thing in a jail where every cell includes at least one mattress on the floor to handle overcrowding.
It's common knowledge that innocent men in Chicago's County Jail will plead guilty to escape to the less brutal environment of a state pen. A year in a state prison is a small price to pay to avoid another six months at County waiting for trial.
Thank you for giving me a chance to present the facts we often overlook in these discussions. More often than not is a good enough standard for unimportant things, like brushing teeth or taking out the trash. I can't help but think that the standard should be near certainty when seeking the absolute punishment of death.
taoist
New member
Here it is, Crow ...
Commission on Capital Punishment: Reports
The links are to pdf files, one of them is just the recommendations. Even reading the recommendations represents a more serious commitment to looking at the issue than some might find appealing.
Commission on Capital Punishment: Reports
The links are to pdf files, one of them is just the recommendations. Even reading the recommendations represents a more serious commitment to looking at the issue than some might find appealing.
Conviction rates should have no bearing on whether a judge, prosecuter, etc, is retained. I think this might be an area where you and I can agree.
Truthfully, taoist, I believe that the 5th amendment plea should not be allowed for anyone in a capital case--too much is at stake to allow sanctioned witholding of testamony. No one should be immune from telling the truth when questioned in a capital case.
I do see reason to increase the penalty for perjury. Fired? Taoist--the penalty I am advocating here is that a prosecutor, witness, judge, -- whatever--who knowingly introduces false testamony into a crimimal case be subject to the same fate as the defendant, up to and including death. It could mean that in the case of perjury, one could easily end up with "you lie, you die" in a capital case.
As one who spent part of my childhood in Taiwan, I am familiar with the old law of "what goes around comes around" and depending on where you find it, it can take on religious significance or not. Yup--you really can't totally avoid a spiritual framework when arguing anything, really--it it's part of you, it shows through, but I'll continue to try to do so.
Do you think corrections/judiciary should be part of or outside the political system? While it would probably be impossible to totally divorce it from politics, I think it should be as far removed from the same as possible.
Sounds like Illinois has an exceptionally screwed up system. I would say that there should not be executions until they get their ducks in a row. Any one or group loses moral authority if they fail to administer their duties fairly and properly, and I would say this has happened on more that one level in Illinois. I would not have gone as far as a blanket pardon, I would have reviewed the evidence in each case, and gone on from there.
If prison isn't used for warehousing, then gangs won't have much chance to develop. This is a symptom of an illness--prisons are used for punishment and warehousing, and that is not effective for punishing or preventing criminal activity.
It sounds like Chicago jail is mismanaged all the way around. No one should be waiting six months for a trial, I would guess that many of the "guests" of the correctional system in Chicago's county jail should have been put to death many moons ago.
I agree with you that we should set very high standards in all matters relating to crime and punishment. This would be a heck of a lot more cost-effective that running Camp Criminal, AKA your local penn. If more resources were freed, then we could afford the high standards in seeking justice that we need, and which decency demands. I see higher and tangible accountability all the way around, with eliminating some seriously flawed areas--such as the snitch system--entirely, and eliminating as much as possible political involvement in the criminal justice system. What do y'all see as areas of accord here, and areas of disagreement, so that we can pursue the latter and not waste time on arguing common ground?
taoist
New member
Crow
The independence of the judiciary is simply too important for elections. The candidates are so poorly known that people often vote for nothing but the name, which amusingly enough is often swapped by the candidates for an Irish surname to ensure election. I'm not kidding.
I remember of pal of mine who wasn't too heavily into politics.
"Yeah, I voted for the Mosely-Braun guy ..." Umm, Mike, Mosely-Braun is a woman. "Really?" Yes, and she's black. "Really!?" Trust me on this, Mike.
Mike lived in Bridgeport at the time. Though I personally always use the word black, as versus African-American or person of color, Mike frequented a more pejorative expression typical of the neighborhood. The last poll I saw showed a slim majority of black Americans prefer the term black. If black opinion finally crosses over into preference for African-American, I'll use that term instead.
Perhaps I was unclear. The DuPage Seven were the group of prosecutors and lawmen accused of manufacturing the evidence that resulted in Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez being placed on Death Row. Brian Dugan is the man who actually abused and murdered 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico.
Each of the DuPage Seven refused to testify at their own trial, claiming their constitutional protections.
My point is that the jury was unwilling to subject the DuPage Seven to even the current punishment. I feel that if the proscribed punishment were increased, they would be even less likely to find them guilty. Are you familiar with what's known as jury nullification? Juries have been known to free the guilty in the past for no other reason than because the penalty seemed disproportionate to the crime.
But there is a certain sense of justice in your idea of holding all participants in a capital case strictly to account. First though, I believe we should see if the current penalties are sufficient. To do so would require that they be enforced.
As a former investigative journalist, I'm familiar with the ethics of full disclosure. When one has a bias, even if one feels it is possible to put it aside, it is necessary to state it.
My support for the theory of capital punishment is in response to my understanding of harmony. Murderers should not be allowed to live. They are a burden upon anyone seeking a true path in life. My support for the current moratorium in Illinois is due to my analysis of the system, however. It's broken and needs fixing before allowed to take to the road again. If it can't be fixed, it should be scrapped.
An independent judiciary is not just a good idea, it's supported by the constitution of the freest country on earth. I love America.
The scary thing is, there's no reason to believe these problems are particular to Illinois. They surfaced not because of judicial review or any political process, but because of one college professor and his students. The crisis became front page news with the exoneration of Anthony Porter.
The Exonerated: Anthony Porter
Crow
I would dearly love to consider alternatives to incarceration. Restitution of some sort should be part of the plan, along with meaningful rehabilitation. Still, I know of no way to rehabilitate a true sociopath.
Six months? There are prisoners who've been in there awaiting trial for years for no other reason than because they can't make bail.
Mike did a month there because of a parole violation on a marijuana conviction. I went to bail him out thinking they wanted $500 as a ten percent cash bond. When they told me bail was set at $25,000, I decided Mike was going to have to live with it.
The only evening I ever spent behind bars was at a precinct lockup. See my climbing the crane post. I was treated as a celebrity with a constant stream of admiring boys in blue looking to talk to "Spiderman." I was almost sorry to leave. One of the guys gave me a ride home.
The first and last rituals on entry to and exit from County Jail, in contrast, are body cavity searches. Eww.
Remember that only a small proportion of the inmates are locked up for capital crimes. But yes, Chicago has the highest murder rate of any large American city, four times higher than New York.
If i can say so without appearing blasphemous: Amen, sister.
I seek ways to make the crime itself carry its consequences directly. I see the worst aspect of removing religion from the schools is that the ethics which formed the only justification for its inclusion, in my view, were removed at the same time.
There are good arguments for proper behavior that have no bearing on religion. A proper education would make these arguments apparent to all children, and form a worldview in which engaging in hurtful acts would offend the offender.
A great theory, perhaps, but impractical at present.
I accept the compromise of our criminal justice system for the same reason I accept democracy. It's been said that democracy is the worst system of government known to man, with the minor exception of everything else that's been tried.
In peace.
The independence of the judiciary is simply too important for elections. The candidates are so poorly known that people often vote for nothing but the name, which amusingly enough is often swapped by the candidates for an Irish surname to ensure election. I'm not kidding.
I remember of pal of mine who wasn't too heavily into politics.
"Yeah, I voted for the Mosely-Braun guy ..." Umm, Mike, Mosely-Braun is a woman. "Really?" Yes, and she's black. "Really!?" Trust me on this, Mike.
Mike lived in Bridgeport at the time. Though I personally always use the word black, as versus African-American or person of color, Mike frequented a more pejorative expression typical of the neighborhood. The last poll I saw showed a slim majority of black Americans prefer the term black. If black opinion finally crosses over into preference for African-American, I'll use that term instead.
Perhaps I was unclear. The DuPage Seven were the group of prosecutors and lawmen accused of manufacturing the evidence that resulted in Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez being placed on Death Row. Brian Dugan is the man who actually abused and murdered 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico.
Each of the DuPage Seven refused to testify at their own trial, claiming their constitutional protections.
My point is that the jury was unwilling to subject the DuPage Seven to even the current punishment. I feel that if the proscribed punishment were increased, they would be even less likely to find them guilty. Are you familiar with what's known as jury nullification? Juries have been known to free the guilty in the past for no other reason than because the penalty seemed disproportionate to the crime.
But there is a certain sense of justice in your idea of holding all participants in a capital case strictly to account. First though, I believe we should see if the current penalties are sufficient. To do so would require that they be enforced.
As a former investigative journalist, I'm familiar with the ethics of full disclosure. When one has a bias, even if one feels it is possible to put it aside, it is necessary to state it.
My support for the theory of capital punishment is in response to my understanding of harmony. Murderers should not be allowed to live. They are a burden upon anyone seeking a true path in life. My support for the current moratorium in Illinois is due to my analysis of the system, however. It's broken and needs fixing before allowed to take to the road again. If it can't be fixed, it should be scrapped.
An independent judiciary is not just a good idea, it's supported by the constitution of the freest country on earth. I love America.
The scary thing is, there's no reason to believe these problems are particular to Illinois. They surfaced not because of judicial review or any political process, but because of one college professor and his students. The crisis became front page news with the exoneration of Anthony Porter.
The Exonerated: Anthony Porter
Crow
Governor Ryan did not pardon them, he commuted their sentences in an act of executive clemency after reviewing all cases with input from the victims' families. I can't fault his decision. The compromise seemed justified. The commission concluded that the death penalty had been awarded capriciously. The alternative was new trials for nearly 160 men with the consequent anguish to the families of the victims.
I would dearly love to consider alternatives to incarceration. Restitution of some sort should be part of the plan, along with meaningful rehabilitation. Still, I know of no way to rehabilitate a true sociopath.
Six months? There are prisoners who've been in there awaiting trial for years for no other reason than because they can't make bail.
Mike did a month there because of a parole violation on a marijuana conviction. I went to bail him out thinking they wanted $500 as a ten percent cash bond. When they told me bail was set at $25,000, I decided Mike was going to have to live with it.
The only evening I ever spent behind bars was at a precinct lockup. See my climbing the crane post. I was treated as a celebrity with a constant stream of admiring boys in blue looking to talk to "Spiderman." I was almost sorry to leave. One of the guys gave me a ride home.
The first and last rituals on entry to and exit from County Jail, in contrast, are body cavity searches. Eww.
Remember that only a small proportion of the inmates are locked up for capital crimes. But yes, Chicago has the highest murder rate of any large American city, four times higher than New York.
If i can say so without appearing blasphemous: Amen, sister.
Asking a taoist to look for discord? Sheesh, woman. I aim to present facts, especially those in contradiction to established opinion. And in striving to teach, I hope to learn. Our main area of discord, if you must have it, lies in the philosophy of punishment.
I seek ways to make the crime itself carry its consequences directly. I see the worst aspect of removing religion from the schools is that the ethics which formed the only justification for its inclusion, in my view, were removed at the same time.
There are good arguments for proper behavior that have no bearing on religion. A proper education would make these arguments apparent to all children, and form a worldview in which engaging in hurtful acts would offend the offender.
A great theory, perhaps, but impractical at present.
I accept the compromise of our criminal justice system for the same reason I accept democracy. It's been said that democracy is the worst system of government known to man, with the minor exception of everything else that's been tried.
In peace.
Here we have agreement. Judges should not have to run for office. It opens a Pandora's box of opportunity for outside influence to contaminate that which should be set aside for the determination of truth and the pursuit of justice.
Perhaps I was unclear in my response. I believe each of these prosecutors, if found guilty of tampering with evidence in a capital case, should have been punished capitally, by those under an equal responsibility under the law. I have a big problem with the jury system as it is overloaded with losers as jurors. People who lead productive lives often weasel out of juries, too much time is spent trying to educate laymen on the simplest of forensic procedures with each trial, etc. I believe that trials should be judged by judges, so that fools are not doing the judging by default, and so that accountability may be more exactly maintained.
This is why I feel the jury system is too flawed to administer justice correctly.
The justice system should be just. Radical idea, ain't it? I don't think the current penalties are nearly sufficient. All involved in the presenting of evidence, judging, and penalty process should have as much at stake if they knowingly mishandle or lie as possible. This would tend to strike a spirit of fear into the hearts of those who would deveive in an attempt to subvert justice.
We agree. Justice demands that each person be judged individually, not corporately, and that nothing less than full disclosure serves justice.
We are in agreement that murderers should not be allowed to live. In addition to your response to understanding of harmony, I concurr for economic, social, and religious reasons. We disagree as to the system being fixed before using it again. I would think it would be fair to have a stay in cases where there are indications that the case was mishandled or doubt as to guilt, however I would be fine with seeing cases with no doubt as to guilt march on to their fitting end.
I would say that upon review, the clearly guilty cases should be put directly into the penalty phase, and review the rest. It would take time to clean up the messes left by a corrupt system, and no doubt some guilty parties would be left free, but that does not excuse not addressing the problems.
My bad on the use of pardon instead of commute--this is what I meant. I would have gone with new trials, but if there were truly an effort underway to reform the process, I could accept this as part of the cost of cleaning up a mess that others left us.
Same here with restitution in non-capital cases. As for sociopaths--those thingies can't be fixed, they can only be eliminated. Sounds cold, but it's the truth.
Another symptom of a bad system. It is clogged with career criminals, endless appeals, the fight to get juries, and dragging out jury trials with dubious judges. A good judicial system would not function in this obstipated fashion.
I agree that we will never find perfection from human works, but I believe that we can do better than is being done now. As for teaching people that hurtful acts harm the offender--all societies have their criminals to some degree. Some foster criminal activity more than others, but there will always be crime, and we have to not only sit and think about all the wonderful ways we might prevent it, but we have the responsibility as a society to deal with the ugly nitty-gritty of what looks us in the face each day.
Last edited:
taoist
New member
Okay, I'm breaking my rule, AGAIN, about posting when overtired, so please don't take it amiss.
Increasing the penalties for perjury, conspiracy to perjury, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice is nonsense. There is no point in threatening people with a stiffer sentence which likewise won't be inflicted. Instead, it will increase disrespect for the law by showing that we're all talk and no walk. The jury that would not hand down jail time for these guys certainly won't hand down a death sentence.
A jury of our peers is one of the constitutional guarantees of our democracy. I find it ironic that you're willing to scrap the jury system because it can't be fixed while keeping capital punishment running despite the aborted attempts at reform.
Do you have children? Have they had pets? Didn't you tell them they can't keep their pets if they're not willing to take care of them? Until the justice system takes care of the systemic abuses inherent in capital punishment, they shouldn't be allowed to keep playing with it. A death penalty conviction is a feather in a prosecutor's cap. It should be an eagle feather, but it's not. That bit of plumage came from a turkey. The added prestige to such a prosecuting attorney is an inducement for prosecutorial misconduct.
Certainly, there have always been cases of in which the overwhelming evidence shows clear guilt. But these cases are rare. Criminals have an understandable tendency to hide their crimes in order to escape punishment. We only catch the dumbest ones. There have been only three in Illinois during the twenty-five years I've lived here. One or two a year across the country.
In comparison, more than three million Americans are presently incarcerated. Two thirds are non-violent drug offenders. The vast majority are minorities, subject to wildly disproportionate penalties aimed specifically at their drug of choice. Penalties increase ten-fold after application of a little baking powder and rubbing alcohol swirled with a metal stick to act as a collector. That's all it takes to turn powder cocaine into crack. I watched one of the homeys do it once.
Facts: The death penalty in Illinois is meted out not on the basis of the crime but on the lack of sympathy aroused by the criminal. Minorities guilty of the same crime are many times more likely to be executed. Capital defendents are overwhelmingly represented by the worst dregs from the bottom of the barrel of the legal profession. Anthony Porter's lawyer was repeatedly admonished to wake up by the trial judge. There is no standard for setting the death penalty at trial; the decision is left up to the individual vagaries of the states attorneys in charge.
These are only some of the findings of the Commission on Capital Punishment in Illinois. The entire report runs to nearly 400 pages with 83 separate recommendations for reform. How many have been enacted, you might ask? Zero, zilch, nada, scratch, not a one.
The Tribune did an analysis of the death penalty in Texas during W's 2000 campaign. The results were startlingly familiar.
Okay, deep breath. I, personally, am deeply offended by injustice. Rereading parts of the commission's report tonight inflamed my passion a bit too much, perhaps.
Among the myriad failings of the Cook County justice system, you'll be pleased to hear that the jury system is not included. In my opinion, it is a model for the country wherever the logistics make the system possible.
Every eighteen months or so, I expect a letter in the mail asking me to show up at the courthouse for a day of sitting around reading or surfing with a laptop and a wireless modem in a fairly comfortable chair waiting for my number to be called. If my number isn't called, I go home and wait another eighteen months for the next letter. If it is called, I'll be interviewed with a group for selection into a jury. If I'm not selected, I go home and wait another eighteen months. Perhaps once every ten years or so, I'll be asked to sit on a trial which will take up a week of my time.
The method is painless and easily understood. In most cases, it means only a day off from work and if you're properly equipped, you can do your work just as well from the waiting room. As a result, it gets a high degree of cooperation.
I thought you might have meant your comments on the DuPage Seven in the context of charging them with capital crimes and almost noted the possibility. Thank you for clarifying.
I, too, do not expect perfection from any human acts. Unlike you, however, I do not judge against a perfect standard. But in the end, as each of us lacks perfection, we have no real choice but to point in the direction of improvement and proceed as best we may, to the best of our understanding. While I lack your vision of the horizon, I will continue to make do with the compass within my grasp.
In peace.
Increasing the penalties for perjury, conspiracy to perjury, criminal negligence and obstruction of justice is nonsense. There is no point in threatening people with a stiffer sentence which likewise won't be inflicted. Instead, it will increase disrespect for the law by showing that we're all talk and no walk. The jury that would not hand down jail time for these guys certainly won't hand down a death sentence.
A jury of our peers is one of the constitutional guarantees of our democracy. I find it ironic that you're willing to scrap the jury system because it can't be fixed while keeping capital punishment running despite the aborted attempts at reform.
Do you have children? Have they had pets? Didn't you tell them they can't keep their pets if they're not willing to take care of them? Until the justice system takes care of the systemic abuses inherent in capital punishment, they shouldn't be allowed to keep playing with it. A death penalty conviction is a feather in a prosecutor's cap. It should be an eagle feather, but it's not. That bit of plumage came from a turkey. The added prestige to such a prosecuting attorney is an inducement for prosecutorial misconduct.
Certainly, there have always been cases of in which the overwhelming evidence shows clear guilt. But these cases are rare. Criminals have an understandable tendency to hide their crimes in order to escape punishment. We only catch the dumbest ones. There have been only three in Illinois during the twenty-five years I've lived here. One or two a year across the country.
In comparison, more than three million Americans are presently incarcerated. Two thirds are non-violent drug offenders. The vast majority are minorities, subject to wildly disproportionate penalties aimed specifically at their drug of choice. Penalties increase ten-fold after application of a little baking powder and rubbing alcohol swirled with a metal stick to act as a collector. That's all it takes to turn powder cocaine into crack. I watched one of the homeys do it once.
Facts: The death penalty in Illinois is meted out not on the basis of the crime but on the lack of sympathy aroused by the criminal. Minorities guilty of the same crime are many times more likely to be executed. Capital defendents are overwhelmingly represented by the worst dregs from the bottom of the barrel of the legal profession. Anthony Porter's lawyer was repeatedly admonished to wake up by the trial judge. There is no standard for setting the death penalty at trial; the decision is left up to the individual vagaries of the states attorneys in charge.
These are only some of the findings of the Commission on Capital Punishment in Illinois. The entire report runs to nearly 400 pages with 83 separate recommendations for reform. How many have been enacted, you might ask? Zero, zilch, nada, scratch, not a one.
The Tribune did an analysis of the death penalty in Texas during W's 2000 campaign. The results were startlingly familiar.
Okay, deep breath. I, personally, am deeply offended by injustice. Rereading parts of the commission's report tonight inflamed my passion a bit too much, perhaps.
Among the myriad failings of the Cook County justice system, you'll be pleased to hear that the jury system is not included. In my opinion, it is a model for the country wherever the logistics make the system possible.
Every eighteen months or so, I expect a letter in the mail asking me to show up at the courthouse for a day of sitting around reading or surfing with a laptop and a wireless modem in a fairly comfortable chair waiting for my number to be called. If my number isn't called, I go home and wait another eighteen months for the next letter. If it is called, I'll be interviewed with a group for selection into a jury. If I'm not selected, I go home and wait another eighteen months. Perhaps once every ten years or so, I'll be asked to sit on a trial which will take up a week of my time.
The method is painless and easily understood. In most cases, it means only a day off from work and if you're properly equipped, you can do your work just as well from the waiting room. As a result, it gets a high degree of cooperation.
I thought you might have meant your comments on the DuPage Seven in the context of charging them with capital crimes and almost noted the possibility. Thank you for clarifying.
I, too, do not expect perfection from any human acts. Unlike you, however, I do not judge against a perfect standard. But in the end, as each of us lacks perfection, we have no real choice but to point in the direction of improvement and proceed as best we may, to the best of our understanding. While I lack your vision of the horizon, I will continue to make do with the compass within my grasp.
In peace.
Last edited:
Taoist, I do not see the US constitution as the be all and end all to standards, as you observe later in your post. Yup. I think a jury of our peers is not consistantly nor often resulting in decent fair trials. And the bit about not inflicting stiffer penalties for perjury? Where do you get that these penalties would not be enforced? They should be. Law's all talk and no walk right now with snitch testamony galore.
We disagree here. Yes there are cases that are cut and dry and incontestable. On iffy cases, I can see cutting some slack till the thing's cleaned up. On the cut and dry in-your-face murder cases, I say out with the garbage. And as I stated in a previous post, prosecution should be kept as far away from politics as possible--there should be no inducement to falsify evidence, and be judged by how often he discovers and can prove the truth--either innocence or guilt, rather than how often he proves guilt.
We have a case near I live where an idiot attacked people in a McDonalds, shot some of them point blank and killed them, witnesses galore, caught on camera, and confessed. I don't care how flawed the system is, that guy is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and he should be executed promptly.
I think the penalty for illicit drugs should be the same no matter what drug it is, and it's one the crackheads and the cokeheads both would not like. But it would not show favoritism.
I agree. Illinois has a real screwed up system. Everyone doesn't have it so bad. Illinois has a lot going against it, including Chicago, which manages to crap out it's share of crime and more. And because criminals are being warehoused at the expense of the state, the system is overburdened financially as well as in other areas, such as personel stretched too thin. I am aware of issues in that state, but I don't really follow out of state state stuff that closely. I know that a bunch of sentences were reduced to life in prison--here's what I don't understand. If you think the system's so screwed up that innocent people are being convicted, then why give them life in prison either? Seems to me you'd just set them free. Strange, isn't it? You're sure enough to leave them in jail for the rest of their life, but you're not really sure they're guilty?
There we have to disagree. I think the jury system is inherently a bad one. I kind of laugh at the qualifications to be called for a juror in the Pittsburgh area--you have to have a phone #. At one time in my life, I listed my phone under the name "Mickey Mizzou," which was my bench champion American Foxhound. Mickey was a nice dog, and pretty smart, but I was still suprised to see his jury summons. No, he wouldn't have made the cut, but what I did find out when I called to let them know that Mickey was a dog was that over half of the potential jurors don't even return the card, and that many more get out of duty one way or another. I know that this is the current legal system--I don't think it is the best possible legal system. I would still go with professional judges, removed as far from the taint of politics as possible. This alone would speed trials along as we wouldn't have to hold Forensics 101 everytime the evidence is to be presented.
Actually taoist, I think you misread me. I believe that if prosecutors deliberately mislead to confer guilt where it is lacking, they should be put to death if this action results in an innocent man being killed. They by their actions have murdered an innocent if they deliberately set a guy up.
My comment is that the jury system is too flawed to handle stuff like this--I believe judges should judge, not just preside at trials. This is the major, or one of the major differences I see in our viewpoints. You feel the jury system works. I feel that it does not work efficiently, and judges would be better in this capacity.
There is no perfection in anything a human touches. Imperfection is the price we pay for not being absolutely static. Imperfection gives us cars, jobs, lives. I do not look for perfection even in a perfect system--once human hands or human designed programs enter the equation, it isn't perfect. We just have to give it our best--it beats the heck out of doing nothing. Yup. Things need improvement.
Taoist, I think I've failed you here. I did promise you I'd try to give this a run exclusive of Christianity, but I can't -- that is what my world view is based on. That is why I believe the judges should judge instead of juries, that is why I believe that allowing dishonesty to creep into the system in the form of induced snitch testamony should be stopped, and that is why I believe in stringent accountability in all judicial stages. Also why I disbelieve in prisons, BTW.
I hope you can get someone to give you a good argument based on politics. You might try BillyBob or wholearmor, or even the Tye critter if you can track them down--they could do it from a political standpoint, or I would guess from a constitutional one in the Tye critter's case--far better than I do if y'all can get them interested.
Last edited:
Jesus did not abolish the law, he just said: Do not take the law into your own hand, but let justice follow it's course. Turn the other cheek is not a command to the state to let murderers go free with a warning, it's a recommendation to have mercy and patience with those who offend you. The ruler does not bear the sword in vain. And Paul said: The law is good if used lawfully, the law is for the lawless ones, not for the righteous (1 Timothy1-9.)
