From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Dec 03 2002 - 18:20:05 MST
--- Rafal Smigrodzki <rms2g@virginia.edu> wrote:
> By the way, I fully agree with Greg Burch, who is against the death
> penalty as currently practiced, with insufficient degree of
> certainty. The standard
> for considering the death penalty must be much higher than the
> standard for incarceration.
I've said for a while that the death penalty, as it is currently
ajudicated in the US, is demonstrated to have little or no deterrent
effect on crime or murder in particular, while execution of criminals
by their victims or eye witnesses at the crime scene (otherwise known
as self defense) does have a demonstrated deterrent effect on all
crime.
Two million or more crimes a year are prevented by such means (not
necessarily actual execution, merely the visual threat of such),
according to survey studies, while even the FBI, based on crime
statistics, is certain that at least 90,000 and possibly as many as
600,000 crimes a year are prevented by such means.
I think that some crimes which fit not just a 'without reasonable
doubt', but a virtual certainty standard of proof, (i.e. caught at the
crime scene AND witnessed/recorded committing the act AND material
evidence corroborating same) should not be required to follow the drawn
out legal process that we currently have to protect the rights of those
who are arrested under mere suspicion or due to circumstantial
evidence.
For example, if the Beltway Snipers were caught at the scene of a
sniping with the murder weapon and with surveillance video records of
their act, determining their guilt should only be a matter of selecting
a jury and voting on the evidence, with no drawn out appeals process,
execution within one year of conviction.
Furthermore, multiple non-coerced confessions to non-law enforcement
individuals should also be considered to be a 'certainty' degree of
culpability.
For non-certainty convicts, they should have an option for cryonic
suspension available if the convict can raise funds for such
(considering the amounts paid for defense lawyers and for
incarceration, suspension would be a minor consideration). If a
suspended convict is not cleared within a decade they are thawed and
declared dead.
If cleared, they obviously have the option to be revived at a later
date and ought to have a sum of money put aside for their use upon
their revival. Those either suspended or imprisoned who are wrongfully
convicted should have the right to be compensated for their treatment
in a fair manner. Currently most states which have released wrongfully
convicted prisoners generally give them no more than $50 or so.
>
> Will you accept
> > being killed yourself, to satisfy the feeilings of the victimized
> > families?
>
> ### I accept the risk of being unfairly accused and executed myself,
> therefore I am already paying for my pleasure with real blood. Since
> the
> execution of an innocent would not be the result of my premeditated,
> malicious action, I would never be even partially liable for murder,
> merely complicity in a negligent application of the law, an offense
> not punishable by death.
It has been my experience, having a number of friends who have worked
as criminal defense attorneys, and having known a few rather squirrelly
characters who have needed such at one time or another, that instances
of individuals being wrongly convicted are very much few and far
between. Most all who get off generally do so on technicalities, not
because they are actually innocent. This isn't an empirical statement,
just one man's experience.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:33 MST