Life in Prison or Execution?

[Old TexMex]

Life in Prison is merciful? Wake up....

A general statement, since it's come up multiple times here, and one hears it all the time elsewhere:

I find it genuinely interesting how often, in making the case against capital punishment, it is argued that society should expect and accept that an inmate will be certainly raped and likely murdered, and therefore imprisonment is sufficient.

Execution is the ultimate punishment society can impose on an offender. It is a punishment, but is never intended under our system to be accomplished through torture, etc. We don't need gory ways to take a capital convict's life, we simply need to take it.

I accept that citizens may, in good faith, oppose the death penalty.

However, I see hypocrisy when people in opposition say that, "We don't need to execute, because the convict will be sodomized and otherwise brutalized in prison."

If an offender commits a capital crime, I believe society may decide to execute him, or not; however I do not believe that hoping he'll experience a tortured incarceration is an "American" alternative. Society doesn't need to see an offender suffer, it just needs to see him pay.

You have hit the nail on the head. If the citizenry are safer, put the murderer to death. Those who would have "mercy" and send a man to years of sodomy and beatings until he is murdered by another murderer have a screwy idea of justice.

I also assert that many cop killers are lauded in the joint, while their children grow up fatherless, and often under financial hardship. Where's the mercy for THEM?

 

[S42N8]

A general statement, since it's come up multiple times here, and one hears it all the time elsewhere:

I find it genuinely interesting how often, in making the case against capital punishment, it is argued that society should expect and accept that an inmate will be certainly raped and likely murdered, and therefore imprisonment is sufficient.

Execution is the ultimate punishment society can impose on an offender. It is a punishment, but is never intended under our system to be accomplished through torture, etc. We don't need gory ways to take a capital convict's life, we simply need to take it.

I accept that citizens may, in good faith, oppose the death penalty.

However, I see hypocrisy when people in opposition say that, "We don't need to execute, because the convict will be sodomized and otherwise brutalized in prison."

If an offender commits a capital crime, I believe society may decide to execute him, or not; however I do not believe that hoping he'll experience a tortured incarceration is an "American" alternative. Society doesn't need to see an offender suffer, it just needs to see him pay.

At the risk of thread drift --

Fully agree with the above. If we (society) condone brutalization of the incarcerated, then we condone lawlessness as a consequence of incarceration. Is that justice? Perhaps. I have no better alternative, and there remains no fitting balance of justice for the victim/victim's family.

And it's too early in the day for some bourbon.

 

[ClayCow]

I used to be for the death penalty. However i helped build a prison while i was deployed.

I cannot imagine being stuck in a prison for the rest of my life, id rather choose death. To some people theyd be happy living in confinement for the rest of their life over death to a crime they committed. Not me.

If.you want true punishment, solitary confinement is where its at. I believe due to death penalty appeals, lifetime confinement or solitary confinement is cheaper.

 

[Gamecock]

I believe due to death penalty appeals, lifetime confinement or solitary confinement is cheaper.

We choose to make it cheaper.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

We choose to make it cheaper.

Not really-the US supreme court dictated it-All it takes to speed it up is some overruling legislation and a few constitutional amendments both state and federal. That's what democracy is about. Remember the primacy of law comes from the people through legislation not Courts. We CAN make it cheaper.

 

[Gamecock]

We choose to make it expensive, then use the cost as a motive.

 

[ClayCow]

Truth be told there have been people put to death who were innocent. Is it worth saving that money putting innocent people to death? People have rights and innocent people get incarcerated. I guaranty many of you would be all for the long judicial process if you had been wrongly accused.

 

[Gamecock]

Truth be told there have been people put to death who were innocent. Is it worth saving that money putting innocent people to death? People have rights and innocent people get incarcerated. I guaranty many of you would be all for the long judicial process if you had been wrongly accused.

So we shouldn't incarcerate anyone?

 

[WR Moore]

I'm a little curious, the defendent had an older brother. How much older and how did he turn out? The OP is a little vague on who was visiting who in jail.

I'd have kinda expected the defense to bolster the abuse case using the older brother-unless he manged to overcome the challenges and make a decent life for himself.

Depending upon facility, he might end up spending about as much time in jail with either sentence. Life would probably be in the general population and neither plesant nor long.

 

[EQGuy]

Last month I was browsing the internet and I came upon the mug shot of my brothers oldest son. He is 50. I was shocked to discover he is accused of committing a crime involving minor children that if convicted will result in a mandatory 25 year prison sentence. The only time I had seen him in the past 30 years was at my Mothers funeral 14 years ago. I am still shocked and distressed over this discovery but if he did the crime he deserves the punishment. I never really knew him as an adult as his father and mother went thru a very messy divorce and his mother moved to another state and took him and his brother with her.

 

[ClayCow]

So we shouldn't incarcerate anyone?

I dont know how you got that

 

[Mickey D]

Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.

 

[LostintheOzone]

I have to think about the Boston bombing and that trial that just finished. Tsarnaev is in the same boat. He killed more than one person and at least one was a child. I don't think he has been sentenced yet but he was found guilty.

I don't see any difference between Holly and Tsarnaev. The number of people they killed really doesn't matter. The fact is they killed children. A failed system shouldn't be a killers excuse. If you let one live you have to let them all live to be fair. Personally, I can't see how that benefits anyone except the guy who got life in prison. It certainly doesn't benefit the taxpayer. Everyone of us dies sooner or later. Some people just need to go sooner rather than later.

 

[Gamecock]

A request, Cajunlawyer:

Please give us an outline of the appeal process. What are the steps, which courts, what pleas are made, and where does all the time go?

 

[ClayCow]

A request, Cajunlawyer:

Please give us an outline of the appeal process. What are the steps, which courts, what pleas are made, and where does all the time go?

Lawyers paid for by the taxpayers

 

[Krell1]

In my experience while people want the death penalty, very few have the stomach to actually DO IT. That results in years of appeals which is not fair to the victims. Instead of closure and allowing the wound to heal, the incessant appeals and court proceedings are like picking at a scab thus never allowing a wound to heal. It is not fair but it is what it is.

A life in prison sentence while not granting the visceral relief of retribution does offer one thing-CLOSURE. The defendant no longer remains the center of attention surrounded by all the groups that cluster around to help right a wrong (cause everyone knows that if a death penalty is actually imposed it's because somebody didn't do their job ). The victims can get on with their life unburdened by continual court happenings reliving the crime over and over again. To those of you who say THAT is the problem, I cannot disagree, but the fact remains that it is going to happen.

Upon getting a life sentence the defendant is shuttled off to (in Louisiana's case) Angola where he will live out the rest of his life; his memory slowly fading from conscience as life goes on and people heal. He will live in a miserable condition (believe me on this one-no prison rodeo for murderers-no they stay back in lock up) dying slowly one day at a time both mentally and physically- being forgotten more and more as his family dies off and the victim's family heals and moves on until one day he dies totally alone and nobody really gives a damn anymore-except the trustee that has to go dig the hole on the prison grounds to dump him because nobody wants to bear the expense of bring him back to whatever home he once had for a burial. The trustee's divy up whatever belongings he had and then it's over-with a whimper.

And then the convict rots away in an unmarked grave until the final judgment.

Is that a worse way to go than in a blaze of glory in an execution chamber surrounded by Sister Prejean and all your supporters some 30 years earlier and then buried in a donated grave with honors befitting a hero while the victim's family is reviled somehow as the reason why he is being put to death? Because believe me, I've been through an execution and that is how it happens Witness the Sonnier case.

Anyway I'm going walking now

Caj, until I read this I would have checked off the box "kill him". He, no doubt, committed a horrible crime. To me it doesn't matter what kind of childhood he had, he intentionally tortured, abused and killed this little girl and he deserves the harshest punishment he can get.

When you described the actual conditions an inmate such as this would have to endure, I agree that he belongs in such a place. Execution is too quick for him. Suffering the rest of his life, if he truly does, would be the way to go. Hopefully the jury decides the correct punishment for such an evil deed.

 

[long colt frazier]

Put him out of his misery.
Mark

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

A request, Cajunlawyer:

Please give us an outline of the appeal process. What are the steps, which courts, what pleas are made, and where does all the time go?

I am not a post conviction appeals lawyer so I might miss a step but here goes. Based on Louisiana.
Death sentence handed down January 1, 2000. Appeal is then handed off to the appellate lawyers. It usually takes about a year and a half for the appellate lawyers to comb the record for issues to raise on appeal. They will raise every conceiveable issue because it it isn't raised it's waived. There have been instances where an issue was not raised and then 10 years down the line a US Supreme Court decision rules favorable on that identical issue. If you had raised that issue your client could rely on the new law and perhaps avoid a death sentence. But at the time you took the original appeal it was settled law so you didn't raise the issue. Now that it has been decided in your client's favor he can't use it. So the appeals process is VERY time consuming. So now the defense brief is filed and it's June of 2001. The state will be a bit faster so they will get their brief in in about 4-6 months. We're down two years and have not even been docketed for oral argument. The Supreme Court is going to take about 2-3 months to digest the briefs (remember this isn't the only case they are deciding), docket oral argument hear it and then decide the case, if all goes well, in about 6 months. We're into year three.
A rehearing is requested which may or may not be granted and that usually takes about 6 months (again assuming a very quick resoloution). We're at three and a half years and have not yet started on the post conviction relief yet. Before post conviction can start a direct appeal to the US Supreme Court via writs is taken. Usually a shell petition is filed to make the deadline and thereafter a full petition is filed. Say this takes another year (usually longer). We're now at 5 years post conviction which is probably 7 years after the crime took place. The defendant has a two year period within which to seek post conviction relief. What happens now is that the post conviction people (who are funded by Federal Grants and come from all over to do this kind of work) will take the whole two years to comb the record for ANYTHING they can argue to show that for some reason the trial was unfair remember this isn't the only case they are working on). This is the point where they will do anything possible to rip the trial lawyers a new a hole to show that they were incompetent. This goes to the trial court which says no and then it goes to the State Supreme Court who says no. Assuming this is all moving forward at warp speed this process will take around 4-5 years (due to schedules etc). So now we've exhausted state remedies we are at around 12 years post conviction and 14 years post crime.
Then the Federal Habeas starts. This can take anywhere from 3-5 years some times longer. So now the US Supreme Court says no we're 15 years out from conviction and ready for the execution. And remember these are pretty much best case scenario times usually it takes longer. Unless they can think of something else......... It's a bitch and I hate it!.

Not really anything one can do to speed it up other than suspend the Habeas writ in death penalty cases at both the state and federal level. The courts contrary to public belief do NOT put these on a fast track. They take their place in the queue just like Joe Blow's case about the defective car and in due course get ruled upon.
The dirty little secret that nobody in the DA's office will tell you is that they HATE these cases. The worst thing that can happen to an assistant ADA is to win a death penalty case because he/she will be working on that case until his/her retirement. They cost untold amounts of money and resources. The general rule in my district (and most others from anecdotal evidence) is that the DA is begging the defense to come to them with an offer to plea to life without parole. And in just about every case that we can get the defendant to so plea-the offer is taken up, the case is closed and everyone starts the healing process. I have had only one case in my career where the victim was adamant about the death penalty and they got their wish. Death penalty was imposed. On direct appeal the conviction was upheld but the death sentence vacated and case was remanded for a new penalty phase. Defendant's family hired a lawyer (for around six figures from what I heard) and defendant got the death penalty again)That conviction was back in 1992 and the defendant has gone totally insane on death row and will never be executed.
I am against the death penalty for personal reasons, believing that no man is beyond redemption. But even if I were a rabid supporter of the death penalty, the mechanism and cost of actually doing it make absolutely no sense whatsoever. And that observation comes from being in there doing it.

This is a long post and I'm not going back through it looking for typos any more so no grammer or speling natzies please

Hope this sheds some light on it.

 

[Gamecock]

I started searching duh web to get some idea of where the (alleged) costs for appeals come from. I could see immediately that the studies were corrupt, as they claimed the cost of incarceration as part of the cost of the appeals.

As if there is no cost of incarceration for Life With No Parole in the Foreseeable Future. Cost for 50 years < cost for 15 years. Duh.

[Note to Cajunlawyer: I posted this before I saw your post. I think we were typing at the same time.]

 

[S&WIowegan]

I voted for life without parole simply because the death penalty is nearly impossible to achieve. The waste of time and money on spurious appeals is enormous. The fact is, I believe, most public officials haven't the stomach to permit or carry out the death sentence.

Life without parole sounds good and final but it's not. There is plenty of money and lawyers willing to fight and overturn those sentences as well. It's a rare trial that doesn't contain errors useful in appeals.