Peterson case for example, he was sentanced to death, he has been in jail waiting execution for about 4 years I believe. He is sitting in prison staying alive on our tax money.
Many of these life and 2/3 life sentanced prisoners are all convicted, can we not just kill them with a gun already? I do not believe it to be wrong, they should not have done what they did in the first place. I think more evidance may and could be found though, but by that time they could almost be dead.
2007-03-08 18:30:06 · 12 answers · asked by Dingdingdong 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Simple answer: the states will pay millions to put on a death penalty case, but refuse to adequately fund the defendant's absolute right to seek review of the trial and sentence.
Every convicted defendant has an absolute right to a direct appeal. The US Supreme Court mandated that all death penalty cases had to be appealed directly to the state's highest court, and not to an intermidiate court. Therefore every state with a death penalty has its Supreme Court overwhelmed with death penalty cases. Since death penalty cases are generally more complicated and involve both questions of guilt and questions of appropriate penalty, appeals take longer to prepare.
Appeals are generally handled by independent attorneys on a contract basis, not by the public defender's office. However, most states cap the amount that will be paid to brief and argue a death penalty case at an amount so low that an attorney in private practice loses money, or does an inadequate job.
In fact, what's paid is so low that in many states, Texas for one, most death penalty defendants do not have appellate counsel. So appeallate process stops until, someday, somehow, counsel is found to do the appeal.
Under binding US Supreme Court precedent, the defendant also has the right to have his conviction reviewed for errors that do not appear in the record. These have included: appointed defense counsel was drunk during the trial, appointed defense counsel failed to call any witnesses, including those who were in the courtroom ready to testify defendant was not at the scene of the crime. Prosecutors who introduced evidence known to be false, prosecutors who failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. The list can go on.
Although the defendant has the right to the habeus corpus review, most states do not provide any funding for defendant to have counsel. (The states, of course, fully fund the district attorney or attorney general who represents the state). So the habeus corpus actions linger in a legal limbo.
And, of course, once the appeallte review shows that there had been an error (and by the way, to result in even sending the case back for a new trial, the error has to be such that the reviewing court finds that a reasonable jury could or would have come to a different result), there will be further reviews.
In short, the main reason it takes so long is because the state will not adequately fund the defendant's absolute right to have the verdict and sentence reviewed. Not bleeding heart liberals.
2007-03-08 19:22:33 · answer #1 · answered by shoshidad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called Due Process. These convicted killers have the so-called right to discover new evidence, try for new trials, appeal for new sentences, etc., etc. The average death row inmate stays on death row for 8 years before being executed. It costs more in those 8 years to house a death row inmate than it does to house a "lifer" for 40 years. I'm all for the death penalty, but I have to agree that the amount of time those inmates spend living on our tax money has gotten ridiculous.
2007-03-08 18:40:34 · answer #2 · answered by The Apple Chick 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a law against cruel and unusual punishment. Even though they are murderers, the law says that their punishment must be carried out according to the state's laws. You can't just take them all out to a yard and shoot them one by one. How cruel would that be?
In many cases, death row inmates are exonerated for crimes they never committed in the first place because of DNA. DNA has freed many innocent prisoners waiting to die on death row. Had it not been for the slow moving process, they would be dead, and for what? For nothing!
The government has to set an example, and if they were to just butcher murderers, it would show that they don't care about humanity.
Your tax money is used for many things. Not just to keep death row inmates housed and fed. You would have to pay taxes regardless so get over it!
2007-03-08 19:51:34 · answer #3 · answered by His Angel 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They get too many appeals. I think 2 years after they have been convicted if they have not found any new evidence by then they should be executed. I do believe they should have the right to try to prove themselves innocent, especially if they did not actually do it. I have heard that it cost more to execute than to keep them in prison for life, but really, how much does one bullet cost...that's all it takes.
2007-03-08 19:03:29 · answer #4 · answered by Ryan's mom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I support the death penalty, I loathe the idea that innocent people might be sent to their deaths. I think that the current current appeal system is vital to help clear the names of the innocent. Think of how many wrongfully accused people got put to death (and served life sentences) before DNA evidence was used in trials. You would not believe how may people (accused of murder and other, lesser crimes) were released when DNA became the new standard instead of blood type, and samples were tested again. I would afford the people every opportunity to be sure that a person is guilty before sentencing them to death.
2007-03-08 18:39:24 · answer #5 · answered by Jack S 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
yeah, i dunno... i watched the Peterson thing on Dr Phil today and I was kinda thinking the same thing. He wasn't sentenced until 2 years ago. I dunno why they wait... maybe it gives time for if more evidence comes out so we can get people off if we made a mistake. But i kinda agree... if we've had thils long trial and you're sure you want to convict this guy and sentence him to death, just take him there and do it already... he wasn't sentenced to 5 years and death... he was sentenced to death. I'm not sure I like the death penalty, but for a state that's going to do it, just do it already.
2007-03-08 18:39:39 · answer #6 · answered by kmnmiamisax 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It allows the lawyers to stuff more tax dollars into their big pockets while going thru the motions of defending these human skidmarks. It has nothing to do with justice; it is just another way the legal profession robs the taxpayers of this nation blind.
2007-03-08 22:57:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The constitution and bleeding heart liberals. They seem to want to protect those who took an Innocent live or what have you. I guess the person on death row has more rights than the people they harmed. The death penalty would be more of a deterrent if it was used more efficiently. You get one appeal can't proof your case a second time you die.. period
2007-03-08 18:39:11 · answer #8 · answered by insd92104 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Due process of the law.
2007-03-08 18:35:51 · answer #9 · answered by Dr Dee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The liberal extremists, and particularly the liberal communist media do not believe in justice, and do not believe in personal responsibility.
They will always do everything they can to make sure people are never held responsible for their actions.
2007-03-08 18:33:21 · answer #10 · answered by Bryan _ 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋