- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
November 2011 Moms
*** Unpopular Opinions ***
This discussion has been closed.
Re: *** Unpopular Opinions ***
Additionally, here's a direct quote from your article: "Those states that leave the ultimate life-or-death decision to the judge may continue to do so..."
So, I'm not incorrect.
Basically, all that article says is that a judge can't whip a death sentence out of his @$$ "unless the jury has determined that factors exist justifying such a sentence." That doesn't mean that a judge doesn't decide the sentence.
You just can't admit to being wrong, right? Alabama is the only state with a judicial override. Therefore, unless a jury gives the green light, a judge cannt make the decision between life or death. They can choose a lesser punishment than death, but the cannot choose death unless the jury says so. Therefore the deciding factor does not belong to a judge or the government - it lies with the jury.
I don't disagree with anything you've said above except your last sentence. Perhaps you're just misunderstanding.
Back to everything I've said so far: Jury decides guilty or not guilty, jury can make a recommendation to the judge, the judge then decides sentencing.
As your article stated, the judge cannot decide a death penalty without it being recommended by a jury first. But the judge has the freedom to give the criminal a lesser sentence, if he/she chooses, even if the death penalty was recommended.
So, reiterating my point one more time, the jury does not decide the sentencing, the judge does-- the judge has the power to choose life or death for that person when he decides to go with a jury recommended death sentence (if there is one) or against it for a lesser punishment. The jury makes a recommendation-- they do not have the power to carry it out! Only the judge does.
(And judges are part of the government, you know that right?)
This is what I've said in my last 4 posts, this is what your article stated & this is what your own comments have stated!
(And BTW, I live in AL.)
ETA: I'm not sure how else to explain to you that the judge is the one who holds the criminal's life in his hands when he makes his ruling...not the jury. I guess you just don't see it. With that, I'm off to bed.
One additional thought: I feel like you're missing a really important distinction between a recommendation and a decision. My kid can recommend that we go to the zoo, but I'm the one who makes the decision about whether or not we go. My kid may have put the idea out there, but I'm the one with the power to make it happen.
Ok, now I'm really going to bed.
This is why I don't get the death penalty..how does dying "pay" for anything. They're gone, they don't GAF. They aren't sitting around saying "Damn I wish I hadn't killed that person than I wouldn't be dead right now." The death penalty pretty much absolves people of their crimes. Basically any other punishment would make them "pay" for their crimes much more so than dying since they would actually have to do something and think about the fact that they are doing that in punishment for their crime. The purpose of a punishment is to teaching something..dying teaches nothing.
I think you're missing my point. I don't even have a true opinion on the death penalty. But your original post said you disagree with it because you don't want the government to decided who lives and who dies. The vital piece of information you don't seem to be getting is that a judge cannot decide who dies, willy nilly. That was your initial problem and that is what you're not getting. A jury recommendation must be there for a judge to sentence death - so it's kind of more weighted than "let's go to the zoo."
But let's go with that analogy. Zoo = death...Ice cream=Life sentence. A judge cannot go to the zoo, if a jury doesn't say it's okay - even if he so badly more than anything wants to go to the zoo. A jury says, we can get ice cream or we can go to the zoo, but we (the jury) all really want go to the zoo. The judge can be a jerk and go to get ice cream - even though EVERYone wants to go to the zoo. But he can still only go to the Zoo if the jury originally decided it as one of the 2 options.You're trying to blame him for going to the Zoo, but it's really a group of jurors that told him to go there.
So - to me - your problem should be with the jury and the judicial process as opposed to the judge if you dislike that people can be sentenced to death... there is no death without the say so of the jury.
ETA an awesome analogy.
And just to point out - Why do you think that article was titled "Only Juries can impose death penalty, Supreme Court rules"? This decision was based on a judges ability to play god even though they may be politically or otherwise motivated. Yes, I'm aware that the judiciary branch is part of the government - it might be surprising, but I did in fact complete the 5th grade.
I feel like we're a little chicken and egg here and maybe that's why you're not understanding what I'm getting at.
LOL, now I want ice cream. Is 8am too early?
I think we're saying the same thing, we just disagree on who is to blame.
We both understand that the jury makes a recommendation & w/o that recommendation, the judge does not have the freedom to sentence a criminal to death. We also both agree that once the recommendation is made, the judge has the power to choose the sentencing-- they decide whether to assign the death penalty or to choose a life sentence.
Here's where we differ: You fault the jury for make the recommendation & believe that they are making a decision in the case. (And you're right that the topic of the death penalty wouldn't even be on the table without them.) I fault the judge, because when it comes to the death penalty, he/she has the power to say no... If the jury has recommended the death penalty & the judge chooses a life sentence instead, you call that "being a jerk"...I call it saving someone's life.
I'd be curious to see statistics about how often judges choose a life sentence when a jury has recommended the death penalty. The fact that there are so few death sentences handed out makes me think that it happens often, but I'm not sure. (If 60% of Americans support the death penalty, can I assume that roughly the same percentage of murder trials would end in a jury recommended death sentence? Yet, less than 2% of convicted murderers are sentenced to death.)
Actually, we are rewarding them for killing by giving them a free place to sleep, three solid meals a day, medical care, dental care, education, entertainment and exercise. How many honest, hard working Americans get that for free from the government?
Unless criminals start working as forced labor to actually pay for their crimes they are just leaching off society.
If it wasn't for the jury, the judge would not have to make that decision. If you want to take your blame to the end person, blame the actual executioner. The judge can tell him to flip the switch, but he can decide not to. That is basically just an extension of your argument.
It all comes down to the jury putting it on the table.
I wasn't sayin it's jerky to save someone's life. But anyway, the flaw I see in your logic is that a jury trial is supposed to render a decision that was decided by ones peers. The jury is supposed to represent what the population would Deem fair punishment for the crime committed. A judge to blatantly disregard a jury decision would be wrong. It would be called a bias.
I don't disagree with you fundamentally for opposing the d.p. but I disagree with you placing blame on the government. You're blaming the judge - why not blame the prosecutor (who establishes death as an option in the first place), and the jury who decides it, and the guy that chose to take the job flicking the switch. Don't they all have equal opportunity, just as a judge, to save a life?
The executioner is a government employee. (And I do place the blame on that person as well, which is why I say I have a problem with the government deciding who lives or dies. Furthermore, what kind of person has a f*cked up position like that as their job?! )
Again, back to the zoo anology. My kid can say he wants to go, but I'm the person who makes it happen, not him. (I could be the judge or the executioner in this scenario--both part of the government.)
I "blame" the DA who introduces the idea, the jury who recommends it, the judge who sentences it, and the correction officer who administers the lethal injection. I question the ethics of anyone who helps carry out this process. However, I hold the government officials in power who make this decision (Meaning: Choosing Yes or No, not merely recommend it) responsible for it. I fault them.
Jury selection is not performed by selecting the most intelligent, best educated, & most compassionate people. Law/Ethics/Criminal Justice/Corrections is rarely a juror's field of expertise. That's what the judge is for. And since judges are appointed by the governor or elected, they will not continue to sit on the bench if they are not sentencing fairly-- this does not, however, mean that it's required for a judge to sentence a case according to the jury's recommendation each & every time.
Stef (I'm done quoting), blaming the government is blaming society. Average Joe votes the government in, supports the legislation, sits on the jury and makes the decision. The judge just refines the decision.
If you like zoo analogies, it is like you (the people) telling your kid (the judge) there is a zoo, taking you kid to the zoo, then letting him choose to see the lions or tigers. You can't blame the kid for seeing the "wrong" animal after you did everything to get him to make that decision.
Sounds to me like your problem is with the judicial process then. Once again, I don't think it is appropriate to say the the government decides who lives and dies. Your logic is saying the same thing as my logic, you just choose to blame the government. If I were opposed to the death penalty, I would look at these same facts and blame a society that is 60% pro death penalty and find that society responsible for support of a "cruel" punishment. Only people have the power to incite change - we elect the lawmakers, we elect those who appoint judges.
That said, for the record, I am pro death penalty in most cases. If it costs more of my tax dollars to kill a rapist murder (that is truly guilty), that's a-ok with me.
Get outta my brain Sparkly!!!
I think that in many cases, Average Joe is an absolute idiot.
I'd love it if people who've made it into positions of power were not fools as well, but as we know, that is not always the case. Society is definitely part of the problem, as so many people are not registered to vote & do not participate in politics. And unfortunately for my case, those people (usually poor) tend to have liberal leanings.
I understand your anology-- but don't think it holds much weight as your two animals are equal options. Perhaps my kid should have to choose between watching an elephant get slaughtered or watching sea lions swim in their pool? If he chose watching the slaughter, I'd absolutely blame him for it. Bad decision! Death vs. a Life Sentence is not an equal punishment.
I think we may have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate the healthy debate!
Basically same response as Sparkly--
Society is definitely part of the problem, as so many people are not registered to vote & do not participate in politics. And unfortunately for my case, those people (usually poor) tend to have liberal leanings. If more of them were involved, it's likely that the 60% figure would be lower.
I think we may have to agree to disagree on who should be held responsible -- pretty sure we've argued it from every angle at this point-- but I appreciate the healthy debate!