^
So you think all murder convictions get to the truth?

Do you spend much time in the real world?

^
^
http://fromthefoothills.files.wordpr...-aid.jpg?w=500

I'd federalize the crime of murder, and make capital punishment manditory. wow! http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/eek.png

I think the vast majority do. The ones that don't are usually a combination of incompetent/insufficent defense and prosecutorial misconduct. And if the former is sufficient it should be able to expose the latter. In the current system, to little is done at the original trial, and then there is a endless series of appeals. I'd put more into the original trial (and make the system more consistant by having all murder trials held at the federal level under federal law.)

If the issues is incorrect convictions, identify why these happen and fix the system. That's an entirely separate issue from whether a properly convicted murderer should be executed.

I don't think you can ever totally eliminate the mistakes when they happen, no matter the system. Nothing is perfect and even one innocent person put to death by the state is horribly unacceptable. That said, I do believe there are some cases proven without a doubt with overwhelming physical evidence and a crime that deserves the ultimate punishment, but the death penalty should be an extremely rare thing- certainly not the norm.

"Vast majority" has no meaning.

So give us a number. How many innocent people are you comfortable with executing: 20%, 15%, 10%? Just trying to get an idea of what sort of society you want us to become.

And while you're at it, ask a judge what would happen to court calendars if every homicide was a capital offense.

How many innocent people are you willing to lock up for life? On the flip side, how many murderers do you want to put on the street to prevent an innocent man from being convicted.

As far as dealing with the court load, I'd create new courts at the federal district level, that would be designed to have the capacity to deal with the projected caseload.

Are you saying that executing innocent people is preferable to life imprisonment?

On the flip side, how many murderers do you want to put on the street to prevent an innocent man from being convicted. So you want to change a cornerstone of the US legal system. Use a wide net that might catch some of the innocent, but it's OK as long as you get all the guilty.

Like I said in my last post - just trying to get an idea of where you want us to go as a society. It's not pretty.

As far as dealing with the court load, I'd create new courts at the federal district level, that would be designed to have the capacity to deal with the projected caseload. You almost always post about cutting spending on just about everything, and now that I give you a difficult problem, your answer is to throw money at it.

You mean like Russia going after those guys in the church with all those hostages?

Who cares that their tactic killed a few hostages, they got the rest out, right?

BTW, the one thing that ALWAYS gets me about this is all the "Catholics" that are so whole heartedly in support of the Death penalty.

Maybe some of these guys should actually READ what their prophet taught before they start declaring themselves one thing and practice another.

And the argument about "putting murderers on the street" isn't supported by any data.

In homicide rate among states:

New Jersey ranks 29th
New York 30
Mass 39

Alabama 3rd
Georgia 10th
Florida 12th
Texas 22nd