[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s not really the government deciding that though. It’s a jury that convicts. Yes, ultimately the judge determines the punishment, but not until regular ol Americans convict. [/quote]
Not actually. My lawyer friend told me that probably less than 10% of cases make it to court. Most are settled as plea bargains because juries are so unpredictable that nobody including the prosecution wants to deal with them. This is one of the major reasons IMHO, that there are so many wrongful convictions in the American system. This also encourages prosecutors to vastly overcharge since they are thinking not in terms of winning those charges, but using them as part of later negotiations. They want to put you in a position that running the risk of a jury trial is sheer folly and by and large, they are very good at it.
– jj[/quote]
I am talking specifically about the death penalty, which you can only get through convict by a jury.
The scenario you presented is plausible, but most likely the exception than the rule. In the scenario you describe, a woman beaten and strangled is a far cry from a drug crime attacking your civil liberties. I also question whether a prosecutor would consider the death penalty when DNA evidence is not conclusive, especially in this day and age. A questionable eye-witness, with sketchy DNA evidence, for a murder charge ? I dunno, it would have to be a very aggressive prosecutor.
Most drug offenders are low-level, non-violent types, which is why a “War on them” was declared. Why a war on drugs ? Because a war on rapists and child molesters would have a very small population incarcerated, yet going after drug offenders is the fastest way to expand the CJS.
The CJS secures employment for prisons, jails, sheriffs, cops, rehab facilities, probation/parole officers, halfway houses, judges, bailiffs, US Marshals, and private correctional facilities. It also allowed them to form unions who can lobby politicians for even more power to lock up more people. Add that to a recidivism rate of maybe 60%, and it all but ensures a steady rate of cattle.
If you want to know how powerful the prison guards’s Union can be, they are given “walk time pay” for walking from the parking lot to inside the facility, not to mention a law not searching the guards who smuggle in cell phones for inmates. For maybe $200, I could get an old school flip phone from a guard, while an iPhone might be around $500. No one talks, and no one cares, as long as the money gets paid there will be no interruption.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s not really the government deciding that though. It’s a jury that convicts. Yes, ultimately the judge determines the punishment, but not until regular ol Americans convict. [/quote]
In theory you are correct; however if you have followed the manner in which instructions are issued to a jury today, the decision is all but made prior to deliberations. I would love to serve; but when I tell the judge I would not be morally able to subsitute their version of right and wrong for my own I am immediately dismissed.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
It’s not really the government deciding that though. It’s a jury that convicts. Yes, ultimately the judge determines the punishment, but not until regular ol Americans convict. [/quote]
In theory you are correct; however if you have followed the manner in which instructions are issued to a jury today, the decision is all but made prior to deliberations. I would love to serve; but when I tell the judge I would not be morally able to subsitute their version of right and wrong for my own I am immediately dismissed. [/quote]
The scenario you presented is plausible, but most likely the exception than the rule. In the scenario you describe, a woman beaten and strangled is a far cry from a drug crime attacking your civil liberties.[/quote]
True. The point though is that the methods they started using in the War on Drugs, such as a great deal of armed force at all times, disregard for the 4th amendment, intimidation of witnesses etc. have been found to be so effective at getting convictions they are now applied outside of drug raids.
[quote] I also question whether a prosecutor would consider the death penalty when DNA evidence is not conclusive, especially in this day and age. A questionable eye-witness, with sketchy DNA evidence, for a murder charge ? I dunno, it would have to be a very aggressive prosecutor.
[\quote]
Threatening with the absolute maximum to get you to cooperate is just good practice. Didn’t say that capital charges were eventually filed in my example.
[quote]
Most drug offenders are low-level, non-violent types, which is why a “War on them” was declared. Why a war on drugs ? Because a war on rapists and child molesters would have a very small population incarcerated, yet going after drug offenders is the fastest way to expand the CJS.
[\quote]
Have to disagree here. The Salem Witch trials are probably the defining moment in American public moralizing and inform on other efforts like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. The mistake is assuming that laws stop actions. This is why my state (Illinois) until very recently would charge you with a felony for attempting suicide. Someone said we had to stop suicide and lawmakers will happily pass a law. The reality is that someone who is depressed is not going to be helped by throwing them in a prison and destroying their life. The problem is not that someone decided to make the CJS all powerful and trample on the citizens it was supposed to protect, just that the laws that were passed did nothing to address the supposed issue because they were wrongly aimed. Then more laws were passed to fix this situation and to enforce those, the CSJ had to grow. Look at The size of the FBI in 1918 (year before Prohibition) and in 1930. Huge growth because federal laws created the mafia.
The War on Drugs was billed as being the definitive way to end drug abuse in America. All resources were thrown into it and no effort was spared. Intellectual shills like Steve Levitt who made a career from just bad research and worse interpretation were quoted. In his case, he made the claim that since the average criminal commits 16 crimes, extremely long jail terms will stop crime. This was the justification from an expert. Problem is he made that up and we all know that now, but it was cited as the reason for some of the most drastic sentences around. More to the point, the rise and fall of drug violence is almost exactly a chronicle of the economics of crack. States that did not enact draconian laws had roughly the same crime rates. The point is that the CSJ had a small impact on actually stopping drugs but had a huge impact on how law is applied. Criminalizing drug possession (in Europe this is treated as a health issue and quite successfully too) made a permanent underclass in the US.
[quote]
The CJS secures employment for prisons, jails, sheriffs, cops, rehab facilities, probation/parole officers, halfway houses, judges, bailiffs, US Marshals, and private correctional facilities. It also allowed them to form unions who can lobby politicians for even more power to lock up more people. Add that to a recidivism rate of maybe 60%, and it all but ensures a steady rate of cattle.
[\quote]
Let us compare the recidivism rate with another war – the War on Poverty. The claim there was that if we throw the full might of the US behind ending poverty, we can do this. It was touted that welfare payments would only be needed for a couple of decades and would fall off. Eventually the program would just die off as poverty disappears. What happened was the regulating the poor (qualifying for benefits, getting them, proving you remain poor) ended up subsidizing poverty so that it will never end, at least with government assistance. We now have a permanently impoverished class. The same dynamic is working for convicts. If you go to prison you will probably go back. You have few options in your life after that. Sure if you really are a loser criminal watching you and interfering with your life non-stop might keep you out of trouble. If you are honest and trying to get on with your life, you keep getting shot out of the saddle.
And a couple of prison guards I know say that a lot of prisoners start using hard drugs in prison. Since there is nothing to do, drugs are attractive. As long as you stay quiet while f-ed up, the guards are all in favor of your using them.
The scenario you presented is plausible, but most likely the exception than the rule. In the scenario you describe, a woman beaten and strangled is a far cry from a drug crime attacking your civil liberties.
[/quote]
True. The point though is that the methods they started using in the War on Drugs, such as a great deal of armed force at all times, disregard for the 4th amendment, intimidation of witnesses etc. have been found to be so effective at getting convictions they are now applied outside of drug raids.
[quote] I also question whether a prosecutor would consider the death penalty when DNA evidence is not conclusive, especially in this day and age. A questionable eye-witness, with sketchy DNA evidence, for a murder charge ? I dunno, it would have to be a very aggressive prosecutor.
[\quote]
Threatening with the absolute maximum to get you to cooperate is just good practice. Didn’t say that capital charges were eventually filed in my example.
[quote]
Most drug offenders are low-level, non-violent types, which is why a “War on them” was declared. Why a war on drugs ? Because a war on rapists and child molesters would have a very small population incarcerated, yet going after drug offenders is the fastest way to expand the CJS.
[\quote]
Have to disagree here. The Salem Witch trials are probably the defining moment in American public moralizing and inform on other efforts like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. The mistake is assuming that laws stop actions. This is why my state (Illinois) until very recently would charge you with a felony for attempting suicide. Someone said we had to stop suicide and lawmakers will happily pass a law. The reality is that someone who is depressed is not going to be helped by throwing them in a prison and destroying their life. The problem is not that someone decided to make the CJS all powerful and trample on the citizens it was supposed to protect, just that the laws that were passed did nothing to address the supposed issue because they were wrongly aimed. Then more laws were passed to fix this situation and to enforce those, the CSJ had to grow. Look at The size of the FBI in 1918 (year before Prohibition) and in 1930. Huge growth because federal laws created the mafia.
The War on Drugs was billed as being the definitive way to end drug abuse in America. All resources were thrown into it and no effort was spared. Intellectual shills like Steve Levitt who made a career from just bad research and worse interpretation were quoted. In his case, he made the claim that since the average criminal commits 16 crimes, extremely long jail terms will stop crime. This was the justification from an expert. Problem is he made that up and we all know that now, but it was cited as the reason for some of the most drastic sentences around. More to the point, the rise and fall of drug violence is almost exactly a chronicle of the economics of crack. States that did not enact draconian laws had roughly the same crime rates. The point is that the CSJ had a small impact on actually stopping drugs but had a huge impact on how law is applied. Criminalizing drug possession (in Europe this is treated as a health issue and quite successfully too) made a permanent underclass in the US.
[quote]
The CJS secures employment for prisons, jails, sheriffs, cops, rehab facilities, probation/parole officers, halfway houses, judges, bailiffs, US Marshals, and private correctional facilities. It also allowed them to form unions who can lobby politicians for even more power to lock up more people. Add that to a recidivism rate of maybe 60%, and it all but ensures a steady rate of cattle.
[\quote]
Let us compare the recidivism rate with another war – the War on Poverty. The claim there was that if we throw the full might of the US behind ending poverty, we can do this. It was touted that welfare payments would only be needed for a couple of decades and would fall off. Eventually the program would just die off as poverty disappears. What happened was the regulating the poor (qualifying for benefits, getting them, proving you remain poor) ended up subsidizing poverty so that it will never end, at least with government assistance. We now have a permanently impoverished class. The same dynamic is working for convicts. If you go to prison you will probably go back. You have few options in your life after that. Sure if you really are a loser criminal watching you and interfering with your life non-stop might keep you out of trouble. If you are honest and trying to get on with your life, you keep getting shot out of the saddle.
And a couple of prison guards I know say that a lot of prisoners start using hard drugs in prison. Since there is nothing to do, drugs are attractive. As long as you stay quiet while f-ed up, the guards are all in favor of your using them.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So who is in opposition to this?
Not going to get up in arms over that if it happens. I don’t cry when we use the death penalty, I just think it doesn’t make logical sense to turn to it in light of the known flaws our justice system.
Life in prison or death though isn’t making anything better for the victims of Boston.
[quote]jj-dude wrote:
I have seen LEOs in action and know that they brag about manufacturing evidence to get some scumbag locked up forever.
– jj [/quote]
What were you actions upon learning this? [/quote]
“Blink blink Oh really?” The case was an officer who stopped someone they knew was a bad person. He was on parole (drug possession which gets a minimum sentence of 5 years). The officer in question took his license, destroyed it in front of him and arrested him on driving without a license. This revoked the guy’s parole and put him back in prison for quite a few months. No trial or hearing was needed. Of course the guy protested and that went no where. Since it had happened a few years before, what could I do but file it away under the heading of “this is what a cop can do if he feels like it”? And yes this was the officer who did it that told me the tale. He didn’t like the guy since he’d had some run-ins with him before his conviction (not as a LEO) so figured he was doing a public service.
– jj
Edit: I should point out that he related other stories that were much more severe that he had heard of. [/quote]
Ok, before I respond, a show a hands who thinks this “friend” is being truthful.
Anyone?
I know everyone loves to kick around cops and how they are the terrible abusers of power, but I just want to see if anyone believes crap like this before I respond.
And when I do, I need some facts:
State and year of incident
City or town of traffic stop
Preview: Parole for possession? Nope… If he got 5 years in state, it’s not for possession.
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
So who is in opposition to this?
Not going to get up in arms over that if it happens. I don’t cry when we use the death penalty, I just think it doesn’t make logical sense to turn to it in light of the known flaws our justice system.
Life in prison or death though isn’t making anything better for the victims of Boston. [/quote]
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Stick him in the hole for the next 60 years. Let him go all batshit crazy like Kevin Bacon did in that movie.
Never see sunlight again. [/quote]
There is a difference in being against the death penalty for moral reasons and being against it because they will suffer more by being alive.[/quote]
True.
I’m not hot for the death penalty for moral reasons. (If something in my personal life happened, I can’t say my mind wouldn’t change on this though.)
In this particular person’s instance however, if he is guilty, I have no issues stating I would prefer to see him suffer a fate worse than death.
If that is a contradiction, so be it… I can’t reconcile it, and I have no justification for my response other than emotion. I’m not using logic, reason, nothing. I’m thinking like my previously liberal self, as in I’m not thinking, I’m feeling.