481–490 of 546 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
Depends on if you are an originalist or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I heard another interesting thought experiment on this topic recently. It said there should be a referendum about whether to keep (or adopt) the death penalty, but the names of everyone who voted for allowing the death penalty would be recorded in a list. Then, whenever someone sentenced to death was later found to be innocent (or pardoned), a random name on the list of "Yes" voters would be picked to be killed in pl…
I enjoyed this thought experiment, but isn't it sort of a false equivalence argument? Wouldn't it make more sense as a thought experiment if only "Yes" voters could be executed only if and when convicted of a crime deserving of capital punishment?
The point of the thought experiment is that innocent people are being murdered by the state from time to time for crimes they did not personally commit.
The purpose is essentially "if you are willing to put enough trust in the state to get it right every single time in capital cases, then shouldn't it follow that you be willing to put your own life on the line in the even that the state turns out to be wrong?"
They don't believe it would ever happen to them. Support for the death penalty is support for the state to have the power to end your own life, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know how you could replace the jurors but I think they're only as good as the rest of the system. I mean, if they don't get to hear or see certain evidence because it was deemed non-permissible or it was hidden or destroyed, they can't make a good decision. Not to mention at one point we had no DNA evidence. We relied on junk science with bite marks and shoe prints and other things. Although there are indeed…
I think the suggestion is that not having a death penalty reduces the harm of incorrect decisions
We shouldn't tolerate either if innocent.
I think the main reason to end the death penalty is different: capital punishment is a very dangerous power for any nation to have over its inhabitants. Many of us are accustomed to living in stable democracies. Yet how easily and quickly could any of them become a totalitarian state or a reign of terror, where innocent people (especially activists and dissidents) are executed on false charges? Contemporary nations s…
>the ones that essentially allow street executions by the police. This is America and it needs to change.
I think the main reason to end the death penalty is different: capital punishment is a very dangerous power for any nation to have over its inhabitants. Many of us are accustomed to living in stable democracies. Yet how easily and quickly could any of them become a totalitarian state or a reign of terror, where innocent people (especially activists and dissidents) are executed on false charges? Contemporary nations s…
Why? Tyranny? (As per the rest of your note).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. I’m a crunchy hippie on criminal justice, but I’ve also seen these cases first hand working for an appellate judge. Prosecutors go after cases that are open and shut. You wouldn’t believe how much evidence there is in a typical case that doesn’t go to trial. They have the guy on CCTV with stolen goods in his car and cell phone records of fencing. Innocence Pr…
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials. It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials. It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcem…
It's a little strange to me to think that the system would be working optimally if most people went to trial. A very big reason you don't take your criminal case to trial is if the prosecutors have you dead to rights, and the risk to reward is bad. If most people went to trial, that'd suggest that prosecutors are taking a lot of fliers on cases that they don't have strong evidence on. Which seems like... a bad thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a little strange to me to think that the system would be working optimally if most people went to trial. A very big reason you don't take your criminal case to trial is if the prosecutors have you dead to rights, and the risk to reward is bad. If most people went to trial, that'd suggest that prosecutors are taking a lot of fliers on cases that they don't have strong evidence on. Which seems like... a bad thing?
The issue is that to a jury, being in the defendant's seat is strike one, having a cop testify against you is strike two... it doesn't take much to convict the innocent if a DA and the police start pushing for it.
To amplify Paul's point: The legal standard in all criminal trials is "Beyond a reasonable doubt": > The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. And yet, DNA testing has exonerated man…
> The system of trial-by-peers is flawed with a measurable error rate. I've been listening to the podcast Court Junkie (not to be confused with "Crime Junkie"; long story...), and this was my main takeaway as well. The podcast is great because it is almost entirely audio excerpts from actual murder trials, with some extra narration to tie it together. It made me realize my understanding of trial-by-jury was formulate…
The money doesn't come from legal analysis at all; frankly many were not very bright on legal issues -- that's what second-chairs and legal experts are for. They all, without exception, were fantastically entertaining, funny, weird, charismatic people.
It's an important takeaway for life in general. The money follows people who are good at emotions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. I’m a crunchy hippie on criminal justice, but I’ve also seen these cases first hand working for an appellate judge. Prosecutors go after cases that are open and shut. You wouldn’t believe how much evidence there is in a typical case that doesn’t go to trial. They have the guy on CCTV with stolen goods in his car and cell phone records of fencing. Innocence Pr…
> Most people plead out because they’re ridiculously guilty. Most people plead out because they can't afford expensive trials. It's also a rational choice when prosecutors promise that they'll throw the book at you if you go to trial, and it's often your word against the word of cops, prosecutors and the expensive expert witnesses they can afford to hire but you can't. Juries and judges tend to side with law enforcem…
Instead of recycling conventional wisdom, head over to your local federal court and sit in on some sentencing hearings (these are public). There will be a plea colloquy with the accused and the prosecutor will lay out all the supporting evidence. It’s quite eye opening.