Some of us have long been persuaded by cruder observations, such as the fact that, back when theft was punished by public hanging, the crowds watching the execution were at risk of having their purses snatched. For those who believe in the death penalty, the idea that it may have a deterrent effect is but one dubious arrow in a quiver full of rationalizations.
It has become increasingly evident that there are for too many loopholes and stall tactics combined with a grave lack of accountability all contributing to a blatantly weak legal system.
This is costing taxpayers an average of 30, dollars annually per inmate housed, and with more than 42, inmates being held between our 32 prisons alone, the financial burden lies heavily on the shoulders of taxpayers.
The consistency in this weak system has given more than enough just cause to criminals who break the law to no longer fear repercussion.
It infuriates me that in a system that allows you to plea bargain, buy or remorse your way out of placement in or out of facilities better maintained and equipped than the schools we send our children to, society as a whole is still hesitant to capitalize on our rights as citizens and punish these criminals appropriately.
Under current state law, cases where the death penalty has been decreed the Supreme Court will automatically review the case and may choose to either affirm conviction and death sentence, affirm conviction but reverse death sentence resulting in a retrial of the penalty phase or they may choose to reverse the entire conviction which would then cause a retrial of the entire case.
Those convictions that are upheld by the Supreme Court send these criminals to be held where the inmate then spends an average of nearly 10 years appealing their case, some as long as Since the average age of a condemned inmate is around 40, if successful in their appeals the inmate will be around years old.
If unsuccessful, the inmate still would have cost taxpayers an average ofdollars in their condemned time alone, an astronomical sum of money to reaffirm twice something already proven by the courts and confirmed by the people. Ironically enough, the cost of lethal injection is almost nominal; merely that of the sodium pentothal, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride used in conjunction with normal saline solution, if these appeals fail.
By reforming the appeals process in capital punishment California can overcome the population and financial struggles we are faced with and paying for in relation to our corrections system literally, daily.
I propose a radical reform of the entire capital punishment appeals process from a few different angles while keeping some basic principles in place. There would be increased accountability in the legal system, greatly improving stability and by closing some of the loopholes we would effectively save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars each year that could be better delegated.
I would like to see the three-year limit imposed on each condemned inmate from said day forward, with all new limitations in place.
Any new cases submitted would be subject to new law and any submissions of requests outside this law should be denied immediately.
There would be a no tolerance policy imposed upon initial sentencing detailing this law and all rights included and agreed upon during this sentencing, not to be repealed outside the specified guidelines. The process for conviction of a capital crime should be streamlined as well to maximize the appeals limitations.
If the party in question committed a capital offense and is eligible for penalization for that crime and you have determined that they in fact have committed that crime, then the punishment should be rendered.
The Supreme Court has the option to re-evaluate the case and overturn a ruling if they feel it is unjust in any way so by eliminating the long-term imprisonment option from the table we are effectively cutting deliberation time and cost to taxpayers in the event of a guilty verdict.
The long-term sentencing would be better reserved for other appropriately punishable crimes under lesser charges. Also, since the inmate would be guaranteed the right to two appeals in a three-year span, there would be no reason to believe that a juror would in fact hold back a guilty verdict for any reason other than belief that the party is not guilty, ensuring a fairer trial.
By cutting down on abuse of the system, increasing accountability on all levels and stripping the system down to the bare minimum for allowances to the inmates in relation to privileges, we can send a strong message to our communities.
ACommit a crime that is punishable under capital law and we will hold you to the utmost appropriate sentence and give you no more rights than we are required to constitutionally. Making it less worthwhile for the criminally intent to commit these heinous crimes is just one more great reason for appeal limitations to be mandated on capital cases and exactly what I intend to do.
The process for implementing a change as monumentally controversial as this is sure to be, will take much developmental and strategic planning.
I would start with public awareness. Since the legwork behind getting my reform initiative passed will take a while, I want to make sure the communities are well informed of statistics that apply directly to them before they go to vote.
In communities where crime rate is low and income is average, citizens may be interested to know that a good 5. In communities where the crime rate is high, some of the money apportioned to prisons could be used for prevention programs, education, and after school activities.
By gaining the support of a diverse portion of the population it will be easier to get the signatures needed to place this initiative on the November ballot.
Once I have gotten all of the required signatures I can move forward with my plan. After I have gotten all of the factored signatures I need I would take the petition documents directly to the state capital where I would turn themHere are five reasons why that's the wrong way to think about the death penalty.
It's time to end capital punishment everywhere.
"An eye for an eye"? Here are five reasons why that's the wrong way to think about the death penalty. Five reasons to abolish the death penalty.
metin2sell.com / photo. 8 . The execution, by hanging, of Yakub Memon for his part in the Mumbai bombings invites us to revisit the vexed issue of capital punishment.
Few topics incite such moral passion and controversy. Boris Johnson And The Death Penalty. Our politicians and the police are quite safe by hiding behind the Lisbon Treaty and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Or so they think. there is a different clause making provision for implementing capital punishment. Jan 14, · Thus, assuming arguendo capital punishment itself is not contrary to international norms of human decency, its use as a regular punishment for substantial number of crimes as opposed to extraordinary punishment for extraordinary crimes .
Opponents of capital punishment who accuse the government of committing murder by implementing the death penalty fail to see the irony of using Exodus 20 to define murder but ignoring Exodus 21, which specifically teaches that government is to punish the murderer.
/5(10). Jun 01, · Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim.
FlameHorse is an absolute pacifist who loves animals, but eats burgers.