Posted on 12/13/2005 6:36:19 AM PST by John Conlin
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not just reject Stanley Tookie Williams' request for clemency, he aggressively attacked the central element of the former gang leader's case: Williams, he said, had never really reformed.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I have no problem with capital punishment. All I insist on is absolute certainty regarding the guilt of the person to be executed.
HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE KILLERS THAT CAN'T BE PROVEN GUILTY?
My feeling is, kill everyone and you are bound to get an occasional guilty person.
"My feeling is, kill everyone and you are bound to get an occasional guilty person."
God will sort out who's guilty and innocent and assign them to the appropriate dominions.
If they are not guilty they are not guilty, that is the law
But we should take this concept one step further and start killing everyone willy-nilly in the street.
Especially Willy Nilly. I hate him.
If they are not guilty they are not guilty, that is the law
Arnold might as well stay in politics from now on. No Hollywood producer or celebrity will ever work with him again, except maybe Mel Gibson.
Why, do you know any killers that have gotten away with murder? Like OJ?
I have no problem with the standard "within a reasonable doubt" being used for conviction at the trial phase.
At the sentencing phase, however, the standard for execution should be absolute certainty. After reading Gov. Schwarzeneggar's review of the evidence against 'tookie,' I'd say that the evidence was so compelling that there is absolute certainty that he is the murderer.
OJ Simpson was a killer who couldn't be proven guilty. He is not imprisoned. I wish he were.
if the jury says guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then they have been proven guilty. If not, then they are freed and may be re-tried.
I'm not suggesting the system is perfect, but the short answer to your post..
I have to disagree:
The standards for a conviction of murder should not determine the punishment. Either a person is guilty or is not guilty, period. It's aggravating factors that should determine the sentence.
I may kill a guy and they can prove it in court.
I'm convicted, but at my sentencing, they look at both aggravating and mitigating factors, such as;
- crime of passion?
- deliberation or intent?
- maliciousness of the act (really bloody and gruesome?)?
- actions of the deceased?
With any crime, you want to be certain before you convict. And, it's only natural to want to be sure before you sentence some one to death.
Honestly, I really don't care whether they reform. That has nothing to do with the crime they committed, which is why they received the punishment in the first place. It might be an interesting aside, but their degree of induced remorse has no effect on the life (lives?) they have taken.
There really is no good reason to reject the death penalty for any killing, other than accidental ones.
The victim isn't brought back just because it's a crime of passion. No one is really impressed that I beat you a little and killed you or beat you a lot and killed you. Either way the victim remains dead.
The only thing I'm interested in before we execute anyone is absolute certainty that we've got the right person.
There clearly must be a difference between the trial phase and the sentencing phase. Before the execution of anyone, the prosecutor must show by irrefutable logic that the convicted person is the right person. You don't get 2nd chances to get it right with executions.
Revisiting the logic and ruling of the original trial means, essentially, a new trial that's conducted solely by the sentencing judge or by the Governor offering clemency.
Facts and guilt are determined at the original trial.
Errors in the the interpretation of the law and the procedure (technical) of the trail are determined on appeal.
Asking the prosecutor to revisit the trial at sentencing is asking him to re-present his case, "just to be sure." I don't believe prosecutors are asked to do that. What they're asked to do is present the aggravating factors (and testimony) that would help the sentencing judge choose among the alternative punishments. Same goes for the defense when asking for leniency.
Welcome to FR, OJ juror. And please stop joking, we're serious here - this place is not the "Greatest Judicial System in the World".
I'm referring to what actually happened, not to what should have happened. Like it or not, that was the result. :>)
There are no 2nd chances once an execution has taken place.
What system would you design to absolutely prevent the execution of an innocent man? (Note: one eligible for a lesser sentence is not an innocent.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.