Just recently, 100 death row inmates in San Francisco had their sentences converted to a lifetime in prison. This was based on a decision made by the Supreme Court in 2002, stating that no judge was able to sentence a person to death, that it could only be done by a jury. However, it did not say whether or not it applied to any felons sentenced to death, prior to the S.C.'s decision. Due to the controversy on the issue, a vote was held, with the end tally of 8-3, in favor of having the sentences converted. Here's the full article: Full Story

What do you think about this issue? Should the sentences have been converted as they were, or should they have been kept the same as before?

they should have been converted. it was likely felt by the justices that having a judge and not a jury decide on the death sentence was a violation of due process, and it was. what would prevent a judge from sentencing people he doesn't like to death? how is that due process.

How do you know he didn't like the people? That's simply an assumption. You can't reasonably expect that the various judges were biased against all 100 people. And jury or not, you can't condemn people to death without sufficient evidence of their guiltiness.

Seeing as the decision didn't specifically refer to prior handed-out sentences, it wasn't in any way a necessity to take action. If any action was definitely neede, the felons should've been put back on trial, this time being reviewed by a jury.

I didn't mean to imply that, but it is a possibility that it COULD happen. lets say a judge (hypothetical) doesn't like mexicans, and a mexican has been found guilty of a capital offense. the judge decides that he should be killed instead of getting life. what would stop a judge from doing this? nothing.now, let's say that this happens to an innocent man. one innocent person being killed is too many. with a jury you get 12 people looking at the facts and deciding if he should die. the 12 need to reach consensus, or he doesn't die (and it should only be an option if the person is 100% guilty. any doubts or slightest proof of innocence and it isn't even an option)

Yet another case of judicial activism...

I can't see anything in the Constitution requiring a jury to pronounce sentence. I do realize that it seems more fair, but to be honest, the chances of 12 people being willing to sentence someone to death is pretty slim, except in the most extreme circumstances. As long as the death penalty is upheld as Constitutional, I simply cannot fathom the SC imposing its views of what constitutes "due process" on lower courts.

"Due process" simply means that the procedures are written ahead of time, and then followed. The procedures are not made up during a proceeding and are not changed during a proceding. That is basic fairness. Is the SC really saying that 12 people chosen pretty much at random have a greater concept of justice than a single judge (or panel of judges) that has seen many cases like this? The (overly lengthy) appeals process is there for a reason, as a check on "rogue judges".

I have to agree with amlord. This is how I see it:

Who is the better judge of punishment?

12 people that may or may not have ever been in a courtroom before that time and their knowledge of the trial law is whatever was just told to them before the trial?

Or...

A judge that has gone through law school, appointed/elected to his/her current position as an authority on the law and has most likely seen hundreds if not thousands of cases to compare the heinousness of this crime to the others in terms of punishment?

It's a no brainer in my opinion. As amlord said, appeals are there for the checks and balances.

Sorry, but I can't agree with any of you. All the death sentences should be thrown out.

It's simply inconceivable to me that would put a person's life in the hands of lawyers. Most would lie when the truth is easier.

Now, Mark Furman, infamous OJ detective, wrote a book on the subject. And without stating how I have said it, said the same thing. He beleived in the death penalty until he researched Colorado's (i think it was that state) cases and walked away a changed man. Everything was full of lies and deciet (go figger). Just because someone is a prosecutor, it doesn't make tham any less of a lying lawyer.

The premise of executing someone for a horrific crime is sound in my opinion. I'm for the theory. But in reality, no way. I wouldn't put two lawyers in charge of a goldfish's life.

Well, Dayton, I'd have to say that that's just being overly-stereotypical. I happen to know many lawyers very well (seeing as my father is one) and none of them are the type of person who would deliberately lie, sending a person to their death, so that they would gain money. Real life isn't always like TV sitcoms and bad jokes about the corruption amongst the so-called, greedy, sneaky, lawyers. Almost every time a person is sent to deathrow, you can be positive that there was plenty of evidence pointing to the accused's guiltiness.

And it is this word "almost" which is precisely the reason why the death penalty needs to be eliminated altogether. The decision was right. Judges may impose the sentence, but to be given the option of capital punishment, a unanimous jury of the accused's societal peers is necessary.

Amlord and Ataal have both made the point though, that 12 random people might not necessarily know the legal system as well as a judge does, and almost definitely won't.

Except that that's not the case at all, in reality.

In Illinois two years ago, after a thorough review of all persons on death row, Governor Ryan outright released about 20 prisoners from death row back to the streets. He suspended the death penalty for all of the other prisoners there.

Why? Because his task force found that the evidence in those 20 cases was either coerced illegally (read tortured out of suspects) or outright fabricated by police and prosecutors. The rest of the executions were suspended, because he couldn't be sure that other cases were still there, that had not been discovered, and he did not want to be responsible for sending an innocent man to the electric chair.

Just because a man has been arrested, or even prosecuted, doesn't mean that he is guilty. Even if there is no malfeasance by the police or prosecutors, mistakes happen.

I think it better that if jury trials make it even more difficult to get the death penalty for a crime, that that should take precedence over one judge making the determination.

You know, if capital punishment were actually a deterrent to violent crime, I'd be willing to accept the innocent deaths. Someone who is innocent is going to die regardless. It can be the person shot and killed at a convenience store robbery or the guy wrongly convicted of the murder. One of the two is going to go. Of course, this doesn't mean the person wrongly convicted has a life worth less than the person shot and killed at a convenience store, but the value is in possibly saving the life of someone else. In other words, if one person falsely convicted died but saved the lives of 10 others, I wouldn't be as concerned. Obviously, it's all a tragedy, but until nobody is dying, this is all we have. Unfortunatly, someone will die and we can't get out of it.

But it hasn't been shown to be a deterrent, so it's only another innocent life taken away when mistakes happen. Other than the financial benefits, there is no good reason to execute someone other than to satisfy our thirst for revenge.

Wait a minute Dayton, you are actually saying that killing someone who is actually innocent of a crime is justified, just because we all die sometime? And maybe executing this innocent man will help deter someone else?

Under your scenario above, "one of the two" is not going to go, both of them are, and neither one commited a crime. But the State is going to execute one of them, unjustifiably.

Even if capital punishment was a deterrent to crime, the State has a duty to ensure the safety of innocent lives, not the taking of them.



So, when "mistakes happen" in your name (after all, you are one of the People vs Criminal in the state's complaint), you just tell the family of the innocent man, what? Oops, we made a mistake, but what the heck, it's only another innocent life, so get over it. ??

If it's not shown to be a deterent, and if the possibility exists that we are executing innocent men and women, then the death penalty needs to be abolished. Especially, since there is no "financial benefit" either. The Death Penalty is expensive. According to Amnesty International

So, if "mistakes" and outright fraud by the state doesn't keep innocent lives from being executed, and if there is no financial incentive, why keep it?

I believe the choice was a sound one. IF some of those inmates were innocent then their lives have been spared. As for the guilty ones, they can sit and think about what they've done until they die of natural causes. I personally am not against the Death Penalty, I just think it's more appropriate punishment to force a criminal of such magnitude to sit behind bars for years and years and years............. (let 'em think about what they've done until the day they die)

You can't execute someone after the manner of his sentencing is ruled unconstitutional.

Well, visiting the website for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and gathering some figures from around the site tells a different story:

The average stay on death row lasts 10.43 years (3807 days), and it costs $61.58 per day to house individuals there. In addition, the actual execution costs $86.08, bringing our total to $234,521.14.

Now, to house an inmate not on death row, the state spends $44.01 per day. If a person stays in prison for life, that comes out to $289,145.70 for an 18 year stay all the way to $771,055.20 for a 48 year stay. I picked those years to figure at random, but I think most people would agree that those are pretty conceivable amounts of time for someone to live in prison if they were sentenced to life!

Now, if it's cheaper to get rid of murderers than to allow them to sit around for many years with no hope of rehabilitating them and re-introducing them into society, why in the heck should we keep them? I will agree that sometimes innocent people are wrongly convicted, but is it any better to put the innocent people in prison for the rest of their lives to live with the guilty? That is the only other alternative, isn't it?

In addition, punishment is not always about deterring others, it is about making people that have already committed crimes pay for what they have done. People who commit murder are not normally rational and have no concern about the consequences, so no deterrent would be effective anyway.

In another thread, I was studying whether or not the death penalty was a deterrent. I discovered that over a period of 25 years, the FBI had been asked to assist in approximately 20,000 homicide investigations in an average year. Over the same time period, we executed about 30 prisoners a year. It's far more likely to become a deterrent if we convict 20,000 people a year of homicide, than if we continue to execute someone every couple of weeks...

As it is, the death penalty is mostly a punishment for being male, poor, and undereducated. It is inconsistent with how most of the civilized world treats their citizens. It is an expensive, time consuming method of punishment. Even for those sentenced to death, there is about a 50% chance that they will die a natural death, have their conviction overturned, or have their sentence commuted.

If the Supreme Court fails to ban it as cruel and unusual; Congress should act soon to ban it outright. The alternative would be to make it mandatory in every homicide case and watch the outrage grow. If we start to execute 20,000 people a year for homicide; television news would soon tell us that half of them were innocent, and 10,000 unconvicted murderers remain loose on the street each year.

Yes there is that side to executing an innocent person for murder; the case is closed, the evidence is destroyed, and the actual murderer gets away with murder...

It might be appropriate to retain the death penalty for treason and espionage; but that would give the remainder of the world carte blanche to execute American Citizens convicted of espionage in retaliation. "What? We have no American spies in our prisons? Go round up some Americans and convict them!"

Think quick! You've been arrested in a foreign country. What are your rights...