"Mumia" dodges the death penalty

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think you might be a little off the mark there.

Actually I agree that punishment for the sake of punishment is a legitimate component of the criminal justice system, and that Abu-Jamal deserved to be punished. I do not agree, though, that the death penalty is a sensible tool for achieving justice, much less the only one.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not what our justice system says. Maybe you should move to Saudi Arabia.

That's not even what their justice system says. (you can be executed, but it is not certain)

I guess no place on Earth is 'just' in ichy's world!

 

[ichy]

I guess no place on Earth is 'just' in ichy's world!

Singapore. Mandatory death penalty for murder. They also have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

 

[Howard]

Singapore. Mandatory death penalty for murder. They also have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Correlation != causation.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Singapore. Mandatory death penalty for murder. They also have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Meanwhile the American states with the death penalty have higher murder rates than the states without it. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

 

[woolfe9999]

Correlation != causation.

Yup, Singapore is basically a police state. There are cops everywhere and it is a very effective police force, plus the country is a series of small islands with no real escape routes. People tend to not commit crime there because if they do they tend to get caught. In a situation like that, any significant penalty is a major deterrent.

- wolf

 

[Wreckem]

The Law is not about justice, it is about process. There was improper process during sentencing, that is an error, and apparently not a harmless one, so that means by process he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing or commuted sentence.

 

[ichy]

The Law is not about justice, it is about process. There was improper process during sentencing, that is an error, and apparently not a harmless one, so that means by process he is entitled to a new sentencing hearing or commuted sentence.

Sorry, but appellate courts have become WAY too willing to pick apart tiny details of proceedings that took place decades ago. Of course, if we had more sensible laws the death penalty would be mandatory for certain types of murder and there would be no need to argue about whether a sentencing hearing was fair or not because there would be no sentencing hearing.

 

[Wreckem]

Mumia is in his 50s now. A new death sentence would result in an additional 20 or 30 years of appeals. Kind of pointless.

No it won't. Thats not how it works.

 

[Wreckem]

Sorry, but appellate courts have become WAY too willing to pick apart tiny details of proceedings that took place decades ago. Of course, if we had more sensible laws the death penalty would be mandatory for certain types of murder and there would be no need to argue about whether a sentencing hearing was fair or not because there would be no sentencing hearing.

1. SCotUS has already IIRC said there cannot be mandatory death sentences.
2. Your nitpicking, is what we call procedure. If a sentencing hearing is tainted by improper jury instructions, that is not nitpicky, nor is it a technicality. Improper jury instructions will almost always result in a case being kicked back for new trial or hearing.

Blame the judge or prosecutor. Its their fuck up.

 

[ichy]

No it won't. Thats not how it works.

It is how it works. His current death sentence took 30 years to get through the state direct appeal, state collateral review and federal habeas corpus review. Any new death sentence would go through the exact same steps. There are no shortcuts for a second sentence.

It might be a bit faster since they'd presumably only be reviewing the sentence and not the verdict this time around, but count on at least a couple of decades of appeals. The system is broken beyond belief.

1. SCotUS has already IIRC said there cannot be mandatory death sentences.

I know, Woodson v. North Carolina. That decision was wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that capital sentences should be decided by a jury. Death penalty caselaw in the United States is full of horrible precedents.

 

[Wreckem]

It is how it works. His current death sentence took 30 years to get through the state direct appeal, state collateral review and federal habeas corpus review. Any new death sentence would go through the exact same steps. There are no shortcuts for a second sentence.

It might be a bit faster since they'd presumably only be reviewing the sentence and not the verdict this time around, but count on at least a couple of decades of appeals. The system is broken beyond belief.



I know, Woodson v. North Carolina. That decision was wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that capital sentences should be decided by a jury. Death penalty caselaw in the United States is full of horrible precedents.

The only horrible precedent was the reinstatement of capital punishment. Ever since then SCotUS has felt bad about it and has been slowly chipping away at it. It is just a matter of time before the practice is banned.

As for appeals. He apparently still have pending appeals unrelated to the sentencing. Its obvious the trial was a cluster fuck. But As long as the new sentencing hearing is done properly his appeals would be exhausted as soon as the previous appeals are dismissed.

Be glad the Appeals court didn't grant his Batson challenge or he'd be walking free until a new trial.

 

[ichy]

The only horrible precedent was the reinstatement of capital punishment. Ever since then SCotUS has felt bad about it and has been slowly chipping away at it. It is just a matter of time before the practice is banned.

As for appeals. He apparently still have pending appeals unrelated to the sentencing. Its obvious the trial was a cluster fuck. But As long as the new sentencing hearing is done properly his appeals would be exhausted as soon as the previous appeals are dismissed.

Be glad the Appeals court didn't grant his Batson challenge or he'd be walking free until a new trial.

The Supreme Court has no right to outlaw capital punishment altogether because there is nothing unconstitutional about it. No one can be deprived of life without due process of law. That makes it pretty clear that capital punishment is fine as long as there's a fair trial. Unfortunately judicial activism has resulted in "fair trial" standards that are utterly disconnected from reality and from the Constitution.

What serious pending appeals are there still in this case? The 3rd Circuit rejected all challenged to the verdict in his habeas petition. There was nothing wrong with the trial. Loathsome death row groupies have latched onto this ludicrous cause celebre and PA's capital appeals process is an out of control catastrophe (several hundred death row inmates but only three executions, all of whom were volunteers.)

 

[ichy]

It has been just over 110 years since the assassination of President McKinley. He was shot on September 9, 1901 and died five days later. His assassin, Leon Czolgosz, went on trial on September 23 and the trial lasted two days. Czolgosz was sentenced to death and electrocuted on October 29, 1901. That's how a legal system SHOULD work, and last time I checked we had the same Constitution a hundred years ago as we do now. Unfortunately a century of judicial activism and horrible precedents has turned even the most simple murder cases into multi-year morasses.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, but appellate courts have become WAY too willing to pick apart tiny details of proceedings that took place decades ago.

No, they're not.

You're ignorant.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

It has been just over 110 years since the assassination of President McKinley. He was shot on September 9, 1901 and died five days later. His assassin, Leon Czolgosz, went on trial on September 23 and the trial lasted two days. Czolgosz was sentenced to death and electrocuted on October 29, 1901. That's how a legal system SHOULD work, and last time I checked we had the same Constitution a hundred years ago as we do now. Unfortunately a century of judicial activism and horrible precedents has turned even the most simple murder cases into multi-year morasses.

What do you say to the fact that several people on death row have been completely exonerated since the advent of DNA evidence? These people would all be dead if their cases had been handled like Czolgosz's.

 

[werepossum]

It is how it works. His current death sentence took 30 years to get through the state direct appeal, state collateral review and federal habeas corpus review. Any new death sentence would go through the exact same steps. There are no shortcuts for a second sentence.

It might be a bit faster since they'd presumably only be reviewing the sentence and not the verdict this time around, but count on at least a couple of decades of appeals. The system is broken beyond belief.

I know, Woodson v. North Carolina. That decision was wrong. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that even vaguely suggests that capital sentences should be decided by a jury. Death penalty caselaw in the United States is full of horrible precedents.

I can't agree with mandatory death sentences. What about a woman systematically beaten and tortured for years who one day picks up a gun or knife or frying pan and willfully, deliberately, with malice aforethought, murders her abuser? What about the man who murders the man who murdered or crippled his child? I don't think that one size fits all on much of anything, and I'd rather the occasional miscarriage of justice than, um, a miscarriage of justice.

Similarly, even though there are undeniably systemic abuses of the appeals process, I don't want executions to move forward too quickly. Better justice delayed than executing the wrong man.

EDIT: Don Vito Corleone beat me to it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you sure about that? The guy's a hero to much of the left. Assuming the Republicans take power in 2012 and fail to significantly improve (or even worsen) the economy, the Democrats could sweep back into power with enough of a perceived mandate to put this guy back on the street, probably in some well-paid government position with the word "laureate" in the title.

Personally I think he should have been gently assisted into assuming room temperature long ago.

Mighty fine bit of projection & innuendo, mighty fine. If you suffer from these spells of paranoid delusion often, You may want to seek help.

 

[ichy]

I can't agree with mandatory death sentences. What about a woman systematically beaten and tortured for years who one day picks up a gun or knife or frying pan and willfully, deliberately, with malice aforethought, murders her abuser? What about the man who murders the man who murdered or crippled his child? I don't think that one size fits all on much of anything, and I'd rather the occasional miscarriage of justice than, um, a miscarriage of justice.

None of those cases are eligible for the DP anyways.

In every state in the US there has to be some sort of aggravating factor in addition to simply committing murder in order for someone to be sentenced to death. I'm no expert, but I know that in Maryland neither of the cases you described would come close to being DP eligible. You have to do something like kill during a robbery, kill for pay, kill a cop or kill multiple people in order for it to be a capital case. A woman who shoots her husband would never face the death penalty (as long as she doesn't hire a hitman to do it.)

If we were to make the DP mandatory then its application should be even more restrictive. I'd say save it for prisoners who kill while incarcerated, cop-killers, anyone who murders a witness, judge or prosecutor, someone who kills multiple people or killers who rape or torture their victims. That would narrow it down to a small selection of murderers who I think quite fairly deserve to be called the worst of the worst. By making it mandatory for them you also eliminate any hint of racial, economic or jurisdictional disparities in how the DP is applied.

 

[ichy]

No, they're not.

You're ignorant.

Gee, Craig chimes in with his typical insightful commentary.

 

[ichy]

What do you say to the fact that several people on death row have been completely exonerated since the advent of DNA evidence? These people would all be dead if their cases had been handled like Czolgosz's.

Not all cases are that straightforward and not all of them could be handled with anything like that kind of speed. For the truly straightforward ones though (such as the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords) the legal process should take weeks, not years.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Not all cases are that straightforward and not all of them could be handled with anything like that kind of speed. For the truly straightforward ones though (such as the guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords) the legal process should take weeks, not years.

There is no way anyone can get a fair trial in "weeks, not years." Preparing a competent defense in any serious criminal case, particularly in a regime with the sort of mandatory minimum death sentence you are proposing, is a laborious and time-consuming process. This is further aggravated by the fact that you seem to be implying that there would be no mental capacity defenses available (it seems amply clear to me that Jared Laughner is floridly mentally ill).

 

[Brigandier]

YEAH!

 

[ichy]

This is further aggravated by the fact that you seem to be implying that there would be no mental capacity defenses available (it seems amply clear to me that Jared Laughner is floridly mentally ill).

Correct. If you're capable of carrying out the crime then you're capable to being held responsible for it. As long as we have trials that actually stick to the FACTS of the case then there's no reason they shouldn't be swift.

 

[glenn1]

Personally I think he's guilty, but the first-degree murder charge and death sentence have always struck me as a little overambitious given the facts - I don't see the evidence of premeditation. I don't see how society or anyone else would benefit from his being executed, in any case. Meanwhile, he has spent 30 years behind bars and nothing about the crime or him as an individual leads me to think he would pose a significant danger to society if he were released. Honestly I think he has paid his debt to society and I wouldn't lose any sleep if he were freed.

Actually, I applaud you for your honesty in second guessing the jury verdict. It's attitudes like this that got us mandatory sentencing and will have police responding to the next "officer down" call simply shoot to kill the perp rather than take him into custody where he'll receive a trial whose verdict is never carried out.