[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Actually, this point is valid. While other cases are also appealed, death penalty cases are mandatory appeals in most jurisdictions. More than that, they take far longer than all other appeals and there is no shortage of lawyers willing to take them on for free to file yet another writ, petition or appeal out of opposition to the concept of the death penalty itself. I worked as a law clerk for a Court of Appeal in California just out of law school and the cost and time of all other appeals is absolutely dwarfed by death penalty cases. This is why some argue the actual cost to put a defendant to death, as compared with incarcerating for life, can cost more.

If it's true (and I have not seen the data to either support this or debunk it), it is because the Courts want to err on the side of caution and not pull the switch too quickly, lest there be a mistake. The condemned is given every opportunity to correct a mistake. If these same proceedures were applied to every conviction for a capital offense, the cost would be the same.


Anyway, the argument is circular. The death penalty costs more because we bend over backwards to make sure the conviction is valid, therefore we should not have the death penalty because it costs more.

[Cavtanker]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Hmmm...planning something, Cav...?

No, I was recalling an article written last year in my hometown newspaper. Basically, those who were on the sex offender list had been pushed to the outside of town because of the 'cannot live within a certain amount of feet to a certain location' laws. So, here they are, living in sex offender-filled enclaves, with the non-sex offenders living next to them complaining about having to live around so many sex offenders! And a Congressional representative told it like it was. Succintly, he stated there is no one that will do a thing to help them because no politician is going to be labelled as the 'guy/girl who wanted to help/make life easier on sex offenders'.

[MoMo]

But I digress from the main topic, the death penalty has proved to be very good at stopping repeat offences, 100% sucess rate .

Problem is can we be sure that the person executed is definately guilty?

Jim

Good point, Jim. In a military court, the burden of proof against the defendant is less than that in a criminal court, and probably less than that in a civil court.

Anyone who has seen Stanley Kubrik and Kirk Douglas's indictment of military justice in " Paths of Glory " ( which was so powerful that it was banned in France ) could not fail to have been affected by the message:

In time of conflict, let no man decide the fate of another when the ambition of the professional General Staff drives the conduct of the war.

Case in point : in WW2, professional RAF officers were branding conscriped or volunteer pilot officers and NCOs as LMF. At the same time, many ( but by no means all ) of these same officers were making sure the cadre of professional officers survived by having themselves assigned to OTUs in order to dodge some ( admittedly pointless ) Bomber Command Missions. This is at a time ( 1943 ) when the average life expectancy of a crew on Heavies was about 8-15 missions. If you made it to 20, then it was a bloody miracle.

Point made.

[jim]

Originally Posted by MoMo

Good point, Jim. In a military court, the burden of proof against the defendant is less than that in a criminal court, and probably less than that in a civil court.

Anyone who has seen Stanley Kubrik and Kirk Douglas's indictment of military justice in " Paths of Glory " ( which was so powerful that it was banned in France ) could not fail to have been affected by the message:

In time of conflict, let no man decide the fate of another when the ambition of the professional General Staff drives the conduct of the war.

Case in point : in WW2, professional RAF officers were branding conscriped or volunteer pilot officers and NCOs as LMF. At the same time, many ( but by no means all ) of these same officers were making sure the cadre of professional officers survived by having themselves assigned to OTUs in order to dodge some ( admittedly pointless ) Bomber Command Missions. This is at a time ( 1943 ) when the average life expectancy of a crew on Heavies was about 8-15 missions. If you made it to 20, then it was a bloody miracle.

Point made.

Mo , I have spoken with several RAF veterans about this subject, they couldn't tell me what happened to those branded low moral fibre, it seems they just disappeared never to be heard of again.

Its difficult to condem , every man has his breaking point and its different to the next man.
I have no idea how strong mentally I would be in such circumstances.

[MoMo]

Mo , I have spoken with several RAF veterans about this subject, they couldn't tell me what happened to those branded low moral fibre, it seems they just disappeared never to be heard of again.

Its difficult to condem , every man has his breaking point and its different to the next man.
I have no idea how strong mentally I would be in such circumstances.
MoMo

Most were reduced in rank and sent to " The Depot " where they were given menial jobs. Very few were ever offered support. Some few were, and were successfully reintroduced to active service.

For a clearer picture read Max Hastings' account in " Bomber Command ". The few who were looked after properly were sent to the RAF convalescent home in Matlock, Derbyshire. One famous case was a navigator who ran amok on a mission on a Whitley in 1941, and had to be laid out with the aid of the pilot's torch. The next time the pilot saw the navigator, he was navigating for one of the Dambuster Crews of 617. ( read chapter 8, part 3 " Courage " )

cheers,

MoMo

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Actually, this point is valid. While other cases are also appealed, death penalty cases are mandatory appeals in most jurisdictions. More than that, they take far longer than all other appeals and there is no shortage of lawyers willing to take them on for free to file yet another writ, petition or appeal out of opposition to the concept of the death penalty itself. I worked as a law clerk for a Court of Appeal in California just out of law school and the cost and time of all other appeals is absolutely dwarfed by death penalty cases. This is why some argue the actual cost to put a defendant to death, as compared with incarcerating for life, can cost more.

A quick review of the internet would seem to indicate that all states but two have either mandatory appeals for life sentences (or consecutive sentences which amount to a life sentence; i.e., three consecutive 30 year terms) or an intermediate appellate system that must hear the appeal, West Virginia and New hampshire being the two States that have neither. http://www.wvpds.org/AppealProj.pdf


So, as it appears the same proceedural safeguards are in place for life sentences as they are for death sentences in the vast majority of states, the cost argument does not hold water.

[Shawn 507]

I have no idea if these slides will load in order or not. It should be loyalty, duty, respect, service,honor, integrity, and personal courage. This is the yard stick the US Army uses to gauge each other's behavior and actions.
Comparing military law to civilian law is useless, apples and oranges. Trying to throw grey area into treason and desertion wont fly either. Sure could a serviceman loose his nerve in a fight? Yes. If properly identified as a medical / metal problem, I'm sure the board would apply appropriate punishment. But when you go over the hill for a reason not medical or mental, we have issues bud. Survivor guilt isn't enough, if it even applies. Noone lets this slacker know that the guy who replaced him gets killed, so how could survivor guilt effect him?
Most of the current deserters are doing so before they deploy. But its pretty cut and dry, ether the soldier ducked out or he didn't. DNA doesn't even come into play here. If he did and there is no medical / mental reason ( legitimate, not lawyer induced), screw him. We in the Army have no need for him. Society doesn't need him either. How could anyone really trust this guy afterward?
Treason. Again, either you did or you didn't do it. There is no innocent person accused of spying for another nation sitting in jail. DNA wont help you here either! If your are betraying the trust put in you by your nation, you dump all over that, put your nation at risk, someone dies because of it. Sorry you deserve to die.
I don't see how you can look someone in the face who has been a victim or suffered because of these two actions, and say "its ok he'll go to jail for life". By not punishing these offenses, you make maintaining good order and discipline difficult. And then the whole thing comes apart at the seems. We need to quit looking for the why, and concentrate on what was the result. That is what is important!!

[Folgore]

Originally Posted by TopHat

I don't think you can be selective here. This argument seems to stand for the proposition that it is okay to kill foreigners, but not our own citizens. It's okay to defend against the outside attackers, but not those who attack from the inside. Further, since I don't recall any German units attacking us on US soil ( I think we inserted ourselves into the conflict in the ETO), I'm not sure that your "kill or be killed" example plays out the way you want. Not a logical argument, IMO.

Errrrrrm no. You have misread my argument here. Nothing to do with citizens vs. foreigners. What I'm saying is that it is OK to kill in self-defense. However, I fear that stipulation has distracted you from the main point. We are not discussing instances of self-defense, we are discussing whether or not the death sentence should be imposed on a convicted traitor or deserter (or any other malfeasant, really) -- when that person no longer poses a threat to individuals or the nation because he has already been caught and incarcerated. At that point it's no longer a question of self-defense, it's a question of punishment. The question I was asking is this: Should the state mete out death as a punishment for convicted criminals? Clearly, many here say aye, and that's a widely accepted position. My own view is that once someone is no longer a threat -- i.e., once he's been put behind bars for life -- killing him is just gratuitious.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

I don't see how you can look someone in the face who has been a victim or suffered because of these two actions, and say "its ok he'll go to jail for life". By not punishing these offenses, you make maintaining good order and discipline difficult. And then the whole thing comes apart at the seems. We need to quit looking for the why, and concentrate on what was the result. That is what is important!!

Thanks for bringing us back on track, Shawn....

[jim]

Shawn , I have heard many ex soldiers talk about their service time and all of them said the same thing. I never thought about the big picture king or country, I fought for my buddy next to me, I didnt want to fail him.

I back your point of view 100% the reason is its the only way you can run an army.
It has to be that way or as you say the whole thing falls apart.

However in the final analysis it seems that loyalty and willingness to sacrifice yourself for your comrades is what counts when the bullets fly.

I just thank all those that went before me and gave their all so I could enjoy the life I have.