Prisoners on death row in USA. (1 Viewer)

[ColinEssex]

As at October 1st 2013, there were 3088 prisoners on death row in America.

Now, presumably they have been found guilty and sentenced to death. Why are they not dead?

Col

 

[amberkei]

Appeals.

More appeals.

Some more appeals.

Which are in place because of things like this: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/The_Innocent_and_the_Death_Penalty.php

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/West_Memphis_Three_Go_Free.php

(I also don't know how much US news you get "over there," but Europe has stopped supplying us with the drug we use in executions. Most states have put the brakes on executions until they get it figured out.)

 

[kevlray]

From what I recall a number of states have eliminated the death penalty (cruel and unusual punishment). So even though a prisoner is on death row., it basically means they will be in prison the rest of their lives (old age, sickness), unless they win an appeal.

 

[Dick7Access]

firing squads are coming back

 

[Groundrush]

Looks like it's much better to be a murderer & in prison in the UK

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27473166

 

[ColinEssex]

From what I recall a number of states have eliminated the death penalty (cruel and unusual punishment). So even though a prisoner is on death row., it basically means they will be in prison the rest of their lives (old age, sickness), unless they win an appeal.

Ah, so the word "death" in "death row" is basically meaningless - a bit like the "world" in "world series" where only two countries are allowed to play.

Col

 

[kevlray]

It did mean something some 40 to 50 years ago. Of course it is kinda up to the courts to decide whether or not executions are 'legal'.

 

[amberkei]

In the state of Illinois, at least, (where I grew up) the sentences of all death row inmates was commuted to life without the possibility of parole, and the prisoners were moved from "death row." Illinois is one of the states that has abolished the death penalty (all death sentences were commuted in 2003, the death penalty was abolished in 2011).

The Supreme Court decided after the moratorium in the 70's (IIRC) that you cannot take someone on death row, put a hold on the death penalty, like the moratorium, and then decide you're going to execute them after all.

That's why there are people like Charles Manson who were initially sentenced to death, but will not be executed.

This is all a round about way of saying that I suspect that those numbers do not include the people who were considered death row before their state put a hold on the death penalty.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year if you go here, you'll see that only 36 states plus the fed are included in the count. 18 of the 3088 are in states that have abolished the death penalty, but intend on carrying it out for those who had already been sentenced.

 

[Charl80]

Reading about the death penalty always makes me shudder - I find it a really chilling concept. Very glad to live in a country which abolished it decades ago. There has to be a better way.

 

[Bladerunner]

[

QUOTE=kevlray;1351056]It did mean something some 40 to 50 years ago. Of course it is kinda up to the courts to decide whether or not executions are 'legal'.

[/QUOTE]

Plus all these bleeding heart liberals that are in power right now. They want to pat them o the hand and tell them not to do that anymore. While they are telling them that, they are also telling and we have taken away their guns, so play nice.

 

[Bladerunner]

Reading about the death penalty always makes me shudder - I find it a really chilling concept. Very glad to live in a country which abolished it decades ago. There has to be a better way.

An what country is that which is fixing to ascend to another higher form.

 

[amberkei]

Plus all these bleeding heart liberals that are in power right now. They want to pat them o the hand and tell them not to do that anymore. While they are telling them that, they are also telling and we have taken away their guns, so play nice.

Most who oppose the death penalty do it for very logical reasons.

It is very expensive to try a death penalty case, and then to house the subsequent prisoner. They require special treatment, special housing, more guards. The appeals are a lengthy and very expensive process, as well. It costs much, much more than housing someone until the natural end of their life.

Furthermore, when you have innocent people, who are out of appeals, being let off of death row because they're exonerated by DNA evidence? It's time to put a halt on the executions.

Personally, in principle, I believe in the death penalty. I feel that there are some people who are so beyond saving that they simply do not deserve to lead any sort of life, even one in prison.

In practice, however, death row prisoners are predominately poor black males who never had a chance at a decent defense. Many of them had terrible state-provided defense attorneys, and often, there is such a desire to "see someone fry" that no one much cares if they're the ones who did it.

I was a staunch defender of the death penalty up until the West Memphis Three case.

 

[ColinEssex]

In practice, however, death row prisoners are predominately poor black males who never had a chance at a decent defense. Many of them had terrible state-provided defense attorneys, and often, there is such a desire to "see someone fry" that no one much cares if they're the ones who did it.

I was a staunch defender of the death penalty up until the West Memphis Three case.

From the posts so far, we have either :-

a) the death penalty has virtually been abolished or,

b) Europe has stopped supplying a drug used to kill people, or

c) a desire to see someone fry - presumably meaning electrocution.

I'm confused - thousands on death row yet nobody is killed because its abolished, so surely b) and c) are irrelevant?

If death row is an old fashioned term not now relevant, why is it still used? It's very odd.

Why not do what we do in the UK, we give life sentences. One bloke recently had 13 life sentences imposed so we put him in an open prison, let him go on day release and then abscond.

Col

 

[Frothingslosh]

Aw, that's easy. Us folks here in 'murica believe in good ol'fashioned BIBLICAL law, not that Sharia gobbledygook y'all furriners do. That means an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, even if'n we all hafta git us eyepatches an' dentures.

/sarcasm

Anyway, seriously, in America the breakdown is that conservatives tend to favor the death penalty, while liberals tend to oppose it. Yes liberals tend to paint the conservative stance as pretty much 'kill all criminals and let God sort them out', while conservatives tend to paint the liberal stance as 'hug them until they see the light'. These basically come from the stances of punishment vs rehabilitation/prevention, and the folks favoring punishment generally favor the death penalty, while the folks favoring rehabilitation and prevention tend to oppose it.

That said, it's definitely not black and white. My dyed-in-the-wool, tea-party-following right-wing survivalist father flat-out opposes the death penalty in all cases for one simple reason: it's awfully hard to un-execute someone if it turns out they were innocent. I have to admit, as much as the liberal in me hates doing so, that he kind of has a point.

 

[amberkei]

If death row is an old fashioned term not now relevant, why is it still used? It's very odd.

Why not do what we do in the UK, we give life sentences. One bloke recently had 13 life sentences imposed so we put him in an open prison, let him go on day release and then abscond.

Col

Because the status of the death penalty is very much in flux in the US right now. There are many states that have abolished it altogether and do just as you said - life sentences. I think that's key to understanding the situation here in the States - each state has its own laws, and there are 50 completely different sets of rules governing the process. Unless one of these cases gets appealed all of the way up to the Supreme Court, AND they choose to hear it, AND they decide that the death penalty is unconstitutional (which is not likely with the current court), there will not be a unilateral abolishment of the death penalty in the US.

There are many states that would like to hang on to it, no matter what. They're the ones currently struggling with getting ahold of the drugs that they need to execute people. They also tend to be the ones with many people who have the let them fry attitude. (Let 'em fry. Let 'em hang. Yes, it's done with lethal injection now, but the slang is still used.)

There are other states that are in the process of examining the situation and have put executions on hold until they make a decision on whether or not it's worth fighting to keep people on death row. I assume those inmates will sit on death row for some time until a final decision is made.

But people aren't executed immediately because it's fairly well known, even among the staunchest supporters, that occasionally juries get it wrong. I've been on a jury in a murder case, and I can tell you that those sorts of cases can be decided on the dumbest things. (It was not, thank goodness, a death penalty case. I still have nightmares about the trial. I don't know if I could have handled a death penalty case.)

 

[Dick7Access]

Should not the what the majority of the people want be the law?

 

[ColinEssex]

If each state can make its own laws, why do you have a central government?

For example, if central government passed a law to ban the death penalty, each state could bypass that by passing a law to allow it.

Or, on a day to day level, does each state have different driving laws? Like speed limits etc.

How can the average person possibly know what is legal in one state and illegal a mile up the road in the next state?

Seems stupid to me..

Col

 

[SmallTomato]

If each state can make its own laws, why do you have a central government?

For example, if central government passed a law to ban the death penalty, each state could bypass that by passing a law to allow it.

Or, on a day to day level, does each state have different driving laws? Like speed limits etc.

How can the average person possibly know what is legal in one state and illegal a mile up the road in the next state?

Seems stupid to me..

Col

Federal law is the law in every state, each state can have laws on issues not addressed by the federal government and laws explicitly left to the state by the federal government. States in some cases can have laws that work off of federal law (for example, federal minimum wage is x, a state can make it x+1 but not x-1) Speed limits are the same, there are not federal speed limits however there is federal money incentives for certain speed limits (ie, we will give you money for road upkeep if you set all highways to 55 mph). And yes, each state can have different driving laws, an example is texting while driving.

To your last point, it would be difficult to know all the specifics*, I doubt I know all the specifics for my own state that aren't wildly popularized and known. But, I have driven through many states and never had a problem. My only real annoyance is when you travel through a state with toll roads

* editted from not possible to difficult

 

[amberkei]

Should not the what the majority of the people want be the law?

No. Goodness, no. One of the roles of the government is to protect the minority from the majority. If mob rule controlled everything, we'd probably still have legal slavery. Or Jim Crow laws. Or forced religious observance.

If each state can make its own laws, why do you have a central government?

For example, if central government passed a law to ban the death penalty, each state could bypass that by passing a law to allow it.

Not exactly. The tenth amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which means that the federal government's ability to write law is enumerated within the bounds of the constitution. If it's not enumerated there, then it can differ from state to state. The fourteenth amendment makes the Constitution apply to all of the states (minimum protections).

If Congress managed to pass an amendment abolishing the death penalty, and the states ratified it, there wouldn't be an ability to create a new one around it. However, if the Supreme Court declares it Unconstitutional, it's all going to depend on the wording of the decision. That's why we have such a hodgepodge of laws right now regarding gay marriage.

Or, on a day to day level, does each state have different driving laws? Like speed limits etc.

Yes. Sometimes drastically different.

How can the average person possibly know what is legal in one state and illegal a mile up the road in the next state?

Educate yourself. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to commit a crime.

Bear in mind - the US is freaking huge. Each state has some laws that are different, sure, but I bet France and the UK have some laws that are different, too. California, if it were a country, would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Cali has a little over 38 million residents. The UK has 63 million.

Each state has it's own culture, values, economy, etc.

 

[amberkei]

That is in spite of major miss management. Over the last 10 years we have chased business after business to other states like Texas and Arizona.

Every state has its issues. I'm sure every government has some mismanagement issues.

I work in biotech - our businesses most certainly aren't fleeing, but it's a small segment of the business world, especially outside of San Diego.