Why is it that RICH Americans walk free from a trial but POOR ones go to jail or to Death Row?
111178
Actually, the percentage of celebraties that walk is about the same as the percentage of 'poor' people who walk. Conviction rates at trial used to be over 90%, the rates have been falling and in some major metropolitan areas are down in the 65% - 70% range.   The big differences are (1) the big celeb trials make the papers and (2) 80 to 90% of the 'poor' plea guilty to something and do not go to trial.\nThe two big celeb trials, OJ and Blakely are especially unique in that the juries were stupid, stupid, stupid.  And in the OJ case, at least, the DAs were incredibly inept.  \nOf course, it was not the jurors fault that they were stupid.  They were picked because each one claimed to have no opinion, which meant they had no connection to current events.  In the OJ case they also had to be locked up in a hotel for the duration, which meant that the jurors had either no jobs or dead end jobs and no family or social life.  \nFurther, with the massive publicity and cameras all around, the jurors got the idea that they were really in a TV show, such as Law & Order or CSI, where the obvious suspect is never the real criminal and all loose ends are tied up before the credits roll.  A real trial, like real life ends up with loose ends, and 99% of the time the obvious suspect did do it.
298101
No, justice is only for those who can afford it.  Some want to say that's it's for the real poor also but public defenders are NOT the same has a hired/bought lawyer.  I thought America was for the people by the people but it just seems to me that America is for the politicians, lawyers and rich.  \n\nLet's say you go to court for a traffic  ticket.  Why is it a lawyer can get you a deal but you can't get the deal unless you pay for a lawyer?  I mean why can't I just talk to the judge?  Judges only want to hear from lawyers.  It's real odd to me that the guy ahead of me with the same type of ticket just got his knocked off his record by his lawyer but I go in front of the judge and I can't that same deal.  That's not justice.  That's a business.  You get what you pay for type of deal.  That is not what the judicial system is supposed to be for.\n\nTo be honest I have gone to law school and talked to plenty of legal people and I realize that it just about the numbers.  It's all about wins and losses NOT JUSTICE.
663775
NO, it's not. It's absurdly expensive as the sentences are so long. There's barely any rehabilitation going on, and for the most part too many ppl are admitted for very long sentences who have not done serious crimes. Once you go through hell that most jails are you won't come out the same! And usually you won't come out a better person either! On top of that recidivism rates are extremely high when compared to other countries, i.e. in Europe. Some state prisons have recidivism rates as high as 20-30%. So no, too many do not become productive members of society again. I think there's a problem how the system works in itself, it might be successful at punishing, but not rehabilitation, in either case it should focus in prevention, and not be just a reactionary system. Some states, I think Florida and California will be soon among them if not yet, are spending more, or at least the same for education as prison systems. Now, doesn't anyone think there's something wrong with that? Right now US is jailing more than 2 million individuals... That's equivalent to a small country! There's clearly problems with the system, as well as the the way that society sees it and how they regard crime itself. EDIT: Now that I read some of the responses that makes what I said before even true, putting someone in jail as long as possible is not going to change anything! It's what he does in that jail that matters, not how long he stays there. So, if you think it's a good idea to fill the jails up with criminals, - fill them up, then build more max security prisons at 10 grand a cell, and fill those up as well, just don't come to me when it's time to pay taxes. And pray that once those criminals get out they don't come to you for anything, cause they'll be pissed. It's something to think about when you see the next politician boasting how he'll be tough on crime just cause it's an easy way to get votes, and felons can't vote, so he got nothing to loose, it's the society that does.
10310
No just death. Wealthy people have so many loopholes that a lot of them don't pay taxes.
250152
The ones that are obeying the laws of the country trying to make a better future for themselves and their families are a blessing.  Those who are not abiding by the law are a hinderence the same way American criminals are.
648688
Well, the person punished won't do it again.\n\nSeriously, capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent for the simple reason of politics.  When a person is sentenced for capital punishment, there are endless appeals, retrials and whatnot to delay the punishment. On average, a person on death row will more likely have their sentence converted to "life imprisonment" then be executed. Added is that the prisoner is kept warm, dry, fed and clothed at taxpayer expense.  So, if someone was contemplating a capital crime, they're looking at two options...\n\n1) They get away with it.\n2) They get caught, and spend the rest of their life no longer in the rat race of daily society for food, clothing and shelter.\n\nWhat's the deterrent? \n\nIf the government wants capital punishment to work as a deterrent, they need to be decisive and carry out the sentence as soon as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt of innocence.  If you know the person is guilty, why let them linger on for years?  If they're guilty (either admitted it or similar), get it over with.  Then capital punishment will have teeth again.
555669
The basic laws of the country are breaking down and that is the problem..  The police can't get tough because they get sued.  It is just too much.  People on death row for 10 years.  They can't decide in 10 years if they are guilty or not.  The whole system is just in a state of non functioning.
332560
No, prisons are for those who *willingly* choose to blame someone else for their own problems and who love to avoid personal accountability. \n\nI'm not a wealthy man, but I always try to make good decisions anyway. It's frustrating to watch people who don't deserve their successes have it instead of those of us who have worked hard trying to achieve some sort of security, but I know I'm doomed to jail if I start breaking laws to take shortcuts to success. I realize that success to me isn't the same as it is for someone else, so I need to stay focused on those things that allow me happiness and just continue trying to achieve them. If I fail, then I will stay focused on trying to find some level of happiness and success in what I'm doing at the time. \n\n"Whatever you are, do it well." (I think that's from Abe Lincoln, though I may be wrong, and it's probably phrased somewhat differently.)
240856
Yes, there is so much lobbying for human rights in this country that people who need to be locked up are set free, or given very light sentences.  Longer/more severe sentences would not only keep them off the streets longer, but they would make people more afraid of commiting the crime.  This is why the death penalty works, it scares people.
490858
It amazes me in America, a country built on the foundation of Christianity, that we condone state sanctioned murder.  No matter a person's belief, the only person who has the right to take a life is God, Allah or whatever you may call him or her.  \n\nIf we are talking about punishment, life in prison is no cakewalk it's severe punishment.  If we are talking about costs, it costs LESS to house an inmate in prison for life than to put him or her on death row.  The appeals process is so costly and the person remains on death row for so long, that it costs the tax payers more to kill someone than to send them to prison for life.  Often times, when an inmate is murdered via state sanction, they are not even the same person they were when the committed the crime.  You have folks being "put to death" 20 years after they committed the crime. So the state is then murdering someone who is no longer the person who committed the crime...umm the point of that is WHAT?  \n\nAnd finally, the death penalty does not deter crime.  Low life murders don't stop murdering because they know they can get the DP.  Crime rates don't decrease because of the DP.  And if you are going to get a low life off other streets and they are sitting in prison for 20 years before getting iced, then just let em rot in prison. I am just glad that I ain't the one who has to pull the switch. I would never be able to sleep at night.
214968
I think the previous answer sums up so well why class-warfare works.  People want to believe it works.  Most of the wealthy in America aren't from "old money" anymore.  They made their money through hard work and determination.  And so many people who don't (or can't) do that want to blame everyone else.  So they look to blame those that are in a better state than they are.\n\nIt is the same with politicians who play the race card.
849298
No.\n\nAs a matter of PUBLIC POLICY, I would cite the following reasons:\n\n(1) Death is an irreversible punishment, and overzealous juries/prosecutors get it wrong WAY too often.  (RECENT EXAMPLE:  Read "The Innocent Man", a nonfiction book by John Grisham.)\n\n(2) Taxpayer dollars spent on criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution. Yet, statistical data is clear that the death penalty and tougher criminal sentences does not deter murder or violent crime.  Why?  Most violent criminals are sociopathic/psychopathic and simply do not rationally weigh the consequences of their actions before committing violent crimes.\n\n(3) The numbers indicate that the death penalty is not imposed upon the worst of the murderers (i.e., the person who actually pulled the trigger and killed).  Why?  Truly disturbed seriel killers more often than not have mitigating circumstances that get them out of the death penalty (e.g., severe abuse as children).  Second, the death penalty is most often sought where the prosecution can get an easy sentence (i.e., the person who drove the person who pulled the trigger, because the person who actually pulled the trigger ran to the police and got a plea deal for life without parole).\n\n(4) Prosecuting the death penalty costs taxpayers more than simply giving them a sentence of life without parole.  Why?  Courts want to do everything they can to ensure that an innocent person is not put to death.  Unfortunately, innocent people are being released from death row routinely, despite the fact that they had numerous appeals.\n\n(5) The death penalty is not fairly applied.  For example, Harris County, Texas prosecutes more death penalty cases than the rest of the State of Texas combined.  Is that fair?  Is it fair that a black defendant who kills a white victim is 8 times more likely to get the death penalty than a white defendant who kills a black victim?  Is it fair that over 90% of the defendants on death row in states like Texas, which have no public defenders, had no money to hire an attorney and had to receive court-appointed counsel, most of which have no criminal law experience?\n\n(6) Once again, criminal sanctions should be designed to protect society, not dish out retribution.  Although victim's families will say, on the eve of execution, that the death penalty gives them closure; pyschologists who actually follow up with victim's families will tell you that is a fallacy.  (Read up on it for yourself.)  If the government wants to be in the business of making victim's families feel better (as opposed to making society safer, which is the primary purpose of criminal law), then it would better devote the financial resources to providing psychological services than seeking death penalty prosecutions.\n\n(7) The assertion that a person who commits murder poses a risk that he/she will murder again is ridiculous if the alternative sentence is life in prison without possibility of parole (as it is in most states for murder).  A rapist or other violent criminal is just as likely to murder or commit violent crimes on other inmates than murderers are.  We are not making other inmates (all of whom commited violent crimes if they are in high security prisons) statistically safer by killing murderers.\n\nNow, my Christian view:\n\n(1) One of the Ten Commandments given to Moses says "Thou shalt not kill."  That's a period at the end of that sentence.  It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill unless the person you are killing killed someone else."  There is no "unless", no "if", no qualifiers whatsoever.\n\n(2) In response to all of those "good Christians" who are often so quick to cite the Old Testament (Exodus 21:23-25) as grounds for supporting the death penalty, I would direct you to two passages from the NEW TESTAMENT:\n(i) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a too
1017401
If you think you get a bad deal, feel free to commit a crime and spend your time in prison, clothed, fed, doctored (poorly), confined, censored, beaten, extorted and raped.\n\nOr try this answer:  you ask why does the US Government have to follow the law, and isn't free to do whatever it wants, to criminals? Maybe because if it doesn't have to follow the law, it doesn't have to when it deals with those who aren't criminals either.
1060997
Convicted felons can be deprived of certain rights that otherwise are guaranteed by the constitution. This is an ancient and accepted legal tradition known as "civil death."  \n\nThis deprivation of rights is limited however to those things which are construed as being privileges of citizenship rather than fundamental human rights. Gun ownership, voting, the practice of certain professions, and holding civic office are the most prominent of such privileges.
707740
The common conception is that stingy people are that way because they have no money - because they have to be.  Some of the cheapest people you'll ever meet are rich folks though so in reality it can go either way.  At first it doesn't seem to make sense that a rich person would be stingy but then you have to figure there's a reason they are rich in the first place.  They probably didn't get there by being casual about money.
46990
Because sentencing a murderer to free food, free clothes, a free gym, free cable, and all the other things that the law-abiding have to work for (and if they cannot legally afford have to do without) does not seem like a punishment to me.\n\nThe only way I would agree with doing away  with the death penalty would be if prisons were actually a PUNISHMENT for the crime committed - meaning none of the above perks.  A small cell with a toilet and a sink.  Maybe, if they behave, once a week they can go for a stroll in the court yard for exercise.  But that's it.
1140788
This does not surprise me.  It is very frustrating.  In this world today, it seems like the criminals and murderers get away with everything and the good people end up paying one way or the other.  I know this to be true, it has happened to me and mine by a government who boasts freedom, justice and the American Way.  To bad they can not live up to these ideals in these times.  It's all in who you are and who you know.