To piggy-back my last question regarding the death penalty, how many appeals should someone on death row get?
964424
Two (maybe three).  1 is the "direct appeal" of the conviction. 2 is the "collateral attack" of the conviction -- this is done through a request for a writ of habeas corpus.  This "collateral attack" is very very limited in scope - usually focusing on ineffective assistance of counsel (which cannot be raised in a direct appeal) or violations of fundamental constitutional rights. 3 is the federal collateral attack - (some states do not allow step 2).  This ensures that a federal judge, in a federal court, hears the complaints of the death row inmate.  Once again, this review is EXTREMELY limited.  The federal AEDPA act passed by Congress requires that a federal judge defer greately to findings of fact and conculsions of law by state courts, but since some state courts are notoriously unfair to criminals (or may not afford the proper process) this gives one check.\nOf course, the original appeal may go to the Supreme Court of teh US if there are federal issues, and the collateral attack decisions may also go to the Supreme Court.  While this may seem like three bites at the apple, the nature of the appeals, what the courts look at, and the level of review are all VERY different.\n\n(Oh, and if there's proof of actual innocence, the guy gets another chance with state or federal habeas relief -- as he should! If suddenly, let's say, there's DNA evidence proving that the guy couldn't have done it, or there's a reliable confession from another party, what are you going to say, whoops, you've already run out of appeals, we'll kill you anyway???)
1024271
At heart, if it is what the people of Texas want, I am for them making that determination & not for people outside the state making that choice for them.\n\nThat aside, there are a number of reasons to oppose the death penalty:\n\n- The vast majority of people on Death Row could not afford to hire an attorney & consequently got poor legal representation that could have saved their lives;\n\n- Homicide rates in states with the death penalty are almost doube that of states that don't have the death penalty;\n\n- In the past 30 years, over 100 Death Row inmates were found to be innocent upon appeal.\n\nIt's just my opinion, but one innocent person being executed for a crime they did not commit is one too many.  I believe the states should do what's best for their own, but on principle I do not support the death penalty where I live.
1089367
I don't believe in the death penalty. They are just commiting murder, and two worngs never make a right. God decides who should die at what time, so I think you are right, they should put him in jail for life and make him suffer for the pain he has caused people.
1164887
This site seems to outline it very specifically.\n\nAlthough I didn't read too far, it might be referring to a certain case.  Take a look-see.\n\nThe second one looks better, I think.\n\n10-20 years imprisonment, death if they take a life.   If less than $100 is taken, then less than 10 years if noone was injured.
741820
The problem is our judicial system is very flawed.  There are many innocent people in jail, and guilty ones in the street.  I agree some people are given lighter sentences than what they deserve and others harsher than they deserve.  But our system is what it is, if you don't plan on getting out there and trying to make a change then there is no point in complaining about it.  I am back and forth on the issue of the death penalty,  but to answer your question, yes there should be certain criteria for sending someone to deathrow.   There should be certain regulations.  But every crime is different, and until it happens to you or someone in your family it is hard to say.  and that goes for being the defendant or the victim.  it is hard on both families.
7143
I think the broken part of the system is the endless appeals cycle.  The fact that someone on death row actually has a smaller annual chance of dying than the average inner city youth (I got that tidbit from Freakonomics if I remember correctly) seems wasteful to me.\n\nBut at the same time, we're not running the Tower of London here.  I think, in a perfect world, we would establish a system with a limited set of appeals or appeal conditions (really new evidence not "judge roulette") and when a case is beyond a shadow of a doubt, the swiftest possible justice should be applied.  As long as you're under the shadow of doubt though, we need to treat incarcerated citizens with full human dignity.
99908
I don't know the number.  I have heard that on the average it is cheaper to excerise the death penalty.  But I suppose it would all depend on the individual and how old he/she was when the sentance started.\n\nHere is a good site:\nhttp://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost\n\nThere are two more listed below.
757168
It probably becomes law January 1, but since I doubt that anyone currently incarcerated can legally have their sentences "upgraded" (can they?), it'll be a while before anyone is convicted, sentenced, goes through the appeals process, adn actually is executed.\n\nNot sure what it would take to get the decision overturned.  I know Lyin' Ryan  (scumbucket POS) in Illinois put a "Moratorium" on the Death Penalty and then did a mass conmmutation of all death penalty inmates to life sentences.
800060
I am so torn on the death penalty issue... I don't have a stance yet.\n\nFrom a strictly economical side, I'm against the death penalty, because I've heard in multiple places that it costs 2-3 times more than life in prison w/o parole.\n\nFrom a moral standpoint, it's hard to say.  Killing someone removes them once and for all as a threat.  Granted, while in jail they are only a threat to other inmates and the prison guards, but still, you cannot make a blanket judgment on whether those people (in the case of the other prisoners) deserve the threat, or (in the case of the guards) willingly accept the threat by being in that job.  Also, there's always the chance of escape.  You don't have that chance with death.\n\nIn addition, there's the obvious fact that if you accept the death penalty, almost regardless of standards for conviction, you're going to eventually get an innocent person in there.  Making the standards for conviction extremely high just leads to multiple expensive appeals, which brings us back to the economic reason to be against it.  It also makes the death penalty so rare that any appeal to it being a deterrent is just silly at that point, because even if you are convicted you'd have to be one of the unlucky ones to get the chair.\n\nIn fact, I have not seen any evidence that it actually serves as a deterrent, regardless of the extensiveness of its use.\n\nI do believe that the highest value must be placed on human life, but when you have one human life that continues to threaten others, isn't it respecting that value to end their life?\n\nI don't know.  I'm an atheist struggling to have a position on this.
549946
I would mention how permanent a penalty it is.  When a mistake is made, there's no way to correct it.  With DNA evidence now freeing falsely convicted people almost weekly, it's clear that the system is flawed.  Even DNA evidence that clears an executed person can't bring him back from the dead.  Research the "Innocence Project," and you should get some powerful arguments for abolishing (or at least modifying) the death penalty.
479080
There is a lot of information on the internet about this topic.  I just typed "racial bias in capital punishment" and 196,000 results popped up.  If you enter each type of bias you will get plenty of source material.
354749
The word is "appeal" if you're convicted. Then write a book about it. It happens a lot. The main thing judges say is "ignorance of the law is not a defense to breaking the law." In front of a judge alone, you may be up the creek, but there's always a chance if you appeal to get a jury. Human Error is something jury's can relate to easily, we are all human after all.
620757
The tug and pull can be summed up as the theoretical and the reality.  For the first, I would want us to rehabilitate people, make them into productive members of society - that maximizes social good.  Reality is, that aint gonna happen for some people, and many come out worse than they went in.  Theoretically, putting someone in prison for life is more expensive.  Reality, a death row appeal ends up costing more dollars b/c of the expense to the taxpayer on the legal system.  Theoretically, we should tell people that killing is wrong, and teaching that lesson by doing the same.  Reality is, people commit crimes not with fear of the level of punishment, but by balancing the likelihood of getting caught.\nReality - society doesn't care, and most people dont care what ridiculously high percentage of people get railroaded by the justice system.\nBut I will say this from my personal opinion, I am tired of caring for people that want to whine about how their punishment isnt fair.  People make choices, and if you step outside the bounds society lays out, they shouldn't be surprrised that they don't like how society reacts.
194710
Not as many years as you should be sentenced to for being guilty of slaughtering and assaulting the English language. Oh my gosh! "Found guilty," "manslaughter," "assault."\n\nBut I'm not winning any friends that way. Here's an answer to your question:\n\nIt depends upon the jurisdiction, whether the judge has to use mandatory minimum sentencing, whether the guilty person had a prior record, whether s/he is a juvenile. It depends upon whether the person was found guilty in a trial and the sentence was recommended by a jury, or decided strictly by the judge; or, whether the defendant took a plea bargain from the district attorney and allocuted to the crime in front of a judge; and, whether the judge followed the sentencing recommendations laid out in the plea bargain. \n\nIn some jurisdictions the charges that you have mentioned are simple and straightforward; in others, there may be degrees of seriousness of each. In New York, there is manslaughter in the "first degree" and in the "second degree." They mean different things and have different punishments associated with them.\n\nIf this person is awaiting or in the middle of the trial, the jury will possibly have some say over whether lesser-included charges can dictate the sentence. There are two ways: one is by "jury nullification," where they come up with their own charge (very rare); another is that in some jurisdictions the jury can be instructed to find a person guilty of the most serious crime that the person has committed if they believe that the prosecutor has proven guilt, but not all of the facts of the highest charge. For instance: if someone were charged with manslaughter, and was obviously guilty of involvement in the murder but had not intended to kill the victim, the jury might be able to come back with a verdict of negligent homicide.\n\nOther factors: how much time did the person spend in jail before and after the indictment? Will that be deducted from the final sentence as time-served? Is the DA trying the person for both manslaughter and aggravated assault, or is the second somehow a lesser-included charge? Will the judge run the sentences consecutively or concurrently? (The defendant might get 7 years for manslaughter and 2 for aggravated assault. If concurrent, the max is 7 years; if consecutive, the person is being sentenced to 9 years.)\n\nYour question, though, is about how many years the person would serve. Besides the variables in sentencing, there would be considerations for good behavior and decisions by the parole board. So there's no way, with the information that you've given, that anyone could tell you exactly how long the defendant you describe would have to stay in jail.
389576
If the criminal admits to the crime, then I agree, kill them the same day.  But if they proclaim their innocence, they have a right to appeal. You are either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or you aren't...so I don't really think you can put a percentage on guilt to be ok with the execution.\n\nOn a side note, I think that capital punishment is a good crime deterent.  If people are desperate, it won't matter, but it will deter some.
521243
She should do at least 10. Thats a decade of her life in Prison. That's probably the only justice you will get.
143430
Having served on a murder jury already, I would choose to be on a case where there's a parking dispute or someone didn't pay their rent. Murder is hard. If you have the power to send someone to death, it is not as fun as it might seem.