Death Row Inmates

[Lil Red]

forgetting the death penalty debate (whether or not it is moral, etc.), since right now the death penalty is in effect, should death row inmates have so many appeals and be able to avoid the punishment accorded to their crimes for decades and decades?

[KnightofChrist]

Yes, basically. They should have as many appeals they need until justice is carried out. Should that be for decades, is a another question... I dont think they should be waiting decades.

Edited April 17, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

The reason would be to allow the a very good chance to prove innocence. Since there have been so many overturned because of DNA results.

[CatherineM]

I used to volunteer with the St. Thomas More law center. I guess I would be more likely to say fewer appeals except that all the ones I dealt with were poor, and had not had adequate representation the first time through. I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, and I know that makes me in the minority around here, but I don't think that penalties should depend on how wealthy a defendant is. We should be better than that, and until we are, we should give every opportunity for appeal.

[Deb]

Yes UNLESS there are twenty seven witnesses to murder. They all independently picked him out of a line up and none of the twenty seven knew the victim, the murderer or each other.

[cmotherofpirl]

No there should not be.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1501910' date='Apr 17 2008, 04:33 PM']I'm morally opposed to the death penalty, and I know that makes me in the minority around here.[/quote]

Nah, you're not. I don't think it's necessary anymore, either.

[BeenaBobba]

Anyhow, I answered yes. Innocent people have been sentenced to death before, so I don't think any stone should be left unturned when it comes to appeals. IMO, it's better to be on the safe side.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1501868' date='Apr 17 2008, 01:18 PM']forgetting the death penalty debate (whether or not it is moral, etc.), since right now the death penalty is in effect, should death row inmates have so many appeals and be able to avoid the punishment accorded to their crimes for decades and decades?[/quote]

I'm fully in support of the death penalty, but it does have its problems and innocent people have been put to death. I go back and forth on this because I think a lot of times people are just trying to put off the inevitable, but sometimes they have real legit reasons for an appeal. I think a certain number of appeals should be allowed, but how many I'm not sure.

[Alycin]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1502440' date='Apr 18 2008, 01:12 AM']Nah, you're not. I don't think it's necessary anymore, either. [/quote]


Ditto!

[Paphnutius]

Although this was not meant to elicit a debate concerning the death penalty, I must recognize that my stance on capital punishment informs my vote. I believe that before one can be sentenced to death, all real, possible alternatives should first be exhausted. This would seem to include that chance for multiple appeals.

[cmotherofpirl]

Is not appeal after appeal after appeal cruel and unusual punishment in itself? One or two appeals should be enough.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1502664' date='Apr 18 2008, 01:07 PM']Is not appeal after appeal after appeal cruel and unusual punishment in itself? One or two appeals should be enough.[/quote]
I am not sure exactly how appeals are processed or work, but doesn't the accused have to ask for an appeal? If it is cruel and unusual punishment, it would appear to be self-inflicted if nothing else. Hope does spring eternal. I know that if I was an innocent on death row, I would appreciate the opportunity for more than one appeal. As I said, though, I have little knowledge about how appeals work. Can anyone offer clarification on this?

[CatherineM]

All death penalty cases are automatically appealed. If they don't want to appeal, it takes almost as long to fight that, see Gary Gilmore. What most people don't understand is that when it comes to appeals, they do not look at the evidence again. They only look to see if there were any procedural errors, incompetent counsel. No new evidence is allowed if it could have been presented originally and wasn't. That's why appeals about DNA have worked so far because the technology wasn't available when many of these cases were originally heard.

Now if the DNA is done, and doesn't point to the defendant, but they are still convicted on the basis of eye witness testimony, there will be no basis to appeal on DNA grounds. Every study done on eye witness testimony has shown how unreliable it is, but juries still place most of their faith in that rather than science. Many juries when polled will tell you that they voted to convict simply because the person had been arrested, and if they had been innocent, the police wouldn't have arrested them. Being falsely accused of something you didn't do is one of my greatest fears in life because I have seen what can happen.

[Lena]

I don't think there should be an unlimited amount of appeals, but I didn't realize new evidence couldn't be entered with an appeal?