Republicans want to speed up death penalty

shuamort · 07-06-05, 03:29 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans in Congress have launched a new effort to speed up executions in the United States by limiting the ability of those sentenced to death to appeal to federal courts.

The "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," introduced into the House of Representatives by California Rep. Dan Lungren and in the Senate by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, would limit the ability of defendants facing the death sentence to have their cases reviewed by federal courts in what are known as habeas corpus appeals.

----snip------

A study headed by Columbia University statistician and political scientist Andrew Gelman of all 5,826 death sentences imposed in the United States between 1973 and 1995 found that 68 per cent were reversed on appeal.

Federal courts examining habeas corpus appeals overturned 40 percent of the cases that had previously been upheld by state appeals courts -- a fact the authors called worrisome.

Pacridge · 07-06-05, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuamort

Republicans want to speed up death penalty

Hum, during the whole Terry Schiavo debacle aren't these the same people who wanted to "err on the side of safety when it comes to life and death?"

vandree · 07-06-05, 03:38 PM

Why do they want to speed it up? Why risking executing someone who is innocent for example. Just wondering what the reasoning behind it is

Datamonkee · 07-06-05, 03:55 PM

I'm for either speeding up the process for NEWLY convicted inmates, or abolishing the death penalty all together. My reasons are purely fiscal. To execute a present day death row inmate costs our government millions of dollars, where a 85 cent bullet would do. From all the appeals they receive to the inane petitions to stay execution from "fans" of murderers, it just builds and builds to where it has become a million dollars industry to protect the convicted. Where our money should be spent EDUCATING these people, we are struggling to keep them alive when they have removed viable members of society. Clean out death row, then use the money saved to build working schools, that educate and protect future generations.

shuamort · 07-06-05, 03:57 PM

One of the sponsors, Dan Lungren, when talking about stem cell research said:

Quote:

Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Sacramento, said he opposed the legislation even though it could help members of his own family, including an older brother with Parkinson's.

"The worst mistakes we've ever made in the history of this nation have been when we have defined a part of the human family as less than fully human, and done things to them that we would not allow done to ourselves," Lungren said.

So, I guess he's ok with getting executed without appeal?

Pacridge · 07-06-05, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Datamonkee

I'm for either speeding up the process for NEWLY convicted inmates, or abolishing the death penalty all together. My reasons are purely fiscal. To execute a present day death row inmate costs our government millions of dollars, where a 85 cent bullet would do. From all the appeals they receive to the inane petitions to stay execution from "fans" of murderers, it just builds and builds to where it has become a million dollars industry to protect the convicted. Where our money should be spent EDUCATING these people, we are struggling to keep them alive when they have removed viable members of society. Clean out death row, then use the money saved to build working schools, that educate and protect future generations.

Welcome to Debate Politics.

You seriously think the anti-death penalty people are "fans of murders?"

ShamMol · 07-06-05, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacridge

Welcome to Debate Politics.

You seriously think the anti-death penalty people are "fans of murders?"

That is basicallly what he said. Honestly, my parents are both in the law and I have heard of about 5 different cases just at the dinner table where the decision was reversed or they were let go because of prosecutorial misconduct, dna, new facts, etc. It is a long process, but a very fair and complete one (with the exception of two states) which results in fewer errors. But I ask again, why not lock them up in prison, which costs less. The person who was for speeding it up for fiscal reasons, would you support life in prison because it costs less?

Stinger · 07-06-05, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandree

Why do they want to speed it up? Why risking executing someone who is innocent for example. Just wondering what the reasoning behind it is

How about the guy who committed the courthouse murders in Georgia? Why slow that down? There is no doubt he did it, he is sane, he is guilty. How about speeding it up in such cases?

How about the guy who buried the little girl alive in the trailer? Why wait.

The guy who murdered the family and ran off with the little boy and little girl. They just caught him with the little girl and believe they now have the boys body. No doubt he did it, why slow it down for him?