Yeah, the poor get a bad rap in court. So the **** what if they are guilty. Have I not said REPEATEDLY that the DP should be for those that are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Most that are locked up or on DP have a reasonable doubt. Under my system LESS people would be executed, but they would be those that deserved it. And I don't know why you don't know what I am talking about... it is pretty clear.
And "adequate representation in Court" is not a right.
You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. (Modern readings have can and will in place of may)
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?
Miranda warning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 6th Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
Right to counsel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In June 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins and ordered a new sentencing hearing because his lawyers' assistance fell well below the standard of competent legal representation. Wiggins, a black man from Maryland, had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1998 murder of Florence Lacs; he was arrested because he was in possession of Lacs' car and credit cards. Wiggins' counsel failed to conduct a thorough investigation into Wiggins' history of severe emotional, physical, and sexual abuse as a young child. Despite the fact that such an analysis is routine in capital cases, his counsel introduced no mitigating evidence and failed to even prepare a social history or hire an expert to do so. This omission is critical because juries often reject death and impose a life sentence when such evidence is presented.
Expanding on that, it is the reason why the Innocence Project finds such a high percentage of its exonerations have involved false confessions. People are generally good natured. They feel bad (like this girl did), want to be helpful or cooperative with the authorities, are tired, scared or sympathetic to someone, and lo and behold that goodwill leads them straight into giving a confession to something they didn't do. Even if they didn't intended it, or actually realize they are "confessing."
It's a crappy system for those that don't realize that their role is to be a complete, unresponsive jerk. It contributes to the issue of innocent death row inmates.
Last edited by brothern; 05-06-14 at 06:55 PM.
Help fight Zika, TB, HIV/AIDs and water pollution by donating your CPU's excess processing time to computing-based scientific research.
Kevin Wiggins was convicted and put on death row for the 1988 murder of an elderly woman in her Baltimore County apartment. The Baltimore County public defenders assigned to represent him during his first trial were young and inexperienced, and neither had ever been the primary attorney on a capital case. Rather than introducing very convincing mitigating factors of neglect and abuse that he suffered as a child during the sentencing phase of Wiggins' trial, his attorneys made the case for his innocence. His attorneys also failed to enter in the fact that Wiggins is borderline mentally retarded.
After being affirmed by Maryland's Court of Appeals, Wiggins' conviction and sentence were overturned in a federal district court on a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. However, shortly afterwards the decision was reversed and the Fourth Circuit Court reinstated both the conviction and death sentence.
Finally, in November of 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal of Wiggins' sentencing hearing, but declined the appeal of his conviction. Appling a two-pronged test outlined in a 1984 decision, Strickland v. Washington, the Court sought to determine first whether or not Wiggins' counsel was deficient and second, if that deficiency prejudiced the outcome. In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that Wiggins' attorneys' failure to investigate and introduce mitigating factors was indeed due to carelessness as opposed to "reasoned strategic judgment," and that the presentation of such mitigating factors likely would have "led at least one juror to reject the death penalty." Thus, in June of 2003, Wiggins' death sentence was effectively overturned and he was resentenced to life in prison.
Specific Cases | Maryland Citizens Against State Executions
I have talked to police, lawyers, court psychologists and judges during at least three court appearances and other minor issues with police and never once did I confess to anything that I did not do. I doubt that even a fraction of those that talk to cops and lawyers do either...Expanding on that, it is the reason why the Innocence Project finds such a high percentage of its exonerations have involved false confessions. People are generally good natured. They feel bad (like this girl did), want to be helpful or cooperative with the authorities, are tired, scared or sympathetic to someone, and lo and behold that goodwill leads them straight into giving a confession to something they didn't do. Even if they didn't intended it, or actually realize they are "confessing."
Something should be done to ensure that nobody innocent goes to Death Row. Throwing away the Death Penalty because of some problems is as illogical as throwing away your car because the breaks don't work properly. You fix the problem.It's a crappy system for those that don't realize that their role is to be a complete, unresponsive jerk. It contributes to the issue of innocent death row inmates.
I don't understand you putting in displeasure the way that you do but here is the reason for the latter part...I'm curious then. If you believe that killing is a displeasure, what possible logic do you have to justify the idea that killing another human being "upholds the value of innocent life"?
Teleological ethics - New World Encyclopedia
I am against the death penalty entirely, but even if I were to condone it, it could only ever be on the basis of this being the most moral act.
The government can't stoop to the level of a murderer -- it would thus lose the moral high ground to dish out penalties in the first place.
Ergo, it is the duty of the government, when enacting the death penalty, to do so with the utmost respect and the least suffering. The point is for this person to be gone, not for this person to feel the wrath of the people he hurt.
Otherwise it's just barbaric.
Economic Left/Right: -7.25, Authoritarian/Libertarian:-7.13
All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume. -Noam Chomsky