I have said twice now that it needs reformed but along with that reform is the need to do away with the death penalty.

This makes the third time I have said it.

-S-

 

Okay you have a great many jurisdictions that have done away with the death sentence, when are you going to start the reform??

 

Just for the record only 13 of the 50 US states do not have the death penalty.

 

How many have executed a person in the last 10 years??


34 sates have executed someone since 1976, only 12 have in the last two years.

 

Once I'm elected president it will be top of my list. Vote Shake!

-S-

 

Do I have to??

 

If you want the reform you're after. No one else is talking about it, are they?

-S-

 

Okay, but can I keep the death penalty in my town?

 

That'd be up to the voters, I think.

-S-

 

Really?

I thought you wanted to abolish it altogether.

 

It does. The House and Senate could pass the law that bans the death penalty. However, if enough people in those states get all pissed off, they vote in legislators who will overturn the law. So in the end, it does come down to the voters.

-S-

 

Thank you for acknowledging that.

 

I'd vote for you. And I think a president that came out against the death penalty for the reasons we've been discussing here could do a lot to change the public's perception of the death penalty.

Right now about 60% of Americans favor the death penalty but that is because most of them are ignorant of the fact it does not act as a deterrent and certiainly are not fully aware of how may innocents are killed.

The quickest and easiest and probably most likely route to ending the death penalty is through the supreme court. This is another issue the court is narrowly divided on and it could be easily overturned.

I think congressional action on it would run into a state's right issue. Southern states seem particularly found of the death penalty and of course they also have some of the highest murder rates.

 

Democracy at it's finest. Has it ever been put to a vote, though?

-S-

 

I believe it has, I'll take a look see.

 

Everything I have found shows the vote to be legislative, not public. Although NJ did vote it out, I think it was still up to the legislature.

 

No. To the best of my knowledge and belief the death penalty has never been voted on in referendum form although it has been voted on by some state legislatures.

Here's another interesting fact though. Juries essentially vote to condemn people to death but this is a very slanted vote. The reason is that during the jury selection phase of the trial in capital punishment cases people who oppose the death penalty are eliminated from the jury. This has a tendency to eliminate women and minorities from juries and stacks the outcome of the trial in favor of the prosecution.

 

From what I can gather, after reading several reports on the subject, the selection of jurors in capital cases includes the question for one reason. Those who state that they are against the death penalty have shown a bias before the trial, therefore they are excluded, as any biased juror would be.

In other words if a person says they are okay with the death penalty, then the verdict could include that possiblility, but not guarantee it. However, if a person says they are against the death penalty, then they will not vote for it in any situation, thereby intentionally subverting the law.

 

"When you excuse all the people who are opposed to the death penalty, it's a kind of law-and-order screening device," says Craig Haney, a professor of psychology and sociology at the University of California at Santa Cruz who has been polling jurors and studying jury selection for 35 years. "You end up with a group of people who evaluate evidence a little differently, who are more likely to find evidence to be incriminating, and who generally don't even understand or accept the concept of presumption of innocence." But proponents of death-qualifying say that if there were no such procedure, nearly every jury would likely include one or more members who would veto any death-penalty conviction, essentially rendering void the capital punishment statutes of 31 states and the federal judicial system. Moreover, they add, defense attorneys get to excuse any potential juror who publicly admits to an inflexible intent to impose death on anyone convicted of murder, regardless of mitigating circumstances or the instructions of a judge.

But defense attorneys counter that since not many potential jurors are willing to state such a position so bluntly, few actually get excluded on those grounds. And they stress that the effects of death-qualification on the racial composition of juries can be quite stark.

Prosecutors know that death-qualifying a jury is a great way to help ensure a conviction. That, say experts, is one reason why many of them -- particularly in jurisdictions with high death-penalty rates like Texas, Florida, Illinois, Virginia, California and Pennsylvania -- deliberately overcharge in murder cases even where they know the death penalty is not appropriate or likely.


In other words, the process can lead to higher conviction rates -- and most likely to more wrongful convictions -- not just in capital cases, but in other murder cases, too.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=395&scid=

 

A biased juror is a biased juror, paint it anyway you'd like, it still is a factor in dismissing jurors. When a case including child abuse isundergoing jury selection, questions of how one views the crime and punishment are frequently asked. Those who think that children are property are excused. Such bias is a basic qualificaton for expulsion.

Jury selection is thought to be the second most critical stage in a trial, from all perspectives.