They recently(within the last 5 years) introduced a law in Texas to cut down on appeals if there are more than (I think) 10 (maybe 5 or 7, but some significant number) eye-witnesses to a murder. If only eye-witnesses were reliable.....
If the punishment were more severe, I think it may make a small difference, but not enough of one. Then you start treading the "cruel and unusual punishment" laws.
There's a country in Europe that fines people for drunk driving a fine based on a percentage of their annual salary. A corporate CEO was caught drunk driving and consequently fined over $250,000. Strategies like that can help deter people for some crimes, but if it's murder, that's not going to make a difference.
People kill for various reasons, but most people choose not to kill for one reason: it's not right. They would feel guilt and sorrow for ending a person's life. People don't avoid killing solely because of fear of repurcussion from our government.
Thus, I don't think fear of being put in jail or being put to death is a reasonable deterrant.
I believe people are put into jail for periods of time beforehand as a form of punishment. Let them stew for a bit before dying. Furthermore, evidence does occasionally come to light that exonerates defendants from crimes they didn't commit. This is also taken into consideration.
We should still feel lucky that we live in a society where we know we have the rights to defend ourselves in the court of law. Some countries' residents still fear the police because of a gross imbalance of power.
In a mind-boggling act of sadistic legal legal buck-passing (I can't bring myself to glorify it with the word "reasoning"), the Florida District Court of Appeals upheld a 25 year mandatory minimum sentence for a Florida man convicted of "drug trafficking" for possessing his own pain medication.
Richard Paey is a wheelchair-bound father of three young children.
He has no prior criminal record-- in fact, he's an Ivy League law school graduate. He has not one, but two extensively documented and excruciatingly painful chronic disorders: multiple sclerosis and chronic back pain due to an injury suffered in a car accident that was treated by a surgery that made matters worse. (This surgery was so egregiously misguided that TV exposes and numerous large malpractice judgments resulted). Paey has already been in prison for three long years.
In prison-- a place not exactly known for medical kindness-- he has been given a morphine pump, which now daily gives him similar or higher doses of medication than he was convicted of possessing illegally.
So why is he serving 25 years? Tipped off by a pharmacist ignorant of pain management, Florida authorities decided that the doses of painkillers he was receiving were so high that he had to be selling the drugs, not taking them. They found no evidence of this, however, even after putting him under surveillance for months.
But they did manage to convince his New Jersey doctor-- who Paey claims authorized his prescriptions-- to testify that, in fact, Paey was forging them. The doctor was told that he would face a similarly lengthy prison sentence for trafficking if he'd authorized such high doses for a patient who had moved from New Jersey to Florida. (See here for why he had reason to fear, despite prescribing legitimately and appropriately).
To add to the exquisite ironies of the case, the reason Paey qualified for such a lengthy sentence was due largely to his possession of acetaminophen (Tylenol), not opioids. Paey was taking pills that included acetaminophen and oxycodone-- but the state counted the weight of the acetaminophen towards the weight of illegal drugs when it determined the charges that led to his sentence.
In upholding his sentence, the majority argued that it was not so "grossly disproportionate" as to be "cruel or unusual" under Florida's constitution. It is the legislature's role, they said, to determine the appropriate laws based on harm done by drugs to the community and prior case has law upheld lengthy mandatory minimums for drug crimes.
Essentially, since Paey's sentence wasn't death or life without parole, it was OK, even though it was a nonviolent first offense committed by a person suffering extreme pain without evidence that he was actually planning on selling drugs. Paey's family-- who had been hoping he'd be home for Christmas-- will have to wait.
The bottom line, for the majority, was that the law had been applied appropriately. Because the outcome was unjust in this particular case, Paey should seek clemency from the governor, not appellate court relief. Noting that the facts of the case "evoke sympathy" for Paey, they concluded that "Mr. Paey's argument about his sentences does not fall on deaf ears, but it falls on the wrong ears."
The only glimmer of hope was the thundering dissent by Judge James Seals. He gave hypothetical examples of situations in which an innocent person could be similarly convicted of drug trafficking by dint of simple possession of large quantities of drugs. He then concluded:
I suggest that it is cruel for a man with an undisputed medical need for a substantial amount of daily medication management to go to prison for twenty-five years for using self-help means to obtain and amply supply himself with the medicine he needed...
I suggest that it is unusual, illogical, and unjust that Mr. Paey could conceivably go to prison for a longer stretch for peacefully but unlawfully purchasing 100 oxycodone pills from a pharmacist than had he robbed the pharmacist at knife point, stolen fifty oxycodone pills which he intended to sell to children waiting outside, and then stabbed the pharmacist...
It is illogical, absurd, cruel, and unusual for the government to put Mr. Paey in prison for twenty-five years for foolishly and desperately pursuing his self-help solution to his medical management problems, and then go to prison only to find that the prison medical staff is prescribing the same or similar medication he had sought on the outside but could not legitimately obtain. That fact alone clearly proves what his intent for purchasing the drugs was. What a tragic irony.
In a letter to the governor requesting clemency, Paey's attorney, John Flannery, wrote, "In more than thirty years of practice as an appellate law clerk in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and a federal prosecutor and as a practicing appellate and trial lawyer, I have never seen an opinion such as this in which the Court agreed the sentence was wrong but could not agree on how to correct it."
This is a sorry time for justice in America-- and an even sorrier time for the media, which continues to ignore the ongoing disgrace of our drug laws and their enforcement. (For more information and to help support Paey and others caught up in the war on pain doctors and their patients, visit the Pain Relief Network.)
My God, its things like this that make me strongly consider just being a hermit who never interacts with anyone or anything in hopes that I don't get charged with something.
I believe people are put into jail for periods of time beforehand as a form of punishment. Let them stew for a bit before dying. Furthermore, evidence does occasionally come to light that exonerates defendants from crimes they didn't commit. This is also taken into consideration.
I don't support the stewing argument one bit, but your second point is pretty good. They still don't deserve an expensive meal, though.
... Okay, he has to take just as many drugs in jail as he was accused of selling? And they don't know how to fix the sentence? Here's a hint: NO SENTENCE, YOU IDIOTS!
Maybe I'm just an overwrought drama queen, but I like the idea of a last meal. I'm for giving these people a tiny shred of some sort of dignity before they're nixed, particularly since I believe most are contrite by that point. Then again, I'm also opposed to the death penalty in general.
...alright, you caught me, I just like knowing what people on the brink of death want to eat.
Yeah, see. That second link you posted, first story... Shot the guy in 1999, finally executed in 2006. I know there's still trial and what not in that time, but that's far too large a gap.
The day of: Prison officials said beginning at 9:30 a.m. Hutcherson met with 23 family members, including his ex-wife, Tracie Havens, and daughter Candace Hutcherson, who took home his letters, photos and three Bibles. He left a television set to one inmate and a radio and headphones to another. He was described as very calm.
And why the fuck do they have televisions and radios?! That's bullshit.
I like Diet Coke more than regular Coke, so I can see why he'd order that. Although, that's only if Coke options are the only drinks available. Assuming both Pepsi and Coke are available, I'd go for Mountain Dew.
What you need: a tub, enough beans to fill said tub.
How to do it: just dig in, you chunky son of a bitch! Keep eating until you can't possibly eat anymore, then eat some more. Your gut will rupture and you will shit yourself. The cool thing about this method is that it's not only disgusting to clean up, but you'll probably be so bloated from the beans (choose Van Camp's by the way, not Bush's baked beans unless you like the taste of beans pickled in ball sweat) that you probably won't fit in the casket without some serious reconstructive surgery. Guess who's footing the bill for that one? That's right: friends and family. Just kidding. You have no friends.
That'd be a better way to die than any electric chair, lethal injection...or anything for that matter.
Defendant, 23, obsessed with killing people, judge says
OSAKA (Kyodo) The Osaka District Court sentenced a 23-year-old man to death Wednesday for murdering two sisters in their apartment in the city.
News photo
Kazuo Uehara, whose daughters, Asuka and Chihiro, were slain in Osaka in November 2005, faces reporters Wednesday along with his son, Takuya, after a district court sentenced Yukio Yamaji to hang for the murders. KYODO PHOTO
Yukio Yamaji stabbed Asuka Uehara, 27, and her 19-year-old sister, Chihiro, to death, stole 5,000 yen and torched the apartment Nov. 17, 2005, the court found.
The women suffered deep stab wounds to their chests and faces.
"It was a cruel and outrageous crime," presiding Judge Masao Namiki said. "The defendant has not reflected on his crime, and it is unlikely that he will be rehabilitated. His criminal responsibility is too heavy."
"The defendant is dangerous, as he is obsessed with killing people," Namiki said. "The victims were killed in unimaginable fear and pain, and it is inevitable to hand down capital punishment."
Yamaji was released from a reformatory in October 2003 after killing his mother, 50, in the city of Yamaguchi in July 2000 with a baseball bat. He was 16.
After killing the two Osaka sisters, Yamaji allegedly told police investigators, "I could not forget the feeling when I killed my mother, and wanted to see human blood."
The court accepted expert evidence that determined he was mentally competent.
His lawyers, who submitted a guilty plea for the man, had sought a life sentence, arguing he should spend the rest of his life atoning for his crime.
Yamaji's family life up to the point of killing his mother was "exactly like hell," he told investigators.
After his father died when Yamaji was 11 years old, he and his mother were forced to live in heavy debt, and it was often hard to buy decent food, according to the investigators.
The Yamaguchi Family Court had sent him to a reform center for minors after concluding the attack on his mother was not deliberately planned. It determined that though he lacked a deep sense of guilt, correction was possible.
The father of the two sisters, Kazuo Uehara, held a news conference after Wednesday's sentencing.
"Executing him will never bring them back," he said, but he feels Yamaji deserves to be put to death.
"In that sense, the ruling makes me feel justice still exists Japan," he said.
(CBS) PLAINFIELD, Ill. A 13-year-old Plainfield boy and his parents are stunned and outraged after the teen found a gun in school and turned it in to authorities, who then expelled him.
CBS 2's Dana Kozlov reports Ryan Morgan's parents and supporters attended the school board meeting Wednesday evening to try to fight the expulsion. They believe the punishment, and the subsequent alternative school option, are not the proper responses to a mistake made by a teenage boy.
Ryan Morgan, 13, says he pocketed a pellet gun he and a friend found in their school's bathroom to keep people safe. Morgan's mother says a short time later Morgan gave the gun to the Troy Middle School assistant principal.
"I told him maybe that wasn't the best decision, to remove that gun, but it did lead to you finding the culprit, he was arrested and to put my son in alternative school -- he has no behavior problems," Audrey Morgan, Ryan's mother, said.
The Morgans say there was no reasoning with the principal or with the school superintendent.
"He said, 'The board can give your son full two-year expulsion, I'm asking you not to go before them,'" Audrey Morgan said.
They went anyway, saying they had nothing to lose, only to see the meeting minutes already recommend expulsion.
Roy Morgan says he can't accept that, but accepts his son's decision.
"He said 'I'm going to turn this in' and you know what, I commend my son for making that decision. It was the right decision," he said.
School board officials issued a statement Wednesday night saying due to confidentiality reasons they can't discuss the specifics of this case, but that "purposeful possession of weapons is a serious offense and deserves careful consideration by the administration and the school board."
But really, this is really messed up, and the school board made a big mistake. However, possession is possession, and I can see where they're coming from. But I can also see their stupidity of expelling the kid. But then again, why didn't the kid just leave it alone? That makes two things that were messed with that should of been left alone! That gun, and Iraq. *ahem*
So I think both the kid, and the school staff are very,very dimwitted.
He did the right thing, just not the right way. The right way was was to find an authority figure, and have them confiscate the gun, without touching it.
If they found who the original gun owner is, I fail to see how the school board is unable to remand their decision. But, as we've seen before, common sense is quite elusive.
"Possesion is Possesion," My ass! The kid did the right thing, I mean although it was only a pellet gun it's better than just leaving the damn thing where it was so it could potentially do harm. He does NOT deserve expulsion at all, he should get some kind of award, not a punishment.
Remember there are factors here that were not in the article! At the moment, we'll have to trust our (read: somebody else's) elected officials to make the best decision for society as a whole.
Remember there are factors here that were not in the article! At the moment, we'll have to trust our (read: somebody else's) elected officials to make the best decision for society as a whole.
Factors like what? I don't see any factors missing that would make explusion acceptable, unless it was actually his gun in the first place and they didn't put that in the article.
Comments
If the punishment were more severe, I think it may make a small difference, but not enough of one. Then you start treading the "cruel and unusual punishment" laws.
There's a country in Europe that fines people for drunk driving a fine based on a percentage of their annual salary. A corporate CEO was caught drunk driving and consequently fined over $250,000. Strategies like that can help deter people for some crimes, but if it's murder, that's not going to make a difference.
People kill for various reasons, but most people choose not to kill for one reason: it's not right. They would feel guilt and sorrow for ending a person's life. People don't avoid killing solely because of fear of repurcussion from our government.
Thus, I don't think fear of being put in jail or being put to death is a reasonable deterrant.
I believe people are put into jail for periods of time beforehand as a form of punishment. Let them stew for a bit before dying. Furthermore, evidence does occasionally come to light that exonerates defendants from crimes they didn't commit. This is also taken into consideration.
We should still feel lucky that we live in a society where we know we have the rights to defend ourselves in the court of law. Some countries' residents still fear the police because of a gross imbalance of power.
The doctor should be locked up, not the sick man!
Law does not provide for common sense and ethics.
That's a whole new level of police incompetence.
If I only had a nickel for every time I've found the need to say that...
...I have no rebuttal to that. Good point.
I don't support the stewing argument one bit, but your second point is pretty good. They still don't deserve an expensive meal, though.
... Okay, he has to take just as many drugs in jail as he was accused of selling? And they don't know how to fix the sentence? Here's a hint: NO SENTENCE, YOU IDIOTS!
...alright, you caught me, I just like knowing what people on the brink of death want to eat.
And why the fuck do they have televisions and radios?! That's bullshit.
It seems that the most popular items are fried chicken, burgers, fries, and Dr. Pepper. Yum.
Kinda funny how one guy ordered Diet Coke. Like it'll matter, really.
That'd be a better way to die than any electric chair, lethal injection...or anything for that matter.
But really, this is really messed up, and the school board made a big mistake. However, possession is possession, and I can see where they're coming from. But I can also see their stupidity of expelling the kid. But then again, why didn't the kid just leave it alone? That makes two things that were messed with that should of been left alone! That gun, and Iraq. *ahem*
So I think both the kid, and the school staff are very,very dimwitted.
People these days are so fucking stupid.
Factors like what? I don't see any factors missing that would make explusion acceptable, unless it was actually his gun in the first place and they didn't put that in the article.