a good defense is mostly for those with means, who are the LEAST likely to have been set up.

the undereducated and impoverished are the easiest to set up and knock down and they are the ones that need a process that will make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

I agree and that process is called trial.
Life isn't fair, never has been.
People do get railroaded, always have.
My opinion is never going to change the nature of human inequities but I can voice it because I live in a free country.

There is a growing number of individuals that are tired of society's ineptitude. The 'game' is coming to an end and I only hope that the resulting changes provide a better society and not a descent into madness.

I would say that process is called the COURTs (plural) which allow for reviews by an educated PANEL of elected and educated law professionals to make sure the singular attorneys and judges followed the constitution and laws in securing their convictions,,


I also hope that we are constantly striving for a 'better'society, one with a just and compassionate humanity,,,,

Please don't take this wrong...BUT (edit to add) Consider This:

Judges are elected to the bench to make judgements because they are supposed to be the most knowledgeable of the laws they preside over. They are there because they are intended to be the final say in a case.
By installing after judgement courts we are basically saying that we don't trust the judgement of the judges we elected in the first place. So if we don't trust their judgement what is the point?

A jury, in essence, is proof that we don't trust judges to judge accurately.
The jury is an advisory panel that assists the judges to do what we elected them to do anyway. But the judge always has final power over a jury verdict.

The Prosecutor is there to present evidence to the judge concerning the details of the case.
The Defense provides details as well.
All that information is presented to the judge for judgement.

The laws define the conditions for different judgements. The judges job is to know the law and digest the facts and make a judgement.

If it all went according to how it should the process needs no second look.

Things get in the way of the facts. He killed him because... is now an excuse needing consideration. Extenuating circumstances have changed the function of judgement from reality to opinion.

If I am charged with murder and all the facts confirm that I did murder then judgement should be made based on the laws of the land in which I am judged. Society sets the punishment. If the punishment is death, then I need to die. The judgement has already been made based of the facts and the laws concerning the case.

Dereliction by any member of the process is dereliction of that person and not the process itself. The process is sound.
If everyone does their job right, misjudgements won't occur but for the times that they do, it IS GOOD that we have a way to check.

yet, one judge is still only human over any case he presides over, and when it comes down to a life and death choice , I Am glad there are checks and balances for when that one judge makes an err in his/her 'judgment'


Installing an authority over presiding judges is not saying we dont 'trust' their judgment it is only aknowledging that a singular person can make a mistake much easier than a GROUP of people

its the difference between going to my manager with a decision or going above his head when I dont agree with the decision

human beings can be wrong, whatever their title, hierarchies exist everywhere in life, why not the 'justice' system?


the jury is proof that the founders did not wish to have citizens run by dictators and tyrants,, being able to be judged by 'peers' diminishes the capacity for peoples lives to be in the hands of any ONE individual


it does go according to 'how it should',, aknowledging that with humans,, misjudgments will ALWAYS Have occasion to occur, and need fresh eyes to correct...

So, by your own understanding we would be better off being judged by computers?

Is compassion needed to make a judgement based on facts?

What is the point of a ruling by a judge if it can be over-turned?

The topic deals with the duration from judgement to execution.

My argument is that once a judgement to execute is made there should be no waiting because judgement has been rendered.

Your argument is that there needs to be more judgement to make sure the original judgement was correct.

What is the purpose of judgement if it is not trusted?

If we can't or shouldn't trust the judge's judgement then it defeats their purpose.

Judgement: GUILTY
Sentence of Punishment for the crime judged: DEATH
The judgement has been made and the punishment set, why wait?

thank you. supposedly it saves money though.

haven;t there been some really sickening incidents lately with executions gone wrong? I do not know the details because I can;t stand to read them.

Also, some delays are not only due to appeal tho' that is probably the biggest reason. There have been issues with waiting for the drugs, again not aware of the exact detail or drugs they were waiting for.

how far can we take that logic

whats the point of being judged by a jury if it can be overturned? (by the judge)

whats the point of being arrested by cops if a da can't prosecute?

whats the point of having senators if they can be outvoted?

it all comes down to the point of checks and balances to avoid an abundance of power in the hands of one individual

judgment must be tempered with compassion for it to be HUMANE

so if being HUMANE is necessary in our judgments than , no, a computer would not serve the purpose

We can and should trust juries and judges as much as we should trust a teacher or a spouse,, but part of that trust is allowing for the reality that they may make mistakes

trusting someone does not exclude allowing for honest mistakes


Judgment: Guilty (of what crime, what evidence was presented or left out, how was the definition of the crime explained and was it understood)

Penalty: Death (IF the defendant received proper representation via proper disclosure precedures, interrogation procedures, and an understanding by the jurors of the definition of the crime)

Why wait? to make absolutely certain that before ending a life the defendant received proper presentation free from mistakes (honest or otherwise)

If, if's and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful judicial
system too.

Implies that one judgement is accurate while the original judgement was false. After all is done it is still a judgement.

I agree that people can't be trusted.
I also understand that new evidence can and sometimes does surface after a judgement is made.
I agree that nobody should have the power to take another person's life.

The intent of this topic is for those criminals that have been found guilty and have been sentenced to death. Spending YEARS on death row waiting for a pardon that may or may not come. Why Wait?

In the 1700s when this nation was established if you were convicted and sentenced to death that was it pal, you died.

In the Civil War if you were convicted and sentenced to death you died.

Now, you can kill 15 people and be convicted and sentenced to death and you don't die for years.