The Leonard Peltier Trial

[Gunny]

So we end up with:





Post 11


Can to back up your belief with Judicial law? Can you back it up with the constitution? If it is a political afterthought, from what branch are getting this thought from?

Don't forget, the executive branch makes plea bargains all the live long day...

And Congress can get checked by the Judicial branch.

From where do you draw your authority?

If it's a literalist game you want to play ....

Are not convicts convicted as a means of punishment for committing crimes? If they have not violated judicial law, proposed by the legislature and signed by the President/Governor, then there is no reason for a trial and/or conviction, is there?

The penal system was created to house/detain those aforementioned convicts being punished for violating the aforementioned legislation signed by the President.

Then there is this:

pe·nal /ˈpinl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[peen-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or involving punishment, as for crimes or offenses.
2. prescribing punishment: penal laws.
3. constituting punishment: He survived the years of penal hardship.
4. used as a place of confinement and punishment: a penal colony.
5. subject to or incurring punishment: a penal offense.
6. payable or forfeitable as a penalty: a penal sum.

The housing/detention facilities within the US ARE loosely labelled the US Penal System, are they not? Nowhere in that definition of "penal" do I see "rehabilitation" as part of.

The penal system was devised as a means of punishment, and fear of that punishment thought to be sufficient "rehabilitation." Prisoners were used as forced labor by states up to and probably including the 70s.

So rehabilitation IS an afterthought to the penal system -- something dreamed up by the touchy-feely crowd who always seem to apologize for the bad guys.

[Yurt]

I never said that incarceration is not about punishment, it is of course, only that the fundamental goal is rehabilitation. If not, then we are merely harming society by letting this guys out to commit more crimes, unless of course they have LWOP or DP.

I am sick of prisons merely being time outs and then letting this guys back out with no skills, who probably have a hard time getting a job anyways due to being a convict, thus they will most likely commit more crimes and harm society. It may not be a popular view, but IMO the death penalty is too lightly used.

[Gunny]

I never said that incarceration is not about punishment, it is of course, only that the fundamental goal is rehabilitation. If not, then we are merely harming society by letting this guys out to commit more crimes, unless of course they have LWOP or DP.

I am sick of prisons merely being time outs and then letting this guys back out with no skills, who probably have a hard time getting a job anyways due to being a convict, thus they will most likely commit more crimes and harm society. It may not be a popular view, but IMO the death penalty is too lightly used.

My original statement is that the penal system was until a few decades ago, all about punishment and not about rehabilitation.

You have a valid point. IF we are going to attempt to rehabilitate prisoners while they are incarcerated, then someone should come of with something that works. IMO, fear of punishment is a better motivator than sweet-talking them into saying they believe in being good guys now.

My opinion on the death penalty is this: it is incorrectly used. IMO, no one should be sentenced to death based soely on circumstantial evidence, or just one eyewitness. The death penalty should be apllied only when there is NO doubt as to guilt.

When you have crap like the recent Peterson trial, compared to the OJ trial, where is the equal justice? Both were tried based on roughly the same evidence for the same crime. OJ walks and Peterson gets the death penalty.

Just to clarify: I have NO problem with the death penalty itself. I firmly believe there are crimes in which a person forefeits their right to life. I take issue with its current application.

[Yurt]

Gunny;22430]My original statement is that the penal system was until a few decades ago, all about punishment and not about rehabilitation.

You have a valid point. IF we are going to attempt to rehabilitate prisoners while they are incarcerated, then someone should come of with something that works. IMO, fear of punishment is a better motivator than sweet-talking them into saying they believe in being good guys now.

Actually, I think those that are lifers as compared to determinate sentences are much more likely to want to "rehab." I know of a case where a 3 year gang banger (proven gang ties in prison as well) fought a lifer, a 48 year old lifer. Long story short, this 31 year old known gang banger attacks a 48 year old 15 in lifer and they charge them both with "mutual combat." Funny thing, the attack occured in an open bunk dorm at the 48 year old's bunk. The older lifer had no, zero, naughty cards in prison, whereas the 31 year old did. Yet, he was a determinate sentence. The goals are glaringly different, one knows he is out, the other knows he must rehabilitate before he can be let out.

My opinion on the death penalty is this: it is incorrectly used. IMO, no one should be sentenced to death based soely on circumstantial evidence, or just one eyewitness. The death penalty should be apllied only when there is NO doubt as to guilt.

When you have crap like the recent Peterson trial, compared to the OJ trial, where is the equal justice? Both were tried based on roughly the same evidence for the same crime. OJ walks and Peterson gets the death penalty.

Ok, fair enough on the death penalty. But this long road to death is absurd. Sure, DNA has cleared some and sure, POLITICS have cleared others (OJ), but, the vast majority is that with stronger death penalty (penalties) then less crime would happen. It is a statistical fact. Look at some arab countries or south asian countries. Not saying we should be the same, but it does work. And, it worked in the OT.

Just to clarify: I have NO problem with the death penalty itself. I firmly believe there are crimes in which a person forefeits their right to life. I take issue with its current application.

It is a confusing thing in todays world. But I don't think we are that different.

[Gunny]

Actually, I think those that are lifers as compared to determinate sentences are much more likely to want to "rehab." I know of a case where a 3 year gang banger (proven gang ties in prison as well) fought a lifer, a 48 year old lifer. Long story short, this 31 year old known gang banger attacks a 48 year old 15 in lifer and they charge them both with "mutual combat." Funny thing, the attack occured in an open bunk dorm at the 48 year old's bunk. The older lifer had no, zero, naughty cards in prison, whereas the 31 year old did. Yet, he was a determinate sentence. The goals are glaringly different, one knows he is out, the other knows he must rehabilitate before he can be let out.




Ok, fair enough on the death penalty. But this long road to death is absurd. Sure, DNA has cleared some and sure, POLITICS have cleared others (OJ), but, the vast majority is that with stronger death penalty (penalties) then less crime would happen. It is a statistical fact. Look at some arab countries or south asian countries. Not saying we should be the same, but it does work. And, it worked in the OT.



It is a confusing thing in todays world. But I don't think we are that different.

I don't buy the theory that the death penalty is NOT a deterent. In that aspect of this topic, I think public executions would go even further in deterring crime.

I'm also a firm believer in trimming out a lot of these appeals on procedure that don't have an real affect on the facts.

I think however, I'd rather all of the real criminals rot in prison than one innocent human be be executed.