-=> Quoting Sondra Ball to Jim Casto <=-
 SB> people there that I hope never get out of prison.  You responded that
 SB> there were probably some people in prison who should be dead instead of
 SB> in prison.
 Case in point. Oregon now has someone on  Death Row who has repeatedly
 asked to be put to death as per his sentence. The mandatory appeals process
 has dragged on for years. It now looks as though some group(s) (not at the
 condemned man's request) are going to fight the sentence on his behalf. The
 taxpayer will now be saddled with the bills for the _state's_ lawyers.
 SB> I decided to spend a few days re-thinking my position on
 SB> capital punishment.  I have come around to the stand I already had.  I
 SB> am opposed to capital punishment, at least under this system of
 SB> justice.
 Well, I think the number of crimes that would result in the death penalty
 should be increased. Things like drug smuggling and peddling should result
 in the death penalty. Several countries throughout the world have more harsh
 death penalty laws than the U.S. and the laws work. For example, from a
 magazine article I read several years ago, the sentence in China for bank
 robbery was death. One major city had their first bank robbery in _forty_
 years. The robber was caught, tried and executed within three days.
 
 Singapore also has a mandatory death sentence for drug smuggling. Only used
 about twenty times in the last few years.
 
 I also find it interesting that the U.S. is one of six(?) countries in the
 world that has a death penalty for children, but that seems to be little
 deterent. Probably because the children know it will probably never be used.
 SB> lawyers and prosecuting lawyers, is that many, many people who have
 SB> been convicted and are serving time in prison are incarcerated for a
 SB> crime they never committed.
 
 And cemeteries are filled with victims who's only "crime" was being in the
 wrong place at the wrong time. Not to mention the victims that will _never_
 forget. I would be willing to bet that the little ten-year old brat that was
 part of the team that mugged me about ten years ago in downtown Seattle has
 long forgotten all about me and the crime he committed that night. But, I
 will _never_ forget the fear I felt as his older partner held what appeared
 to be a knife at my throat.
 SB> I have heard estimates at and above 50%
 SB> for this. I don't know how high the actual number is, and there is,
 SB> obviously, no way of finding out for sure. I don't think it is as high
 SB> as fifty percent, but I also don't think it is a very small percentage
 SB> either.
 As I have said before, the statistics for any given "problem" will support
 either the pro or con argument.
 SB> There are various ways that these people have ended up
 SB> convicted of a crime they did not do.
 And there are probably _more_ that _don't_ get convicted (except possibly 
or
 a lesser crime) through plea bargaining.
 SB> There are political prisoners,
 SB> in which the state deliberately planted evidence to make the person
 SB> look guilty, or deliberately with-held evidence that would have proven
 SB> the person's innocence.
 Difficult to prove.
 SB> Peltier comes to mind here.
 As I recal, Peltier also has knowledge about the crime that he has 
epeatedly
 refused to reveal.
 SB> There are times
 
 
 SB> suspect in this particular case, even though they were innocent *this*
 SB> time. 
 
 And their _previous_ record can't be held against them.
 SB> There are also cases where the primary criminal gets a light sentence,
 SB> and a secondary criminal "gets the book thrown at them."  There is a
 SB> woman serving a life sentence in Muncy State Prison, Pennsylvania.
 SB> Remember that in Pennsylvania, life *means* life, with no chance of
 SB> parole.  She was convicted of being an accomplice in a murder.  What
 SB> actually happened is:  her boyfriend killed somebody, without her
 SB> knowledge or approval.  He asked her to hide him.  She did so (a
 SB> stupid thing to do, but she was young and dumb).
 The big question? Did she know better than to hide a criminal or did she say
 to herself: "I won't get caught".
 SB> The act of hiding a
 SB> fugitive in Pennsylvania makes one an accomplice to the crime.
 As long as everyone knows that, I don't see the problem. I wouldn't
 _knowingly_ hide a criminal who committed a major crime (I'm not talking
 about someone that doesn't fasten their seatbelt.) even if it _wasn't_ a
 crime to hide them. That is a crime against the community.
 SB> Because
 SB> he was a murderer, she was, therefore, an accomplice to the murder. 
 SB> Her boyfriend was eventually captured.  He plea-bargained (and part of
 SB> the plea bargaining was an agreement to testify against the woman).  He
 SB> got five years, and is currently out on the streets; and she got life.
 
 The problem there as I see it is the "plea bargain". It's hard to say what
 would have happened to her if there had been no plea bargain for a lighter
 sentence for him.
 SB> Scenarios like this are particularly common when you are dealing with
 SB> Indians, Blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities.  Minorities really
 SB> *are* more apt to be unjustly convicted, and really *do* get harsher
 SB> terms for the same crimes than whites do.
 
 Actually, that same case is also proven for poor and uneducated whites.
 SB> But, no matter what the reason why the wrong people are in jail, or
 SB> why some people receive harsher penalties than others for the same
 SB> crime, it *does* happen.  Some of those people are almost certainly on
 SB> death row. Some innocent people get executed.
 Victims also get "executed" because someone was allowed to go free on a
 technicality. Or plea bargained for a lesser crime.
 
 SB> I remember the
 SB> conversation in Tolkien's book between Gandalf and Frodo when Frodo
 SB> realized Bilbo could have killed Gollum, and chose not to. I don't
 SB> know if you ever read Tolkien's Lord of the Rings,
 Yes. And I would have taken a college course about Tolkien except for a
 scheduling conflict. It would have been much more interesting than
 King Arthur.
 SB> but Gollum had
 SB> killed  a number of innocent people in it.  Frodo said, "It's a pity
 SB> Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance.
 It's been too many years since I read the "Trilogy". Did Gollum continue to
 kill innocent people _after_ Bilbo Baggins let him off the hook? Does that
 mean that Bilbo is (or is not) responsible for the death of innocent people?
 Jim
 
 BTW, almost _everyone_ that is in prison will _claim_ they are innocent and
 that they don't deserve to be there.
--- Blue Wave v2.12
---------------