In my above post, I didn't support the death penalty because it's was inexact and skewed against poor folks and minorities especially. I have a lot of first hand experience with how the justice system in the deep south works against blacks and Mexicans.

But protecting our brethren from the state is far more complicated than that.

but let's get specific.

(that's why crack
>has stiffer penalties than powder
>cocaine ... crack appears more
>in Black communities, and powder
>is used by more white
>people).

When you look at the legislative history of the rock cocaine vs powder cocaine, it was the Black community that asked the legislators for laws that would clean up the community. WE wanted harsher penalties in our neighborhoods to deter crime and keep those same criminals off our streets.

So what you're saying is that you are against law abiding citizens in our own community who don't want to see drug dealers in our neighborhoods.

You want to attack a cancer after it's metastasized, as opposed to addressing diet and exercise and early screening.

>It should be no surprise
>that a Black man convicted
>of killing a white man
>is much more likely to
>get the death penalty than
>a Black or white man
>who killed a Black man,

The statistical evidence presented in that GA trial, which is the one you are referring to, was not conclusive.

>especially since the states with
>the highest number of executions
>are in the South (Texas,
>Virginia, and Florida are by
>far the top three).

That has a historical legacy.

>In many cases, the death
>penalty is a modern, "legal"
>version of lynch law.

Semantic question, but what lynch law are you referring too. Mob Lynchings were definitely illegal, but they were tolerated like jaywalking and speeding.

>It has been said that the
>basis of capital punishment is,
>"Those who lack the capital
>get the punishment." Poor
>people are much more likely
>to be executed, because they
>can't afford a good lawyer
>and death penalty cases are
>very complicated.

Another semantic issue, Often they aren't more complicated than assaults or rapes, but the stakes are much higher.

Public defenders
>are usually not enough, and
>in some places, they are
>horrible.

P.D's are often good attorneys that are overworked. I knew the public defender in the Lacresha Murray trial (it was on 60 minutes), Cameron Johnson. He was a good attorney, but he didn't have the resources to defend Ms. Murray. Her family couldn't afford anything else.

There are many
>cases where the defendant's lawyer
>in death cases has slept
>through parts of the trial,

A few cases, one of which was recently publicized.

>failed to call key witnesses
>to prove innocence, or been
>drunk in court. Columiba
>University just did a study
>which showed that between 1973-1995,
>2,370 death penalty convictions had
>to be thrown out on
>appeal because of unfair trials
>-- that's about 70% of
>the cases. However, the
>law is changing so unfair
>trials are less likely to
>be overturned.

The law? I should bust a Spirit, and not engage in these discussions with folks that don't know Law. But most death penalty cases are state matters, so there are at least 50 laws to contend with.

In 1995,
>Clinton signed the Antiterrorism and
>Effective Death Penalty Act, which
>severely restricts the rights of
>people on death row to
>appeal based on unfair trail
>procedures, and

the U.S. Supreme
>Court refuses to overturn capital
>convictions from state courts no
>matter how blatantly clear it
>is that a trial was
>wrong,

First of all the US Supreme court doesn't decide facts, it decides were laws applied and executed, and sometimes were the laws appropriate in the 1st case.

Second, the Supreme Court doesn't look at every death sentence appeal. The only time a Court takes the case is if the question interests them. There are few cases that get automatic S.C. review.

because they don't want
>to interfere with a state's
>right to deliver "justice" it's
>own way.

State's rights, although really a euphemism for the racist power structure, are nonetheless important. Study the constitution. AT one point the Federal government, via the commerce clause, wanted to control what farmers could feed their livestock. (It was during the depression era, and the case was about crop surplusses)

Politicians are
>so bloodthirsty that they often
>don't care if the person
>who gets executed actually commited
>the crime, and that means
>that quite a few innocent
>people face lethal injections.

True.

>One of the biggest things that
>people don't know is that
>it actually costs more to
>execute a person than to
>lock him up for the
>rest of his life.

Most folks in this forum know this. But if it were the other way around, would your argument be important. Should we be worrying about the financial side of this argument at all? You want to cut costs on death penalty cases, give them 6 months to file an appeal, and schedule quick executions.

>This is because of the
>complicated court process in death
>cases ... sure, we could
>eliminate this and save a
>lot of money, but then
>we're really diving into the
>old lynch law, killing people
>without a real trial.

no doubt.

>A lot of people argue for
>the death penalty as a
>deterrant,

most folks don't.

but if this is
>the case, then why is
>the murder rate so much
>higher in the South than
>the Northeast? The South
>has many more executions than
>the Northeast, where many states
>don't even have the death
>penalty. Death row doesn't
>seem to be slowing murder
>in the South; I think
>it actually encourages murder, because
>if the government can murder
>someone for doing something wrong,
>why wouldn't a citizen feel
>like he can do the
>same thing?

I'm sure that's what most killers are thinking when they are committing a murder.

Also, the
>deterrant argument falls apart because
>almost nobody commits a crime
>thinking that he'll be caught,
>so he isn't considering the
>punishment he might get ...
>he expects not to get
>punished.

Thus it's not an argument.

>Sorry this was so long, but
>there's a lot to talk
>about with the death penalty,
>and it's never simple.
>If you want more, there's
>a great article at

But do people need to be punished for their actions?

Is prison even really a good solution for folks who do not want to follow the rules of society?

It is very easy for folks to argue from a practical/substantive way about how the justice system affects people of color and the poor. But what about the principle?

peace
k. orr