A recent execution was notable for the time the convicted man spent behind bars prior to his death. Early Wednesday morning, Brandon Astor Jones was given a lethal injection for the murder of a shop owner in 1979.
http://ift.tt/1VSghCg
As I understand it, there was no real doubt over his guilt, but he had had a retrial in 1997 (following a 1989 judgment) because jurors in the original proceedings had a bible in the room during deliberations.
Perhaps if it had not been for that second trial, he might have been executed much earlier: his conspirator was put to death in 1985.
Obviously there were arguments that he should not die, including a last-ditch claim that Georgia's secrecy law regarding execution amounted to an absence of due process.
But I was really just perplexed by the sheer length of time between capture and final punishment.
Then I read a recent blog post by a retired UK judge, Henry Brooke, concerning a speech his father, a former Home Secretary, gave regarding capital punishment in 1964.
http://ift.tt/1VSgg0U
It's worth a read in full, but what struck me (and it makes sense in hindsight) was that maximum prison terms in Britain were generally about a decade, unless the case were exceptional (if a murder were committed for example, and it was found that the death penalty could not be applied because of a particular exemption; the Great Train Robbers are mentioned in passing--they got terms up to thirty years).
Nowadays, people may be put away for two or three decades in the UK (and sometimes do spend the rest of their life in gaol), but back then for the severest of crimes the ultimate punishment was still death, so long periods of detention weren't needed (Brooke senior refers to half-a-dozen prisoners serving a period of more than ten years at the time of the speech). And the time between conviction and the actual carrying out of a capital sentence was pretty short, normally only a few weeks.
The speech also goes on to comment on how ill-suited prisoners may be after very long spells behind bars "we must bear in mind that there comes a time beyond which most people will become less and less fit for return to the free world".
I know this is a bit of a ramble, but I just wonder if such long periods of lockup and then execution do anybody any favours. If it's revenge, well perhaps it's working on that level. If it's keeping the public safe, then that box is ticked also. Closure for the victims: I'm not so sure. To wait decades before putting a convicted criminal to death, means that those affected might have passed away first. And it certainly isn't cheap.
http://ift.tt/1VSghCg
As I understand it, there was no real doubt over his guilt, but he had had a retrial in 1997 (following a 1989 judgment) because jurors in the original proceedings had a bible in the room during deliberations.
Perhaps if it had not been for that second trial, he might have been executed much earlier: his conspirator was put to death in 1985.
Obviously there were arguments that he should not die, including a last-ditch claim that Georgia's secrecy law regarding execution amounted to an absence of due process.
But I was really just perplexed by the sheer length of time between capture and final punishment.
Then I read a recent blog post by a retired UK judge, Henry Brooke, concerning a speech his father, a former Home Secretary, gave regarding capital punishment in 1964.
http://ift.tt/1VSgg0U
It's worth a read in full, but what struck me (and it makes sense in hindsight) was that maximum prison terms in Britain were generally about a decade, unless the case were exceptional (if a murder were committed for example, and it was found that the death penalty could not be applied because of a particular exemption; the Great Train Robbers are mentioned in passing--they got terms up to thirty years).
Nowadays, people may be put away for two or three decades in the UK (and sometimes do spend the rest of their life in gaol), but back then for the severest of crimes the ultimate punishment was still death, so long periods of detention weren't needed (Brooke senior refers to half-a-dozen prisoners serving a period of more than ten years at the time of the speech). And the time between conviction and the actual carrying out of a capital sentence was pretty short, normally only a few weeks.
The speech also goes on to comment on how ill-suited prisoners may be after very long spells behind bars "we must bear in mind that there comes a time beyond which most people will become less and less fit for return to the free world".
I know this is a bit of a ramble, but I just wonder if such long periods of lockup and then execution do anybody any favours. If it's revenge, well perhaps it's working on that level. If it's keeping the public safe, then that box is ticked also. Closure for the victims: I'm not so sure. To wait decades before putting a convicted criminal to death, means that those affected might have passed away first. And it certainly isn't cheap.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1nQAI8a
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire