Education major factor in determing who dies in death row cases

[Elphaba]

Originally Posted by Fiannan

Sorry to spoil the "Let's cuddle a crook" thread but there are a few more things to consider...

First, rehabilitation works okay with drug and property offenders -- probably with offenders who are spontaneous, not habitual, criminals as well. On the later category that would even include someone who murders someone in a heated argument at a bar or catches a spouse with another person. In reference to drugs, most of the drug offenders should probably not even be in jail in the first place. People who steal or cheat on their taxes are not criminals who actually scare me in the sense of being a danger to life or limb. These people are generally the type of people who, in the old days in England, got shipped off to Georgia (pre-Revolutionary War) or Australia.

Second, people who rape, molest kids or do pre-meditated violent acts have a low rate of rehabilitation. These are people who, in the past, weren't exiled to distant lands but were executed. No big deal.

Third, let's not try to make race a big issue here. Most crimes involving non-whites are commited against other non-whites. That is usually not pointed out in articles dealing with sentencing. Also, I suspect that statistics can also get distorted by looking at these cases on a national level and not statewide. Most of the states that don't have the death penalty also have low percentages of non-whites. We could possibly conclude that in such states there is probably going to be less emphasis on punishment since the socio-cultural composition of the state is generally more liberal -- due in part to what areas of Europe settled the region. So if Skip steals a car in Minnesota he might get an easier sentence due to the prevailing attitudes of the people there than if Lamont steals a car in Mississippi even if the judge and jury in Mississippi might be totally black.

Do you have references for any of the above? I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong about some of the issues you raise--I just want to see credible evidence for it.

Also, are you saying you disagree with the International Journal of Law and Information Technology conclusions?

Elphaba

[Bookmeister]

I was working on this big, long argument about education levels, economic opportunities, crappy defense lawyers, etc, but instead...........

1. No education, no decent job opportunity.
2. No decent job, no decent money.
3. No decent money legally, then get money illegally.
4. Add in anger and rage, an environment in which you're surrounded by other people just like you, where you see the most aggressive people get the most money and "stuff", then sit back and wait to see what happens.

Once you're charged with a crime that sets you up for execution......

1. No money to hire a private lawyer and pay for a proper defense team, so....
2. You get the 2 years out of law school public defender, or....
3. The mostly drunk private attorney appointed for $200 to handle the case (with an additional $200 if you end up actually going to trial) by the court, and...
4. No money to hire investigators, to challenge evidence (especially scientific evidence), to locate potential defense witnesses......

And you're going up against the entire prosecutor's office, all the police, all the outside experts, and at the same time listening to this appointed lawyer that you don't trust at all......

Of course the poor, stupid people are more likely to be executed.

Now, I'm nothing remotely approaching a liberal sort of fellow, but if the criminal justice system is going to work at all, people have to be on something approaching a level playing field. OJ Simpson won because he had the resources to battle the state of California on it's own turf. If the case had involved OJ Simpson, school janitor, the trial would have lasted a week and he would have spent the rest of his life in prison.

It seems pretty simple to me. Education equals money, and legitimate money means a much smaller chance of ever being executed for a crime.

I realize there there are no absolutes, so please don't read this as if there are. I know there are exceptions to the rules...LOL.

[prisonchaplain]

While I largely agree with Bookmeister, here's where I differ. The playing field does not have to be even approximately equal between rich and poor. It does, however, have to be adaquate for the poor. In other words, OJ's acquittal is not important. Rather, if demonstrably innocent poor/uneducated folk are, with some consistency, being found guilty, then we have a serious problem.