|
Post by Californian on Jan 26, 2009 23:11:03 GMT -6
Both. Transportation to court hearings is pre-trial. Would you send them to prison before they're convicted? The question/answer was very specific to DR inmates. Then your premise was inaccurate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 23:24:40 GMT -6
The question/answer was very specific to DR inmates. Then your premise was inaccurate. How so? In one breath, just days ago, talking about DR inmates and the COs who work with them: They have to be transported to hearings, sometimes hundreds of miles each way. They receive medical treatment, sometimes in medical facilities that are offsite. Believe me, they're a continual threat... They (COs) face huge risks day in, day out. And now: Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. So, which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Jan 27, 2009 0:20:54 GMT -6
Where do DR inmates travel to, except (possibly) a hospital?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jan 27, 2009 1:29:43 GMT -6
Interesting debate, lynne, your post on statistics for the most dangerous job in 2007 must be challenged. Any serviceman would argue that point but i do agree with the fishing (trawlermen) as being the most dangerous outside the Armed Forces at the moment.
I also agree that the prison officers are more at risk outside of DR due to the fact that they are mingling with them all the time, most DR inmates i am led to undertsand spend most of their time in their cell. As a prison warden or officer you are at risk 24/7 whilst oin the job. However, my thoughts on the DR danger is somewhat hampered due to the fact that are they not (the scumbals) under 24/7 suicide watch and searched regular for weapons. If they did manage to get weapons on DR there is a serious lack of management control and risk assessment. So form my point of view and its just my opinion i would rather be a officer on DR then in the general population.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2009 8:41:55 GMT -6
Where do DR inmates travel to, except (possibly) a hospital? What does that have to do with anything? Point is the two statements by Lisa within days of one another don't jibe. Those statements are: "Believe me, they (death row inmates) are a continual threat... They (COs working the row) face huge risks day in, day out."and "Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be (death row) until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 27, 2009 9:01:38 GMT -6
Where do DR inmates travel to, except (possibly) a hospital? What does that have to do with anything? Point is the two statements by Lisa within days of one another don't jibe. Those statements are: "Believe me, they (death row inmates) are a continual threat... They (COs working the row) face huge risks day in, day out."and "Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be (death row) until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. We no longer have to worry about them after they've been executed, now do we? What's so difficult to understand about that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2009 9:01:45 GMT -6
Interesting debate, lynne, your post on statistics for the most dangerous job in 2007 must be challenged. Any serviceman would argue that point but i do agree with the fishing (trawlermen) as being the most dangerous outside the Armed Forces at the moment. I also agree that the prison officers are more at risk outside of DR due to the fact that they are mingling with them all the time, most DR inmates i am led to undertsand spend most of their time in their cell. As a prison warden or officer you are at risk 24/7 whilst oin the job. However, my thoughts on the DR danger is somewhat hampered due to the fact that are they not (the scumbals) under 24/7 suicide watch and searched regular for weapons. If they did manage to get weapons on DR there is a serious lack of management control and risk assessment. So form my point of view and its just my opinion i would rather be a officer on DR then in the general population. Challenge away, Lawrence, but you're wrong. Deaths for military occupations was 5.3 per 100,000 in 2007, fewer than all those ones I listed, except COs' death rates. Now, I imagine that if we are more specific (as with COs who work the row being 0 deaths) and talked only about servicemen who've done any fighting, the number of deaths per 100,000 are much much higher. So, in that sense, I agree, but I've no figures. www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/CFOI_Rates_2007.pdfBelieve it or not, those occupations where the risk of death (by any means) is much, much greater than for COs, the workers also have to be on their toes, on their guard, and diligent about safety the whole time they're on the job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2009 9:19:05 GMT -6
What does that have to do with anything? Point is the two statements by Lisa within days of one another don't jibe. Those statements are: "Believe me, they (death row inmates) are a continual threat... They (COs working the row) face huge risks day in, day out."and "Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be (death row) until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. We no longer have to worry about them after they've been executed, now do we? What's so difficult to understand about that? Not difficult now you've explained what you meant. Based on the beginning of that sentence: 'Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be" and the sentence which followed the "no longer have to worry about them" ~ "they're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs a day, they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles" I figured you were referring to death row inmates when you said "no longer have to worry about them at all", since once they're executed, it's unlikely they need handcuffs and shackles.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 27, 2009 9:37:02 GMT -6
We no longer have to worry about them after they've been executed, now do we? What's so difficult to understand about that? Not difficult now you've explained what you meant. Based on the beginning of that sentence: 'Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be" and the sentence which followed the "no longer have to worry about them" ~ "they're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs a day, they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles" I figured you were referring to death row inmates when you said "no longer have to worry about them at all", since once they're executed, it's unlikely they need handcuffs and shackles. "...until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all."Seems self explanatory to me...
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 28, 2009 10:47:59 GMT -6
Then we should be offing the ones in gen pop, not those on DR. Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far. Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. Does anyone here know if evidence is presented during capital murder trials regarding the security precautions on death row vs. the general population? Are jurors made aware of how different the two really are? Rogelio Cannady and Michael Martinez come to mind.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 12:24:42 GMT -6
Find a convicted capital murderer in TX who received LWOP instead of the death penalty who's murdered again. If you can't, I guess juries haven't made a mistake so far. Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all. They're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs. a day, and they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles. Does anyone here know if evidence is presented during capital murder trials regarding the security precautions on death row vs. the general population? Are jurors made aware of how different the two really are? Rogelio Cannady and Michael Martinez come to mind. Rogelio wasn't serving LWOP for capital murder when he murdered another inmate. Not sure about Michael Martinez. I'm referring to capital murder convictions in Texas in which a jury opted for LWOP instead of death, and the inmate committed another murder while serving LWOP. Juries in Texas consider "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Has a jury opted for LWOP instead of death and the inmate gone on to murder again in GP? IOW, have jurors made that mistake because they weren't swayed by "future dangerousness" evidence?
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 28, 2009 13:34:49 GMT -6
I'm referring to capital murder convictions in Texas in which a jury opted for LWOP instead of death, and the inmate committed another murder while serving LWOP. IOW, have jurors made that mistake because they weren't swayed by "future dangerousness" evidence? Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict.
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Jan 28, 2009 13:42:54 GMT -6
Rogelio Cannady and Michael Martinez come to mind. Rogelio wasn't serving LWOP for capital murder when he murdered another inmate. Not sure about Michael Martinez. I'm referring to capital murder convictions in Texas in which a jury opted for LWOP instead of death, and the inmate committed another murder while serving LWOP. Juries in Texas consider "future dangerousness" during the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Has a jury opted for LWOP instead of death and the inmate gone on to murder again in GP? IOW, have jurors made that mistake because they weren't swayed by "future dangerousness" evidence? I know of a bunch in other states and in the federal system but that's a tough one for Texas because LWOP has only been an option since 2005.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 13:44:18 GMT -6
I'm referring to capital murder convictions in Texas in which a jury opted for LWOP instead of death, and the inmate committed another murder while serving LWOP. IOW, have jurors made that mistake because they weren't swayed by "future dangerousness" evidence? Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict. I'm not sure. I've never attended a capital murder trial so I don't know how "future dangerousness" evidence is presented. Maybe Janet can tell us if any of those possibilities are brought up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 13:49:24 GMT -6
I'm referring to capital murder convictions in Texas in which a jury opted for LWOP instead of death, and the inmate committed another murder while serving LWOP. IOW, have jurors made that mistake because they weren't swayed by "future dangerousness" evidence? Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict. This is what that clause says for Capital Cases for offenses committed 9/1/91 or after: whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to societyWho would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? For reference: I've posted this before but in case people want to refer to it, here is the link to that part of the Code of Criminal Procedures www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/pdf/CR.37.pdf37.071 covers procedures for capital cases 9/1/91 or after 37.0711 covers capital cases for offense committed prior to 9/1/91 37.072 covers capital cases for repeat sexual offenders
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 13:54:50 GMT -6
Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict. I'm not sure. I've never attended a capital murder trial so I don't know how "future dangerousness" evidence is presented. Maybe Janet can tell us if any of those possibilities are brought up. There were a lot of instructions from the judge regarding the laws they were to consider in their decision making. The instructions she gave them were repeated many times. The first time was the day they showed up for the scheduling of their interviews by the prosecution and defense. And again several times during trial, for those that were selected to be on the jury. I could have recited most of it back to you for a couple of years after that, I heard it all so many times. But I don't remember all of it now after all these years. As far as the evidence that can be used, I think that is in the statutes I linked also.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 28, 2009 14:08:43 GMT -6
Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict. This is what that clause says for Capital Cases for offenses committed 9/1/91 or after: whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to societyWho would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? For reference: I've posted this before but in case people want to refer to it, here is the link to that part of the Code of Criminal Procedures www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/CR/pdf/CR.37.pdf37.071 covers procedures for capital cases 9/1/91 or after 37.0711 covers capital cases for offense committed prior to 9/1/91 37.072 covers capital cases for repeat sexual offenders Thanks for the information.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 14:31:36 GMT -6
Who would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? I consider prison employees part of society. Surely, if the only choice is LWOP & death, jurors are thinking about the risk to prison employees and non-violent offenders if they opt for LWOP. Or I guess they could be thinking about the possibility that the murderer might have his LWOP sentence overturned, commuted, or that he might somehow be released someday if he's not executed. I know that I would be thinking about all of those possibilities, but I can only speak for myself. Who knows what goes through their minds at a time like that though? Do you remember if the difference between DR and GP was explained to the jury?
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 14:37:44 GMT -6
Hypothetically, could it be possible that the jurors don't care if prisoners kill other prisoners? I don't think people who opted for LWOP instead of DP would loose sleep to find out the person they spared from the DP died by another inmate. Also, they probably don't take in the CO's safety into consideration when they reach a verdict. I'm not sure. I've never attended a capital murder trial so I don't know how "future dangerousness" evidence is presented. It's the battle of the psych experts. Appealing a Death Sentence Based on Future Danger: tinyurl.com/cuanl4Jury is asked whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. However, in answering the question, the jury must consider any mitigation evidence against imposing the dp.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 14:40:16 GMT -6
It's the battle of the psych experts.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -6
Who would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? I consider prison employees part of society. Surely, if the only choice is LWOP & death, jurors are thinking about the risk to prison employees and non-violent offenders if they opt for LWOP. Or I guess they could be thinking about the possibility that the murderer might have his LWOP sentence overturned, commuted, or that he might somehow be released someday if he's not executed. I know that I would be thinking about all of those possibilities, but I can only speak for myself. Who knows what goes through their minds at a time like that though? Do you remember if the difference between DR and GP was explained to the jury? As I said in another post, the jury must consider mitigation. If they feel it outweighs future danger, then they come back with lwop. I don't know if the do it in Texas but in other states the defense will call a prison warden to give evidence about lwop. They also call COs who testify as to the defendant's behavior while in custody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 14:45:42 GMT -6
Who would you think "society" would include, in a legal sense? I consider prison employees part of society. Surely, if the only choice is LWOP & death, jurors are thinking about the risk to prison employees and non-violent offenders if they opt for LWOP. Or I guess they could be thinking about the possibility that the murderer might have his LWOP sentence overturned, commuted, or that he might somehow be released someday if he's not executed. I know that I would be thinking about all of those possibilities, but I can only speak for myself. Who knows what goes through their minds at a time like that though? Do you remember if the difference between DR and GP was explained to the jury? I am no attorney, but everyone who works or resides in a prison is part of our society to me too. And considering the many court decisions regarding prisoners' rights, I'm pretty sure the law would have to consider prisoners to be part of our society, in a legal sense. The judge did instruct the jury about many legal definitions. Perhaps checking if there is a legal definition listed (on sites that have those) would help clear that up? I don't remember the difference between DR and GP being brought up at all. I don't think they can bring that up. Some of the attorneys here may be able to answer that one, if the document I linked doesn't. And for now I am back to work.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 15:17:27 GMT -6
I don't know if the do it in Texas but in other states the defense will call a prison warden to give evidence about lwop. I didn't know this. If the defense can call prison wardens to give evidence about LWOP, can the prosecution call prison wardens to give evidence about DR? In some states is the jury made aware of the difference that way? I don't know if it's allowed in Texas, but it would make sense to me. I guess this would depend on your definition of "society," or who is and who is not included in "society." It wasn't covered in the statute Janet posted. I read through it quickly so I might have missed it though.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 16:11:01 GMT -6
I don't know if the do it in Texas but in other states the defense will call a prison warden to give evidence about lwop. I didn't know this. If the defense can call prison wardens to give evidence about LWOP, can the prosecution call prison wardens to give evidence about DR? In some states is the jury made aware of the difference that way? I don't know if it's allowed in Texas, but it would make sense to me. I guess this would depend on your definition of "society," or who is and who is not included in "society." It wasn't covered in the statute Janet posted. I read through it quickly so I might have missed it though. Why would the DA call a warden to testify as to conditions on DR? Think about it. I don’t think a definition of society is necessary. It’s more a term of art. Also, evidence comes in if they have a history of assaultive behavior while in custody. Since they now have lwop in Texas, the jury is told that lwop is ineligible for release. I vaguely remember some controversy pre-2005 about how jurors should be told exactly how long a life sentence is when deciding for either life or dp but weren't. Personally, I have no problems informing the jury.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 16:55:09 GMT -6
Why would the DA call a warden to testify as to conditions on DR? Think about it. Thinking, thinking, thinking, and I'm not sure where you're taking me. I guess I was thinking that if one warden describes how inmates in GP get to play cards, watch TV in the dayroom with other inmates, and have contact visits, another warden ought to explain that this is not the case on DR. If prosecutors are allowed to ask questions of wardens, and I assume they are (at least in some places, according to you), why not provide that information to the jury? Some jurors might think LWOP means inmates are confined to their cells most of the time or that they're kept isolated from non-violent offenders. Nor do I, and that's why I think the differences between DR & LWOP should be explained to the jury. Some jurors might want to spare a murderer's life, but only because they're underestimating the risks. They might change their minds if they had more information. So that I'm clear, I believe murderers should be sentenced to death for what they did. "Future dangerousness" does not top my list of reasons for supporting the DP, but I won't pretend that DR and GP are equally secure because they're not. Whether they should be or not is a different question altogether, and right now they're not even close.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Jan 28, 2009 17:12:32 GMT -6
Why would the DA call a warden to testify as to conditions on DR? Think about it. Thinking, thinking, thinking, and I'm not sure where you're taking me. I guess I was thinking that if one warden describes how inmates in GP get to play cards, watch TV in the dayroom with other inmates, and have contact visits, another warden ought to explain that this is not the case on DR. If prosecutors are allowed to ask questions of wardens, and I assume they are (at least in some places, according to you), why not provide that information to the jury? Some jurors might think LWOP means inmates are confined to their cells most of the time or that they're kept isolated from non-violent offenders. The defense calls the warden to talk about lwop and how after reviewing his record it his opinion that the defendant would not be a danger and would have a stabilizing influence on other prisoners with shorter sentences and that he would remain in high-security prison for the remainder of his life. He would also talk about how he would have a job, participate in counseling or be a counselor to other prisoners, etc. The defense want to argue that he’s not a future danger and his life is not a total waste. Who cares if he plays cards and has contact visits? Other states have them on DR so it would make no difference if they get it in GP. ****Obviously, this defense tactic isn’t suited for every defendant because most are sociopathic loonies. Now, what purpose would it serve to have the warden testify as to conditions on DR? It would only make the jury more likely to recommend lwop.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Jan 28, 2009 17:27:47 GMT -6
Now, what purpose would it serve to have the warden testify as to conditions on DR? It would only make the jury more likely to recommend lwop. You're right. I didn't think long enough. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:01:16 GMT -6
Thinking, thinking, thinking, and I'm not sure where you're taking me. I guess I was thinking that if one warden describes how inmates in GP get to play cards, watch TV in the dayroom with other inmates, and have contact visits, another warden ought to explain that this is not the case on DR. If prosecutors are allowed to ask questions of wardens, and I assume they are (at least in some places, according to you), why not provide that information to the jury? Some jurors might think LWOP means inmates are confined to their cells most of the time or that they're kept isolated from non-violent offenders. The defense calls the warden to talk about lwop and how after reviewing his record it his opinion that the defendant would not be a danger and would have a stabilizing influence on other prisoners with shorter sentences and that he would remain in high-security prison for the remainder of his life. He would also talk about how he would have a job, participate in counseling or be a counselor to other prisoners, etc. The defense want to argue that he’s not a future danger and his life is not a total waste. Who cares if he plays cards and has contact visits? Other states have them on DR so it would make no difference if they get it in GP. ****Obviously, this defense tactic isn’t suited for every defendant because most are sociopathic loonies. Now, what purpose would it serve to have the warden testify as to conditions on DR? It would only make the jury more likely to recommend lwop. Are you suggesting that the warden(s) who testify thusly are lying? What would be his/her reason for that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:02:53 GMT -6
Not difficult now you've explained what you meant. Based on the beginning of that sentence: 'Maybe they're putting those who are more likely to murder again just where they need to be" and the sentence which followed the "no longer have to worry about them" ~ "they're isolated in a cell for 23 hrs a day, they don't leave their cells unless they're handcuffed and in shackles" I figured you were referring to death row inmates when you said "no longer have to worry about them at all", since once they're executed, it's unlikely they need handcuffs and shackles. "...until they can be executed so that we no longer have to worry about them at all."Seems self explanatory to me... Indeed. We’re leaving our Christmas decorations up until the association fines us so that we don’t have to do it in December.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2009 19:07:19 GMT -6
I find the practice of using ‘future dangerousness’ to determine if a murderer ought be doled death interesting, too. First, since (once found guilty) they’d only get DP or LWOP, the future dangerousness jurors are basing their decision on, can only be behind bars. So, theoretically, a person who has a long rap sheet of preying on children, and no other crimes against people, who finally murders even several children, wouldn’t be a continuing danger. Would this person, deserving of death, not be doled death because he wouldn’t be a threat behind bars?
Also curious, IMO, is that once ‘future dangerousness’ has been determined by a jury, the murderer spends 10, 15, 20 or more years on Death Row. If, in that 10, 15, 20 years, he hasn’t killed ~ even because of our own safeguards and preventive measures ~ doesn’t THAT past behavior, in all those years before execution, prove he’s not the ‘continuing danger’ so long as he's confined properly?
|
|