Law Philly DA argues that PA death penalty should be CANCELLED

[JamesRussler]

So the people that are among the most aware how how the criminal justice system functions, or in this case doesn't function, shouldn't be able to offer opinion about it?

The DA isn't on a side. They represent the government, and the government's interest is suppose to be about justice not retribution.

District Attorneys are elected. They are not subject matter experts, and they are not legislators. Nor are they moral authorities. They serve a specific function, that is prosecuting criminal cases on behalf of the people of the state. It’s a pretty straightforward job. We’re not talking about some guy’s “opinion”; this is about a DA who has advanced a legal position adverse to the duties of his office. The problem with a DA taking legal positions that are adverse to the duties of his own office is that no one else is there to litigate the state’s position. If he were a private attorney, it would be called malpractice, and a breach of his duty of loyalty to the client. https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3568&context=bclr

In a normal world, this issue wouldn’t come up because a prosecutor who campaigns on “get weak on crime,” “let the bad guys go,” and “save the murderers” wouldn’t get elected. As I said above, before 2016, the idea of a DA who exercised discretion in a manner disloyal to his office was relatively rare. But we live in crazy times. We live in an age where American cities are offering sanctuary to illegal aliens, and candidates are calling to abolish border enforcement. The self-evident stupidity of electing a DA who promises to advance pro-criminal positions appears tame by comparison.

People who don’t see a problem with this likely have little understanding of separation of powers, and of the institutional roles public officials are sworn to serve. Laws are made in a legislature. Executive officials enforce the law, and we trust that they do so faithfully. When the people who are supposed to enforce the law refuse to do so, respect for the law breaks down. Respect for the institution breaks down. Faith in our system breaks down. If that’s what you want, congratulations because it’s happening. It won’t lead to anything good.

 

[nhbbear]

This is the district attorney, who is an elected position. I prefer the prosecutors base their focus on the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. This keeps politics out of the justice system. But I am a proponent of police officers using the spirit of the law on certain occasions-for ex: Florida city has laws on the books about feeding the homeless because, like animals, if you feed them, they come back and lose their instinctual fear of man. Instead of making an arrest or a ticket, the officer chooses to do nothing or give a warning or even advice. For example, we often get calls about kids selling lemonade. Rather than focus on the letter of the law, which is absolute and may try to compel officers to take some action. I have always told the kids or parents, to give out free lemonade and put out a tip jar and people will accept the free lemonade want to give large tips.

But this can also lead to issues of consistent policing and/or injecting politics into police work or the judge’s bench. I guess the argument could be made in reference to the op. Death penalty cases are extremely expensive, sommffbgef is err Yevtushenko I hcjehrcccxeda trying to keep tax payer monies from being spent without consent. Keeping jail costs down May give the da a feather in his/her hat when trying to get re-elected, though it may simply be as suggested-judge has rigid morals, which don’t belong in a courtroom

 

[Starman]

So, does the family get to choose what quality of bullet is used? I can imagine some only wanting to pay for cheap bullets while others want gold plated bullets.

No. All they get to pick is a plot when it’s over.

 

[My2Cents]

That’s right. The District Attorney for Philadelphia—the man whose job includes prosecuting murderers—is asking the state Supreme Court to hold the death penalty unconstitutional.

https://theappeal.org/philadelphia-d-a-asks-court-to-declare-death-penalty-system-unconstitutional/

Now, I will ignore the substance of this challenge, because Courts have rejected similar challenges across the board since the US Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in the 1970’s. Whatever you think about the death penalty, it’s constitutional—at least outside of individual as applied challenges (FWIW, I am not a huge fan of the way the death penalty has been applied).

The real issue here is the fact that this man is effectively advocating in the interest of the people he’s prosecuting. This is part of a recent trend we’ve seen with law enforcement-related officials—they are elected (or appointed, as may be the case) on promises to do the opposite of what they’re supposed to do. The idea is simple: social justice-minded folks have realized that they can fight the system much more effectively from within. So instead of becoming a public defender, an immigration attorney, or a civil rights advocate, these people become prosecutors, deputy AGs, and county counsels. This arrangement takes the “adversary” out of an adversarial system.

So in the future, what should we expect?

- Attorneys General refusing to prosecute certain kinds of crimes, or people?

- Immigration officials refusing detain or remove certain aliens?

- Cities / counties voluntarily settling with civil rights litigants, in spite of favorable evidence / law?

Spoiler

It’s already happening.

There are too many examples to list exhaustively, but some recent ones include a Manhattan DA refusing to prosecute subway toll evasion, and NYC settling with the Central Park Rapists for $40+ million. The ultimate manifestation of this trend is when a chief executive uses power to defy the express commands of the law. Recently in my state of CA, the governor (Gavin Newsom) granted a reprieve to all death row inmates. This is in spite of two recent failed ballot initiatives (2012, and again in 2016) to throw out the death penalty. Basically the people of CA want the death penalty, but the guy who signs the death warrants refuses to do so. Similarly, Obama attempted to legalize millions of illegal aliens by executive order, in spite of the procedures outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Anyway, what do you guys think about this recent trend of law enforcement batting for the other team? Is this a flaw in the system, or a feature of the system? What, if anything, should be done about it?

IMO, the lesson here is that the law is only as good as the people enforcing it. That’s bad news for the people of Philadelphia, California, New York, etc.

Discuss

Because of the fact that innocent people can be killed (often by DA’s who want to “score” no matter what and shitty defense lawyers), any sane person can’t be in favor of the death penalty

 

[My2Cents]

And please don’t start with: if he is 100% guilty crap because you know that mistakes will be made

 

[My2Cents]

That’s like saying vanilla and chocolate ice cream are practically the same thing

Save your breath, these people are to stupid or lazy to read.

 

[woodguyatl]

Sure, on an ad-hoc basis. But advocating for them at a policy level? No, that's a pretty recent development. Before 2016, it was pretty rare.

It is more common for sure, but DA’s have been part of the people pushing back against enforcing immigration law because they need community support to prosecute other violent crimes and the shift to not enforce sodomy and similar laws dates back to to the ‘70’s.

I am not necessarily in favor of it, but our legislative branches are wholly inept in most places, passing laws based on what looks and feels good (gun control, drugs (crack vs powder cocaine), etc) rather than current science and fiscal prudence.

I think DA’s can help prevent the miscarriages of justice that legislative dereliction of duty can cause.

Here in GA some DA’s have already said they will not prosecute women under the new law who, for example, accidentally cause a miscarriage due to drug use even though there is no such exception in the law.

 

[Terry Noonan]

Taking someone’s life and not having the same done to you is unconstitutional.

Lol at murdering someone then walking free in 25-30 years and enjoying fresh air, food, activities while that person is dead.

 

[the muntjac]

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty by the Supreme Court in 1976, 3 individuals, all convicted of murder, have been executed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All were executed by lethal injection, and in all three cases, they waived their appeals and asked that the execution be carried out.

In February 2015, Governor Tom Wolf, announced a moratorium on the death penalty, suspending plans to execute Terrance Williams for a 1984 robbery and fatal tire-iron beating of another man in Philadelphia. Wolf called the current system error-prone and expensive...The state of Pennsylvania spends about $46 million annually on the death penalty to maintain the prisoners housed on death row, as well as carrying out any executions. The average price to house and take care of a death row inmate per year is about $42,000. With concerns over the cost of the death penalty growing, Governor Wolf has indicated his support for a cost-benefit analysis to examine what the state gets from carrying out death sentences versus the cost to the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Pennsylvania
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Pennsylvania

I'm not seeing the problem in abolishing it. It's a system not being used that costs the State a ton of money.

 

[JamesRussler]

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty by the Supreme Court in 1976, 3 individuals, all convicted of murder, have been executed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All were executed by lethal injection, and in all three cases, they waived their appeals and asked that the execution be carried out.

In February 2015, Governor Tom Wolf, announced a moratorium on the death penalty, suspending plans to execute Terrance Williams for a 1984 robbery and fatal tire-iron beating of another man in Philadelphia. Wolf called the current system error-prone and expensive...The state of Pennsylvania spends about $46 million annually on the death penalty to maintain the prisoners housed on death row, as well as carrying out any executions. The average price to house and take care of a death row inmate per year is about $42,000. With concerns over the cost of the death penalty growing, Governor Wolf has indicated his support for a cost-benefit analysis to examine what the state gets from carrying out death sentences versus the cost to the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Pennsylvania

I'm not seeing the problem in abolishing it. It's a system not being used that costs the State a ton of money.

Why doesn’t the legislature abolish it then? That’s the way it’s supposed to be done.