Ok, why should *this* guy live?

[AvalonXQ]

You misread. Society or the State should not ever reduce itself to the level of the murderer, which it does by using capital punishment.

Why is it acceptable for the State to reduce itself to the level of a kidnapper and thief, but not a murderer?

 

[zooterkin]

That's not quite right.
He was originally accused of murdering girl A and raping girl B. The murder of girl A was asserted as a capital crime originally on the basis of robbery (robbery was the "gradation crime"). Before the trial, two additional "gradation crimes" were added to the charges -- the rape and sodomization of girl B.
He was convicted of the murder of girl A and the rape of girl B, and acquitted of robbery. He was sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the verdict and remanded on the basis that the pretrial amendment changed the nature of the crime, and so was impermissible. Let's make this clear: the verdict was reversed on the basis that capital murder with an attempted robbery gradation crime is a different crime than capital murder with an attempted rape gradation crime.*
The Supreme Court of Virginia also ruled that the rape of girl B could not, in this case, be a gradation crime for the murder of girl A.
The Defendant then taunted the prosecuter that he had attempted to rape girl A; the attempted rape of girl A had not previously been before the jury.
So he was accused of a new crime (and we have to agree it's a new crime or else his original death sentence stands): the capital murder of girl A with the gradation crime of attempting to rape girl A. He was convicted of this crime thanks to his own letters.
No double jeopardy here -- he almost got his death sentence eliminated on a technicality, but that same technicality later got it reinstated. Justice was served, as was due process and the rule of law.

*ETA: Under Virginia law, capital murder of girl A during the attempted rape of girl A and capital murder of girl A during the attempted rape of girl B are separate crimes. If you don't want to be tried twice for murdering the same person, don't rape two people while you do it.

Thanks for the explanation. I find the linking of crimes rather odd; he appears to have been found guilty of both the rape and the killing, but because together they didn't qualify for a death sentence, he's therefore found not guilty? I can understand the sentence being overturned, or perhaps a re-trial being ordered, but not the verdict being reversed.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Thanks for the explanation. I find the linking of crimes rather odd; he appears to have been found guilty of both the rape and the killing, but because together they didn't qualify for a death sentence, he's therefore found not guilty? I can understand the sentence being overturned, or perhaps a re-trial being ordered, but not the verdict being reversed.

The death sentence was reversed and the case remanded for sentencing consistent with life in prison. He wasn't found not guilty.

 

[casebro]

If capital punishment is murder, and the prisoners ought to have their sentences commuted, then isn't any prison sentence 'kidnapping' and those prisoners ought to be set free?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Stop calling this murder because this isn't. This is the state punishing a worthless criminal.

From my dictionary:

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation

No mention of "unlawful" but, fortunately, our law is not outlined in Merriam Websters.

IMO, it's either unlawful to kill someone or it's not. Justice is not killing the the scumbag. Justice is bringing him to trial and punishing him. Also, we do get it wrong at times and capital punishment makes it real difficult to correct that.

But I've participated in threads arguing the pros and cons of capital punishment and no one has changed his/her mind. I don't think it will this time, either.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

BY that logic, society has no right to use lethal force to defend itself.

I see your point, but I would relate it to the fact that the police have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves when capturing a suspect, but once that suspect is in custody, the rule of law takes over.

 

[zooterkin]

The death sentence was reversed and the case remanded for sentencing consistent with life in prison. He wasn't found not guilty.

Are you sure? From the article linked to in the OP:

Virginia's highest court threw out the verdict in Powell's first trial, saying prosecutors had not proved that other necessary death-eligible offenses were committed against the 16-year-old. Such "aggravating" factors could include rape, attempted rape or robbery in the commission of murder.

The sexual assault and attempted murder of Stacie Reed's younger sister were upheld, and Powell was given a long prison sentence.

It says the verdict was thrown out, not the sentence; the implication of the latter paragraph is that he was not convicted of murder.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It says the verdict was thrown out, not the sentence; the implication of the latter paragraph is that he was not convicted of murder.

Right, sorry. To clarify: the murder charge was remanded to be retried. The remand was for a retrial, not just for sentencing. I wasn't clear on that.

You can read the details here.

 

[casebro]

Doesn't sound to me like he was ever found not guilty, therefor no double jeopardy comes into play. The appeal was only re: the sentence. Sounds like the first trial may have been declared a mis-trial. Do-overs happen in that circumstance.

And if some felon doesn't know about his Miranda rights, and sends a voluntary confession, gas the idiot.

Besides, isn't double jeopardy 'being tried twice for the same crime, on the same evidence'? So his confession was another piece of evidence. Plus, first trial was for a murder done thisaway, second trial was for a different crime, a murder done thataway?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Besides, isn't double jeopardy 'being tried twice for the same crime, on the same evidence'? So his confession was another piece of evidence.

Again, no. Double jeopardy cares about the crime, not about the evidence. If you're acquitted of a crime on insufficient evidence, that's it.
Now, if we find the dead body of A and try you for his murder, you're acquitted for lack of evidence, and then you brag to everyone about how you really did kill both A and B that day... we can then try you for the murder of B. We can try you separately for each crime you committed.

 

[kerikiwi]

... the police have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves when capturing a suspect, but once that suspect is in custody, the rule of law takes over.

Not exactly. The rule of law applies throughout the process: when using deadly force in self defence, when making an arrest, right throughout a trial and when imposing and carrying out a sentence.

 

[dtugg]

From my dictionary:

No mention of "unlawful" but, fortunately, our law is not outlined in Merriam Websters.

The definitions are essentially the same.

IMO, it's either unlawful to kill someone or it's not.

So, if I killed somebody who was threatening my life, it's unlawful, in your opinion?

Justice is not killing the the scumbag.

Sure it is.

Justice is bringing him to trial and punishing him.

Yes. And the punishment in this case is death.

Also, we do get it wrong at times and capital punishment makes it real difficult to correct that

That's the only reason I am hesitant about it.

 

[zooterkin]

Doesn't sound to me like he was ever found not guilty, therefor no double jeopardy comes into play. The appeal was only re: the sentence. Sounds like the first trial may have been declared a mis-trial. Do-overs happen in that circumstance.

Yes, i was just about to say the same thing, in reply to AvalonXQ's latest.

Besides, isn't double jeopardy 'being tried twice for the same crime, on the same evidence'? So his confession was another piece of evidence.

I don't think so; see my earlier post about the UK. It's the crime, not the evidence.

 

[fuelair]

Dirtball

He shouldn't. He should be skinned alive and salted - with a daily change of the salt.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Not exactly. The rule of law applies throughout the process: when using deadly force in self defence, when making an arrest, right throughout a trial and when imposing and carrying out a sentence.

Valid. Perhaps I should have used "lethal force" or "the taking of a life". Once that person is under arrest and no immediate threat to society, the police are no longer allowed to use lethal force.

The definitions are essentially the same.

I understand, my point was twofold. One, I don't think we should emphasis "unlawful" as a differentiating characteristic. Two, dictionary definitions are not legal definitions. It is the same argument that I use when people point out that marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman.

So, if I killed somebody who was threatening my life, it's unlawful, in your opinion?

No, I hope that I pointed out that self-defence is different. I don't consider capital punishment as self-defence.

Sure it is.

I don't think so. Revenge, sure, but isn't justice bringing the suspect to trial and punishing him? How we punish him is what we are discussing. I don't think killing the guy is anything more than an eye for an eye. It doesn't bring back the murdered nor does it make the empty loss any better.

Yes. And the punishment in this case is death.

Again, I think that is revenge.

That's the only reason I am hesitant about it.

Hah! Common ground! There are a lot of cases where the conviction has been over-turned. I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

And one final thing, I believe that it costs us more to have someone on death row and have them continually appeal, but I could be wrong on that point.

And a cool avatar you have.

 

[GreyICE]

That this scum deserves the death penalty is obvious. Whether there should be a system that delivers the death penalty is another issue. For example, in this case, there already is a death penalty system, but he avoided it, while it might well be that some people who are on death row are less horrible than he is, and some of them, for all I know, might actually be innocent (since human error occurs in all cases). The possibility of error, and the possibility of those less guilty receiving the worse punishment, should give us pause.

Huh, for once you and I are in agreement.

That some people deserve to die seems likely. That the state is the proper instrument for determining who those people are seems... less likely.

 

[Arcade22]

So the government is obligated to eliminate these people?

Yes, the state should punish these kind of people with death.

 

[Arcade22]

I don't think so. Revenge, sure, but isn't justice bringing the suspect to trial and punishing him? How we punish him is what we are discussing. I don't think killing the guy is anything more than an eye for an eye. It doesn't bring back the murdered nor does it make the empty loss any better.



Again, I think that is revenge.

And what exactly is wrong with revenge?

 

[Arcade22]

Huh, for once you and I are in agreement.

That some people deserve to die seems likely. That the state is the proper instrument for determining who those people are seems... less likely.

The state also gets do decide who gets do be thrown into jail for the rest of their life. How exactly would that be any different from killing them directly?

 

[dtugg]

I understand, my point was twofold. One, I don't think we should emphasis "unlawful" as a differentiating characteristic. Two, dictionary definitions are not legal definitions. It is the same argument that I use when people point out that marriage is defined in the dictionary as being between a man and a woman.

I think you'll find that in every state in the US and probably every country in the world murder fits those definitions.

No, I hope that I pointed out that self-defence is different. I don't consider capital punishment as self-defence.

Well, you said, "either it's unlawful to kill someone or it's not." Apparently this is not what you meant.

I don't think so. Revenge, sure, but isn't justice bringing the suspect to trial and punishing him? How we punish him is what we are discussing. I don't think killing the guy is anything more than an eye for an eye. It doesn't bring back the murdered nor does it make the empty loss any better.



Again, I think that is revenge.

I don't see it as about revenge, or at least not mostly. I see it as removing a dangerous person from the world permanently so there is no possibly way he can ever hurt anyone again. Even people in prison for life w/ no parole can escape or kill people in prison.

And one final thing, I believe that it costs us more to have someone on death row and have them continually appeal, but I could be wrong on that point.

That's also a good point. I think you may be right on this.

And a cool avatar you have.

Thanks. Me standing in front of an F-22 at an airshow.