RE: The death penalty

RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 8:15:28 PM)
Good points.I agree w/ you that the system is broke.The AG has acknowledged that. A moratorium on CP is the 1st step. Proper defense is the 2nd.Rich people getting off b/c of good lawyers should be a thing of the past.All defendants should get top notch council.I know of a fellow who was sent to prison(in Texas) because he couldn`t afford to pay for a decent lawyer.He ended up hanging himself out of despair.His good friend(also my friend, who told me about him )told me he was being targeted for rape and couldn`t handle the repeated attacks. And the prison system is broken.That,will take a lot to turn around but the 1st step is leadership and concern.

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 8:31:41 PM)
"You can't use the argument that you can never under any circumstance be absolutely sure of a crime. If that were true than no crime of any kind could be prosecuted and there would be anarchy." Which is why the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt"- not all doubt. The problem is that when money, fame and power are on the line- the actions of a prosecutor are more likely to try and make sure that "reasonable doubt" doesn't exist- rather than describe the evidence accurately. Again, from what I've seen, prosecutors are not to be trusted, and their actions likely become even more reprehensible when death penalty cases are on the line. In any of the cases where an innocent man was exonerated- did any of the prosecutors hang up their hat? Or did they just consider it the luck of the draw? Prosecutors want convictions and they don't want to know about their errors. Wasn't their a case in Texas where a group demanded to use DNA evidence to evaluate the convictions of men that had already been executed- and the judge threw it out because "no good could come of it" it was a waste of state's resources. So Butch- on the one hand it seems you set up a hypothetical where the evidence is supposedly air tight but yet not beyond all possible doubt- along with the assumption that the people in the system are trustworthy, ethical, and honest versus the reality that the humans involved are anything but- and the system works to select people like that. As noted above- I will not be in favor of a death penalty (well, I'm not sure that Israel executing Eichman was such a bad idea.) even if we could clean up our legal system- and that seems to be on par with me getting a date with Megan Fox. (Actually, I'd probably be happier with somebody like Gina Gershon.) Sam

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 9:46:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: samboct So Butch- on the one hand it seems you set up a hypothetical where the evidence is supposedly air tight but yet not beyond all possible doubt- along with the assumption that the people in the system are trustworthy, ethical, and honest versus the reality that the humans involved are anything but- and the system works to select people like that. Sam People often argue against CP by using the excuse of poor evidence with corrupt prosecution and incompetent defense. When they are really just using these problems as excuses when their real objection is the basic taking of a life for any reason. I think it is possible to set stringent evidence requirements for cp. Along with automatic appeals as exist today and it would be a fair system of justice. If a society determines CP is immoral and should be abolished then of course it should be. On the other hand if that same society thinks CP is a just punishment then we should do our best to be sure it is administered fairly. Butch

Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 10:02:28 PM)
Of course misapplication of the law is a point, but it wasn't THE point. THE point was the misleading of people to believe that it is wrong no matter what. The Constitution does not prohibit capital punishment, but it also doesn't prohibit us from requiring more than just the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" to apply it. I saw no such clauses or amendments that said that, did anyone else ? Humans are kept in the system, by the system, by design. In the end, it was never intended for a life to be at the whim of one other. That's why there are juries and judges. We must shed our reactive vehemence for the practice, but by that I do not mean to imply that it should be applied without due consideration. I am expected to live within the constraints of society, and I pretty much do except for a few details. If I don't, if I am a danger, then I must be removed, and if proven worthy, removed permanently. What else would you suggest, a desert island ? Yes, I used first person to illustrate that yes, it should apply to me as well. Who indeed should be above the law, the President ? James Bond ( licensed to kill ). Who ? Answers lead to more questions. Questions lead to more questions. Everything leads to more questions. You know, lately that is the only intolerable thing in life that I can tolerate. T

DomKen -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 11:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Now I see where the issue is. I used the word exonerated, which means evidence which proved their innocence and you are using a number of everyone that had the sentence overturned, commuted or something similiar along with those exonerated. Looks like there are many ways to skew the numbers, and arrive with different statistics. I left the death row area and have been looking at the LWOP area, and the numbers are pretty staggering there as well. Now the questions is, with such an imperfect legal system how can we support someone to LWOP, which is very much like torture because of the culture they must live the rest of their lives in? Is it okay to lock someone away for the rest of their lives, when they might be innocent, which means years of misery until they die of natural causes? Interesting thoughts coming from this topic, for me at least. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually as I cleary state the number of proven beyond any doubt innocents is far higher than 36. I just stopped going through the data at 1995. As to those 36 all are innocent based on either the admission of a prosecutor or the ordered release of the convicted by an appelate court although some were also pardoned or found to be not guilty during a retrial. I left out most of the prosecutorial misconduct which accounts for the majoirty of overturned convictions since in those cases the prosecutors rarely acknowledge the innocence of the accused. Only two men were released from prison by direct action of a governor's pardon and those two were surviviors of police torture who no one actually thinks did the crimes in question. I excluded other pardoned and released people because the evidence of their innocence was not beyond all doubt. However it stands to reason that some of those cases were prosecutions of the truly innocent. However the fact remains we have completed less than 1300 capital cases since 1973 and more than 10 percent of those cases resulted in a legally innocent person spending time on death row and close to 5% were prosecutions and convictions of people who were definitely innocent in the more conventional sense. No. As I clearly state the 36 I listed are absolutely positively no doubt innocent of the crime they were sentenced to die for. The other 50 odd released from death row since 1995 are the ones you are claiming I counted in the 36. But fundamentally those other 50+ are as troubling as the 36+ positively innocent sent to death row. Why are prosecutors and cops hiding/destroying exculpatory evidence in capital cases? Why are crime labs faking hair and DNA results? Isn't conspiracy to commit murder a crime? And what is with appointing absolutely incompetent attorneys to defend capital cases? Do you know how many of those 50+ cases involved trial defence lawyers who have since been disbarred or voluntary gave up their licenses? What about the case where the capital case was the lawyer's very first criminal trial of any kind?

Raechard -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 6:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Do you have any idea what you'd be paying in taxes? Couldn't the Republic of Raechard just run a higher deficit? Don’t tread on my dreams man for they is all I’ve got[8\|]

Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 10:00:29 AM)
DK, agreed. If you are going to kill people, kill the ones who deserve it. Texas seems to have a dismal record in that regard, so obviously their system would not provide a good model. No matter how well read you may be, fighting the court system is a subject which most people know very little about, and it scares them. There are so many intricacies that it is ridiculous. There is sort of an alliance between judges and prosecutors which tips the balance against any defendant. When accused, many find that finding a good lawyer makes finding a good pizza place look like a cakewalk, and you can't just switch midstream. The choice of a lawyer could cost you your life. As much as I advocate the death penalty, I realise that it is not the time to implement it. We need some serious judicial reform before even considering it. Wrongly imprison someone and later you can give them a few cool million and they will be on their way. Not whole of course, but in comparison if you execute them, you can't take that back. These are serious issues, and they will become more serious in years to come. But I can say this much. If they find a body in Lake Erie wrapped in my livingroom carpet, you can bet I did not drag the person in here. In other words, no matter what, we need the deterrent of self defense much more than the death penalty. Maybe a better way to put it is that I believe that people, not written law should determine the exceptions to execution in capital cases. But then they should be fully informed juries, and the laws regarding the admissibility of evidence and motions for discovery need an overhaul. And very very few people actually know that as a member of a jury, one has the right to stand up and ask a question of any witness, or even court official. People don't study, they are too busy with other things. And they suffer because of it. T

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 11:45:33 AM)
"People often argue against CP by using the excuse of poor evidence with corrupt prosecution and incompetent defense. When they are really just using these problems as excuses when their real objection is the basic taking of a life for any reason. I think it is possible to set stringent evidence requirements for cp." Butch- I'm clearly one of those people who are against capital punishment from a moral standpoint. The reason I use the above argument- i.e. that the system is deeply flawed is that it represents common ground between both the people that support capital punishment and those against it. Many supporters of capital punishment have changed their stance because of the flaws in the system. I don't hide my distaste of capital punishment- but I do seek a common ground. You're missing my points on the problems of evidence in the current system- 1) The court standards for admission of scientific evidence are laughable. They would not pass peer review in any respected scientific journal (and would probably be rejected from even the second or third tier journals) and as someone who's taught chemistry and biochemistry at both a high school and college level- the best grade I've seen a cop or a prosecutor earn in terms of scientific reasoning would be maybe a "D" and that's probably generous. The problems range from sample handling, inadequate characterization, to a fundamental lack of understanding of the relevant technology (which impacts on how accurate and reliable an estimate can be.) 2) Suggesting that evidence be held to a higher standard in a capital punishment case just shows the flaws in the current system. Why should the standards be higher for a capital punishment case than say a rapist? You're suggesting a terrible double standard. 3) One of the reasons to get so worked up about capital punishment cases is that it shows the laxity and laziness of the current legal system. It's a disgrace- and an expensive disgrace to boot. One cannot fix the flaws in capital punishment without fixing the entire system. Even if the system would be fixed- would I still have issues with capital punishment? Yes- see my answer above concerning civilized countries. But then my objection would be on strictly moral- not factual grounds. Sam

Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 12:14:02 PM)
While I have to admit to agreeing with everything you said in that post sam, you know we disagree on the central point. If indeed we could apply capital punishment fairly, which you may consider a contradiction in terms but I do not, you consider it wrong on face value, based on basic morality. That is where we differ. That said, what right have you to subject me and mine to predators ? What if someone let loose a bunch of predatory animals in your area, like lions and tigers and such and your kids are disappearing, but you are prohibited from shooting them because they have a right to life, they are a part of nature. Comment : It's mighty comfy at the top of the food chain. T

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 12:57:22 PM)
Sam as I said... if you can't trust any evidence then there is no reason for a judgment for any crime. Just give up and let anarchy rule. I think common sense says that you can make stringent rules for CP that would be fair. A lot fewer cases would be decided under those rules but the ones that were would or could be made fair. There are already different punishments for different degrees of a crime...even within the murder category so there would be no double standard. Butch

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 2:11:11 PM)
T, Butch A quick look at the concept of fairness in capital punishment- Step 1- there would have to be no vested interest or gain for anyone if there is a capital punishment case. No promotions, raises, bids for public office- heck demotions might be a good thing. As long as state workers benefit from capital punishment- there is incentive for abuse. For the concept of fairness to have any validity- the incentive needs to be removed. I haven't seen this suggested in practice or any type of workable system. Step 2- evidence would have to pass a far more stringent standard. Butch- from my perspective your comments about evidence gathering shows why the system is so awful. It echoes some of the judges I've heard- "The system we've got isn't perfect, but it's the best we've got." This is a recipe for mediocrity- as pointed out earlier. If you fail to acknowledge the flaws in the system- there is no way to improve things. Your idea of saying that either the current system works well enough or junk it all together for anarchy is a version of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is a vast gulf between "works some of the time" to "works well." I'm trying to make constructive suggestions as to what needs to happen for our system of justice to work better So let me ask you a few questions- 1) Do you think our system of justice works well? 2) Would you trust the system that if you were accused of being a weenie wagger, dope dealer, or rapist that you would be able to resume your life with your head held high? 3) How do you explain the number of people now being exonerated using DNA evidence? 4) What do you tell someone who has just spent 20 years in jail due to a misidentification by a witness? 5) What do you tell the widow of a man who's just been executed when additional evidence comes to light shows that he was innocent? Sam

kittinSol -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 2:51:50 PM)
The objective of capital punishment is bloodthirsty revenge. But most capital punishment advocates deny this.

JstAnotherSub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:14:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol The objective of capital punishment is bloodthirsty revenge. But most capital punishment advocates deny this. to me, the objective is just punishment...the only one that fits the crime. but i may just be in denial [;)]

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:16:57 PM)
Well I'd say if you can use DNA to exonerate then you could also use it to convict...can't have it both ways I think. And yes I think our judicial system is excellent overall. With the number of crimes in this or any country mistakes will be made but you can't NOT judge criminals because of the rare mistake. I will not have to say anything to the widow if stringent rules are used for CP... You are going overboard with the past... I am talking the future. I have been agreeing with you that the present system of CP is not fair or reasonably foolproof but it can be made so. Butch

kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:19:41 PM)
It would be revenge if those aggrieved by the murderer could pull the lever otherwise it is a just punishment for the crime. Butch

marie2 -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:28:12 PM)
I'm not sure that all death penalty advocates are all about revenge. I think many people view the death penalty as a way to eliminate the risk of the killer doing it again.

Apocalypso -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:35:06 PM)
In theory, I don't have a problem with capital punishment. Although I don't believe the state should have more of a right to take someone's life. I just don't actually see taking life as necessarily morally wrong. However, as for many people on here, it's the issue of taking innocent life. Unless you can be categorically sure that not one innocent will be killed, and I think that's impossible, that's too high a price to pay for me. If anything, I think there's a decent argument that an individual is more likely to be categorically certain of somebody's guilt than the state.

kittinSol -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:47:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marie2 I think many people view the death penalty as a way to eliminate the risk of the killer doing it again. With today's high security jailing? I think you give these people too much credit.

samboct -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 3:56:40 PM)
Hi Butch Ah- well here's our area of disagreement- "And yes I think our judicial system is excellent overall." My first hand experience as an investigator for a lawyer and as just an irate citizen defending himself against the denizens of the law suggests otherwise. I suggest we agree to disagree since given the plethora of articles that have shown numerous faults in the judicial system, you have come to a different conclusion. Perhaps your experience has been different than mine. One area of agreement- DNA evidence has been used to solve crimes as well as exonerate-often DNA evidence can be tied to a person already incarcerated. To other folks- Let me point out that the movies do have some aspects right- there is an increase in the resources used to find and apprehend perpetrators of death penalty offenses. From my perspective, this just highlights the problems in the system since the police rarely use evidence based techniques to solve crimes- they're not competent at it. Hence death penalty cases are often at higher risk for misidentification of perpetrators since the stakes are higher. Sam

marie2 -> RE: The death penalty (5/4/2009 8:05:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: marie2 I think many people view the death penalty as a way to eliminate the risk of the killer doing it again. With today's high security jailing? I think you give these people too much credit. I'm too damn lazy to research stats here, but how about the convicted lifers who have nothing to lose anymore? They sit in prison and make more trouble there...they kill one another, or attack the prison guards, or worse yet, some of them escape and kill again. Ok...probably not many....but still...if you kill the murderer, the risk of him hurting or killing again is zero. I'm just discussing a point here, as I've always been sort of on the fence with the death penalty. For me the biggest issue is in cases where we can't be 100% sure and we "fry" the wrong person. But other times, such as in cases that Butch was discussing when there is no question of who the murderer is, ie video tape evidence or whathaveyou, whats the reason to not eliminate the killer? Yeah, I know, if it's wrong to kill it's wrong to kill, I can understand that too, but when you read the gruesome details of some of the most heinous murders and how those poor souls suffered through unspeakable tortures etc, I can't help but think the killer should be removed from society. Why should we continue to put innocent lives at risk? Prison terms don't guarantee the animal won't harm again. But again, (for me) it comes back to being 100% sure, which is nearly impossible in most cases.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875