Death Penalty

[Diuretic]

What would it take, for you, to prove guilt beyond any doubt at all? Your personal eyewitness of the deed?

I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.

Dayum.... You really are cynical, aren't you? BTW, jury tampering is illegal, a prosecutor isn't likely to be lazy if he/she is the one working every so hard to convince the jury of guilt, and a judge doesn't weigh the evidence (the jury does) although he/she must pay attention to whether or not its admissible (which is generally determined outside the court room). Now an inexperience defense lawyer might be a point, but in a capital case? Not bloody likely....

Not jury tampering, all it takes is one or two strong personalities in the jury room and there can be aquittal or conviction against the facts. A prosecutor can be lazy, ambitious, inexperienced, corrupt, incapable, ignore exculpatory evidence to get a conviction and so on. The judge directs the jury on the law within the context of the facts so needs to be alert all the time and no half asleep, asleep, disinterested and so on. Put all those together and even a very good defence lawyer is up against it on behalf of the client.

My point is that the system is not infallible. If it were then I'd be happy to concede that the death penalty is not likely to be used against an innocent person. The fact is that it is fallible and innocent people have been executed. That's why I won't support the death penalty.

 

[Diuretic]

Folks, let's face it, nothing, no system is perfect. But we take the best we got and accept it. Sometimes an innocent will be killed. I say that is rare. I was glad to see the likes of Ted Bundy meet his maker. Sometimes a Sunday school teacher is killed on the highway driving to church. But we don't stop driving. An innocent soldier can be killed by friendly fire, but we still call out the troops when there is a need.

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

It ain't murder. Murder is what the bad guy does for personal gain. What the government does is punishment to serve it's citizens.

Those who are against capital punishment, period, will dig up all excuses they can and that's fine, as we have free speech and they are entitled to their opinion. But they should be honest in their arguments. I say human predators are so evil they deserve to be removed from society and that don't mean have society work to earn money to pay for their housing, medical care, dental care, education, food, clothing, recreation, porno books and sex change operations. Why not calculate the cost to keep a murderer alive for 25 years, then just put the slug to death and give the money that is saved to the victim? Now that makes more sense and is more fair.

What ratio of innocent to guilty who are executed is acceptable to you?

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

WHAT? Did human nature SUDDENLY change and human foibles evaporate?

SUDDENLY ALL police officers are honest, ALL lawyers are competent and ALL judges are dispassionate...

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

First, not all of them have to be honest to create a balanced legal system. Secondly the legal system isn't the government.

There are too many checks and balances in the legal system that most people just won't look into. Nothing humans do will ever be perfect, but as a species we must protect the majority, we have no choice, it's a natural instinct to do so for a reason and though many ignore that instinct it doesn't mean that letting people who are a clear danger to us all walk among us is ever a good thing.

 

[Diuretic]

Sorry Auditor, while true ten years ago, we have less than 1 billionth of a chance that hard evidence is wrong in many cases, those without hard evidence, sure, keep them around until we can get some. But those who have been proven innocent are because of those same advances that allow us to find the truly guilty as well.

WHAT? Did human nature SUDDENLY change and human foibles evaporate?

SUDDENLY ALL police officers are honest, ALL lawyers are competent and ALL judges are dispassionate...

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

First, not all of them have to be honest to create a balanced legal system. Secondly the legal system isn't the government.

There are too many checks and balances in the legal system that most people just won't look into. Nothing humans do will ever be perfect, but as a species we must protect the majority, we have no choice, it's a natural instinct to do so for a reason and though many ignore that instinct it doesn't mean that letting people who are a clear danger to us all walk among us is ever a good thing.

No-one is saying a convicted murderer should be freed, the argument is that they shouldn't be executed because we can never be totally sure that they did it. Prison is fine.

 

[DamnYankee]

I don't know, to be perfectly frank. But I do know this, there are so many variables at work from the criminal act to the eventual decision by the jury that, looking at the system in totality, there is no way I would ever be convinced that the death penalty is a good idea. All it takes is sloppy police work, a lazy prosecutor, an inexperienced defence lawyer, a couple of influential jurors, a judge not paying attention to the evidence and bingo, someone who is innocent is convicted. I just don't trust the criminal justice system that much that I would be comfortable with the death penalty.

Dayum.... You really are cynical, aren't you? BTW, jury tampering is illegal, a prosecutor isn't likely to be lazy if he/she is the one working every so hard to convince the jury of guilt, and a judge doesn't weigh the evidence (the jury does) although he/she must pay attention to whether or not its admissible (which is generally determined outside the court room). Now an inexperience defense lawyer might be a point, but in a capital case? Not bloody likely....

Not jury tampering, all it takes is one or two strong personalities in the jury room and there can be aquittal or conviction against the facts. A prosecutor can be lazy, ambitious, inexperienced, corrupt, incapable, ignore exculpatory evidence to get a conviction and so on. The judge directs the jury on the law within the context of the facts so needs to be alert all the time and no half asleep, asleep, disinterested and so on. Put all those together and even a very good defence lawyer is up against it on behalf of the client.

My point is that the system is not infallible. If it were then I'd be happy to concede that the death penalty is not likely to be used against an innocent person. The fact is that it is fallible and innocent people have been executed. That's why I won't support the death penalty.

I would never say, nor imply, infallibility. What I have said, and agreed to, is your degree of cynicism. One would, indeed, need to put ALL those factors together in one case to come up with a scenario such as you've suggested. That isn't to say that THAT could not possibly EVER happen, but then, I'd have to agree with the many conspiracy theories that I've seen suggested....

 

[Bfgrn]

WHAT? Did human nature SUDDENLY change and human foibles evaporate?

SUDDENLY ALL police officers are honest, ALL lawyers are competent and ALL judges are dispassionate...

Ironic how people that rail against government have NO problem with government when it comes to sanctioned murder...

First, not all of them have to be honest to create a balanced legal system. Secondly the legal system isn't the government.

There are too many checks and balances in the legal system that most people just won't look into. Nothing humans do will ever be perfect, but as a species we must protect the majority, we have no choice, it's a natural instinct to do so for a reason and though many ignore that instinct it doesn't mean that letting people who are a clear danger to us all walk among us is ever a good thing.

No-one is saying a convicted murderer should be freed, the argument is that they shouldn't be executed because we can never be totally sure that they did it. Prison is fine.

"Secondly the legal system isn't the government."

What makes you think the legal system ISN'T the government? Of course it IS...


"Nothing humans do will ever be perfect, but as a species we must protect the majority, we have no choice"

Thomas Jefferson DISagrees...

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[WillowTree]

State sanctioned murder remains murder, and too many innocent people have been killed by the state after being wrongfully convicted of murder.

If Charles Manson ever gets paroled, I hope he moves to your neighborhood and not mine.

Manson never killed anyone. He was in fact eligible for parole in 1978.

It was never proven he killed anyone,, just like OJ. but what do you think the probability is?

 

[DamnYankee]

If Charles Manson ever gets paroled, I hope he moves to your neighborhood and not mine.

Manson never killed anyone. He was in fact eligible for parole in 1978.

It was never proven he killed anyone,, just like OJ. but what do you think the probability is?

Which brings us to the verdicts. Although one is, idealogically, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the verdicts are either "guilty" or "not guilty", based on that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the jurors must be convinced of. What we were left with, in the above cases, was a failure on the part of the prosecution to persuade/convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. Who's to say that another jury of peers would not have seen it differently? Since double-jeopardy applies, if we learn more facts later, that increase the probability of guilt, too damned bad, right? Hard to sympathize with the small number who may NOT be guilty when those who ARE guilty have loopholes.

 

[Diuretic]

Or those who are found not guilty at trial but subsequently found guilty of other charges based on the same evidence but on different charges and in front of a different jury in a different location.

Exhibit P1 in my case of cynicism.

The trials of the LAPD cops in the King case.

Now tell me I shouldn't be cynical.

 

[Bfgrn]

Manson never killed anyone. He was in fact eligible for parole in 1978.

It was never proven he killed anyone,, just like OJ. but what do you think the probability is?

Which brings us to the verdicts. Although one is, idealogically, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the verdicts are either "guilty" or "not guilty", based on that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the jurors must be convinced of. What we were left with, in the above cases, was a failure on the part of the prosecution to persuade/convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. Who's to say that another jury of peers would not have seen it differently? Since double-jeopardy applies, if we learn more facts later, that increase the probability of guilt, too damned bad, right? Hard to sympathize with the small number who may NOT be guilty when those who ARE guilty have loopholes.

Again, Thomas Jefferson would DISagree...

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:30

"Were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XI, 1782. ME 2:129

 

[DamnYankee]

It was never proven he killed anyone,, just like OJ. but what do you think the probability is?

Which brings us to the verdicts. Although one is, idealogically, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the verdicts are either "guilty" or "not guilty", based on that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the jurors must be convinced of. What we were left with, in the above cases, was a failure on the part of the prosecution to persuade/convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. Who's to say that another jury of peers would not have seen it differently? Since double-jeopardy applies, if we learn more facts later, that increase the probability of guilt, too damned bad, right? Hard to sympathize with the small number who may NOT be guilty when those who ARE guilty have loopholes.

Again, Thomas Jefferson would DISagree...

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:30

"Were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XI, 1782. ME 2:129

Hmmm.... So so after posting THIS Jefferson quote:

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[Just A Man]

What ratio of innocent to guilty who are executed is acceptable to you?

What!!! Who would ever want an innocent to be executed?

Reminds me of the question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

 

[Bfgrn]

Which brings us to the verdicts. Although one is, idealogically, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the verdicts are either "guilty" or "not guilty", based on that "beyond a reasonable doubt" the jurors must be convinced of. What we were left with, in the above cases, was a failure on the part of the prosecution to persuade/convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, of guilt. Who's to say that another jury of peers would not have seen it differently? Since double-jeopardy applies, if we learn more facts later, that increase the probability of guilt, too damned bad, right? Hard to sympathize with the small number who may NOT be guilty when those who ARE guilty have loopholes.

Again, Thomas Jefferson would DISagree...

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:30

"Were it made a question, whether no law, as among the savage Americans, or too much law, as among the civilized Europeans, submits man to the greatest evil, one who has seen both conditions of existence would pronounce it to be the last; and that the sheep are happier of themselves, than under care of the wolves." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XI, 1782. ME 2:129

Hmmm.... So so after posting THIS Jefferson quote:

It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.
Thomas Jefferson

Do you need an interpreter?

 

[Diuretic]

What ratio of innocent to guilty who are executed is acceptable to you?

What!!! Who would ever want an innocent to be executed?

Reminds me of the question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

It might remind you of the that closed and leading question but it isn't analogous. My question was neither closed nor was it leading.

So, what ratio? If you're prepared to accept a mistake, ie an innocent person being executed, what is the acceptabl ratio?

1:10?
1:100?
1:1000?
1:10,1000?

and so on.

Serious question.

If a community executes convicted murderers it will, given sufficient executions, execute an innocent person. If it doesn't execute murderers then it will not execute an innocent person.

Do you agree with that proposition or not?

 

[Bfgrn]

What ratio of innocent to guilty who are executed is acceptable to you?

What!!! Who would ever want an innocent to be executed?

Reminds me of the question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

It might remind you of the that closed and leading question but it isn't analogous. My question was neither closed nor was it leading.

So, what ratio? If you're prepared to accept a mistake, ie an innocent person being executed, what is the acceptabl ratio?

1:10?
1:100?
1:1000?
1:10,1000?

and so on.

Serious question.

If a community executes convicted murderers it will, given sufficient executions, execute an innocent person. If it doesn't execute murderers then it will not execute an innocent person.

Do you agree with that proposition or not?

IMO, if YOU are willing to trade places with an innocent person being put to death, then the system is fair...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were granted by the creator, not the state...

 

[elvis]

If Charles Manson ever gets paroled, I hope he moves to your neighborhood and not mine.

Manson never killed anyone. He was in fact eligible for parole in 1978.

It was never proven he killed anyone,, just like OJ. but what do you think the probability is?

Oh I think he shares responsibility for the LaBianca and Tate murders. It's just amazing that he was convicted of basically controlling those girls' minds.

 

[Diuretic]

What!!! Who would ever want an innocent to be executed?

Reminds me of the question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

It might remind you of the that closed and leading question but it isn't analogous. My question was neither closed nor was it leading.

So, what ratio? If you're prepared to accept a mistake, ie an innocent person being executed, what is the acceptabl ratio?

1:10?
1:100?
1:1000?
1:10,1000?

and so on.

Serious question.

If a community executes convicted murderers it will, given sufficient executions, execute an innocent person. If it doesn't execute murderers then it will not execute an innocent person.

Do you agree with that proposition or not?

IMO, if YOU are willing to trade places with an innocent person being put to death, then the system is fair...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were granted by the creator, not the state...

"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."

Can't see that happening any time soon

 

[sealybobo]

What!!! Who would ever want an innocent to be executed?

Reminds me of the question: "Do you still beat your wife?"

It might remind you of the that closed and leading question but it isn't analogous. My question was neither closed nor was it leading.

So, what ratio? If you're prepared to accept a mistake, ie an innocent person being executed, what is the acceptabl ratio?

1:10?
1:100?
1:1000?
1:10,1000?

and so on.

Serious question.

If a community executes convicted murderers it will, given sufficient executions, execute an innocent person. If it doesn't execute murderers then it will not execute an innocent person.

Do you agree with that proposition or not?

IMO, if YOU are willing to trade places with an innocent person being put to death, then the system is fair...

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were granted by the creator, not the state...

George Carlin quote: "You know the good part about all those executions in Texas? Fewer Texans."

 

[zvhorn]

State sanctioned murder remains murder, and too many innocent people have been killed by the state after being wrongfully convicted of murder.

This is where words are used to make the justice system look ugly. There is a very big difference between murder and killing. A murderer is someone who chooses to commit the crime of taking away the right of life to another citizen. The state does not murder....the state KILLS those who choose to violate the law and thus must pay the ultimate punishment. The state does not go around murdering anyone. The arguments about innocent people being killed by the state are very complicated. While I am sure it has happened....there is no real hard evidence that it has happend near to the extent that you will hear about at your local college university. It all depends on which information they chose to give you and which information they chose to keep hidden. Once again far left professors indoctrinating rather than "sharing" ideas.

I bring up professors becuase this was a huge argument in an American justice class I took....After doing my own research I found the numbers of innocent people killed to be skewed quite a bit. At least to any real hard evidence of their being innocent. I think with todays technology the chances of someone on death row being wrongly accused are pretty slim.

 

[zvhorn]

George Carlin quote: "You know the good part about all those executions in Texas? Fewer Texans."[/QUOTE]

Fewer criminals too