Paging anti death penalty libs

[Mr. Shaman]

Its better to let a 1000 guilty free then convict 1 innocent man,let alone kill one.

We make a mockery of the whole despicable practice. What the hell is up with swabbing the injection site with disinfectant,what possible sense does that make??

About as much sense as not allowing doctors to prescribe heroin to terminally-ill people, for pain. ​

 

[chikenwing]

No idea what you're trying to say there.

I'm saying that the power to take the liberty of a man, to lock him into a gay dungeon of horrors for the rest of his life, is every bit as great as the power to take his life.

You support the power of the state to take liberty, permanently, but not life? I find this illogical and contradictory.

Well once dead you are never going to regain liberty in this life,locked up you just might ,if proven innocent down the road,something that has happened a lot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And a boat, and a map to the house of little girls having slumber parties..

what?? what the hell is that ??

Murder of Polly Klaas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The death penalty dose not prevent murder as a deterrent,proven statistically over and over. Sure the one you kill won't again,but doesn't stop others,so ineffective.

False.

The deterrent effect has been mitigated purely by the long delay in carrying out the death sentence. Already in states that have a more reasonable interval, the deterrent is demonstrated.

The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Its better to let a 1000 guilty free then convict 1 innocent man,let alone kill one.

Victims like Poly Klause might disagree with you.

...Unless, of course, she was the innocent person facing execution.​

 

[novasteve]

Its better to let a 1000 guilty free then convict 1 innocent man,let alone kill one.

Victims like Poly Klause might disagree with you.



It is pretty bizarre.



In that brutal murderers are put down like a beloved family pet, but not that they are put down.



Death is 100% effective at stopping recidivism. It is also a good deterrent. Prior to the game of waiting 30 years to actually execute the convicted, death had a very strong deterrent effect.

Hell I would even suport a set up like the French used for ever,a prison colony,drop them off with some fish hooks,line and pumpkin seeds and leave them to themselves.

And a boat, and a map to the house of little girls having slumber parties......

And a boat, and a map to the house of little girls having slumber parties..

what?? what the hell is that ??

The death penalty dose not prevent murder as a deterrent,proven statistically over and over. Sure the one you kill won't again,but doesn't stop others,so ineffective.

That's because of all the appeals. If you knew you'd be on death row for 20+ years before you seriously were at risk of being executed, do you think that would deter you less than if you knew you'd probably be executed within 8 months of being convicted? It's liberal policies that cause all the "reasons" they use to want to ban the death penalty.

What about a case like THIS one? There is ZERO doubt he committed the murders. What risk is there of an innocent being executed?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well once dead you are never going to regain liberty in this life,locked up you just might ,if proven innocent down the road,something that has happened a lot.

Actually, it is not.

100 overturned convictions over the last century is statistically irrelevant. Those locked up for murder will generally get out, but not because they were shown to be innocent, rather because the state reneges on the social contract.

Most murderers will kill again, and again. Why? Because society frees them to prey on fresh victims. The left supports death, for victims just not for perpetrators.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No idea what you're trying to say there.

I'm saying that the power to take the liberty of a man, to lock him into a gay dungeon of horrors for the rest of his life, is every bit as great as the power to take his life.

You know of a gay dungeon of horror????

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The death penalty dose not prevent murder as a deterrent,proven statistically over and over. Sure the one you kill won't again,but doesn't stop others,so ineffective.

False.

The deterrent effect has been mitigated purely by the long delay in carrying out the death sentence. Already in states that have a more reasonable interval, the deterrent is demonstrated.

You don't bother doing a whole-lotta research, do you??

"Police chiefs ranked the death penalty last when asked to name one area as "most important for reducing violent crime."

Deterrence​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Victims like Poly Klause might disagree with you.



It is pretty bizarre.



In that brutal murderers are put down like a beloved family pet, but not that they are put down.



Death is 100% effective at stopping recidivism. It is also a good deterrent. Prior to the game of waiting 30 years to actually execute the convicted, death had a very strong deterrent effect.



And a boat, and a map to the house of little girls having slumber parties......

And a boat, and a map to the house of little girls having slumber parties..

what?? what the hell is that ??

The death penalty dose not prevent murder as a deterrent,proven statistically over and over. Sure the one you kill won't again,but doesn't stop others,so ineffective.

That's because of all the appeals. If you knew you'd be on death row for 20+ years before you seriously were at risk of being executed, do you think that would deter you less than if you knew you'd probably be executed within 8 months of being convicted? It's liberal policies that cause all the "reasons" they use to want to ban the death penalty.

What about a case like THIS one? There is ZERO doubt he committed the murders. What risk is there of an innocent being executed?

You "conservatives" never were big fans o' work/effort.

How 'bout we make the effort to figure-out....

....what drives murderous-behavior??!!!

Every person we execute puts us one MORE murder away from identifying what-it-is that drives people to commit murder....because, avoiding that research allows one more opportunity for someone to commit that crime....against you, or someone you know.​

 

[Borillar]

Well once dead you are never going to regain liberty in this life,locked up you just might ,if proven innocent down the road,something that has happened a lot.

Actually, it is not.

100 overturned convictions over the last century is statistically irrelevant. Those locked up for murder will generally get out, but not because they were shown to be innocent, rather because the state reneges on the social contract.

Most murderers will kill again, and again. Why? Because society frees them to prey on fresh victims. The left supports death, for victims just not for perpetrators.

It's relevant to those innocent people who had their convictions overturned.

Agree with much of the rest of your statement. Murderers should not even sniff freedom.

Your last sentence is an outright lie. I certainly didn't support the death of my best friend. I do support the punishment his murderer has and is receiving.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well once dead you are never going to regain liberty in this life,locked up you just might ,if proven innocent down the road,something that has happened a lot.

Most murderers will kill again, and again. Why? Because society frees them to prey on fresh victims.

If that's true.....what made them commit their first murder?????​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Raising Adam Lanza​

​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No idea what you're trying to say there.

I'm saying that the power to take the liberty of a man, to lock him into a gay dungeon of horrors for the rest of his life, is every bit as great as the power to take his life.

You support the power of the state to take liberty, permanently, but not life? I find this illogical and contradictory.

No, but let me give you an example. I recently heard about a man who spent 10 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. If I'm that guy, I'm glad they didn't execute me within that 10 years because now I can live the rest of my life. Saying that being wrongly convicted and spending years in jail is better than being wrongly convicted and then executed in no way implies that I remotely endorse the present system.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

March 20, 2013

Jailed Unjustly, Man Nears Freedom​

"In the wintry darkness 23 years ago on a back street in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, a jewelry thief fleeing a botched robbery panicked and shot a Hasidic rabbi in the head.

Four days later, the rabbi, Chaskel Werzberger, an Auschwitz survivor, died of his wounds. Even in the New York City of 1990, as homicides crested at 2,245, the murder stirred grief and outrage. The “Slain Rabbi” was front-page tabloid news. Mayor David N. Dinkins traveled to Williamsburg’s Satmar enclave to sit in mourning and to offer a $10,000 reward.

Forty detectives worked the case, soon led by the swaggering, cigar-chewing Detective Louis Scarcella. Working closely with an influential Satmar rabbi, Detective Scarcella arrested a drug-addicted, unemployed printer named David Ranta. Hasidic Jews surrounded the car that carried the accused man to jail, slapping the roof and chanting, “Death penalty!”

Mr. Ranta was convicted in May 1991 and sentenced to 37.5 years in maximum-security prison, where he remains to this day.

Mr. Ranta could walk free as early as Thursday. In the decades since a jury convicted him of murder, nearly every piece of evidence in this case has fallen away. A key witness told The New York Times that a detective instructed him to select Mr. Ranta in the lineup. A convicted rapist told the district attorney that he falsely implicated Mr. Ranta in hopes of cutting a deal for himself. A woman has signed an affidavit saying she too lied about Mr. Ranta’s involvement.

Detective Scarcella and his partner, Stephen Chmil, according to investigators and legal documents, broke rule after rule. They kept few written records, coached a witness and took Mr. Ranta’s confession under what a judge described as highly dubious circumstances. They allowed two dangerous criminals, an investigator said, to leave jail, smoke crack cocaine and visit with prostitutes in exchange for incriminating Mr. Ranta.

At trial, prosecutors acknowledged the detectives had misbehaved but depicted them as likable scamps. Reached in retirement on Tuesday, Mr. Scarcella defended his work. “I never framed anyone in my life,” he said.

No physical evidence ever connected Mr. Ranta to the murder.

He now sits in a cell at a maximum-security prison outside Buffalo. He is a touch shy; his gray hair is fast thinning. His voice still carries the slantwise intonations of working-class south Brooklyn. Asked how he survived, he said he was not sure he had.

“I’d lie there in the cell at night and I think: I’m the only one in the world who knows I’m innocent,” he said. “I came in here as a 30-something with kids, a mother who was alive. This case killed my whole life.”

SHIT HAPPENS!!!!

....Especially to people who can't AFFORD to fight-back!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

March 20, 2013

Faces Freedom With Apprehension​

"Many questions linger, not least why prosecutors clung with such tenacity to a case troubled by flaws. In 1996, Theresa Astin testified — during a new hearing — that her husband, Joseph Astin, a cocaine addict who specialized in armed robbery, had committed the murder. Her husband, she said, came home distraught the day of the murder; she found him dismantling and sawing down his pistol in their bathroom.

“He was upset, he was crying, he was scared,” she testified. “He prayed every day and went to church that the rabbi would live.”

Two months after the rabbi’s murder, Mr. Astin died in a car crash while being chased by the police. Detective Scarcella said this week that he knew Mr. Astin as Jewelry Joe, given his taste in robberies, and acknowledged that he had been a prime suspect.

But the detective never showed a photograph of Mr. Astin to the witnesses.

Mr. Ranta has spoken in a prison interview of his jitters at facing life beyond bars. He’s never held a cellphone, and he asked where he might buy a Moody Blues CD for his Walkman.

“I really don’t know what I’ll do if I get out,” he said a few weeks back. “It’s like a whole new life.”

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, but let me give you an example. I recently heard about a man who spent 10 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. If I'm that guy, I'm glad they didn't execute me within that 10 years because now I can live the rest of my life.

Two issues;

First, was he even sentenced to death? I agree that the burden of proof MUST be greater in death penalty cases. Testimony from a single eye-witness doesn't cut it.

Second; no one gets executed in less than 10 years, not even in Texas.

Saying that being wrongly convicted and spending years in jail is better than being wrongly convicted and then executed in no way implies that I remotely endorse the present system.

What would you suggest as a better system?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, but let me give you an example. I recently heard about a man who spent 10 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. If I'm that guy, I'm glad they didn't execute me within that 10 years because now I can live the rest of my life.

Two issues;

First, was he even sentenced to death? I agree that the burden of proof MUST be greater in death penalty cases. Testimony from a single eye-witness doesn't cut it.

Second; no one gets executed in less than 10 years, not even in Texas.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHNGP6_eER0]monkey tap dance - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, but let me give you an example. I recently heard about a man who spent 10 years in prison for a murder he didn't commit. If I'm that guy, I'm glad they didn't execute me within that 10 years because now I can live the rest of my life.

Two issues;

First, was he even sentenced to death? I agree that the burden of proof MUST be greater in death penalty cases. Testimony from a single eye-witness doesn't cut it.

Second; no one gets executed in less than 10 years, not even in Texas.

Saying that being wrongly convicted and spending years in jail is better than being wrongly convicted and then executed in no way implies that I remotely endorse the present system.

What would you suggest as a better system?

It doesn't matter whether he was sentenced to death, nor does it matter that he didn't spend enough time in jail to get to his actual execution. The point is that the man was innocent, and, since he's not dead, is now able to pick up the pieces of his life. Had they executed him he wouldn't be able to.

Complete privatization. Now don't ask me exactly how that would look, but competition in justice would be better than giving a monopoly to an unaccountable organization.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't matter whether he was sentenced to death, nor does it matter that he didn't spend enough time in jail to get to his actual execution. The point is that the man was innocent, and, since he's not dead, is now able to pick up the pieces of his life. Had they executed him he wouldn't be able to.

It matters a great deal. You offer you anecdotal claim as evidence that the death penalty is bad because innocent people will be executed. Yet you anecdote demonstrates no danger of that at all. Because the case was weak, the death penalty was not sought, nor had enough appeals passed that an actual DP case would have neared execution.

Your anecdote serves to refute, not support, your position.

Complete privatization. Now don't ask me exactly how that would look, but competition in justice would be better than giving a monopoly to an unaccountable organization.

I'm a Rothbard, Laissez Faire Libertarian. But few things terrify me more than for profit prisons.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't matter whether he was sentenced to death, nor does it matter that he didn't spend enough time in jail to get to his actual execution. The point is that the man was innocent, and, since he's not dead, is now able to pick up the pieces of his life. Had they executed him he wouldn't be able to.

It matters a great deal. You offer you anecdotal claim as evidence that the death penalty is bad because innocent people will be executed. Yet you anecdote demonstrates no danger of that at all. Because the case was weak, the death penalty was not sought, nor had enough appeals passed that an actual DP case would have neared execution.

Your anecdote serves to refute, not support, your position.

Complete privatization. Now don't ask me exactly how that would look, but competition in justice would be better than giving a monopoly to an unaccountable organization.

I'm a Rothbard, Laissez Faire Libertarian. But few things terrify me more than for profit prisons.

It's only important if you're fixating on the specific case itself, rather than the actual point I was making. This person's innocence demonstrates that the system makes mistakes, thus we can conclude, whether or not this particular individual was on death row or not (and I can't say for certain as I don't recall), that there are innocent people on death row. Now they may be imprisoned for 5 years or 70 years, it really makes no difference. If their innocence is found out while they're still alive then they can still have some semblance of a life. If they've been executed then they can't. Having a chance at a life is better than not having a chance.

Put another way, if a person on death row is found to be innocent then the state is only guilty of false imprisonment, and perhaps kidnapping, whereas if they've executed an innocent person they're also guilty of murder. Murder is worse than false imprisonment and kidnapping.

Then you're not a "Rothbard laissez faire libertarian," as Rothbard wanted to abolish the state entirely.