|
Post by bernard on Apr 12, 2016 10:13:03 GMT -6
But Texas's story is that a sane Vasquez killed a 12 year old boy (and cut off his arms, one foot, the skin from his back and drank his blood) in order to rob him of a ring and necklace. It seems you don't think much of Texas's official verdict, since you're trying to change it. I don't blame you.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 12, 2016 10:44:16 GMT -6
I find it really moronic they called it a robbery. I have never heard of a robbery that went to that extreme, the horrific murder of a 12 yr old boy to boot.
At the end being what is was, justice was certainly served. Vasquez was not mentally ill, he was pure evil. Even the animals found mutilated was cult related. Just shows they are very aware mentally & capable of doing to a human. They chose evil.
To add to this, anyone who mixes drugs with booze is responsible for the outcome it brings............. & the devil made me do it is just another criminal excuse of bs.
Thank goodness for Texas, they were capable of doing the right thing at the end of it all, just takes too many yrs to follow thru.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 12, 2016 11:35:46 GMT -6
I find it really moronic they called it a robbery. Which means you have to question their fact-finding procedures. Yeah, the cult explanation is a possible alternative to the hypothesis he is just nuts. Though being brainwashed by a murder cult is arguably a form of insanity in itself. Whether or not he was insane, the main point stands. They don't execute masterminds in Texas. This guy didn't make it past eighth grade.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 12, 2016 11:41:52 GMT -6
My Mother never made it thru third grade, she still knew right from wrong. My Mother always taught me, the kids you hang with are not responsible for your bad behavior ..........you are.
Ya know that old saying, not my kid, he/she is just hanging with the wrong kids excuse.....................always the other guys fault.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 12, 2016 12:38:17 GMT -6
My Mother never made it thru third grade, she still knew right from wrong. My Mother always taught me, the kids you hang with are not responsible for your bad behavior ..........you are. Ya know that old saying, not my kid, he/she is just hanging with the wrong kids excuse.....................always the other guys fault. No-one suggested Vasquez was hanging with the wrong crowd. Nor is the point that he didn't deserve death. I am merely pointing out that Texas never seems to get the death penalty for sane, smart murderers. Why is that? My best guess is that it comes down to institutional laziness. Texans are simply too indolent to go after someone who knows how to defend themselves intelligently.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 12, 2016 13:19:33 GMT -6
Are you saying $$ saves the sane smart ones who commit murders, if no $$ they are all insane stupid murderers?
Win win for the anti stance huh. At both ends .........................equals no DP at all lol
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 12, 2016 13:37:42 GMT -6
Are you saying $$ saves the sane smart ones who commit murders, if no $$ they are all insane stupid murderers? Win win for the anti stance huh. At both ends .........................equals no DP at all lol Sorry to break it to you, but "justice" doesn't just mean getting to juice some murdering scumbag because you really really want to. It means the same punishment for the same crime. If Texas is executing simpletons and letting smarter murderers off lightly, that doesn't amount to justice at either end.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 12, 2016 14:20:30 GMT -6
Sorry to break it to you Bernie, we do not as you say juice someone because we want to, it is there for the POS who believes they should live only & only they have rights to live..............
TX does not execute simpletons only those described above.
If you have a grudge with Texas have the balls to come here & talk to them like that....................accuse away walk your walk not just your moronic quoting on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 13, 2016 0:27:23 GMT -6
Sorry to break it to you Bernie, we do not as you say juice someone because we want to, it is there for the POS who believes they should live only & only they have rights to live.............. Address the point. Clue: The point = the same crime should get the same punishment, or there is no justice. Come on. Every time I read the news TX has executed some low functioning oaf. I'm not flying all the way to Texas to tell some 19th century cattle tenders their state justice system is f'd. Talk sense. Whatever. Hey, here's an interesting question: When was the last time TX executed a college graduate?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 13, 2016 8:19:06 GMT -6
the same crime should get the same punishment, or there is no justice. This is what you believe, in all circumstances?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 13, 2016 14:42:19 GMT -6
the same crime should get the same punishment, or there is no justice. This is what you believe, in all circumstances? Yes. There can be aggravating and mitigating circumstances, of course, but the same aggravating/mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account in one case and not the next.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 13, 2016 15:57:07 GMT -6
Yes. There can be aggravating and mitigating circumstances, of course, but the same aggravating/mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account in one case and not the next. In other words, no, you don't. Any determination of "circumstances" that "mitigate" or "aggravate" a crime is hopelessly subjective, and therefore unjust.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 13, 2016 16:07:04 GMT -6
Yes. There can be aggravating and mitigating circumstances, of course, but the same aggravating/mitigating circumstances cannot be taken into account in one case and not the next. In other words, no, you don't. Any determination of "circumstances" that "mitigate" or "aggravate" a crime is hopelessly subjective, and therefore unjust. Subjectivity is integral to western justice. That's why you are tried by a jury of 12 of your peers, not 12 robots. Their subjective opinion and life experience provides context.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2016 12:11:46 GMT -6
Subjectivity is integral to western justice. That's why you are tried by a jury of 12 of your peers, not 12 robots. Their subjective opinion and life experience provides context. Maybe where you live. Not in California, where I live. Juries here only determine guilt. They don't determine punishment, which is predetermined.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 14, 2016 14:14:00 GMT -6
Subjectivity is integral to western justice. That's why you are tried by a jury of 12 of your peers, not 12 robots. Their subjective opinion and life experience provides context. Maybe where you live. Not in California, where I live. Juries here only determine guilt. They don't determine punishment, which is predetermined. That's incorrect Joseph. In California, where you live, juries weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence in capital trials, before determining whether the punishment should be death or LWOP. The judge's only power is to reduce death to LWOP, but not vice versa. oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/deathpen.pdf
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 14, 2016 14:58:37 GMT -6
In California, where you live, juries weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence in capital trials, before determining whether the punishment should be death or LWOP. Unfortunately, that is true. It's an irrational and stupid rule, but at least it only applies in capital trials.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 14, 2016 15:22:07 GMT -6
In California, where you live, juries weigh aggravating and mitigating evidence in capital trials, before determining whether the punishment should be death or LWOP. Unfortunately, that is true. It's an irrational and stupid rule, but at least it only applies in capital trials. A jury of peers provides life experience and context. To forego these benefits is to ask that justice not only be blind, but deaf, stupid and senile.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 15, 2016 11:29:15 GMT -6
A jury of peers provides life experience and context. To forego these benefits is to ask that justice not only be blind, but deaf, stupid and senile. What does "life experience" or "context" have to do with whether or not someone committed a crime? You are arguing with yourself, Bernard. You want everyone who commits a crime punished the same as everyone else, and then you want punishment influenced by irrelevant externalities. In the case of murder, the second most serious crime there is, a defendant either did it or he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 15, 2016 13:05:54 GMT -6
A jury of peers provides life experience and context. To forego these benefits is to ask that justice not only be blind, but deaf, stupid and senile. What does "life experience" or "context" have to do with whether or not someone committed a crime? There is no law on the books that says that if ten people claim to see you do it, you probably did it. That's why we need the life experience, context and common sense brought into the court by the jurors.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 15, 2016 14:37:25 GMT -6
There is no law on the books that says that if ten people claim to see you do it, you probably did it. That's why we need the life experience, context and common sense brought into the court by the jurors. Common sense? You have to be kidding me. I'd take my chances with the judge over twelve of my "peers." What a joke.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 16, 2016 2:21:25 GMT -6
There is no law on the books that says that if ten people claim to see you do it, you probably did it. That's why we need the life experience, context and common sense brought into the court by the jurors. Common sense? You have to be kidding me. Well, maybe you have a point. But it remains the case that no legislation tells us how to evaluate witness testimony, or weigh DNA against a good alibi. That has to be done by people making common sense judgements the best they can. There is no other way. Maybe you don't know how it works in California. But that trial judge whose subjective judgement you trust was elected by ordinary mopes like those in the jury, usually with a lot less deliberation and with no-one running in opposition. Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 16, 2016 8:12:54 GMT -6
no legislation tells us how to evaluate witness testimony, or weigh DNA against a good alibi. That has to be done by people making common sense judgments the best they can. There is no other way. We could repeal the Sixth Amendment. Most people don't want to "serve" on juries anyway. that trial judge whose subjective judgement you trust was elected by ordinary mopes like those in the jury, usually with a lot less deliberation and with no-one running in opposition. Good luck. That judge usually has training and knows how to follow the law. In any case, I could never be tried by a jury of my peers. I have an actual job.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 16, 2016 13:10:48 GMT -6
no legislation tells us how to evaluate witness testimony, or weigh DNA against a good alibi. That has to be done by people making common sense judgments the best they can. There is no other way. We could repeal the Sixth Amendment. Most people don't want to "serve" on juries anyway. You will still need people to evaluate the relative strengths of the defense versus the prosecution. That will require subjective judgement. Let me know when you figure a way around this. Training in the law, perhaps. But not in deciding whether DNA evidence outweighs a good alibi. That will require subjective judgement, and his is no better than anyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 18, 2016 16:00:39 GMT -6
You will still need people to evaluate the relative strengths of the defense versus the prosecution. That will require subjective judgement. Let me know when you figure a way around this. Subjective judgment isn't needed to determine punishment. That can be described in the criminal code, for each and every crime. Training in the law, perhaps. But not in deciding whether DNA evidence outweighs a good alibi. That will require subjective judgement, and his is no better than anyone else's. Oh, I'd say it's much better than that of any twelve unemployed or retired idiots who have nothing better to do with their time.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 18, 2016 19:48:16 GMT -6
You will still need people to evaluate the relative strengths of the defense versus the prosecution. That will require subjective judgement. Let me know when you figure a way around this. Subjective judgment isn't needed to determine punishment. That can be described in the criminal code, for each and every crime. You're suggesting we stipulate in the statute whether "I was with three friends" is a good enough alibi to outweigh an eyewitness with slight astigmatism who saw the defendant leave the crime scene "she thinks" five minutes after the crime at night by the illumination of a blinking porch light? Hmm. What if it was four friends? Five friends? Six friends but two witnesses? What if the porch light wasn't blinking? Should we include a statutory clause for each possible case? And who is to decide, after all of that, whether the crime meets the definition as written in the statute? The prosecution says it does. The defense says it doesn't. They both make good arguments. How do we decide whose is best? Will there be a rule in the book?? And I have better things to do with my time than discuss your jurisprudential fantasies. Jury free trials might happen on Star Trek. They won't be happening in the state of California.
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Apr 26, 2016 15:10:51 GMT -6
You can only blame mental illness if the guy was bat *crap* looney and was not criminally inclined. I don't understand what you are saying here. It seems you think there is some way to measure the person's criminal inclinations independent of their mental illness. What I meant was that if the crime was produced by the mental illness. If the person was already on his/her way in childhood/teen years that would be a clue that the mental illness is not to blame-the person themselves is to blame.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 28, 2016 17:38:41 GMT -6
I don't understand what you are saying here. It seems you think there is some way to measure the person's criminal inclinations independent of their mental illness. What I meant was that if the crime was produced by the mental illness. If the person was already on his/her way in childhood/teen years that would be a clue that the mental illness is not to blame-the person themselves is to blame. No because it could merely indicate the early onset of the mental illness itself.
|
|