|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 4, 2016 7:12:03 GMT -6
True - and solving those causes would be a better start than the reinstatement of the death penalty. Fug you personally need to go to the gang area's in Chicago, & solve those causes. On a more serious note, I'm not saying I have all the answers - but the resources spent for a pointless death penalty or lost to corruption could be spent on research in how to solve this. If the death penalty is reinstated, those funds are wasted on nothing.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2016 8:55:25 GMT -6
Fug you personally need to go to the gang area's in Chicago, & solve those causes. Sure, sure. You'll join me, right? Let me know when you have time. No, while you search for causes with psycho babble for years, the DP remains on the streets taking too many innocents with it. Though your right, the financial burden will be only on the individual family's ( victims) of murder. The expensive of burial & all that goes with it. If killers kill off each other on the streets, it saves us money, & less corruption. along with it. $$ for a DP is a waste of course. While over the years we will be stacking murderers in prison. Oh well, if in prison for murder & murder again inside, be it a guard, staff, nurse or even another inmate. they will wipe each other out. We could release some & start the whole cycle over again from the streets too. I get it, our hands are clean of the barbaric DP though. You may have a point being anti, they kill off people inside the walls & on the streets would work hey. Win win & saves money.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 4, 2016 15:32:58 GMT -6
resources spent for a pointless death penalty or lost to corruption could be spent on research in how to solve this. If the death penalty is reinstated, those funds are wasted on nothing. We could map the genome of each murderer and find a mutation only they have. We could then take steps to identify children with those mutations. Would you be amenable to such research?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 5, 2016 11:00:36 GMT -6
The problem with instating the death penalty just for the "worst of the worst", is that it leads to a slippery slope - when you execute some people, it's easier to accept executing more people. I think it's the other way around. You start requiring more and more for the murder to count as the worst of the worst. Pretty soon, you aren't executing anyone because judges and juries don't have the guts to say "yes, this one really is the worst". As an anti, you'd think I'd be happy with that. But I'm not. To me, saying a murder is not the worst is a slap in the face to the victim and their family. Surely every murder is the worst. I'd rather the maximum was LWOP then juries would have less of a problem doling it out.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 5, 2016 11:10:50 GMT -6
The problem with instating the death penalty just for the "worst of the worst", is that it leads to a slippery slope - when you execute some people, it's easier to accept executing more people. I think it's the other way around. You start requiring more and more for the murder to count as the worst of the worst. Pretty soon, you aren't executing anyone because judges and juries don't have the guts to say "yes, this one really is the worst". As an anti, you'd think I'd be happy with that. But I'm not. To me, saying a murder is not the worst is a slap in the face to the victim and their family. Surely every murder is the worst. I'd rather the maximum was LWOP then juries would have less of a problem doling it out. One has to expect that from fug, 99% of fugs post have been a slap in the face to victims & their family. That is the exact reason I find fugs anti stance disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by VA Justice on Nov 6, 2016 22:39:44 GMT -6
The U.S. death penalty, along with this forum, seems to be steadily dwindling. How long do you think it will be, before it ends for good? Me, I'd hope for 5-6 years - but I'm guessing 10, because these things takes time. I will give it a decade. I think that the abolitionists multi-prong efforts against it will eventually win over a liberal dominated US Supreme Court to reverse Gregg vs. Georgia and associated rulings that supported the imposition of capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 7, 2016 6:00:04 GMT -6
The U.S. death penalty, along with this forum, seems to be steadily dwindling. How long do you think it will be, before it ends for good? Me, I'd hope for 5-6 years - but I'm guessing 10, because these things takes time. I will give it a decade. I think that the abolitionists multi-prong efforts against it will eventually win over a liberal dominated US Supreme Court to reverse Gregg vs. Georgia and associated rulings that supported the imposition of capital punishment. I hope you're right
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 7, 2016 12:38:45 GMT -6
Surely every murder is the worst. I'd rather the maximum was LWOP then juries would have less of a problem doling it out. Why should juries have the choice? Punishments should be decided in advance, not on a case-by-case basis. Anything less is egregiously unjust.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 7, 2016 13:40:25 GMT -6
Surely every murder is the worst. I'd rather the maximum was LWOP then juries would have less of a problem doling it out. Why should juries have the choice? Punishments should be decided in advance, not on a case-by-case basis. Anything less is egregiously unjust. Why should juries have a choice? The people as they see fit have the right to have an effect on their safety & happiness. Be it inside those wall'a ( prison) as well as society outside those walls. Juries should have a choice. The unjust part is when only one member on the jury can make or break the LWOP vs the DP..
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 8, 2016 9:19:55 GMT -6
The people as they see fit have the right to have an effect on their safety & happiness. They can do that at the ballot box. Juries never decide punishment except for death penalty cases, which are no different than any other criminal case.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 9, 2016 6:25:27 GMT -6
The people as they see fit have the right to have an effect on their safety & happiness. They can do that at the ballot box. Juries never decide punishment except for death penalty cases, which are no different than any other criminal case. Oh, yes I vote & voted.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 10, 2016 2:37:25 GMT -6
Surely every murder is the worst. I'd rather the maximum was LWOP then juries would have less of a problem doling it out. Why should juries have the choice? Punishments should be decided in advance, not on a case-by-case basis. Anything less is egregiously unjust. I'm sympathetic to that argument in principle. But in practice, I fear that if execution is mandatory for murder, juries will simply lose their cajones earlier and not find the guy guilty at all.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 10, 2016 9:22:23 GMT -6
if execution is mandatory for murder, juries will simply lose their cajones earlier and not find the guy guilty at all. I would take that chance. The jurors could then explain to the families of murder victims, and the public at large, why lives of murderers matter more than those they killed.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Nov 10, 2016 21:53:27 GMT -6
Well since we have Trump as a president, I wonder if that will help the DP in any way...?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 11, 2016 4:01:29 GMT -6
Well since we have Trump as a president, I wonder if that will help the DP in any way...? God, I hope not - but given the Republican-controlled house, I fear you're right. The death penalty needs to die, but no one seems willing to kill it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 13, 2016 0:14:02 GMT -6
if execution is mandatory for murder, juries will simply lose their cajones earlier and not find the guy guilty at all. I would take that chance. The jurors could then explain to the families of murder victims, and the public at large, why lives of murderers matter more than those they killed. They'll say, "The evidence was strong, but not strong enough to send a man to his death. People needed to be surer when a man's life is on the line. We simply weren't sure enough." Would that satisfy you?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 13, 2016 0:15:52 GMT -6
Well since we have Trump as a president, I wonder if that will help the DP in any way...? No. It will simply mean more plea deals. You have to make deals. You have to. People don't make deals any more. Some of these deals, which by the way are the worst deals. The worst deals. Disasters. I will make amazing plea deals. The best.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 13, 2016 8:39:33 GMT -6
I would take that chance. The jurors could then explain to the families of murder victims, and the public at large, why lives of murderers matter more than those they killed. They'll say, "The evidence was strong, but not strong enough to send a man to his death. People needed to be surer when a man's life is on the line. We simply weren't sure enough." Would that satisfy you? It should. It's kind of how civilised justice works.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2016 9:51:39 GMT -6
Nope. A verdict like that should result in a mistrial. Justice isn't about truth. It's about due process, and getting the cases through the system. Perfect justice is neither achievable or desirable.Any verdict is an educated guess. We've had dozens, if not hundreds, of errant executions in the past. The death penalty endures, at least until recently.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 14, 2016 11:45:56 GMT -6
Nope. A verdict like that should result in a mistrial. Justice isn't about truth. It's about due process, and getting the cases through the system. Perfect justice is neither achievable or desirable.Perfect justice would be both swift and accurate. Whether or not that's achievable, it's most certainly desirable. I like your provocative foolishness. You could have a career writing clickbait.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 14, 2016 16:29:44 GMT -6
Perfect justice would be both swift and accurate. That is impossible. Whether or not that's achievable, it's most certainly desirable. Since it's impossible, attempting the impossible is not desirable, because there isn't enough time or money in the world to produce an ideal conviction. I like your provocative foolishness. You could have a career writing clickbait. This is not a rebuttal. Statistically, one can be fairly certain that in the past two hundred years, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of executions of those who were less than perfectly guilty of their crimes. If one is to defend capital punishment, one must accept that errors have occurred, and must occur, if executions are to be carried out. There is nothing in the United States Constitution, or in any state constitution, demanding absolute assurance of an inmate's guilt before executing him. That is not a foundation of the criminal law.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 14, 2016 17:33:05 GMT -6
Perfect justice would be both swift and accurate. That is impossible. Whether or not that's achievable, it's most certainly desirable. Since it's impossible, attempting the impossible is not desirable, because there isn't enough time or money in the world to produce an ideal conviction. I like your provocative foolishness. You could have a career writing clickbait. This is not a rebuttal. Statistically, one can be fairly certain that in the past two hundred years, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of executions of those who were less than perfectly guilty of their crimes. If one is to defend capital punishment, one must accept that errors have occurred, and must occur, if executions are to be carried out. There is nothing in the United States Constitution, or in any state constitution, demanding absolute assurance of an inmate's guilt before executing him. That is not a foundation of the criminal law. The fact that it isn't possible, doesn't mean that judges shouldn't strive to reach it. And the presumption of innocence is kind of a given in every civilised country - and I believe the U. S. is trying to be civilised, despite the guy they just elected to be president. If the fact that innocent people have been murdered and will continue to be murdered doesn't bother you, that says more about you than the "justice" system. My point is, I guess, that it's always better to let ten guilty men go free than it is to let one innocent person die. That's the attitude you should have as a judge - and I'm sure glad you're not a legal professional.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 15, 2016 2:29:00 GMT -6
Perfect justice would be both swift and accurate. That is impossible. Whether or not that's achievable, it's most certainly desirable. Since it's impossible, attempting the impossible is not desirable, because there isn't enough time or money in the world to produce an ideal conviction. That's very philosophical. But we can strive to approach perfect justice, just as we can strive to approach perfect health. Though neither are within reach, it is desirable to get as close to each as is possible. That's not the provocative, foolish part. The provocative, foolish part is where you're fine with this, as if it is a cost of doing business. I wonder if you genuinely believe it, or if it's just something you like to say in order to get people in a flap. ...But one cannot accept errors of this sort. Therefore one cannot defend capital punishment. The law demands assurance beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. proof to the point that any further doubt would be silly. You are claiming that proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2016 13:31:40 GMT -6
That's very philosophical. But we can strive to approach perfect justice, just as we can strive to approach perfect health. Though neither are within reach, it is desirable to get as close to each as is possible. It is not desirable if the pursuit of perfection comes at a high cost. There are finite dollars available to pursue justice (or health) of any kind. We are down to executing one murderer for every 300-500 murders, more or less. The decline in use of the death penalty isn't remotely attributable to the opponents of capital punishment. It has everything to do with the backpedaling of the so-called "pros," who trip over themselves trying to make executions more "humane." The provocative, foolish part is where you're fine with this, as if it is a cost of doing business. I wonder if you genuinely believe it, or if it's just something you like to say in order to get people in a flap. I'm genuinely fine with it. I've given it a lot of thought. I grew up opposed to the death penalty, for no better reason than the possibility that an innocent man could be put to death. I overcame my objection. But one cannot accept errors of this sort. Why not? I do, and have, as does every other nation whose people execute in the name of the law. The law demands assurance beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. proof to the point that any further doubt would be silly. You are claiming that proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not only impossible, it is not required by law, for very good reason.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 15, 2016 14:06:46 GMT -6
The fact that it isn't possible, doesn't mean that judges shouldn't strive to reach it. The pursuit of justice isn't the pursuit of absolute truth. Every judge knows that. A judge or jurist who is opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances should just recuse him/herself. the presumption of innocence is kind of a given in every civilised country - and I believe the U. S. is trying to be civilised, despite the guy they just elected to be president. Civility has nothing to do with the punishment of murder. There are good reasons, and circumstances, when we rightly act without respect to civility. the fact that innocent people have been murdered and will continue to be murdered doesn't bother you It bothers me, but it doesn't bother me as much as a blind, childlike pursuit of fantasy. it's always better to let ten guilty men go free than it is to let one innocent person die. That's the attitude you should have as a judge - and I'm sure glad you're not a legal professional. It is not better to let thousands go free than to let one die. That is my point. If you want to oppose capital punishment because it's yucky, that's fine. More power to you But it is even more irrational to oppose it on the grounds that someone innocent may be put to death.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 16, 2016 7:17:50 GMT -6
That's very philosophical. But we can strive to approach perfect justice, just as we can strive to approach perfect health. Though neither are within reach, it is desirable to get as close to each as is possible. It is not desirable if the pursuit of perfection comes at a high cost. There are finite dollars available to pursue justice (or health) of any kind. We are down to executing one murderer for every 300-500 murders, more or less. The decline in use of the death penalty isn't remotely attributable to the opponents of capital punishment. It has everything to do with the backpedaling of the so-called "pros," who trip over themselves trying to make executions more "humane." The provocative, foolish part is where you're fine with this, as if it is a cost of doing business. I wonder if you genuinely believe it, or if it's just something you like to say in order to get people in a flap. I'm genuinely fine with it. I've given it a lot of thought. I grew up opposed to the death penalty, for no better reason than the possibility that an innocent man could be put to death. I overcame my objection. But one cannot accept errors of this sort. Why not? I do, and have, as does every other nation whose people execute in the name of the law. The law demands assurance beyond a reasonable doubt. I.e. proof to the point that any further doubt would be silly. You are claiming that proof beyond reasonable doubt is impossible. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not only impossible, it is not required by law, for very good reason. So... If I understand you correctly: The important thing to you is to keep on killing people - whether they're guilty or not involved at all doesn't actually matter? If one is to follow that logic, one might as well bring in random people from the streets to kill them.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 16, 2016 7:59:41 GMT -6
The important thing to you is to keep on killing people - whether they're guilty or not involved at all doesn't actually matter? No, I'm saying a jury verdict should be considered dispositive. After two appeals, one in state court and one in federal, that should be it. Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 16, 2016 17:02:46 GMT -6
The important thing to you is to keep on killing people - whether they're guilty or not involved at all doesn't actually matter? No, I'm saying a jury verdict should be considered dispositive. After two appeals, one in state court and one in federal, that should be it. Case closed. In that case, one needs to remove the word reasonable from "reasonable doubt", and insist that the jury proves both the guilt of the defendant beyond any doubt and that the death penalty is a absolutely necessary to protect society from further murders. In other words - only if there is an extreme risk that the defendant will murder again if given a prison sentence, should the death penalty be considered at all.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 16, 2016 20:55:26 GMT -6
one needs to remove the word reasonable from "reasonable doubt" Not without amending the federal constitution. and insist that the jury proves both the guilt of the defendant beyond any doubt and that the death penalty is a absolutely necessary to protect society from further murders. The only way to protect society from murderers is to kill them all. You shot yourself in the foot there. only if there is an extreme risk that the defendant will murder again if given a prison sentence, should the death penalty be considered at all. An insincere argument since you believe murder to be a social problem and the death penalty wrong in all circumstances. There is nothing special about the death penalty. It is imposed for the exact same reason parking tickets are imposed. It's the crime being punished, not the criminal.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 20, 2016 23:36:20 GMT -6
The only way to protect society from murderers is to kill them all. But that's not what you advocate. You advocate killing SOMEONE for the crime. It doesn't matter whether he is really the murderer. Just as long as someone is made to pay. I really don't see how that helps protect society at all. Funny. I was thinking the same thing about you.
|
|