|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 21, 2016 9:07:10 GMT -6
You advocate killing SOMEONE for the crime. It doesn't matter whether he is really the murderer. The pursuit of justice isn't the pursuit of absolute truth, else every DUI conviction would end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. You can't, in good conscience, advocate for capital punishment if the the thought of executing the wrong guy makes you squeamish. It's happened before and it's happened again. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 21, 2016 15:56:24 GMT -6
You advocate killing SOMEONE for the crime. It doesn't matter whether he is really the murderer. The pursuit of justice isn't the pursuit of absolute truth, And yet, when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. Square that circle for me when you have the time. I don't advocate for capital punishment, so there's nothing for me to get over.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 21, 2016 17:03:20 GMT -6
when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. Your definition is at odds with that of prevailing jurisprudence. Executing the wrong guy is not an example of injustice, as long as the executed was afforded a fair trial and due process. So it has always been, and always will be. I don't advocate for capital punishment, so there's nothing for me to get over. I was referring to second person, plural. If you are advocating against capital punishment, why use such a weak argument? If American law does not insist on absolute guilt, why should you?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 22, 2016 4:20:34 GMT -6
when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. Your definition is at odds with that of prevailing jurisprudence. Executing the wrong guy is not an example of injustice, as long as the executed was afforded a fair trial and due process. There's no justice in killing some poor schmo who didn't do anything while the real killer runs free, and that is certainly no way to protect the public. If the law says otherwise, then the law is an a$$. And if you say otherwise, then you aren't genuinely interested in punishing murder. You just want a procedure that assigns blame and ends with somebody being legally poisoned. Always will be? No. The gurney will become a grisly museum piece, partly because the weak soup you are offering is all that can be cooked up in its defense. Weak? If you say so. But strong enough to have put an end to the death penalty throughout the civilized world.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 22, 2016 13:06:08 GMT -6
There's no justice in killing some poor schmo who didn't do anything while the real killer runs free, and that is certainly no way to protect the public. It will have to do. Many people go to prison for crimes they didn't actually commit, but juries, judges and jurists have all said that they did. We don't grieve over these "injustices." There's nothing different about the death penalty. It's just another punishment. If the law says otherwise, then the law is an a$$. It's still the law, whether or not you like it. And if you say otherwise, then you aren't genuinely interested in punishing murder. Murder cannot be punished by demanding perfect representation, perfect trials, perfect convictions and perfect appeals. A process that is good enough to send people away for life is good enough to execute them for those crimes, too. You just want a procedure that assigns blame and ends with somebody being legally poisoned. Shooting them in their cells would suffice.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 23, 2016 9:19:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 23, 2016 15:56:55 GMT -6
Setbacks happens, and sometimes people vote for destructive and pointless things. In other words, the death penalty still needs to die - it may just take a little more time.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 23, 2016 18:59:41 GMT -6
Setbacks happens, and sometimes people vote for destructive and pointless things. In other words, the death penalty still needs to die - it may just take a little more time. Like I stated on the first page of this thread, there never will be a last execution.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 24, 2016 2:12:48 GMT -6
Setbacks happens, and sometimes people vote for destructive and pointless things. In other words, the death penalty still needs to die - it may just take a little more time. Like I stated on the first page of this thread, there never will be a last execution. Like I stated on the first page(and in the title, coincidentally), there will be a last execution.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 24, 2016 7:55:21 GMT -6
LoL, whatever fug.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 24, 2016 8:03:38 GMT -6
LOL to you, too
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Jan 6, 2017 22:53:46 GMT -6
I'm sure that anti-DPers are absolutely overjoyed seeing as Delaware just abolished the death penalty also. It may die in some states, but not in all states.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 7, 2017 3:20:25 GMT -6
I'm sure that anti-DPers are absolutely overjoyed seeing as Delaware just abolished the death penalty also. It may die in some states, but not in all states. Given that Delaware had one of the busiest execution chambers in the US, I'd say there are good reasons for celebrating that decision. There are still too many DP states left, but things are looking promising.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Jan 8, 2017 2:41:46 GMT -6
Oh so you mean that Anti-DPs aren't celebrating that another state bites the dust? Who would have guessed.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 8, 2017 21:48:48 GMT -6
There's no justice in killing some poor schmo who didn't do anything while the real killer runs free, and that is certainly no way to protect the public. If the law says otherwise, then the law is an a$$. And if you say otherwise, then you aren't genuinely interested in punishing murder. You just want a procedure that assigns blame and ends with somebody being legally poisoned. Glad to see that you're finally making sense.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 8, 2017 21:53:33 GMT -6
I'm sure that anti-DPers are absolutely overjoyed seeing as Delaware just abolished the death penalty also. It may die in some states, but not in all states. The death of the death penalty is not far off.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Jan 16, 2017 22:35:25 GMT -6
Many people go to prison for crimes they didn't actually commit, but juries, judges and jurists have all said that they did. We don't grieve over these "injustices." Um. Yes we do. And we release the people in question, and, in many states and at the federal level, we compensate them proportional to the number of years spent in wrongful imprisonment. It's very different. You can't release the wrongfully executed, nor compensate them. Anyone interested in justice wants to get the right guy. If you don't, you're not interested in justice. The doesn't mean we demand perfection, but it does mean that we try to seek a balanced process with all feasible checks and balances. That entails the ability to undo mistakes should they come to light. That doesn't follow at all. Either way.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2017 9:49:12 GMT -6
Yes we do. And we release the people in question, and, in many states and at the federal level, we compensate them proportional to the number of years spent in wrongful imprisonment. I submit that is way beyond the penology supported by the electorate, and you're a bit naïve to think lifers have more of a chance of getting out of prison than the condemned. No one even bothers to excuplate, or even exonerate, the lifers. As for compensating the convicted for "wrongful imprisonment," I would do away with that entirely, as would most people. It's very different. You can't release the wrongfully executed, nor compensate them. Yeah, I thought the same for a while, but I got over it. The "wrongfully" imprisoned shouldn't be compensated anyway. Anyone interested in justice wants to get the right guy. I do -- to a point. If you don't, you're not interested in justice. I am interested in justice for the law-abiding, not for criminals. The doesn't mean we demand perfection, but it does mean that we try to seek a balanced process with all feasible checks and balances. Yes, the way you describe it, it does demand perfection. That entails the ability to undo mistakes should they come to light. To a point. There has to be a time limit. The legal system can't be available in perpetuity for those who feel every convict was convicted wrongly. That doesn't follow at all. Sure it follows. Punishment is punishment. We don't have different standard of proof in capital cases than we do in LWOP cases. It's still just guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You seem to be implying that's not good enough.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 17, 2017 12:29:29 GMT -6
The "wrongfully" imprisoned shouldn't be compensated anyway. I am interested in justice for the law-abiding, not for criminals. Phillips, you need to look up the definition of the word “JUSTICE” because you have it backwards. You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2017 13:19:31 GMT -6
You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned. No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned, notwithstanding whatever exoneration may come later. The term "wrongful" is a misnomer. Criminal justice isn't about absolute truth, and never should be.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2017 13:22:54 GMT -6
when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. No, there indeed was justice. The process itself is what's important, not the actual guilt or innocence of those executed. The kind of criminal justice you want isn't humanly possible, and it isn't desirable even if it was. I don't advocate for capital punishment, so there's nothing for me to get over. I was speaking to the entire forum, most of whose members say they support the death penalty, but don't mean it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 17, 2017 14:31:22 GMT -6
Yes we do. And we release the people in question. I submit that is way beyond the penology supported by the electorate, and you're a bit naïve to think lifers have more of a chance of getting out of prison than the condemned. No one even bothers to excuplate, or even exonerate, the lifers. .
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 17, 2017 14:34:00 GMT -6
I submit that is way beyond the penology supported by the electorate, and you're a bit naïve to think lifers have more of a chance of getting out of prison than the condemned. No one even bothers to excuplate, or even exonerate, the lifers. . No one quoted or debated this comment of his Why?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:23:57 GMT -6
No one quoted or debated this comment of his Why? Yes, the fact that no one cares about the lifers is a severe problem, which deserves way more attention from the government and the media than it does. What it most definitely is not, is an argument in favour of the death penalty for innocent people.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:28:36 GMT -6
when you get the answer wrong and kill the wrong guy, no justice was done. No, there indeed was justice. The process itself is what's important, not the actual guilt or innocence of those executed. The kind of criminal justice you want isn't humanly possible, and it isn't desirable even if it was. I don't advocate for capital punishment, so there's nothing for me to get over. I was speaking to the entire forum, most of whose members say they support the death penalty, but don't mean it. It may not be humanly possible, but it's still what the courts should strive after. And if that means releasing 10 guilty murderers, it's still better than the death of one innocent inmate. When neither guilt nor innocence matters, you may just as well replace the court system with the imprisoning and execution of random people from the streets.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 17, 2017 17:35:59 GMT -6
You believe in justice for the convicted criminal but you obviously do not believe in justice for the law-abiding who were wrongfully imprisoned. No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned, notwithstanding whatever exoneration may come later. The term "wrongful" is a misnomer. Criminal justice isn't about absolute truth, and never should be. Absolute truth is what the criminal justice system should seek. The justice system needs to make it acceptable to release people if there are a certain amount of guilt - and when the death penalty is involved, absolute truth is even more important. What's missing in capital proceedings, is the matter of necessity. In capital cases, the prosecution should be required to prove beyond doubt that the defendant commited the crime, and that there's a grave and significant risk that the defendant would commit murder again, even if given LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2017 17:41:17 GMT -6
Absolute truth is what the criminal justice system should seek. The justice system needs to make it acceptable to release people if there are a certain amount of guilt - and when the death penalty is involved, absolute truth is even more important. The result will be a complete breakdown of the criminal justice system, to the point where people have every incentive to take the law into their own hands. Only you want absolute truth -- you think felons are simply misguided children. You'd convict no one. What's missing in capital proceedings, is the matter of necessity. That has never been required in American jurisprudence. Punishment has always stood on its merits. In capital cases, the prosecution should be required to prove beyond doubt that the defendant commited the crime, and that there's a grave and significant risk that the defendant would commit murder again, even if given LWOP. That's never been required and never will be. What difference does future behavior make? It's the crime being punished, not the criminal. You don't seem to get it.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 17, 2017 17:45:38 GMT -6
that no one cares about the lifers is a severe problem, which deserves way more attention from the government and the media than it does. Not going to happen, for two good reasons. One, many of them plead guilty, so they can't appeal. Two, because they don't face execution, there is all the time in the world to exonerate (if not exculpate) them. The DPIC types couldn't care less about them.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Jan 18, 2017 16:11:21 GMT -6
No one who was accorded due process and legally and constitutionally convicted is wrongfully imprisoned Nonsense! Look up the word "Wrongfully" in your dictionary. Criminal justice isn't about absolute truth, and never should be. Okay, Phillips, I'll take the bait. Please tell us in your very own words why that is so?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 18, 2017 18:27:34 GMT -6
Look up the word "Wrongfully" in your dictionary. Wrongfully: in an unfair, unjust, or illegal manner. There's nothing unfair, unjust or illegal in a constitutional conviction which adhered to all rules of criminal procedure. Please tell us in your very own words why that is so? You've obviously not worked for any legal institutions. Criminal justice system aiming for perfection or "truth" cannot function. It quickly breaks down, forcing people to take the law into their own hands. The legal standard is reasonable doubt, not any doubt, and the judgment of 12 people is more than enough to satisfy due process.
|
|