Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2009 22:32:21 GMT -6
[qute author=doc board=general thread=25690 post=492693 time=1237343423] I have a much better idea, you and the anti's get the Murderers to stop killing. Now this is preaching, justice should not include killing people (lol, sorry had to do it) [/quote] What purpose do it serve keeping people like Clifford Olsen alive, other than letting some antis feel good?
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 17, 2009 22:55:33 GMT -6
What purpose do it serve keeping people like Clifford Olsen alive, other than letting some antis feel good? None.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Mar 18, 2009 6:43:17 GMT -6
What purpose do it serve keeping people like Clifford Olsen alive, other than letting some antis feel good? None. Ugh. I just wikied who Olson is. Words can't even describe how awful he is. I'm not surprised he gets to apply for parole every two years, but I still think he shouldn't be allowed to apply. He's just another reason why Canada needs the DP back.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 18, 2009 6:59:53 GMT -6
Ugh. I just wikied who Olson is. Words can't even describe how awful he is. I'm not surprised he gets to apply for parole every two years, but I still think he shouldn't be allowed to apply. He's just another reason why Canada needs the DP back. Charles Manson gets to apply for parole every two years here in California. Comically, his last parole hearing lasted 45 seconds. Guess what they said? ;D His lawyer actually complained to the press that his client wasn't "seriously considered" for parole. Ya THINK?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 18, 2009 7:20:56 GMT -6
Lauren, Canada has been in the civilized world now for a number of years and its welcomed by the international community, you have moved forward, the dp will only take you backwards, its a punishment only, its not a deterrent. Look at the US Murder rate, also its inconsistent, i.e. some state have it others don't, is that fair, if you kill in one state you get a large prison sentence and are illegible for parole yet in the next state it has the dp and you get the death sentence for the same crime is that fair. Ask yourself apart from the obvious, what good does it do? Sod all thats what. Yes it takes out the worst of the scum but are not the scum who have been given LWOP just as bad. If you have the DP it must be all or nothing, no half way house or maybes but the whole 9 yards so to speak. Besides, Canadians are way to nice to have the DP
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 18, 2009 7:42:01 GMT -6
its a punishment only, its not a deterrent. Precisely, however, it does increase the conviction rate and reduce court costs to the states. Here's how; Career Criminal 1 kills Fine Upstanding Citizen 1. During the processing phase after the arrest, the DA speaks with CC1 and says' "we've got you, we have the evidence, your fingerprints and DNA are all over, we have 3 eyewitnesses, we have you, let's make a deal". Done and done, LWOP no trial, no muss no fuss. Career Criminal 2 kills yet another Fine Upstanding Citizen, but feels the evidence is weak, maybe we take a chance with the jury. However, the state has a DP. Well, maybe I just take the deal rather than chance a needle in the arm. Again done and done, LWOP no trial, no muss no fuss. Why? The DP. I am not sure of the numbers, but I am sure someone here knows or knows where to find them. But, I would expect the number of criminals we execute in this country vs. the number of criminals who murdered and made deals is staggering. It this a brutal and barbaric tactic? You bet, but murder is even more brutal and barbaric. Besides, it works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2009 7:54:03 GMT -6
Ugh. I just wikied who Olson is. Words can't even describe how awful he is. I'm not surprised he gets to apply for parole every two years, but I still think he shouldn't be allowed to apply. He's just another reason why Canada needs the DP back. You guys had your chance when Bush was still in. All his pal Stockard Day had to do was ask for a coup to install him and you'd have your wish.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 18, 2009 7:58:59 GMT -6
You guys had your chance when Bush was still in. All his pal Stockard Day had to do was ask for a coup to install him and you'd have your wish.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 18, 2009 8:09:03 GMT -6
[qute author=doc board=general thread=25690 post=492693 time=1237343423] I have a much better idea, you and the anti's get the Murderers to stop killing. Now this is preaching, justice should not include killing people (lol, sorry had to do it) What purpose do it serve keeping people like Clifford Olsen alive, other than letting some antis feel good?[/quote] So, we're going utilitarian now? Everyone who is alive has to serve a purpose? That's a slippery slope right there.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 18, 2009 8:11:31 GMT -6
So, we're going utilitarian now? Everyone who is alive has to serve a purpose? That's a slippery slope right there. Spoken like a true therapist, Katie.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 18, 2009 8:28:11 GMT -6
A good point Joe but my counter is this, does two wrongs make a right?
Its the whole nine yards or nothing. Ive said this before as a WOWIE? or whatever they call me, i couldn't give a rats butt if some dick kills in a state that has the DP, stupid i call them. What i don't like is the inconsistency and its bloody unfair taking away the ple-bargaining. If its slam dunk , i think thats the term you guys use then so be it, the guys or girl is a dick and hey-ho a needle. But do it next state and you get life and after twenty five or thirty years your eligible for parole. Thats is not right and it need addressing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2009 8:33:28 GMT -6
Ugh. I just wikied who Olson is. Words can't even describe how awful he is. I'm not surprised he gets to apply for parole every two years, but I still think he shouldn't be allowed to apply. He's just another reason why Canada needs the DP back. You guys had your chance when Bush was still in. All his pal Stockard Day had to do was ask for a coup to install him and you'd have your wish.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 18, 2009 8:59:49 GMT -6
A good point Joe but my counter is this, does two wrongs make a right? Its the whole nine yards or nothing. Ive said this before as a WOWIE? or whatever they call me, i couldn't give a rats butt if some dick kills in a state that has the DP, stupid i call them. What i don't like is the inconsistency and its bloody unfair taking away the ple-bargaining. If its slam dunk , i think thats the term you guys use then so be it, the guys or girl is a dick and hey-ho a needle. But do it next state and you get life and after twenty five or thirty years your eligible for parole. Thats is not right and it need addressing. Not two wrongs, a means to an end. And we are working on it, that's why the debate still rages. Additionally, I know the concept of individual states is hard to grasp, but that is why the law differs from state to state and that is a cornerstone of our country - individual state's rights. That is why there such a great debate over the changes Obama is putting into place. It increases the role of the federal government. If I don't start a thread on that one, someone else should. It will prevent this thread from spinning off into oblivion and give you and I a chance to wrangle on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 18, 2009 9:02:01 GMT -6
A good point Joe but my counter is this, does two wrongs make a right? You're assuming that executions are wrong, Lawrence. I don't accept that premise. As to deterrence, I agree that the effect is not easily quantifiable as to others, but it is perfectly applicable to those executed. You're a retired military man, Lawrence. Question: what is the purpose of a standing army? Isn't it to essentially declare "if you mess with our country, we will kill you?" If you agree (and you should) why is that premise valid for a military and not a civil purpose?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 18, 2009 9:06:29 GMT -6
Surely more federal government is required then if you are to sort this mess out, its unfair and if the fed gov say ok guys lets get this sorted and this is how we are going to do it and its the same for all then great surely thats better then inconsistency and what about the victim here. I dont give a crap really about the criminals so far as they are treated humanely etc, The victims here are also being treated unfairly, how can one family get what is called justice with the DP in one state and another family cant in theirs. That would *deleted* me off big time. Its like a state lottery. Its ok in here but not next door.? baffling. thank goodness this is your mess to sort out. Its way to complicated for me.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 18, 2009 9:19:25 GMT -6
Hi Bob, im not saying execution is wrong parse, ive never said that, its your right etc. Its just unfair as it is at the moment and it needs addressing. Especially if you take the victims rights into the equation. The role of the Army as far as i saw it and its still the same now is "to keep the peace" and act as a deterent to others who may threaten this island or our protected provences. I Its not a very good argument Bob, the Army is a tool for the democratically elected government to use once debate has reached a level of no return. It should always be that, as a deterent and nothing more, What did your Gerneral Montgomery say at Gettysburg about the Army and how it should be used. Never shall the Army be used to crush the voice of the people, if it does then we are no longer a democracy. This has nothing to do with the DP, although i do understand where your coming from. The Dp is a punishment and nothing more. It should be consistent or not at all. In my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Mar 18, 2009 9:29:21 GMT -6
Hi Bob, im not saying execution is wrong parse, ive never said that, its your right etc. Its just unfair as it is at the moment and it needs addressing. Especially if you take the victims rights into the equation. Lawrence: at least in our criminal justice system, the victim is the state. Exactly. Or put more plainly, as above "don't mess with us or we'll kill you." Mmmm. Where did I say anything like this? And General Montgomery? Who he?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 18, 2009 10:09:51 GMT -6
Sorry, in a hurry, Montgomery was his second name , he was a good engineer too, built the senate building if im not mistaken?, forgot his first name. That comment was about a deterrent which is what the DP isnt. Its a punishment. Sorry if i got that wrong or messed up, should have left 10 mins ago, catch you tomorrow bob, have a good.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 18, 2009 10:10:18 GMT -6
Lawrence - this thread GA: Feds won't seek DP for Nichols is a good example of state vs. federal rights.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 18, 2009 10:56:10 GMT -6
Lauren, Canada has been in the civilized world now for a number of years and its welcomed by the international community, you have moved forward, the dp will only take you backwards, its a punishment only, its not a deterrent. Look at the US Murder rate, also its inconsistent, i.e. some state have it others don't, is that fair, if you kill in one state you get a large prison sentence and are illegible for parole yet in the next state it has the dp and you get the death sentence for the same crime is that fair. Ask yourself apart from the obvious, what good does it do? Sod all thats what. Yes it takes out the worst of the scum but are not the scum who have been given LWOP just as bad. If you have the DP it must be all or nothing, no half way house or maybes but the whole 9 yards so to speak. Besides, Canadians are way to nice to have the DP I think Canada got rid of the DP to save their butts from executing someone who was innocent-because Canada especially in the past had been known to send an innocent person to jail and a murderer on the streets. As far as Canadians being nice its just a cover- besides Canada can't think for themselves, they are still following under Britian (to some extent)
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Mar 18, 2009 11:00:37 GMT -6
You guys had your chance when Bush was still in. All his pal Stockard Day had to do was ask for a coup to install him and you'd have your wish. LMAO. I'm stealing that.
|
|
|
Post by Lotus Flower on Mar 18, 2009 11:02:01 GMT -6
Lauren, Canada has been in the civilized world now for a number of years and its welcomed by the international community, you have moved forward, the dp will only take you backwards, its a punishment only, its not a deterrent. Look at the US Murder rate, also its inconsistent, i.e. some state have it others don't, is that fair, if you kill in one state you get a large prison sentence and are illegible for parole yet in the next state it has the dp and you get the death sentence for the same crime is that fair. Ask yourself apart from the obvious, what good does it do? Sod all thats what. Yes it takes out the worst of the scum but are not the scum who have been given LWOP just as bad. If you have the DP it must be all or nothing, no half way house or maybes but the whole 9 yards so to speak. Besides, Canadians are way to nice to have the DP I think Canada got rid of the DP to save their butts from executing someone who was innocent-because Canada especially in the past had been known to send an innocent person to jail and a murderer on the streets. As far as Canadians being nice its just a cover- besides Canada can't think for themselves, they are still following under Britian (to some extent) You have to wonder how anyone can claim to be tough on crime when they support giving parole to murderers and doling out sentences where the POS serves a whopping 9 to 12 years on average.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Mar 18, 2009 11:17:29 GMT -6
I think Canada got rid of the DP to save their butts from executing someone who was innocent-because Canada especially in the past had been known to send an innocent person to jail and a murderer on the streets. As far as Canadians being nice its just a cover- besides Canada can't think for themselves, they are still following under Britian (to some extent) You have to wonder how anyone can claim to be tough on crime when they support giving parole to murderers and doling out sentences where the POS serves a whopping 9 to 12 years on average. Totally, I mean I'd rather have LWOP in Canada as asubstitute to the DP then 25 years for murder. What is Canada thinking in keeping certain people like paul bernardo in jail until he dies compared to a murderer who is let out in 15-25 years? Is it publicity or the number of victims? Shouldn't one victim be enough to keep a POS behind bars for life? And the number of victims is a load of crap too. There is this one man that killed his wife, son and daughter (her body or his body was still not found to this day) and as of this past holiday he was celebrating x-mas with his family. WTF. He had the exact same number of victims as Paul Bernardo but because Paul is more likely to repeat he gets to stay in and a murderer who can repeat gets set out. Not fair. He should be rotting.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 18, 2009 13:50:51 GMT -6
I don't believe it does anything. I only think it's naive to pretend like we have always and will always get it right. In either case, there's an inevitable 'oops' we have to accept ~ or we might as well forego any punishment. I've come to accept that the possibility has to exist that we've either already executed an innocent person, or will someday. We know we've sent the wrong person to jail before, so why is condemning someone by mistake any less feasible? I accept this, and my belief in the DP is actually strengthened by it. Ours is a human system, and as such will always be imperfect. If this is the only reason for tossing out the DP, then why not toss the whole criminal justice system with it?
|
|
|
Post by eu.ro on Mar 18, 2009 14:07:20 GMT -6
I accept this, and my belief in the DP is actually strengthened by it. Ours is a human system, and as such will always be imperfect. If this is the only reason for tossing out the DP, then why not toss the whole criminal justice system with it? Matt, is it you? You are the person here I usually adore for it's brilliant analytical skills and it's great intellect. Yes, any justice system sends innocent people to jail. But they are neither dead, nor is the once made mistake completely irreversible. Someone who was sitting in jail for about 20 years, due to a flawed eye-witness or crap evidence, might say that my statement isn't exactly right, but he still has time left, a chance to become financially compensated to enjoy the rest of his life. I think that the execution of an innocent man or woman isn't acceptable. Under no circumstances. eu.ro
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 18, 2009 14:27:17 GMT -6
The bottom line is that an innocent person has not been executed in the U.S. going back to 1976. That, by definition, is a perfect process. I'd like to know how you're so sure. Is your "proof" that no innocent person has ever been executed the fact that a small group of people on an online forum have not, in the last 24 or so hours, been able to provide proof that one innocent person has been executed? Or have you read through all 1100+ case files and gone over all the evidence yourself to the point that you can be 100% sure that what we have is a perfect process? Just wondered. I haven't gone through all that history myself (don't have the kinda time, and that's a bit of a grim hobby), but given my propensity to doubt that any system or person in the US is "perfect", and my belief that the more power you give someone the less perfect they're likely to be, I have trouble getting your statement to resonate in my brain. I don't have to sort through all 1100+ cases. Afterall, there is something called a court system to do that very thing. If there was 1 innocent executed, we would have heard about it. The antis would use that one case a rally cry. The card hard fact is that the antis have to rely on a possible future case because they don't have an actual case yet.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 18, 2009 14:30:58 GMT -6
First comparing execution with winning at vegas is a bad analogy to put it mildly. Secondly, I have to completely disagree with you. You continue to prattle about a future "oops" that may or may not ever happen. Between forensic science and the appeal process, the odds are against your future "oops". I have viewed a programme about so called DNA, its apparentyl not as infallible as amny lay folk were initially led to believe, cross contamination ans such can still lead to mistakes, it still require absolute human diligence regarding the process for it to eb of any use. Prosecurial misbehaviour can still determine an outcome, or indeed sloppiness from the work go with police on the ground. The answer is the appeal process.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 18, 2009 14:34:56 GMT -6
What are you babbling about? I couldn't care what you default to. The bottom line is that an innocent person has not been executed in the U.S. going back to 1976. That, by definition, is a perfect process. Your shuttle analogy has nothing to do with innocent people being executed, and replying to it would be a waste of time. Are you telling me that Felker was an innocent person who was executed? Funny how Felker did not appeal any of the evidence claims until the death warrent had be signed. I agree that allowing inmates to challange LI is silly. Yet, stays continue to be granted for this very reason. Note these challanges are not contesting guilt but the manner of the sentence. How can you be absolutely sure that no innocent has been executed. Do you really think it would be immediately known if there was? Yes it would be known because antis would trump that case all day. I would bet my house that if an inmate wins posthumonous exeronation, there will be thread here and all of the antis will rally behind this one case.
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 18, 2009 14:58:21 GMT -6
Soldiers deserting was a major problem during WWII. Both sides tried and executed people of deserting. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think 40 or so were executed by the US for deserting. Eddie Slovik was the only U.S. servicemember executed for desertion in WWII. Quite a few servicemembers where executed for civil crimes like murder and rape, which was a capital offense under rocks and shoals. I stand corrected. You are right. Slovik was the only servicemember executed by the U.S. In the ETO, there were a total of 70 executions Deserting 1 Murder 28 Murder/rape 12 rape 29
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 18, 2009 15:22:17 GMT -6
I don't have to sort through all 1100+ cases. Afterall, there is something called a court system to do that very thing. The actual guilt or innocence of a murder convict isn't the court system's responsibility. Appellate justices aren't interested in truth -- their concern is only that due process was followed at trial. If there was 1 innocent executed, we would have heard about it. Not everyone is listening. The antis would use that one case a rally cry. The card hard fact is that the antis have to rely on a possible future case because they don't have an actual case yet. Statistics alone show that at least one innocent person has been executed. It doesn't matter who it was, or when. It's happened. Anyone that doubts it is an idiot.
|
|