Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Mar 18, 2009 12:14:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Mar 18, 2009 12:42:49 GMT -6
Maybe so, how would you suggest the police should have dealt with this case with a signed confession and before DNA was so advanced?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 18, 2009 12:44:56 GMT -6
That is a pretty broad statement don't you think? The DP ups the game, so to speak, and requires an extra burden of proof. If anything is revealed it is the brusque approach to justice in general in this case. Had the DP been in play, I submit the seriousness would have produced a totally different outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Mar 18, 2009 13:53:40 GMT -6
The idiot confessed. What were they supposed to do?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 18, 2009 15:24:36 GMT -6
Quite frankly, I could care less about a uk case- especially when the moron involved confessed.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Mar 18, 2009 17:49:51 GMT -6
yeah, so? go to the victims voices on this site and peruse the many reasons why we have the DP. I think the "many" trump your "one"
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 18, 2009 18:04:48 GMT -6
What a sad and touching story! Thanks for posting. It is a good thing to realize that legal systems can make mistakes. Punished for thirty years for nothing... geez.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Mar 19, 2009 1:05:29 GMT -6
The idiot confessed. What were they supposed to do? They did everything correct, based on what was available at the time. My point is that if the dp was a punishment in Britain then he would have been executed during that time.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Mar 19, 2009 1:06:39 GMT -6
Quite frankly, I could care less about a uk case- especially when the moron involved confessed. No I do not expect you to care. You're a ghoul! In your eyes he was a moron others would say he was mentally ill.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 19, 2009 2:07:20 GMT -6
The idiot Matt was mentally ill and a compulsive liar and used to admit to everything. Because of this rule, on the news yesterday all murder sentences, all of them will now be looked at with this new DNA system. I am very interested in finding out just how many more are incarcerated for something they didn't commit.
This is all very disturbing and worrying, it makes me think how many could have been executed in the past because we didn't have DNA science back then. This is another reason why we need a failsafe system before i could categorically support the dp for murder 1 or pedophilia.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 19, 2009 3:16:02 GMT -6
Quite frankly, I could care less about a uk case- especially when the moron involved confessed. No I do not expect you to care. You're a ghoul! In your eyes he was a moron others would say he was mentally ill. Of course some would argue that because we do not have the DP here such cases of innocence are more likely to be discovered. I guess as a staunce pro you cant really afford to care can you? It has the potential to blow your BS and reasons for having the dP clean out of the water. What this and other cases illustrated about the DP as practiced anywhere is very very clear, and I fully understand why you might be very uncomfortable. Look and learn!
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 19, 2009 5:56:22 GMT -6
I agree 100%. We should abolish any and all governmental punishments that put innocent folks at risk of being unjustly penalized. You agree, right? Love, RED
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 19, 2009 6:21:00 GMT -6
I agree 100%. We should abolish any and all governmental punishments that put innocent folks at risk of being unjustly penalized. You agree, right? Love, RED news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7950303.stm Neither the poster nor the article recommends this Red, so thats a little disingenious of you. Is your position on the matter so full of paucity, that you need to try to exagerrate what was said because its the olny way of making it appear ridiculous enough to refute? If Great Britain had the DP this man would have probably been executed.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Mar 19, 2009 6:23:40 GMT -6
Well put Felix. I tend to be a little more cautious then that, I should have wrote that up to 10,000 cases are being looked into, these are all before 1984 i think the guy said. If the system was failsafe then i could support the dp for pre meditated murder or Murder 1, and definately for peadophiles. Oh they would suffer. The rest i cant because of other mitigating circumstances.
Like ive said before im not aginst it , the DP parce, im aginst the incinsistency of the sytem, the unfairness of it and the sicko's who dance a war jig everytime someone is executed. I cant do that and i find those who do somewhat strange to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 19, 2009 6:55:41 GMT -6
I agree 100%. We should abolish any and all governmental punishments that put innocent folks at risk of being unjustly penalized. You agree, right? Love, RED Any other punishment can be corrected to some degree. If someone wrongly paid restitution, they can be paid back. If they were wrongly imprisoned, they can be made free again. What do you do for someone who was wrongly executed?
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 19, 2009 8:39:49 GMT -6
So, you would allow a system that basically tells its citizens, "Hey, if you get life in prison by mistake take faith. Maybe, someday, somehow, someway, we could (possibly?) find that you're innocent. If you die in prison on the mean time, well, those are the breaks. Oh, the horror of prison life is something that you'll have to sustain for as long as we cannot find the mistake we made. But hey, we're hopeful. Is that correct? I mean, acceptable system? Oh, and by the way, how about the cases where guilt is not disputed, i.e., innocence is not an issue? How is it that this fear of making a mistake comes into play to abolish the death penalty for the undisputedly guilty? Love, RED I agree 100%. We should abolish any and all governmental punishments that put innocent folks at risk of being unjustly penalized. You agree, right? Love, RED Any other punishment can be corrected to some degree. If someone wrongly paid restitution, they can be paid back. If they were wrongly imprisoned, they can be made free again. What do you do for someone who was wrongly executed?
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 19, 2009 15:29:10 GMT -6
So, you would allow a system that basically tells its citizens, "Hey, if you get life in prison by mistake take faith. Maybe, someday, somehow, someway, we could (possibly?) find that you're innocent. If you die in prison on the mean time, well, those are the breaks. Oh, the horror of prison life is something that you'll have to sustain for as long as we cannot find the mistake we made. But hey, we're hopeful. Is that correct? I mean, acceptable system? Oh, and by the way, how about the cases where guilt is not disputed, i.e., innocence is not an issue? How is it that this fear of making a mistake comes into play to abolish the death penalty for the undisputedly guilty? Love, RED Well, obviously it has to be acceptable. There is no way to 100% prove all (or even many) crimes. Is it more or less acceptable to tell the same thing to someone, except the "maybe you'll die in prison" part is replaced by "you WILL die in prison prematurely (i.e., before age/illness would naturally take a person) but if you're innocent, maybe we'll come to realize that before that day comes." I might be inclined to accept the dp for the undisputedly guilty, but I can't see how that could happen until "undisputedly" stops meaning different things to different people. By that I mean: -Eyewitness testimony. That's good enough to be undisputable for some people; however, others know that psychologically speaking, eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. -Cellmate snitch. That's good enough for some but not for many. (Myself included; I think that any inmate testimony should not be permitted, ESPECIALLY in exchange for reductions in their sentence.) -Confessions. That's good enough for a lot of people, but what if it was coerced? Maybe something like a videotape would be indisputable, but that would be a very small percentage of murders.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 19, 2009 16:01:50 GMT -6
Maybe something like a videotape would be indisputable, but that would be a very small percentage of murders. Even video recordings aren't necessarily dispositive of guilt or innocence. Think Rodney King case. You can edit a video recording to exculpate or frame an individual of murder. You can plant DNA evidence. False testimony can be suborned. There is room for error everywhere, and the appellate process is not designed to correct it. It is 100 percent conceivable that an innocent be executed by the state simply because there were no grounds for appeal. It is not enough to say you're innocent and claim you can prove it. You have to prove, also, that reversible error occurred at trial. Convicts can't always do that, even when they're truly innocent.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 19, 2009 18:58:09 GMT -6
Maybe something like a videotape would be indisputable, but that would be a very small percentage of murders. Even video recordings aren't necessarily dispositive of guilt or innocence. Think Rodney King case. You can edit a video recording to exculpate or frame an individual of murder. You can plant DNA evidence. False testimony can be suborned. There is room for error everywhere, and the appellate process is not designed to correct it. It is 100 percent conceivable that an innocent be executed by the state simply because there were no grounds for appeal. It is not enough to say you're innocent and claim you can prove it. You have to prove, also, that reversible error occurred at trial. Convicts can't always do that, even when they're truly innocent. I agree with you! Remaining question is: do you agree with the DP, even when you know that there is always this chance that an innocent inmate is gonna be executed?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 19, 2009 22:45:14 GMT -6
do you agree with the DP, even when you know that there is always this chance that an innocent inmate is gonna be executed? I do now, yes.
|
|
|
Post by somebody on Mar 20, 2009 3:34:21 GMT -6
do you agree with the DP, even when you know that there is always this chance that an innocent inmate is gonna be executed? I do now, yes. That is difficult to understand for me. After all, the arguments from pro's are often based upon "an innocent person is murdered and now the guilty one has to pay for it by execution". How can you change that into "an innocent person is murdered and now the guilty one might still be out there, plus there might be the chance that, accidently, another innocent person is gonna pay for it by execution". Can you please explain your way of thinking to me?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 20, 2009 5:02:24 GMT -6
That is difficult to understand for me. After all, the arguments from pro's are often based upon "an innocent person is murdered and now the guilty one has to pay for it by execution". How can you change that into "an innocent person is murdered and now the guilty one might still be out there, plus there might be the chance that, accidently, another innocent person is gonna pay for it by execution". Can you please explain your way of thinking to me? The only sensible part of Joe's post is the acknowledgement that innocents most likey have and will be executed. The rest of what he write is his usual contradictory and illogical grandiose ramblings which make little or no sense. I personally am pleased about his contradictory stances, it greatly reduces the likelyhood of him ever actually influencing someone in favour of the DP, he is a anti ally properly understood!
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 20, 2009 6:01:01 GMT -6
if...if...if...if...if
...if we had a DP, he might have been executed...
This is the complete basis of your argument. It is not a reason or a fact it is a supposition. No, it is a complete leap from reality to fantasy.
Fact: He confessed. Fact: He is a pathological liar. Fact: After many years the verdict was overturned. Fact: He would have not gone to jail in the first place had he not lied (confessed). Fact: He was not executed and is, in fact, able to go back to lying about or confessing to any other murder out there.
Facts, not if or maybe or might have been
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 20, 2009 6:06:54 GMT -6
if...if...if...if...if ... if we had a DP, he might have been executed... This is the complete basis of your argument. It is not a reason or a fact it is a supposition. No, it is a complete leap from reality to fantasy. Fact: He confessed. Fact: He is a pathological liar. Fact: After many years the verdict was overturned. Fact: He would have not gone to jail in the first place had he not lied (confessed). Fact: He was not executed and is, in fact, able to go back to lying about or confessing to any other murder out there. Facts, not if or maybe or might have beenBut the problem is that other unknown cases which are highly likely will also eb factual, its just you're not aware of them currentyl;
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 20, 2009 6:12:31 GMT -6
But the problem is that other unknown cases which are highly likely will also eb factual, its just you're not aware of them currentyl; IF and when those facts become available. IF and WHEN. This is an argument based on hearsay and future events. We must use the evidence we have now, not create it.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 20, 2009 6:35:16 GMT -6
But every single issue that you have with the word undisputed as to its meaning is also applicable to life without parole. Further, I think that you may be trying to mud waters that are clear. Most folks, even those that oppose the death penalty, readily concede that the overwhelming majority of those who have been executed, or otherwise are in death row, are in fact guilty. Would you agree that John Wayne Gacy was indisputably guilty? Ted Bundy? Richard Allen Davis? The point is that that if we're going to be abolishing social practices because of our fear of making fatal mistakes we should just cease to exist all together. I mean, can you imagine Congress passing a bill abolishing air travel because of concerns that if the pilot makes a mistake he can take 200 souls with him. How about stopping routine surgeries for fear of medical malpractice that could result in death. If we're going to abolish the death penalty it should be because the majority accepts that the government, no matter how heinous the act, does not have the sovereign power to execute its citizens because _____________ (insert reason here). If the government does not have the power to do something, the rest is moot. Love, RED So, you would allow a system that basically tells its citizens, "Hey, if you get life in prison by mistake take faith. Maybe, someday, somehow, someway, we could (possibly?) find that you're innocent. If you die in prison on the mean time, well, those are the breaks. Oh, the horror of prison life is something that you'll have to sustain for as long as we cannot find the mistake we made. But hey, we're hopeful. Is that correct? I mean, acceptable system? Oh, and by the way, how about the cases where guilt is not disputed, i.e., innocence is not an issue? How is it that this fear of making a mistake comes into play to abolish the death penalty for the undisputedly guilty? Love, RED Well, obviously it has to be acceptable. There is no way to 100% prove all (or even many) crimes. Is it more or less acceptable to tell the same thing to someone, except the "maybe you'll die in prison" part is replaced by "you WILL die in prison prematurely (i.e., before age/illness would naturally take a person) but if you're innocent, maybe we'll come to realize that before that day comes." I might be inclined to accept the dp for the undisputedly guilty, but I can't see how that could happen until "undisputedly" stops meaning different things to different people. By that I mean: -Eyewitness testimony. That's good enough to be undisputable for some people; however, others know that psychologically speaking, eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. -Cellmate snitch. That's good enough for some but not for many. (Myself included; I think that any inmate testimony should not be permitted, ESPECIALLY in exchange for reductions in their sentence.) -Confessions. That's good enough for a lot of people, but what if it was coerced? Maybe something like a videotape would be indisputable, but that would be a very small percentage of murders.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 20, 2009 6:50:05 GMT -6
But every single issue that you have with the word undisputed as to its meaning is also applicable to life without parole. Right. Or any punishment for any crime. But, as I explained, other punishments are more readily changed. We can't make everything perfect again, but we can right a bit of the wrong by releasing someone who's imprisoned. Someone who has been executed is out of luck. (For the record, I'm still in favor of cellmate testimony being abolished as a factor in determining guilt/innocence for any crime.) I don't know if three very much guilty parties are enough to make me concede that the overwhelming majority of those who have been executed were guilty. There's a good chance you're right, but as I'm not familiar with the majority of DP cases, I can't concede anything either way. Anyway, "overwhelming majority" is not "everyone", and it proves that we are NOT holding the DP to that standard of indisputable guilt that I think a punishment as permanent as death would require. That's different. People fly knowing the risk. People go under the knife knowing the risk. (If the doctor doesn't inform them, I believe that is malpractice in itself.) Oh, I agree. My position has always been that being able to determine whether one of its citizens lives or dies is too much power to be in the hands of a flawed government. Every other anti argument that I have basically branches off that one statement.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 20, 2009 6:51:25 GMT -6
But the problem is that other unknown cases which are highly likely will also eb factual, its just you're not aware of them currentyl; IF and when those facts become available. IF and WHEN. This is an argument based on hearsay and future events. We must use the evidence we have now, not create it. Emerging hard factual evidence is never created.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Mar 20, 2009 7:14:27 GMT -6
But every single issue that you have with the word undisputed as to its meaning is also applicable to life without parole. Further, I think that you may be trying to mud waters that are clear. Most folks, even those that oppose the death penalty, readily concede that the overwhelming majority of those who have been executed, or otherwise are in death row, are in fact guilty. Would you agree that John Wayne Gacy was indisputably guilty? Ted Bundy? Richard Allen Davis? The point is that that if we're going to be abolishing social practices because of our fear of making fatal mistakes we should just cease to exist all together. I mean, can you imagine Congress passing a bill abolishing air travel because of concerns that if the pilot makes a mistake he can take 200 souls with him. How about stopping routine surgeries for fear of medical malpractice that could result in death. If we're going to abolish the death penalty it should be because the majority accepts that the government, no matter how heinous the act, does not have the sovereign power to execute its citizens because _____________ (insert reason here). If the government does not have the power to do something, the rest is moot. Love, RED Well, obviously it has to be acceptable. There is no way to 100% prove all (or even many) crimes. Is it more or less acceptable to tell the same thing to someone, except the "maybe you'll die in prison" part is replaced by "you WILL die in prison prematurely (i.e., before age/illness would naturally take a person) but if you're innocent, maybe we'll come to realize that before that day comes." I might be inclined to accept the dp for the undisputedly guilty, but I can't see how that could happen until "undisputedly" stops meaning different things to different people. By that I mean: -Eyewitness testimony. That's good enough to be undisputable for some people; however, others know that psychologically speaking, eyewitness testimony is largely unreliable. -Cellmate snitch. That's good enough for some but not for many. (Myself included; I think that any inmate testimony should not be permitted, ESPECIALLY in exchange for reductions in their sentence.) -Confessions. That's good enough for a lot of people, but what if it was coerced? Maybe something like a videotape would be indisputable, but that would be a very small percentage of murders. Well-stated, RED
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 20, 2009 7:29:04 GMT -6
But then I don't follow the argument. Let me explain. As I'm sure you know, Governor Bill Richardson signed the bill that abolished the death penalty in New Mexico yesterday. When he faced the firestorm of critics that supported the death penalty he responded by saying "my conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death". This is a direct quote. So here we have someone that effectively banned a social practice because of risks (conviction of an innocent) that will remain true for the alternative practice; a practice that, in his opinion, could be worse than the banned practice. I mean, is surreal and nonsensical. As to the issue of knowing the risk I find no distinction as it applies to abolishing the death penalty. Knowing the risk is different from assuming it. Someone that flies knows the risk of crashing but does not assume the risk that whomever is in control of the plane will operate it incorrectly. The opposite is true. The same is true with surgery. I know that a double level cervical fusion has risks. I don't assume the risk that the surgeon is going to screw the procedure up. Quite the opposite. A person that is tried knows that there's a chance he can be convicted. Of course, one assumes the jury will get it right. In fact, in the case of trial the risk is even MORE substantial. You choose to go in a plane. You choose to go through surgery. You don't choose to be tried. Love, RED But every single issue that you have with the word undisputed as to its meaning is also applicable to life without parole. Right. Or any punishment for any crime. But, as I explained, other punishments are more readily changed. We can't make everything perfect again, but we can right a bit of the wrong by releasing someone who's imprisoned. Someone who has been executed is out of luck. (For the record, I'm still in favor of cellmate testimony being abolished as a factor in determining guilt/innocence for any crime.) I don't know if three very much guilty parties are enough to make me concede that the overwhelming majority of those who have been executed were guilty. There's a good chance you're right, but as I'm not familiar with the majority of DP cases, I can't concede anything either way. Anyway, "overwhelming majority" is not "everyone", and it proves that we are NOT holding the DP to that standard of indisputable guilt that I think a punishment as permanent as death would require. That's different. People fly knowing the risk. People go under the knife knowing the risk. (If the doctor doesn't inform them, I believe that is malpractice in itself.) Oh, I agree. My position has always been that being able to determine whether one of its citizens lives or dies is too much power to be in the hands of a flawed government. Every other anti argument that I have basically branches off that one statement.
|
|