|
Post by Felix2 on Mar 20, 2009 7:32:16 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 assumes 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 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. I think you're grasping at straws Red with that arguement. In the last analysis, if you jail someone under LWOP at least they have the possibility if they are innocent and the hope that one day the truth might emerge. remember frequenly as folk get older they want to set their houses in order so to speak, and its frequently in these types of settings that false witnesses and the like come forward to correct a previous lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2009 7:36:41 GMT -6
"my conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death". This seems a strange reason to abolish DP... if it's the living conditions you don't like, it seems to me it'd make sense to change the living conditions, not that which renders the 'living' conditions moot. Baby and bathwater.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 20, 2009 7:38:37 GMT -6
But i'ts not straws at all. This issue of the "possibility of this and the possibility of that" does little, if anything, to address the fact that we're now leaving to chance and hope the power to prevent innocents from being unjustly punished. Love, RED 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 assumes 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 I think you're grasping at straws Red with that arguement. In the last analysis, if you jail someone under LWOP at least they have the possibility if they are innocent and the hope that one day the truth might emerge. remember frequenly as folk get older they want to set their houses in order so to speak, and its frequently in these types of settings that false witnesses and the like come forward to correct a previous lie.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 20, 2009 7:40:41 GMT -6
But you miss the point. The reason why he signed the bill is because he believes LWOP is just punishmnent in that it may worse than death. If he's right, I'm sure those innocents living in prison are laughing at the irony. Love, RED "my conclusion was those cells are something that may be worse than death". This seems a strange reason to abolish DP... if it's the living conditions you don't like, it seems to me it'd make sense to change the living conditions, not that which renders the 'living' conditions moot. Baby and bathwater.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2009 7:44:11 GMT -6
But you miss the point. The reason why he signed the bill is because he believes LWOP is just punishmnent in that it may worse than death. If he's right, I'm sure those innocents living in prison are laughing at the irony. Love, RED This seems a strange reason to abolish DP... if it's the living conditions you don't like, it seems to me it'd make sense to change the living conditions, not that which renders the 'living' conditions moot. Baby and bathwater. You're right ~ flew right past my head!! Carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 20, 2009 20:27:31 GMT -6
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. Have any innocent people been killed in Britain in the last 30 years? Have any innocent people been killed in Britain by a previously convicted murderer who was not executed?
|
|
|
Post by kingsindanger on Mar 20, 2009 21:05:00 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. Let me explain it to you. If the crime happened in the U..S. his mental state would be determined to see if he is fit to stand trial. Then his mental state would almost certainly be grounds for appeal. In case you didn't know, SCOTUS banned the execution of the mentally ill. Therefore, you are in no position to say he would have been summarily executed. Does that help?
|
|
|
Post by Donnie on Mar 21, 2009 7:37:10 GMT -6
[In case you didn't know, SCOTUS banned the execution of the mentally ill. No, with respect to the mentally ill, they banned the executions of three classes of people. One class includes murderers who are mentally ill to a defined serious degree. The other class includes murderers who are clever enough to the fake such mental illness. The third class includes murderers who are close enough to either of the above two classes to cause prosecutors to not take a chance with them on a capital trial.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 21, 2009 8:59:13 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. I've always found that to be a cop-out anti argument. Those who are against the DP have no interest in finding a punishment WORSE than death. They only say things like that to appease the pros who equate being against the DP with being soft on crime. You actually DO assume the risk. There is ALWAYS the risk of human error. That's why you research your doctors, you fly with the more reputable airlines, but in the end, you know that you're putting your life in the hands of one human being that you don't know, or don't know well, and you know that all humans have flaws and make mistakes, and statistically, there is a chance, however slight, that one of the mistakes that person makes in his life will be a big one that affects you. You still have a choice, like you said. There's an argument that you do choose to be tried if you commit a crime. At least, there's a risk (again) that you will be caught and tried, and criminals knowingly take that risk. The innocent are the only once who did not choose to be tried at all. You're the one who initially decided to apply the argument of risk to the death penalty. I'm not sure how to continue the discussion if you now claim that you can't see its application.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 21, 2009 10:49:21 GMT -6
I've always found that to be a cop-out anti argument. Those who are against the DP have no interest in finding a punishment WORSE than death. They only say things like that to appease the pros who equate being against the DP with being soft on crime. I agree, but it's an anti argument nevertheless. Indeed, it's more than just an anti argument. In New Mexico it's now at least a base for abolishing the death penalty. Don't take it from me, but from the man who actually signed the abolishing bill into law. You actually DO assume the risk. There is ALWAYS the risk of human error. That's why you research your doctors, you fly with the more reputable airlines, but in the end, you know that you're putting your life in the hands of one human being that you don't know, or don't know well, and you know that all humans have flaws and make mistakes, and statistically, there is a chance, however slight, that one of the mistakes that person makes in his life will be a big one that affects you. You still have a choice, like you said.No, you DON'T. Of course there is always a risk of human error, that's the POINT. The reason why you research the doctor, fly with reputable airlines, etc., is because you KNOW the risk but you're trying to AVOID it, not assume it. This is a rather elemental principle. The point, again, is that the existence of the risk is not a reason to discontinue the practice. There's an argument that you do choose to be tried if you commit a crime. At least, there's a risk (again) that you will be caught and tried, and criminals knowingly take that risk. The innocent are the only once who did not choose to be tried at all.Umm, that's one heck of a weak argument for 2 reasons. First, knowing the consequences of one acts does not translate into a voluntary acceptance of such. Second, as you know, we're talking about INNOCENT folks doing LWOP. They do not choose either the crime, which they did not commit, nor the prosecution of that crime. Yet, they have to endure the same risk of the guilty ones. You're the one who initially decided to apply the argument of risk to the death penalty. I'm not sure how to continue the discussion if you now claim that you can't see its application.
Oh, no, no dear. What I can't follow is your willingness to accept the risk of convicted innocents for LWOP but not for the death penalty. So far you have not come close to justify your position, other than by making my point that there's always risks in all human endevours and that your preference for LWOP as it applies to the possibility of innocents being convicted is based on nothing other than hope and a bunch of rather optimistic "possibilities". Love, RED 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. I've always found that to be a cop-out anti argument. Those who are against the DP have no interest in finding a punishment WORSE than death. They only say things like that to appease the pros who equate being against the DP with being soft on crime. You actually DO assume the risk. There is ALWAYS the risk of human error. That's why you research your doctors, you fly with the more reputable airlines, but in the end, you know that you're putting your life in the hands of one human being that you don't know, or don't know well, and you know that all humans have flaws and make mistakes, and statistically, there is a chance, however slight, that one of the mistakes that person makes in his life will be a big one that affects you. You still have a choice, like you said. There's an argument that you do choose to be tried if you commit a crime. At least, there's a risk (again) that you will be caught and tried, and criminals knowingly take that risk. The innocent are the only once who did not choose to be tried at all. You're the one who initially decided to apply the argument of risk to the death penalty. I'm not sure how to continue the discussion if you now claim that you can't see its application.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2009 20:38:52 GMT -6
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. More readily changed? Really? Let's say a guy gets locked up for 40 years and is let out at age 85 when the crime is finally solved. How is the loss of his 40 years "readily changed"? How is the wrong righted so he can get his life back? He's 85 now. It's over. He has lost it forever.
|
|
|
Post by HANGMAN1981 on Mar 21, 2009 22:10:43 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 beenYes, there are too many "mights," "maybes," and "ifs" to this argument. The U.S. Justice system would not have made this inmate eligible for the DP anyway. This idiot put HIMSELF behind bars just like John Spirko in Ohio put himself of death row. You can't blame Britain's justice system for this. Simply because DNA does not match does not prove innocence. He could still been involved in the murder and not left any usable traces. Regardless, the solution to the problem is to not convict innocent people. The title of this post should have been" One reason why the prison system should be abolished."
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 22, 2009 10:26:43 GMT -6
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. More readily changed? Really? Let's say a guy gets locked up for 40 years and is let out at age 85 when the crime is finally solved. How is the loss of his 40 years "readily changed"? How is the wrong righted so he can get his life back? He's 85 now. It's over. He has lost it forever. Letting the guy out of prison to enjoy the last few years of his life is more of a change than pardoning a dead man posthumously.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 22, 2009 10:35:32 GMT -6
I agree, but it's an anti argument nevertheless. Indeed, it's more than just an anti argument. In New Mexico it's now at least a base for abolishing the death penalty. Don't take it from me, but from the man who actually signed the abolishing bill into law. So since I'm an anti and he's an anti, we must have all the same reasons for it, right? Really? That's an oft-used pro argument, you know. Someone commits murder knowing that they could get the dp, so that's what they deserve. I never said that innocent people deserved that risk, either. They don't. The guilty who take the risk are the ones who deserve it. I don't think we'd argue with the fact that an innocent person doesn't at all deserve to be tried and convicted. I don't like it at all, but with humans calling the shots, there is ALWAYS a risk of a royal f***up, and that is something that we all have to accept. There is no way to completely eliminate the risk of a wrongful conviction. My position is that a wrongful execution is much more permanent and detrimental to the convicted party than a wrongful LWOP conviction. I don't think many would disagree with that statement. That permanence and detriment is the reason why many pros prefer death over LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 22, 2009 13:13:59 GMT -6
So since I'm an anti and he's an anti, we must have all the same reasons for it, right? I see. So since you have different reasons for being antis, HIS reason is irrelevant to this discussion. Oh, did I mention that he's the governor of New Mexico and used the "prison may be worse than hell" argument to ABOLISH the DP there? Umm, what state are you governor of? Really? That's an oft-used pro argument, you know. Someone commits murder knowing that they could get the dp, so that's what they deserve.Uh, no. You should pay a little more attention so that you understand to distinguish between apples, oranges, and donkeys. The pro-DP argument is that the murderer, by CHOOSING to commit murder, chooses to face the consequences of that choice. If the consequences include capital punishment, well, tough. The argument here is one of RISK. One does not choose to be wrongfully convicted and sentenced pursuant to that wrongful conviction anymore than one chooses to have a doctor screw up a surgery and render one a quadriplegic. Entiendes? I never said that innocent people deserved that risk, either. They don't. The guilty who take the risk are the ones who deserve it. I don't think we'd argue with the fact that an innocent person doesn't at all deserve to be tried and convicted.My point exactly. You agree than an innocent person does not deserve to be tried, convicted and sentenced, yet you're quite ok with having someone rot in prison while innocent on the HOPE that MAYBE, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, we could PERHAPS, find the error. If we don't, well, those are the breaks. Did I get you wrong? I don't like it at all, but with humans calling the shots, there is ALWAYS a risk of a royal f***up, and that is something that we all have to accept. There is no way to completely eliminate the risk of a wrongful conviction. My position is that a wrongful execution is much more permanent and detrimental to the convicted party than a wrongful LWOP conviction.So you believe that the risk of having an innocent person do LWOP is more acceptable than having that innocent person executed because the executed person is dead and the living innocent can still HOPE to be free while he/she experiences the joy of LWOP. Did I get you right? I don't think many would disagree with that statement. That permanence and detriment is the reason why many pros prefer death over LWOP But we prefer the DP for the GUILTY first degree murderers. The game is different for them. The issue here is one of RISK, i.e., the risk of executing an innocent person. But antis want to apply that risk to ALL cases, even then ones where such risk is NOT present. In fact, did I tell you about the governor of the State of New Mexico that abolished the death penalty to avoid the risk of executing innocent folks and said that the guilty would also be served under his signed abolition bill because prison may be worse than death? Love, RED I agree, but it's an anti argument nevertheless. Indeed, it's more than just an anti argument. In New Mexico it's now at least a base for abolishing the death penalty. Don't take it from me, but from the man who actually signed the abolishing bill into law. So since I'm an anti and he's an anti, we must have all the same reasons for it, right? Really? That's an oft-used pro argument, you know. Someone commits murder knowing that they could get the dp, so that's what they deserve. I never said that innocent people deserved that risk, either. They don't. The guilty who take the risk are the ones who deserve it. I don't think we'd argue with the fact that an innocent person doesn't at all deserve to be tried and convicted. I don't like it at all, but with humans calling the shots, there is ALWAYS a risk of a royal f***up, and that is something that we all have to accept. There is no way to completely eliminate the risk of a wrongful conviction. My position is that a wrongful execution is much more permanent and detrimental to the convicted party than a wrongful LWOP conviction. I don't think many would disagree with that statement. That permanence and detriment is the reason why many pros prefer death over LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 22, 2009 14:32:41 GMT -6
My point exactly. You agree than an innocent person does not deserve to be tried, convicted and sentenced, yet you're quite ok with having someone rot in prison while innocent on the HOPE that MAYBE, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, we could PERHAPS, find the error. If we don't, well, those are the breaks. Did I get you wrong? So are you! So is everyone, save for those who are in favor of eliminating prison altogether! Well, yes. The prison > death argument, as I've said before, is a copout. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one anti who actually believed it and I wouldn't be surprised if this guy didn't believe it either. I've never known an anti, to be honest, who was concerned that murderers weren't being punished enough by the DP. As I said before, it seems like he said it to appease pros.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 22, 2009 15:06:19 GMT -6
So are you! So is everyone, save for those who are in favor of eliminating prison altogether!EXACTLY!!!!!! We are ALL willing to take that risk knowing what that means for possible innocent folks. However, the part that I don't understand from you is that you would not abolish prisons based on those risks but you would abolish the DP on those exact risks. Hopefully, the point is not lost on you. Well, yes.My point exactly. First, you're willing to put the fate of innocent folks on faith and hope, regardless of the consequences, as long as those consequences do not include a mistaken execution. A mistaken "rotting in prison" punishment you're cool with, like all of us who don't support abolishing prisons. Right? The prison > death argument, as I've said before, is a copout. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one anti who actually believed it and I wouldn't be surprised if this guy didn't believe it either. I've never known an anti, to be honest, who was concerned that murderers weren't being punished enough by the DP. As I said before, it seems like he said it to appease pros.Well, that's because you normally don't rub elbows with, uh, let's say, the governor of a state like, um, New Mexico. But help me out here, though. Tell me why someone like John Wayne Gacy should have been spared the DP on the basis that someone who's innocent could be executed? Love, RED My point exactly. You agree than an innocent person does not deserve to be tried, convicted and sentenced, yet you're quite ok with having someone rot in prison while innocent on the HOPE that MAYBE, SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, we could PERHAPS, find the error. If we don't, well, those are the breaks. Did I get you wrong? So are you! So is everyone, save for those who are in favor of eliminating prison altogether! Well, yes. The prison > death argument, as I've said before, is a copout. In fact, I don't think I've ever met one anti who actually believed it and I wouldn't be surprised if this guy didn't believe it either. I've never known an anti, to be honest, who was concerned that murderers weren't being punished enough by the DP. As I said before, it seems like he said it to appease pros.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Mar 22, 2009 18:39:59 GMT -6
Why don't you understand that?? Because someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a tragedy, yes, but IMO, it is not AS great a tragedy as someone being wrongfully killed by the state. I'm 99% sure that I would rather be wrongfully imprisoned with a chance of being set free than wrongfully executed. I'm also looking at another risk - the risk to society. When we're pretty sure that we have a murderer in custody (and there are ways that we make as educated of a guess as possible), we don't want to risk being right and letting him go. One way of keeping society safe is to execute the ba$tard (and hope that we don't have the wrong ba$tard!) The other way of keeping society safe is to keep the guy from being part of society. I realize that the innocence argument isn't incredibly strong with regard to being against the death penalty. That's why, once more if you missed it, IT IS BY FAR NOT THE ONLY REASON THAT I AM AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY. And ya know what? I have never in this thread made that assertation. I simply jumped in and pointed out that death is irreversible. LWOP is slightly more reversible. [quote4]Well, that's because you normally don't rub elbows with, uh, let's say, the governor of a state like, um, New Mexico. [/quote] How d'you know? Why should I? I've already told you why I feel that nobody should be executed, and ultimately it has very little to do with the fact that someone innocent could be executed. It has more to do with the fact that I don't believe the government should have that kind of power over a person's life/death, even if that person is scum.
|
|
|
Post by RED on Mar 23, 2009 6:40:52 GMT -6
Why should I? I've already told you why I feel that nobody should be executed, and ultimately it has very little to do with the fact that someone innocent could be executed. It has more to do with the fact that I don't believe the government should have that kind of power over a person's life/death, even if that person is scum. Well, that makes the whole argument moot. It is, of course, not moot in the eyes of many that still use "innocence" as an argument to abolish the death penalty. You know, like the governor of the state of New Mexico. Love, RED Why don't you understand that?? Because someone being wrongfully imprisoned is a tragedy, yes, but IMO, it is not AS great a tragedy as someone being wrongfully killed by the state. I'm 99% sure that I would rather be wrongfully imprisoned with a chance of being set free than wrongfully executed. I'm also looking at another risk - the risk to society. When we're pretty sure that we have a murderer in custody (and there are ways that we make as educated of a guess as possible), we don't want to risk being right and letting him go. One way of keeping society safe is to execute the ba$tard (and hope that we don't have the wrong ba$tard!) The other way of keeping society safe is to keep the guy from being part of society. I realize that the innocence argument isn't incredibly strong with regard to being against the death penalty. That's why, once more if you missed it, IT IS BY FAR NOT THE ONLY REASON THAT I AM AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY. And ya know what? I have never in this thread made that assertation. I simply jumped in and pointed out that death is irreversible. LWOP is slightly more reversible. How d'you know? Why should I? I've already told you why I feel that nobody should be executed, and ultimately it has very little to do with the fact that someone innocent could be executed. It has more to do with the fact that I don't believe the government should have that kind of power over a person's life/death, even if that person is scum.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Mar 23, 2009 7:24:24 GMT -6
It has more to do with the fact that I don't believe the government should have that kind of power over a person's life/death, even if that person is scum. But the gov't doesn't have that power until a judge and jury decide to give the authorization to the gov't to carry out an execution.
|
|