|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 8, 2018 11:42:17 GMT -6
it is now almost 42 years since the state of Utah guaranteed that gary gilmore will cause no more problems. nor since that time has gary gilmore cost the state of Utah a dime in wasted food, clothing, shelter and utilities. where else in "government" can you get that kind of efficiency?
yet they keep wasting money on ron lafferty. go figure.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 8, 2018 13:22:20 GMT -6
it is now almost 42 years since the state of Utah guaranteed that gary gilmore will cause no more problems. nor since that time has gary gilmore cost the state of Utah a dime in wasted food, clothing, shelter and utilities. where else in "government" can you get that kind of efficiency? Capital punishment has never been about deterrence, since 95+ percent of murderers get paroled. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 8, 2018 13:38:56 GMT -6
it is now almost 42 years since the state of Utah guaranteed that gary gilmore will cause no more problems. nor since that time has gary gilmore cost the state of Utah a dime in wasted food, clothing, shelter and utilities. where else in "government" can you get that kind of efficiency? Capital punishment has never been about deterrence, since 95+ percent of murderers get paroled. 95% of those executed don't. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 8, 2018 19:42:56 GMT -6
it is now almost 42 years since the state of Utah guaranteed that gary gilmore will cause no more problems. nor since that time has gary gilmore cost the state of Utah a dime in wasted food, clothing, shelter and utilities. where else in "government" can you get that kind of efficiency? Capital punishment has never been about deterrence, since 95+ percent of murderers get paroled. Can't prove, it may be a deterrent for some to not murder to begin with, knowing they may face a DP sentence. I would bet it has stopped some. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 9, 2018 3:01:18 GMT -6
You trust the people of this nation with the calm emotionless discretion and sober powers of reckoning required to make the decision to kill a man?
Have you seen how they leap to judgments of guilt?
When he has to consider a DP case, I wonder whether the newest Supreme Court Justice will remember.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 9, 2018 8:53:57 GMT -6
Evidence. Kavanaugh wasn't privy to any. I trust the people to kill a man as well as to cage him till he dies.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 9, 2018 14:58:03 GMT -6
95% of those executed don't. That is precisely my point. Why spare any of them? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 9, 2018 15:00:40 GMT -6
You trust the people of this nation with the calm emotionless discretion and sober powers of reckoning required to make the decision to kill a man Determinate sentencing would vitiate both the discretion and reckoning. |
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 9, 2018 15:07:33 GMT -6
Have you seen how they leap to judgments of guilt? Yes, I have and particularly so with Brett Kavanaugh when there wasn't even a shred of credible evidence against him. Also, we continue to read about some poor dumb bas***d who after spending years behind bars for a crime he did not commit was eventually freed because his DNA did not match that of the actual perpetrator of the crime. And then I have come to distrust many of those involved in criminal prosecution because they often impress me as being psychopaths who are more concerned about getting a conviction than they are about the innocence or guilt of the defendant they are prosecuting. Bottom-line; I am rethinking my position on the death penalty because I fear the possibility of an innocent man or woman being executed. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 9, 2018 16:21:04 GMT -6
95% of those executed don't. That is precisely my point. Why spare any of them? What makes you think I want to? |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 9, 2018 16:26:05 GMT -6
So I'm getting the feeling that if we can't/don't have a 100%, foolproof, error proof, judicial system, why have one at all?
|
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 9, 2018 17:40:04 GMT -6
Have you seen how they leap to judgments of guilt? Yes, I have and particularly so with Brett Kavanaugh when there wasn't even a shred of credible evidence against him. Also, we continue to read about some poor dumb bas***d who after spending years behind bars for a crime he did not commit was eventually freed because his DNA did not match that of the actual perpetrator of the crime. And then I have come to distrust many of those involved in criminal prosecution because they often impress me as being psychopaths who are more concerned about getting a conviction than they are about the innocence or guilt of the defendant they are prosecuting. Bottom-line; I am rethinking my position on the death penalty because I fear the possibility of an innocent man or woman being executed. Those are all old decades ago, not how the system works for sometime now. There is so much proof now to get a guilty verdict. Look at the Casey Anthony case & OJ case. I still believe they are guilty as all get out, but walked. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 9, 2018 22:50:03 GMT -6
Evidence. Kavanaugh wasn't privy to any. I trust the people to kill a man as well as to cage him till he dies. On the other thread you said you don't believe the allegations against Cosby. If you're right then even a court of law can make mistakes. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 9, 2018 22:57:47 GMT -6
You trust the people of this nation with the calm emotionless discretion and sober powers of reckoning required to make the decision to kill a man Determinate sentencing would vitiate both the discretion and reckoning. You still need to trust the jury to soberly consider the facts. A skilled prosecutor, however, only needs to push one of their hot buttons and BOOM, all sensible reflection is blasted to the winds. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 10, 2018 7:18:12 GMT -6
You still need to trust the jury to soberly consider the facts. That would be true for a DUI or any other criminal case. There's nothing special about a murder trial, regardless of the punishment proscribed by the law. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 10, 2018 7:22:01 GMT -6
What makes you think I want to? My point is the vast majority of the voters regard murder as forgivable, contrary to its negligible support for the death penalty. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 10, 2018 11:32:48 GMT -6
Evidence. Kavanaugh wasn't privy to any. I trust the people to kill a man as well as to cage him till he dies. On the other thread you said you don't believe the allegations against Cosby. If you're right then even a court of law can make mistakes. they certainly can and do. I just don't consider the possibly of executing an "innocent" any more likely or objectionable than caging one until he dies. so then what do we do with all these "innocent" convicts? |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 10, 2018 12:07:18 GMT -6
What makes you think I want to? My point is the vast majority of the voters regard murder as forgivable, contrary to its negligible support for the death penalty. yup, and yet still gilmore and company have killed nobody since vacating the planet. you would think something that 100% effective would be more welcome to the masses. but then again half this country though hillary would be a good idea. the world we now live in. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 10, 2018 16:05:57 GMT -6
I just don't consider the possibly of executing an "innocent" any more likely or objectionable than caging one until he dies. No more likely, you're right about that. But wouldn't you agree that it's more irreversible? Executing someone is like locking them up for life, melting down the key and welding shut the door so that, should any exonerating evidence ever come to light, it will be too late. Why do such a thing when we know our justice is imperfect? |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 10, 2018 16:48:01 GMT -6
I just don't consider the possibly of executing an "innocent" any more likely or objectionable than caging one until he dies. No more likely, you're right about that. But wouldn't you agree that it's more irreversible? Executing someone is like locking them up for life, melting down the key and welding shut the door so that, should any exonerating evidence ever come to light, it will be too late. Why do such a thing when we know our justice is imperfect? and how is an "innocent" dying in prison, for any reason, one week before the magic evidence is uncovered any different? is there good intent "ooops" and bad intent "ooops"? why risk charging, convicting and punishing at all? I'm still waiting for ron lafferty's exculpatory evidence to come to light. I'm sure it's any day now. (actually still waiting for gilmore's as well) |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 17, 2018 11:30:01 GMT -6
No more likely, you're right about that. But wouldn't you agree that it's more irreversible? Executing someone is like locking them up for life, melting down the key and welding shut the door so that, should any exonerating evidence ever come to light, it will be too late. Why do such a thing when we know our justice is imperfect? and how is an "innocent" dying in prison, for any reason, one week before the magic evidence is uncovered any different? Let me grant, for argument's sake, that it isn't. But what about dying in his home twenty years after the magic evidence proved his innocence, led to his release and even led to the right guy getting caught? That seems like a big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 17, 2018 14:21:16 GMT -6
and how is an "innocent" dying in prison, for any reason, one week before the magic evidence is uncovered any different? Let me grant, for argument's sake, that it isn't. But what about dying in his home twenty years after the magic evidence proved his innocence, led to his release and even led to the right guy getting caught? That seems like a big difference. but the discussion isn't about those exhonerated, good for them. but rather the "innocents" who die in prison before exhonoration shows up. that's not at all different than an "innocent" being executed. in fact I'd wager the odds are much higher for the life in prison deaths. so what do we say about those? ooops? the question remains, if we're afraid of executing an "innocent", then why do we cage the same "innocent"? because the "innocence" concern is not a punishment issue but a conviction issue. fix it there. if it can't be fixed there then why even have a justice system if we're so afraid of it's imperfections? and again, how long do we have to wait for ron lafferty's magic evidence? and why? why hasn't gilmore's exculpatory evidence shown up yet? truthfully, all you can say is that you prefer the risks of caging an innocent till he dies to the risks of executing an innocent. from there we can talk expenses and such. but yeah, somewhere, somehow, somebody might simply draw the short straw. At which time I'm perfectly fine with "ooops".we move on. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 19, 2018 11:02:21 GMT -6
Let me grant, for argument's sake, that it isn't. But what about dying in his home twenty years after the magic evidence proved his innocence, led to his release and even led to the right guy getting caught? That seems like a big difference. but the discussion isn't about those exhonerated, good for them. but rather the "innocents" who die in prison before exhonoration shows up. that's not at all different than an "innocent" being executed. in fact I'd wager the odds are much higher for the life in prison deaths. so what do we say about those? ooops? I've already conceded, at least for the sake of argument, that if the exculpatory evidence shows up after the inmate's natural lifespan is over, then the miscarriage of justice is as great as if we had executed him. I can keep conceding it if you like, but I'd eventually like to turn to those who are exonerated within their natural lives, who would have been dead already had we executed them. In those cases, it seems like it turned out better that we had imprisoned them rather than executing them. So the total equation is: ...when the exculpatory evidence turns up after the inmate's natural lifespan is over = no difference between LWOP and DP. ...when the exculpatory evidence turns up before the inmate's natural lifespan would be over = LWOP better. If LWOP is better in the one case and equal in the other, doesn't that make it preferable overall? |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 19, 2018 11:44:37 GMT -6
and again, how long do we have to wait for ron lafferty's magic evidence? and why? why hasn't gilmore's exculpatory evidence shown up yet? I am not intimately familiar with the cases, but I guess that if no exculpatory evidence has shown up yet, it's most likely because there is none. But the point I am making is that you never know. Everyone who ever had their convictions overturned was someone who at one point was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It goes to show that no matter how convincing the evidence seems, it can swing the other way when further evidence comes it. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 20, 2018 14:14:57 GMT -6
but the discussion isn't about those exhonerated, good for them. but rather the "innocents" who die in prison before exhonoration shows up. that's not at all different than an "innocent" being executed. in fact I'd wager the odds are much higher for the life in prison deaths. so what do we say about those? ooops? I've already conceded, at least for the sake of argument, that if the exculpatory evidence shows up after the inmate's natural lifespan is over, then the miscarriage of justice is as great as if we had executed him. I can keep conceding it if you like, but I'd eventually like to turn to those who are exonerated within their natural lives, who would have been dead already had we executed them. In those cases, it seems like it turned out better that we had imprisoned them rather than executing them. So the total equation is: ...when the exculpatory evidence turns up after the inmate's natural lifespan is over = no difference between LWOP and DP. ...when the exculpatory evidence turns up before the inmate's natural lifespan would be over = LWOP better. If LWOP is better in the one case and equal in the other, doesn't that make it preferable overall? Well I suppose "for the sake of argument" is indeed a form of concession. As for the last statement lwop, if it actually existed, could seem preferable. But then thats when we take into account other things such as cost, escape, in house murder, law changes, and repeat offenders. And since exonerated is not synonymous with innocence and yet a repeat offender killing again is still "dead", well then i can never consider this whole discusion as "either / or". Plenty of arguments for LWOP and DP. Plenty of room for both. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Oct 20, 2018 15:02:52 GMT -6
and again, how long do we have to wait for ron lafferty's magic evidence? and why? why hasn't gilmore's exculpatory evidence shown up yet? I am not intimately familiar with the cases, but I guess that if no exculpatory evidence has shown up yet, it's most likely because there is none. But the point I am making is that you never know. Everyone who ever had their convictions overturned was someone who at one point was found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. It goes to show that no matter how convincing the evidence seems, it can swing the other way when further evidence comes it. absolutely true. How long do we wait? 40 years seems a little unnecessary. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 24, 2018 14:45:27 GMT -6
No more likely, you're right about that. But wouldn't you agree that it's more irreversible? Executing someone is like locking them up for life, melting down the key and welding shut the door so that, should any exonerating evidence ever come to light, it will be too late. Why do such a thing when we know our justice is imperfect? Justice doesn't have to be perfect to be acceptable. We already know people are executed for their crimes absent absolute certainty of their guilt. It's not a big deal if we regard a workable legal process more important than human life, as we do. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 28, 2018 0:20:31 GMT -6
No more likely, you're right about that. But wouldn't you agree that it's more irreversible? Executing someone is like locking them up for life, melting down the key and welding shut the door so that, should any exonerating evidence ever come to light, it will be too late. Why do such a thing when we know our justice is imperfect? Justice doesn't have to be perfect to be acceptable. You may find it acceptable to execute an innocent man and let the real killer go free, but I don't see how that approximates justice in the slightest. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 29, 2018 7:24:29 GMT -6
You may find it acceptable to execute an innocent man and let the real killer go free, but I don't see how that approximates justice in the slightest. Most real killers go free by the hundreds every day, Bernard, or are never apprehended in the first place. You don't seem to be overly concerned with the lives of innocents. Worse than an innocent man being executed is a sclerotic criminal justice system. |
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Oct 29, 2018 13:34:31 GMT -6
Most real killers go free by the hundreds every day, Bernard, or are never apprehended in the first place. You don't seem to be overly concerned with the lives of innocents. Worse than an innocent man being executed is a sclerotic criminal justice system. Totally irrelevant Strawman arguments! |
|
