|
|
Post by bernard on Oct 30, 2018 1:29:21 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.  |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 31, 2018 15:25:20 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant Strawman arguments! Exposing hypocrisy is never irrelevant. I am simply pointing out that a working death penalty, or a working punishment of life without the possibility of parole, for that matter, only accrues from a tolerance of a conviction error rate greater than zero. That innocents have died in prison, whether by execution, old age, suicide or whatever, is beyond dispute. We all accept it. Why are we even having this argument? |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 31, 2018 17:12:02 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant Strawman arguments! Exposing hypocrisy is never irrelevant. That innocents have died in prison, whether by execution, old age, suicide or whatever, is beyond dispute. We all accept it. Why are we even having this argument? Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 1, 2018 0:02:03 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant Strawman arguments! Exposing hypocrisy is never irrelevant. Speaking of murder, I notice you criticize other people's spelling even though you sometimes spell things incorrectly yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 1, 2018 0:14:50 GMT -6
Totally irrelevant Strawman arguments! Exposing hypocrisy is never irrelevant. I am simply pointing out that a working death penalty, or a working punishment of life without the possibility of parole, for that matter, only accrues from a tolerance of an conviction error rate greater than zero. Hm. But is disagreeing with me the same as proving me a hypocrite? Some would say no. Obviously there is an error rate associated with any attempt at justice. There's error associated with any attempt at anything. But that isn't the point. It wasn't my point, anyway. My point was that Juicing the inmate = Calling time on admissible evidence. Calling time on admissible evidence = increasing the risk of error. So while I agree that some error might be unavoidable, I wonder why anyone genuinely interested in justice would want to increase the error. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 1, 2018 8:43:49 GMT -6
So while I agree that some error might be unavoidable, I wonder why anyone genuinely interested in justice would want to increase the error. I wish to increase it to see that more justice is done in less time. The system as a whole is just if constitutional due process is followed, whether or not innocents die or the guilty go free. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 1, 2018 8:44:57 GMT -6
you criticize other people's spelling even though you sometimes spell things incorrectly yourself. That is true, although it doesn't amount to murder, as you suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 2, 2018 10:52:28 GMT -6
So while I agree that some error might be unavoidable, I wonder why anyone genuinely interested in justice would want to increase the error. I wish to increase it to see that more justice is done in less time. In my reading of western jurisprudence, I had not previously come across the concept of punishments-per-hour. Is it generally agreed to be a good thing, to raise the pph? |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 2, 2018 10:53:33 GMT -6
you criticize other people's spelling even though you sometimes spell things incorrectly yourself. That is true, although it doesn't amount to murder, as you suggest. It doesn't amount to it, but you suggested that it was relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 2, 2018 10:55:01 GMT -6
The system as a whole is just if constitutional due process is followed, whether or not innocents die or the guilty go free. You have it backwards. The constitution was designed to enact justice, not justice to enact the constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 2, 2018 12:19:46 GMT -6
In my reading of western jurisprudence, I had not previously come across the concept of punishments-per-hour. Is it generally agreed to be a good thing, to raise the pph? At some point the will of the electorate must be done, and seen to be done. The public doesn't insist on perfect convictions, the Constitution doesn't, so why do you? |
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Nov 2, 2018 12:23:11 GMT -6
You have it backwards. The constitution was designed to enact justice, not justice to enact the constitution. This is nonsense. The federal Constitution does not demand absolute certainty of guilt in capital cases, and never has. The U.S. Supreme Court justices who have embraced capital punishment, i.e. the majority of them, recognize the inevitability of innocents being executed, and the probability that many already have been, and are OK with it. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 2, 2018 23:03:34 GMT -6
In my reading of western jurisprudence, I had not previously come across the concept of punishments-per-hour. Is it generally agreed to be a good thing, to raise the pph? At some point the will of the electorate must be done Shockingly naive. I've seen Presidents come and go, Supreme Court Justices too. The will of the electorate is hardly ever done. It doesn't even seem to be an important matter. Could you link me to the statement the public made? I don't. Perfect convictions are an impossibility, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 2, 2018 23:10:20 GMT -6
You have it backwards. The constitution was designed to enact justice, not justice to enact the constitution. This is nonsense. The federal Constitution does not demand absolute certainty of guilt in capital cases, and never has. Murder cases are not federal. And I am not insisting on certainty of guilt either. You seem to be confused. Competent justices don't "embrace" anything. They decide whether it is consistent with the constitution, that's all. Whether they are "OK with it" is not what they are asked to decide. They are asked to decide whether executing innocents is consistent with the constitution. They have ruled that it is. Pooping in your bed is also consistent with the constitution. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 3, 2018 10:14:14 GMT -6
Bottom line. Far too many victims of murder. Top priority. Odds of an innocent facing the DP are slim to none in today's age.
|
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Nov 3, 2018 11:19:08 GMT -6
Bottom line........ Odds of an innocent facing the DP are slim to none in today's age. sooooo slim I can't believe it is still even brought up as an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Nov 3, 2018 17:14:20 GMT -6
you criticize other people's spelling even though you sometimes spell things incorrectly yourself. That is true, although it doesn't amount to murder, as you suggest. The problem with contemporary English orthography is that it's in violation of alphabetic principles and therefore incorrect to begin with. Such principles, rules if you like, are about three thousand years old and they dictate that the symbols (letters) be placed in the chronological order in which the sounds they represent are heard. We do not follow such rules in the English-Speaking world and as a consequence it takes our schoolchildren an extra two years to be reading at the same level as their Finnish-Speaking peers in Finland-----where the orthography (written language) is an exact representation of the spoken language. Hence, what we have is a classic example of conformity in favor over reason and logic. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 3, 2018 19:48:18 GMT -6
Odds of an innocent facing the DP are slim to none in today's age. How did you calculate those odds? |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 3, 2018 20:01:07 GMT -6
Odds of an innocent facing the DP are slim to none in today's age. How did you calculate those odds? OJ, Casey Anthony, advanced technology, cameras, DNA. Not calculated it's an obvious. Facts: Advanced more sophisticated forensic. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 4, 2018 2:45:10 GMT -6
How did you calculate those odds? OJ, Casey Anthony, advanced technology, cameras, DNA. Not calculated it's an obvious. Facts: Advanced more sophisticated forensic. DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project and other like minded folk. Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 4, 2018 2:47:29 GMT -6
Exposing hypocrisy is never irrelevant. That innocents have died in prison, whether by execution, old age, suicide or whatever, is beyond dispute. We all accept it. Why are we even having this argument? Exactly. Wait. Make your mind up. Do you think that innocents never get executed because muh DNA, or do you agree with Joe that the fact that innocents have been executed is "beyond dispute" and something "we all accept"? |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 8:58:31 GMT -6
OJ, Casey Anthony, advanced technology, cameras, DNA. Not calculated it's an obvious. Facts: Advanced more sophisticated forensic. DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project and other like minded folk. Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. Yeah, look at the dates they were sentenced to begin with. Your talking old school. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 9:08:58 GMT -6
OJ, Casey Anthony, advanced technology, cameras, DNA. Not calculated it's an obvious. Facts: Advanced more sophisticated forensic. DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. How can the Innocence Project find without today's technology who was truly innocent? No hard facts ,not to mention of course,no hard proof anyone who was innocent was executed. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 9:18:37 GMT -6
Wait. Make your mind up. Do you think that innocents never get executed because muh DNA, or do you agree with Joe that the fact that innocents have been executed is "beyond dispute" and something "we all accept"? No DNA is just the ace to add to other evidence. With your no DP stance at all Bernard, how about the Synagogue shooter? There is no way I would ever want no DP, majority would say this killer needs execution not some 20-30 yrs later. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 10:05:59 GMT -6
Wait. Make your mind up. Do you think that innocents never get executed because muh DNA, or do you agree with Joe that the fact that innocents have been executed is "beyond dispute" and something "we all accept"? We all accept murdering, just on different issues,levels. We just use nice cozy little words,excuses for it. Pick & choose. I agree with Joe. Exposing hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Nov 4, 2018 11:37:29 GMT -6
OJ, Casey Anthony, advanced technology, cameras, DNA. Not calculated it's an obvious. Facts: Advanced more sophisticated forensic. DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project and other like minded folk. Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. exactly right. DNA can do a good job of putting you on scene,(along with every emt, cop, detective, and assorted first responders, and the paper boy ect.) but may or may not prove much else. by the same token absence of recovered DNA also does not mean you were not on scene or are innocent. however in todays world it will usually raise the "reasonable doubt" necessary for acquittal or exoneration. it's just another tool or piece of the puzzle that I think we take too seriously. this is one reason that, in general, I prefer fingerprints to DNA. I am also convinced that one day something else will come into play that will question all DNA convictions. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 11:43:45 GMT -6
DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project and other like minded folk. Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. exactly right. DNA can do a good job of putting you on scene,(along with every emt, cop, detective, and assorted first responders, and the paper boy ect.) but may or may not prove much else. by the same token absence of recovered DNA also does not mean you were not on scene or are innocent. however in todays world it will usually raise the "reasonable doubt" necessary for acquittal or exoneration. it's just another tool or piece of the puzzle that I think we take too seriously. this is one reason that, in general, I prefer fingerprints to DNA. I am also convinced that one day something else will come into play that will question all DNA convictions. Security cameras have also played a major role today. Of course Bernard left out all the other evidence I mentioned in my post, besides just DNA,which has advanced too. |
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Nov 4, 2018 12:20:57 GMT -6
Another bottom line,fact.
DNA fingerprinting has revolutionised criminal investigations as an incredible tool for identifying the guilty as well as the
( innocent) today.
Why won't you Bernard except that scientific fact? Your old excuse is a fossil.
Also Bernard as far as the OJ, Anthony case, rational thinking, gut instinct, motive, & opinion were not enough to convict them.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 5, 2018 11:44:29 GMT -6
DNA only puts you at the scene. It rarely proves that you did it. As for me, I can't get away from how many people have been released from the row by the Innocence Project Unless the business of exonerating DR inmates is the first and only endeavor that humans have ever perfected, these folks can't possibly be batting a perfect score. Even if they are doing pretty well, they will sometimes exonerate the guilty, and fail to exonerate the innocent. And that means there are innocents who end up executed. It's a simple consequence of human imperfection. How can the Innocence Project find without today's technology who was truly innocent? They don't. They merely show that the case that originally went before the jury is, in light of new evidence, flawed. That doesn't prove anyone innocent. It merely blows a big hole in the proof of guilt. New tech is a lot better at undermining proof than it is at proving who did it. What would you accept as "hard proof" of innocence? What kind of thing are you looking for? |
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Nov 5, 2018 11:49:56 GMT -6
Wait. Make your mind up. Do you think that innocents never get executed because muh DNA, or do you agree with Joe that the fact that innocents have been executed is "beyond dispute" and something "we all accept"? No DNA is just the ace to add to other evidence. With your no DP stance at all Bernard, how about the Synagogue shooter? You're asking whether I think the law should be "No DP, ever!! (Except for the Synagogue shooter.)"? No, I don't think the law should have exceptions for particular cases. Do you? At last we agree. I don't want no damn DP either. Did you poll the majority using your mind powers? |
|
