DMD Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Waterman even hooked DMD. I was just pointing out things that are never mentioned it seems. As for the death penalty, I have zero problem with it other than they take too long to administer it. Why society should in some cases pay food, housing, health care, guarding, legal fees, etc. for up to 50 or more years for people who have no purpose or value on earth is the crime to me. It seems cruel and unusual to stick them in a tiny cell for 50 years and never let them loose rather than give them the inevitable end to their lives. The justice system can be fallible as it is administered by fallible people. Why injuring society further by making us support someone who shot a cop in the face doesn't make sense to me but I accept others see it differently. It's not like they do not get appeals. As someone else pointed out, what better system of justice is there to use? I also like how some eye witnesses supposedly recant later. That they are in a court room under oath and asked to merely tell the truth without compensation or motivation against the person. And yet afterwards, I assume in their front yard when confronted by some people they decidie they must have got it all wrong. It just all smacks of being pressured outside of a courtroom. But I am sure that many will always assume the truth only happens after a trial for whatever reason. So be it. I'd rather use limited resources for the good of society rather than to support people who have by their actions already injured the social good.I imagine at some point we will have almost all states willing to spend billions and billions of dollars to support, feed, clothe, etc. the absolute worst among us while those young and good go wanting. But at least it somehow assauges the minds of people more concerned about their conscience than helping those who really need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 the jury of 12 (chosen by the government) only weighs the evidence the government allows it to hear and determines whether particular factual allegations are true according to the standard of proof given to them by the government. Do they not have jury challenges where you live? Is the evidence presented by the defense only that which the government allows? Really? I'm sorry but that whole anti-government paragraph comes off as ninnyism. I don't believe for a second that we have reached 100% infallibility in 100% of cases but I do believe that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence for heinous crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Is the evidence presented by the defense only that which the government allows? Really? who writes the rules of admissability? and all the evidence any defendent ever sees is typically turned over to them in discovery by the prosecution. I'm not saying our system is bad or wrong. and hell, I work for the prosecution, and I know that every one of those bassturds is guilty as hell, and a lot of the rules often really favor the defendent, often ridiculously so. and it is an absolute certainty in my mind that far more guilty people walk free in our system than the other way around. I would say at least 10 to 1, and probably more. but none of that has anything to do with the idea that the outcomes spit out by our legal system aren't really coming from the government. of course they are. I don't believe for a second that we have reached 100% infallibility in 100% of cases I really have a hard time seeing how that (obvious) realization doesn't instantly take the death penalty off the table for many otherwise rational people. how is the ultimate, irrevocable "100%" solution appropriate given that fallibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 who writes the rules of admissability? and all the evidence any defendent ever sees is typically turned over to them in discovery by the prosecution. I'm not saying our system is bad or wrong. and hell, I work for the prosecution, and I know that every one of those bassturds is guilty as hell, and a lot of the rules often really favor the defendent, often ridiculously so. and it is an absolute certainty in my mind that far more guilty people walk free in our system than the other way around. I would say at least 10 to 1, and probably more. but none of that has anything to do with the idea that the outcomes spit out by our legal system aren't really coming from the government. of course they are. I really have a hard time seeing how that (obvious) realization doesn't instantly take the death penalty off the table for many otherwise rational people. how is the ultimate, irrevocable "100%" solution appropriate given that fallibility? I said we hadn't reached 100% infallibility in 100% of cases. But there are many, many cases, an overwhelming majority as you yourself have just stated, where there is no doubt. Not a scintilla of doubt. In those cases where the crime is heinous and there is no doubt, the death penalty should be awarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 I said we hadn't reached 100% infallibility in 100% of cases. But there are many, many cases, an overwhelming majority as you yourself have just stated, where there is no doubt. Not a scintilla of doubt. In those cases where the crime is heinous and there is no doubt, the death penalty should be awarded. How do you administer THAT, though? Do we modify verdicts in death penalty cases to "not guilty" "guilty" and "REALLY REALLY guilty"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Ursa and Azz can't even agree to agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Ursa and Azz can't even agree to agree. It's a tradition..........though in re-reading the Greatest American Band thread last night, he did say he completely agreed with me on something, can't remember exactly what. That was a first - and probably a last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 One other thing. Overshadowed by the Davis execution, there was another execution in Texas. The guy who chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to an indescribably agonizing and drawn-out death in '98 was also executed. There was no shadow of a doubt over his guilt nor any doubt as the the premeditation. Is anyone going to argue that his guilt was not certain and his execution not richly deserved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 One other thing. Overshadowed by the Davis execution, there was another execution in Texas. The guy who chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to an indescribably agonizing and drawn-out death in '98 was also executed. There was no shadow of a doubt over his guilt nor any doubt as the the premeditation. Is anyone going to argue that his guilt was not certain and his execution not richly deserved? You are speaking of Lawrence Russel Brewer who chained James Byrd to the back of his pickup and dragged him to his death. As I recall he tried to humiliate James Byrd who was then chained to the bumper by painting his face with black paint before dragging him to death. Brewer or his council, I cannot remember which, suggested that yeah, sure, the dragging was intentional, but, you know, they didn't think James Byrd was going to die. I guess they wanted to maintain they were just going to drag him until he cheered up. If I recall Mr. Brewer had relationships with vile racists organizations, as if there are any other kind. BTW in the last month I have been in court 5 times doing motion practice on matters arising under the unified appeal process in two different capital cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 It's a tradition..........though in re-reading the Greatest American Band thread last night, he did say he completely agreed with me on something, can't remember exactly what. That was a first - and probably a last. your memory is getting awfully short, old man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 your memory is getting awfully short, old man OMG. Either you are becoming a liberal or............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 OMG. Either you are becoming a liberal or............ Perhaps it is that you are becoming more conservative. Or perhaps neither of you are lock step with the side you identify with or are labeled as by others. Few are. There are some here who are fine examples of party hardliners, but not as many as some might take at first blush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 Perhaps it is that you are becoming more conservative. Or perhaps neither of you are lock step with the side you identify with or are labeled as by others. The latter, certainly not the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 One other thing. Overshadowed by the Davis execution, there was another execution in Texas. The guy who chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to an indescribably agonizing and drawn-out death in '98 was also executed. There was no shadow of a doubt over his guilt nor any doubt as the the premeditation. Is anyone going to argue that his guilt was not certain and his execution not richly deserved? The silence is deafening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The silence is deafening Thought it would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted September 26, 2011 Author Share Posted September 26, 2011 My attention is on the Western world's protest right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 My attention is on the Western world's protest right now. Europe and Jimmy Carter can blow me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The silence is deafening I still think brewer should have been chained to the back of a patrol car and dragged down Main St. until his head popped off after striking a utility pole, culvert or something of the sort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The silence is deafening Thought it would be. it's called "the weekend", fellas I think club said it pretty well in his first post in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Europe and Jimmy Carter can blow me +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I think club said it pretty well in his first post in this thread. yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 it's called "the weekend", fellas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 One other thing. Overshadowed by the Davis execution, there was another execution in Texas. The guy who chained the black guy to his truck and dragged him to an indescribably agonizing and drawn-out death in '98 was also executed. There was no shadow of a doubt over his guilt nor any doubt as the the premeditation. Is anyone going to argue that his guilt was not certain and his execution not richly deserved? The silence is deafening I thought I dealt with it with this.... "How do you administer THAT, though? Do we modify verdicts in death penalty cases to "not guilty" "guilty" and "REALLY REALLY guilty"?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 I thought I dealt with it with this.... "How do you administer THAT, though? Do we modify verdicts in death penalty cases to "not guilty" "guilty" and "REALLY REALLY guilty"?" The question is whether to support the death penalty as a principle or not. I choose to support it but I also choose to reserve it to a select group of cases where there is zero doubt (as opposed to reasonable doubt) e.g. the case in Texas and to the most heinous. But mostly I choose to believe that society does have the right to completely excise certain people from itself by executing them. There are some people who commit crimes so revolting that they deserve to die. If the Texas dragging case isn't sufficient, let's have a comment on the sentences handed out at the end of the Nuremberg Trials. Justified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 The question is whether to support the death penalty as a principle or not. I choose to support it but I also choose to reserve it to a select group of cases where there is zero doubt (as opposed to reasonable doubt) e.g. the case in Texas and to the most heinous. But mostly I choose to believe that society does have the right to completely excise certain people from itself by executing them. There are some people who commit crimes so revolting that they deserve to die. If the Texas dragging case isn't sufficient, let's have a comment on the sentences handed out at the end of the Nuremberg Trials. Justified? so your approach to the issue is to completely remove it from reality, justify it theoretically, and then apply it to a fantasy-land where the system is perfect and doubt doesn't exist. throw in a little nazi allusion for good measure, and then conclude that if it's good enough for fantasy-land where all defendants are nazis and racists and there is zero doubt of their guilt, then it should be good enough for us, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.