And the world loves America even less

[tosberg34]

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.

 

Don't forget to add in a few celebrities for good measure. That always works in eliminating zero-doubt.

[Chavez]

Don't forget to add in a few celebrities for good measure. That always works in eliminating zero-doubt.

 

 

Be quiet, the grown-ups are talking.

[tosberg34]

Be quiet, the grown-ups are talking.

 

So why are you talking?

[Ursa Majoris]

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.

So were the Nuremberg executions justified or not?

[Azazello1313]

very good read on why americans still support the death penalty

[Chavez]

So were the Nuremberg executions justified or not?

 

 

Sure, they're justified; they're also about as high-profile as one can get - my stance remains that the world would NOT be a poorer place were, say, Charles Manson erased from it; I just don't trust the people adminstrating the death penalty - be it prosecutors, jurors, judges, etc to make the correct choice EVERY time, even in cases where it seems beyond all doubt.

 

Let's remember that Casey Anthony and OJ both walked, despite what appeared to be pretty substantial evidence pointing to their guilt. Again, where do you draw that line between "99% sure" and "100% sure"?

[DMD]

Let's remember that Casey Anthony and OJ both walked, despite what appeared to be pretty substantial evidence pointing to their guilt. Again, where do you draw that line between "99% sure" and "100% sure"?

 

So then you are saying there is no such thing as reasonable doubt? That it is impossible to consider someone truly guilty? I was just a juror and was told - in the state of Texas - that "reasonable doubt" means that a reasonable person would find the person and that the only person guilty and that is defined by each juror for himself. And that no one could be 100% sure besides the victim or the perpetrator.

[Chavez]

So then you are saying there is no such thing as reasonable doubt? That it is impossible to consider someone truly guilty? I was just a juror and was told - in the state of Texas - that "reasonable doubt" means that a reasonable person would find the person and that the only person guilty and that is defined by each juror for himself. And that no one could be 100% sure besides the victim or the perpetrator.

 

 

The point is that Ursa is talking about cases where there is a heinous crime and there is "no doubt" that the person perpetrated the crime - i.e. he's talking about absolute certainty as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt.

[Ursa Majoris]

The point is that Ursa is talking about cases where there is a heinous crime and there is "no doubt" that the person perpetrated the crime - i.e. he's talking about absolute certainty as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt.

And there are hundreds of cases of heinous crime where there is no doubt - zero, nada, not a sausage. Dahmer, Gacy and Bundy immediately leap to mind. That Texan who dragged the black guy. And on and on.

 

It is incorrect to say there is no such thing as a certainty of guilt.

[DMD]

It is incorrect to say there is no such thing as a certainty of guilt.

 

Again - as I was instructed in the jury selection process - there is no absolute certainty of guilt unless you were there and witnessed the crime. I completely agree there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but there is no 100% certainty of guilt unless you were there. And that is okay. To bother giving those guys any appeals or retrials is almost criminal to me. I would be okay with bringing them out back and shooting them after the trial and then everyone gets on with their lives but that is just me. No need for a death row in my world.

[Ursa Majoris]

Again - as I was instructed in the jury selection process - there is no absolute certainty of guilt unless you were there and witnessed the crime.

That's what you were told and most likely that was to try and ensure that everyone on the jury started with as open a mind as possible and that's as it should be.

 

But the inside of Jeffrey Dahmer's apartment, or the crawlspace under Gacy's house leave no doubt, none whatsoever. It isn't just beyond a reasonable doubt, it's the complete absence of doubt, unless someone can show me that Dahmer didn't do any of those crimes and was framed or some other plausible explanation.

[gbpfan1231]

Again - as I was instructed in the jury selection process - there is no absolute certainty of guilt unless you were there and witnessed the crime. I completely agree there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but there is no 100% certainty of guilt unless you were there. And that is okay. To bother giving those guys any appeals or retrials is almost criminal to me. I would be okay with bringing them out back and shooting them after the trial and then everyone gets on with their lives but that is just me. No need for a death row in my world.

What about the person who shot Giffords? What about someone who would be on video actually pulling the trigger? You still think thgere is doubt then?

[Azazello1313]

no doubt:

 

Jerry Hobbs was one of those slam-dunk death penalty cases, a guy with a criminal record guilty of a brutal crime that even hardcore opponents of capital punishment would have a difficult time sparing.

 

Shortly after he was released from prison on assault charges, Hobbs was arrested in 2005 in Zion, Ill., accused of brutally murdering his own daughter and her best friend. According to prosecutors, Hobbes went out looking for the 8-year-old girl in a fit of anger because she had left the house after he had grounded her. When he found the girls, prosecutors say, Hobbs stabbed them more than 30 times with a kitchen knife. Hobbs' daughter had been stabbed once in each eye, and autopsy results later revealed the presence of semen in her mouth, vagina and rectum.

 

A couple days later, Hobbs confessed to the murders. He even offered details of the murders that police say were only known to them and the killer. If ever there were a clear-cut candidate for the death penalty, Hobbs seemed to be it.

[whomper]

no doubt:

 

 

For every Jerry Hobbs story there are tons of slam dunks and you know this. Its not like playing the law of averages . It is a miniscule amount of cases that a person would be wrongfully put to death. In the case of a guy who was wrongfully exectued I think a simple "my bad" would be more then sufficient to his family members.

Edited September 30, 2011 by whomper

[Azazello1313]

For every Jerry Hobbs story there are tons of slam dunks and you know this.

 

of course I am, and that's why I am ok with incarcerating people indefinitely based on an absence of "reasonable doubt" standard. you gotta draw the line somewhere, realizing that there is no way for the system to make perfect judgments every time. yes that still means that innocent people will have a great injustice done to them, and that really sucks. but at least we haven't made that injustice any greater than it needs to be based simply on the idea of sating some desire for revenge. again, my problem with the death penalty is that it attaches an ultimate, irrevocable sentence to a fallible human judgment. that is the ultimate in government hubris, and it is simply wrong. we can't avoid the fallible human judgments, but we can avoid killing people based on them.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Azazello1313

[bpwallace49]

of course I am, and that's why I am ok with incarcerating people indefinitely based on an absence of "reasonable doubt" standard. you gotta draw the line somewhere, realizing that there is no way for the system to make perfect judgments every time. yes that still means that innocent people will have a great injustice done to them, and that really sucks. but at least we haven't made that injustice any greater than it needs to be based simply on the idea of sating some desire for revenge. again, my problem with the death penalty is that it attaches an ultimate, irrevocable sentence to a fallible human judgment. that is the ultimate in government hubris, and it is simply wrong. we can't avoid the fallible human judgments, but we can avoid killing people based on them.

 

+1 Well said

[Azazello1313]

I will add that in the past (I'm talking 100 years ago and more), the death penalty made more sense. prisons were less secure. the costs of prolonged incarceration were prohibitive. and so on. justice had to be dispensed quickly and thoroughly or be denied completely. but we are not living in the old west or biblical israel now. it costs more to impose the dealth penalty than the alternatives, and we have impenetrable supermax prisons.

[whomper]

of course I am, and that's why I am ok with incarcerating people indefinitely based on an absence of "reasonable doubt" standard. you gotta draw the line somewhere, realizing that there is no way for the system to make perfect judgments every time. yes that still means that innocent people will have a great injustice done to them, and that really sucks. but at least we haven't made that injustice any greater than it needs to be based simply on the idea of sating some desire for revenge. again, my problem with the death penalty is that it attaches an ultimate, irrevocable sentence to a fallible human judgment. that is the ultimate in government hubris, and it is simply wrong. we can't avoid the fallible human judgments, but we can avoid killing people based on them.

 

 

Being put away for life based on being wrongly accused and being killed for it arent too much different IMO. If it isnt getting reversed I would rather be dead than get a tube steak in my ass until I go of natural causes

[Azazello1313]

Being put away for life based on being wrongly accused and being killed for it arent too much different IMO. If it isnt getting reversed

 

and that's the thing....death is tough to reverse.

[whomper]

and that's the thing....death is tough to reverse.

 

 

It isnt like these people are tried and then immediately shot in the next room. these people have lengthy sentences and appeals before they are actually executed. I would bet the percentage of people that have been executed wrongfully is a very small percentage. It isnt a perfect system but i dont see that as a platform to eliminate the death sentence . There are heinous slam dunks that capitol punishment can be applied to. I support it in those cases as I think the odds that it would be wrongful are very slim.

[Azazello1313]

It isnt like these people are tried and then immediately shot in the next room. these people have lengthy sentences and appeals before they are actually executed. I would bet the percentage of people that have been executed wrongfully is a very small percentage. It isnt a perfect system but i dont see that as a platform to eliminate the death sentence . There are heinous slam dunks that capitol punishment can be applied to. I support it in those cases as I think the odds that it would be wrongful are very slim.

 

so tell me this. what exactly is the benefit to society of having the death penalty? and how many innocent people being killed by the state would it take to outweigh that benefit in your mind?

[BeeR]

so tell me this. what exactly is the benefit to society of having the death penalty?

Justice being served (above all). Also money saved (if the system didn't drag it out so extremely)

 

how many innocent people being killed by the state would it take to outweigh that benefit in your mind?

I hope you don't expect an exact number.

 

Again "the system isn't perfect so let's not use it" ultimately means no system is used and IMO just doesn't hold up, although it does hold up better regarding this than anything else.

Edited September 30, 2011 by BeeR

[Azazello1313]

Justice being served (above all).

 

I keep hearing how sitting in prison with no hope of getting out is a punishment as bad as or worse than death. of course it's also reversible and rectifiable (at least in some small way) if you find out years later you were wrong.

 

Also money saved (if the system didn't drag it out so extremely)

 

right, if we just weren't so worried about making sure we kill fewer innocent people, we could kill em a lot cheaper and faster. nevertheless, as it stands now, it costs way MORE to impose the death penalty than the alternatives.

 

I hope you don't expect an exact number.

 

how about a ballpark? 10 innocent people killed? a hundred? a thousand?

 

Again "the system isn't perfect so let's not use it" ultimately means no system is used and IMO just doesn't hold up, although it does hold up better regarding this than anything else.

 

huh? how the hell does recognizing that the system isn't perfect mean that "no system is used"? this is gibberish. recognizing that the system isn't perfect needn't lead any further than abandoning a sentence that imposes finality and certitude where it is unwarranted and where it is of little, if any, actual benefit. in any case, the fact that the system is NOT perfect is way beyond any dispute. are we just supposed to ignore that fact completely?

[DMD]

so tell me this. what exactly is the benefit to society of having the death penalty? and how many innocent people being killed by the state would it take to outweigh that benefit in your mind?

 

So tell me this. Are you saying it is better to spend billions of dollars on caging up the worst elements possible in society on the off chance some might be innocent rather than applying that time, energy and huge amount of taxes towards education, housing, healthcare, etc.? To me it seems to suggest that either people believe there is unlimited money to throw at the criminal justice system or that it eases the conscience more by killing no one on the chance that someone might be innocent than not caring that you are not helping children, education, sick, poor, etc.. Instead of advancing society, it is merely holding society further hostage. Seems like being incredibly kind in 100% the wrong direction to me.

 

I know it costs a lot in legal fees to kill someone but only because of excessive appeals and a CJ system that feeds itself with all these trials and appeals.

[whomper]

so tell me this. what exactly is the benefit to society of having the death penalty? and how many innocent people being killed by the state would it take to outweigh that benefit in your mind?

 

 

True justice. Prison is an upgrade for some of these Aholes. 3 square , medical, dental. Why should these people ever see another sunrise when there victims were disposed of like trash. Some of these Aholes are better off in prison then they were on the outside. 3 squares, medical, dental.

 

To the bolded part of the above quote, you act as if there is rampant innocent people being put to death. On occasion we here of some reversals or cloudiness in evidence in these cases but most of the time its a irrefutable slam dunk. Mcveigh, like Ursa said, Dahmer, Those escaped cons that raped and killed that doctors wife and children (one of which i believe was 12) and left the man for dead. Those are the cases I am talking about. I would use the death penalty in isolated cases but if it was a irrefutable slam dunk id fry their ass

 

I keep hearing how sitting in prison with no hope of getting out is a punishment as bad as or worse than death. of course it's also reversible and rectifiable (at least in some small way) if you find out years later you were wrong.

 

If it is the case that prison is worse than death than our imperfect system is even more unfair to those wrongly accused serving life than it is to those sentenced to death

 

right, if we just weren't so worried about making sure we kill fewer innocent people, we could kill em a lot cheaper and faster. nevertheless, as it stands now, it costs way MORE to impose the death penalty than the alternatives.

 

Its true. It costs more because we give them appeals . You know. an ample chance to prove they are innocent and our system is flawed. it takes too Fin long .

 

 

 

 

 

huh? how the hell does recognizing that the system isn't perfect mean that "no system is used"? this is gibberish. recognizing that the system isn't perfect needn't lead any further than abandoning a sentence that imposes finality and certitude where it is unwarranted and where it is of little, if any, actual benefit. in any case, the fact that the system is NOT perfect is way beyond any dispute. are we just supposed to ignore that fact completely?

Edited September 30, 2011 by whomper