|
A murderer was captured and tried today. Sentence: DEATH. Tonight at six, all net, all channels. Would you like to know more?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:02 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:26 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:Oh I'm sorry, I used the term "factual innocence" and states are absolutely interested in an objective and unbiased review of such cases, in no way deliberately sabotaging efforts to demonstrate a wrongful conviction. So the actual legal term factual innocence is not something I can demonstrate and, of course, this means no innocent person, or person whose prosecution falls far short of the truly high bar needed to warrant execution, has ever been executed. All I asked was for an example. I assumed there had been some determination by a court or other official that a factually innocent person had been executed. I was interested in reading about it. I'm sorry if you assumed I was pro or anti death penalty. Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:16 |
|
This isn't exactly what you were asking for but it's in the same ballpark. quote:Justice Scalia Says Executing The Innocent Doesn't Violate The Constitution
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:23 |
|
Yeah I'm aware of that one. And I know people are sometimes exonerated after years and years in prison, including death row. But if there's an example of someone (in the last 40 years) who has been found innocent to have been executed, I wanted to read about it.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:30 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:Oh I'm sorry, I used the term "factual innocence" and states are absolutely interested in an objective and unbiased review of such cases, in no way deliberately sabotaging efforts to demonstrate a wrongful conviction. So the actual legal term factual innocence is not something I can demonstrate and, of course, this means no innocent person, or person whose prosecution falls far short of the truly high bar needed to warrant execution, has ever been executed. I'm an opponent of the death penalty, but you should pick a better example. Quick googling shows that the sample in the article you're referring to was tested in 2006, and it was a match for the man that was executed. This is the reference Wikipedia uses: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-12-dna-virginia_x.htm
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:50 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Yeah I'm aware of that one. And I know people are sometimes exonerated after years and years in prison, including death row. But if there's an example of someone (in the last 40 years) who has been found innocent to have been executed, I wanted to read about it. You're in luck! quote:Last Statement EDIT: Do you mean actually found innocent by the law? Yeah, Texas is never going to do that.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:51 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:All I asked was for an example. I assumed there had been some determination by a court or other official that a factually innocent person had been executed. I was interested in reading about it. I'm sorry if you assumed I was pro or anti death penalty. Ah. I'm sorry for the hostility then. I assumed you were trying to be weaselly about it. Guess I forgot what they say about assumptions!
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:54 |
|
Praseodymi posted:You're in luck! quote:A Texas judge who reviewed the controversial 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham planned to posthumously exonerate the father who was put to death for killing his three daughters in a house fire. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/cameron-todd-willingham-exoneration_n_1524868.html The original judge wanted to exonerate him after death, was blocked from doing so by a higher court, this is in addition to Governor Perry firing a bunch of members on a board that was set to release a review saying that Willingham was innocent: http://www.dogcanyon.org/2009/10/01/perry-terminates-board-members-investigating-execution/ EDIT: The Proceedings of the National Academy of Science has done a study in which they believe 4% of people who are sentenced to death are innocent: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.abstract Forbes writes about it here if you want something easier to digest: http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabethlopatto/2014/04/29/how-many-innocent-people-are-sentenced-to-death/ bassguitarhero fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:57 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:All I asked was for an example. I assumed there had been some determination by a court or other official that a factually innocent person had been executed. I was interested in reading about it. I'm sorry if you assumed I was pro or anti death penalty. Cameron Todd Willlingham is another good example that just about everyone agrees is innocent long after it is too late for us to do anything about it. Supposedly he burned down his house, but later investigations found that just about every bit of evidence involved in his prosecution was fabricated in some fashion or another and he should not even be in jail, let alone dead because of it.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:58 |
|
Mister Adequate posted:Oh I'm sorry, I used the term "factual innocence" and states are absolutely interested in an objective and unbiased review of such cases, in no way deliberately sabotaging efforts to demonstrate a wrongful conviction. So the actual legal term factual innocence is not something I can demonstrate and, of course, this means no innocent person, or person whose prosecution falls far short of the truly high bar needed to warrant execution, has ever been executed. Right, and what I'm saying is that it isn't possible. A state is not a neutral arbiter between groups in society.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 20:05 |
|
Badera posted:Right, and what I'm saying is that it isn't possible. A state is not a neutral arbiter between groups in society. And I'm saying that it should be aimed for nonetheless, at least in the courtroom.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 20:07 |
|
Thanks for the Willingham example. That was an interesting read. I'm a civil attorney and dint follow criminal stuff at all, beyond high profile scotus stuff.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 20:26 |
|
What about the people who say, "The Willingham story isn't proof that the system of Capital Punishment needs to go away, just that the people or groups who made such a tragic mistake should be held accountable."?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 20:53 |
|
blarzgh posted:What about the people who say, "The Willingham story isn't proof that the system of Capital Punishment needs to go away, just that the people or groups who made such a tragic mistake should be held accountable."? Those people are idiots. As long as you have capital punishment as... well, a punishment, there will always be errors because we are human and make mistakes. Holding people accountable? Good, yes, but not enough. Then again I am biased. As far as I'm concerned, one innocent person executed is too many.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 20:59 |
|
blarzgh posted:What about the people who say, "The Willingham story isn't proof that the system of Capital Punishment needs to go away, just that the people or groups who made such a tragic mistake should be held accountable."? Intriguingly such people never suggest that the jurors themselves be executed.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 21:02 |
|
Torka posted:It's baffling to me that miserable pointless decades locked in a shithole American prison with no hope of release is seen as more merciful than death. I know which one I'd choose Well, obviously this is one step on the road to abolishing LWP.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 21:07 |
|
blarzgh posted:What about the people who say, "The Willingham story isn't proof that the system of Capital Punishment needs to go away, just that the people or groups who made such a tragic mistake should be held accountable."? That this sort of 'mistake' is inevitable. People are going to end up in jail for crimes they did not commit, this has happened as long as we've really had a justice system that put people in jail. The difference is that a person put in jail can be released. It might be ten, twenty, thirty or even more years too late and it might be a wholly inadequate solution but at the very least we can attempt to right the wrong that we have committed by freeing people who have been unjustly imprisoned. If you execute them this will never, ever happen. And for what? Bloodthirsty vengeance? I can only think of one case off the top of my head where a prisoner escaped from prison and went on to kill again, and that man was already on death row. Capital punishment serves no utilitarian purpose and ultimately will see to the deaths of innocent people.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 21:32 |
|
http://www.executedtoday.com/2012/04/06/1857-francis-richeux-leo-tolstoy/quote:When I saw the head separate from the body, and how they both thumped into the box at the same moment, I understood, not with my mind but with my whole being, that no theory of the reasonableness of our present progress can justify this deed; and that though everybody from the creation of the world, on whatever theory, had held it to be necessary, I know it to be unnecessary and bad; and therefore the arbiter of what is good and evil is not what people say and do, and is not progress, but is my heart and I.... Also, lets see who was executed on this day in history. 1821- a pro removal Cherokee stabs a anti-removal Cherokee and is hanged. http://www.executedtoday.com/2013/01/01/1841-archilla-smith-trail-of-tears-cherokee/ quote:On this date in 1841, Archilla Smith was hanged over a tree branch in Cherokee Country (since the gallows hadn’t been delivered in time) for the murder of John MacIntosh. And more recently, three gay men in Saudi Arabia. http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/0...l-bin-abdullah/ quote:On this date in 2002, three homosexual men were beheaded with a sword in the resort city of Abha, Saudi Arabia. Thankfully there hasn't been a execution in the United States on New Year's Day since 1943.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 21:43 |
|
Caros posted:That this sort of 'mistake' is inevitable. People are going to end up in jail for crimes they did not commit, this has happened as long as we've really had a justice system that put people in jail. The difference is that a person put in jail can be released. It might be ten, twenty, thirty or even more years too late and it might be a wholly inadequate solution but at the very least we can attempt to right the wrong that we have committed by freeing people who have been unjustly imprisoned. If you execute them this will never, ever happen.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:05 |
|
twodot posted:I'm against the death penalty, but I don't think this argument works. We can't give someone 30 years of their life back if we imprison them for 30 years, and we can't give someone their life back if we take it. Imprisoning an innocent person for 30 years and then releasing them is surely a less bad scenario than killing an innocent person, yes, but so is fining an innocent person a less bad scenario than imprisoning an innocent person for 30 years, yet we wouldn't argue prison is bad. I've yet to see a consistent framework that lets us think of death as categorically different from other punishments. The difference is that there is no remedy for someone who is exonerated after we murder them. I agree that we can't give someone back the thirty years we take from them with a wrongful conviction, but we still can release them, they can sue and so forth. The difference between your fining someone and imprisoning them for thirty years is that those aren't comparable options. We aren't pressed with the choice between imprisoning someone for life for murder or fining them for it, but we do have the choice as to whether or not we kill someone rather than put them in jail for life. The death penalty is categorically different because it is final.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:13 |
|
Caros posted:The death penalty is categorically different because it is final. Caros posted:The difference is that there is no remedy for someone who is exonerated after we murder them. quote:The difference between your fining someone and imprisoning them for thirty years is that those aren't comparable options.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:23 |
|
twodot posted:This is wrong. Imprisoning someone for any length of time is final, because time can not be reversed. Fining someone for any amount of money is final because time can not be reversed. People can be released from prisons, and fines can be repaid, yet still the length of time where those conditions were applied can not be undone. You can attempt to compensate somebody for being wrongfully imprisoned, to put them back in the position they would have been if they had not been wrongfully imprisoned. You cannot attempt to compensate somebody who has been executed.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:32 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:You can attempt to compensate somebody for being wrongfully imprisoned, to put them back in the position they would have been if they had not been wrongfully imprisoned. You cannot attempt to compensate somebody who has been executed.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:35 |
|
twodot posted:Right, please see where I asked why punishments with remedies is a valuable goal. Sometimes we punish innocent people, sometimes those innocent people will get remedies, sometimes they will not, this is intrinsic to all punishments. Because in civilised societies we believe that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason. This means that if we do accidentally punish somebody for no reason, we attempt to compensate them to put them in the position that they would have been in had they not been punished for no reason. Sometimes we are not able to adequately compensate a person who has been punished for no reason, but this does not mean that our belief that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason is not sincere, or that we do not consider that persons punished for no reason should be compensated. The death penalty, however, means that it will never be possible to adequately compensate a person if they have accidentally been punished for no reason. This is not consistent with the belief that it is wrong to punish a person for no reason, and is therefore rejected by civilised societies.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:42 |
|
twodot posted:This is wrong. Imprisoning someone for any length of time is final, because time can not be reversed. Fining someone for any amount of money is final because time can not be reversed. People can be released from prisons, and fines can be repaid, yet still the length of time where those conditions were applied can not be undone. But the point is that if you imprison someone for ten years and then find out they are innocent you can let them out of jail. If you give someone a lethal injection after ten years and it turns out that DNA proves them innocent a year later you can't make any sort of amends. They are dead, you can't let them out of prison, you can't repay them their fines. They can't sue you for the prosecution and so forth. I agree that it is imperfect, but lets not let the search for perfect be the enemy of good. quote:I can work with this, but it's not clear to me why "Our punishments must possess remedies" is a valuable goal for a justice system. People who are punished and die before their innocence can be found lack a remedy, but it doesn't seem to delegitimize the concept of punishment. Really, you don't see why the justice system needs the ability to correct its mistakes in the inevitable instances where it discovers them? The death penalty eliminates any possibility of later exoneration and release, it is entirely possible that a person sentenced to life in prison may not be exonerated, but it is absolutely certain that a person killed will never be. I'd rather we leave open that chance. Why do we have appeals for that matter. quote:You're all over the map, this is why I said "consistent framework", you've got a bunch of unrelated arguments. Also, of course they are comparable options, we can compare them. You can argue one is good or bad, but it doesn't alter physics to prevent us from comparing them. This aspect of my argument is perfectly sound, we shouldn't execute people because the death penalty is categorically different from other methods of punishments as there is no way to take it back. If we fine someone and later find out that they are innocent we can reimburse them. If we put someone in jail and later find out they are innocent we can let them free. If we kill someone and later find out that they are innocent... we're hosed. We can say sorry to their loved ones I guess? I mean there are plenty of other arguments against it, Cruelty, Cost, Pointlessness and so forth... I'm just expanding on this one in particular. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:49 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Because in civilised societies we believe that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason. This means that if we do accidentally punish somebody for no reason, we attempt to compensate them to put them in the position that they would have been in had they not been punished for no reason. Sometimes we are not able to adequately compensate a person who has been punished for no reason, but this does not mean that our belief that it is wrong to punish somebody for no reason is not sincere, or that we do not consider that persons punished for no reason should be compensated. Caros posted:Really, you don't see why the justice system needs the ability to correct its mistakes in the inevitable instances where it discovers them? The death penalty eliminates any possibility of later exoneration and release, it is entirely possible that a person sentenced to life in prison may not be exonerated, but it is absolutely certain that a person killed will never be. I'd rather we leave open that chance. quote:I mean there are plenty of other arguments against it, Cruelty, Cost, Pointlessness and so forth... I'm just expanding on this one in particular. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:59 |
|
twodot posted:Whether we punish people for no reason, and whether we compensate incorrectly punished people are completely unrelated concepts, so please go ahead and drop that line of rhetoric. Do you think people who are wrongfully punished should be compensated? If so, why?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:11 |
|
Caros posted:Really, you don't see why the justice system needs the ability to correct its mistakes in the inevitable instances where it discovers them? The death penalty eliminates any possibility of later exoneration and release, it is entirely possible that a person sentenced to life in prison may not be exonerated, but it is absolutely certain that a person killed will never be. I'd rather we leave open that chance. I don't think the justice system is capable of correcting its mistakes even without the death penalty, there is no way to begin to justly compensate someone for the damage 30 years in prison will do.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:17 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Do you think people who are wrongfully punished should be compensated? If so, why?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:19 |
|
twodot posted:As I've said, I'm also against the death penalty, I'm just pointing out that death as a special category due to finality doesn't work as an argument. You can end a prison sentence. You can't end a carried-out death sentence.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:25 |
|
Sharkie posted:You can end a prison sentence. You can't end a carried-out death sentence. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:27 |
|
twodot posted:This question is a lot more complex than you realize. First of all, there are many people who have been wrongfully punished who fundamentally can not be compensated. Should we do an impossible thing? I'm not even sure what that question means. Should we compensate wrongfully punished people when we are able? Yes, not only is it probably important for people to have faith in the justice system, it also creates incentives for the government to not wrongfully punish people. So you agree that it is wrong to punish people for no reason, and that where possible we should seek to compensate those who have been wrongfully punished. You also acknowledge that these are, in fact, related concepts. This is a good start for living in a civilised society. You would presumably, therefore, agree that modes of punishment where compensation is literally impossible and could never be possible under any conceivable circumstance - as opposed to modes of punishment where compensation is conceivably possible, although not necessarily in all cases - are fundamentally less desirable since they are fundamentally inconsistent with the general principle that people ought not to be punished for no reason, and if they are, should be compensated if possible?
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:28 |
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think the justice system is capable of correcting its mistakes even without the death penalty, there is no way to begin to justly compensate someone for the damage 30 years in prison will do. I agree wholeheartedly that we can't fully correct this sort of mistake. I don't think there is any way to justly compensate someone for the damage five years in prison would do, let alone thirty. Does that mean that we shouldn't try? Or that we should just leave them in prison if we find out that they are innocent? quote:As I've pointed out, the justice system is fundamentally incapable of correcting its mistakes. Time can not be undone. We can sometimes offer remedies, but only sometimes. Once we embrace that people will only sometimes be remedied, what argument do you have against sometimes applying a punishment without remedy? I need for you to directly state why you think we should only employ punishments with remedies, instead of just saying you'd rather have that. (edit: I mean you can adopt "We should only apply punishments with remedies" as an axiom, but it doesn't make for a convincing argument) That it is morally repugnant? I mean, lets look at the prison system under your example. If we had a jail system that had no option for remedies that would mean that we have a prison system where you would remain incarcerated even if it was later found that you were totally innocent of the crime that you committed. That is hosed up beyond all belief is it not? My argument is that we should not be employing a system of punishment that prohibits any possibility of later remedy when we have an equally valid system that does allow for later remedy. quote:Ok, so you are also adopting "We should only apply punishments which can be stopped" as an axiom? Is there a reason why punishments which can be stopped are good? Frankly the concept for preferring an ever lasting punishment over a limited one is kind of bizarre to me. Are you loving serious? Death is a 'limited' punishment? Punishments that can be stopped are good because they can be loving stopped. Even if it is not a perfect remedy it is better than doing nothing at all. Caros fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:28 |
|
twodot posted:Ok, so you are also adopting "We should only apply punishments which can be stopped" as an axiom? Is there a reason why punishments which can be stopped are good? Frankly the concept for preferring an ever lasting punishment over a limited one is kind of bizarre to me. I find you guilty of a crime you did not commit. Would you choose a fine (knowing that this could be remitted when your innocence is proved) or chemically induced irreversible autism and a SA forums account? In your cosmology, these penalties are basically identical so you might as well flip a coin.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:31 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:So you agree that it is wrong to punish people for no reason, and that where possible we should seek to compensate those who have been wrongfully punished. You also acknowledge that these are, in fact, related concepts. This is a good start for living in a civilised society. quote:You would presumably, therefore, agree that modes of punishment where compensation is literally impossible and could never be possible under any conceivable circumstance - as opposed to modes of punishment where compensation is conceivably possible, although not necessarily in all cases - are fundamentally less desirable since they are fundamentally inconsistent with the general principle that people ought not to be punished for no reason, and if they are, should be compensated if possible? Caros posted:That it is morally repugnant? quote:Are you loving serious? Death is a 'limited' punishment? quote:Punishments that can be stopped are good because they can be loving stopped. Even if it is not a perfect remedy it is better than doing nothing at all. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:34 |
|
twodot posted:No, these are unrelated concepts. There are both true, but that doesn't make them related. If you still think they are related, feel free to directly state their relation. We compensate people for being wrongly punished (i.e. punished for no reason) becuase it is wrong to punish people for no reason. Jesus, dude, I know you think you're being some kind of incisive intellect but you're coming across like ELIZA with autism and a hard-on for injustice.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:38 |
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:We compensate people for being wrongly punished (i.e. punished for no reason) edit: Also why the gently caress would you bother talking to ELIZA with autism? That seems like a stupid thing to do. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jan 1, 2015 |
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:40 |
|
twodot posted:Ah, here's your problem. Wrongly punished people were punished for a reason. Yes they were, but somehow you are twisting that reason to be their fault. Your complete line of reasoning is flawed. Just stop.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:43 |
|
Pohl posted:Yes they were, but somehow you are twisting that reason to be their fault. Your complete line of reasoning is flawed. Just stop.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:44 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:26 |
|
twodot posted:edit: A carried out prison sentence also can't be ended, Yes it can. You can end it by letting them out of prison. twodot posted:so I'm assuming you are in favor of imprisoning people for all of eternity, so that we possess the capability to some day end their ever lasting sentence) What the hell are you talking about. You can let people out of prison. You can't let them out of the grave.
|
# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:45 |