A list of every Inmate Executed in Texas, and their last words.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A list of every Inmate Executed in Texas, and their last words.

«‹›6 »

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:45

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

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.

e; ^^^ Of course they do, that's what I'm bloody well angry about. I'm saying they shouldn't. I don't honestly know if that is possible, but it should be aimed for nevertheless.

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

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

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

COREY ADWAR

SEP. 4, 2014, 5:00 PM

Two North Carolina men were exonerated earlier this week due to new DNA evidence after spending 30 years in prison, where one was awaiting the death penalty, highlighting the reality that innocent men can end up on death row.

Back in 1994 conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia voted against a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case of one of those men, Henry McCollum. That man became North Carolina's longest-serving death row inmate after he and his half-brother Leon Brown were convicted of raping and killing an 11-year-old girl.

This news brings to mind Scalia's insistence that the Supreme Court has never ruled the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who later convinces a court of his innocence, as Slate points out.

"This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order for a federal trial court in Georgia to consider the case of death row inmate Troy Davis. "Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable."

The legal definition of "actual innocence" is the absence of facts required to convict someone based on a criminal statute, according to the Legal Information Institute. Defendants appealing convictions seek to prove actual innocence by submitting new evidence that reverses the court's confidence in a past verdict.

The opinion is technically right, Dahlia Lithwick points out in Newsweek. "As a constitutional matter, Scalia's assertion is not wrong," she wrote. "The court has never found a constitutional right for the actually innocent to be free from execution."

However, Vincent Rossmeier noted in Salon,"His opinion suggested a certain callousness on the question of whether the courts should care if the state puts an innocent man to death, but he was right when he said the Supreme Court has never ruled whether an individual�s 'actual innocence' necessitates the involvement of a federal court in a state conviction."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote a 1993 decision that was in line with Scalia's comment that the Supreme Court has never made such a ruling.

But Rehnquist added that the execution of a defendant who has made a particularly strong demonstration of innocence could conceivably be considered unconstitutional. "We may assume ... that in a capital case a truly persuasive demonstration of 'actual innocence' made after trial would render the execution of a defendant unconstitutional and warrant federal habeas relief if there were no state avenue open to process such a claim," Rehnquist wrote in that decision.

Scalia has accepted the fact that the justice system is not perfect, and innocent people will be convicted. �Like other human institutions, courts and juries are not perfect,� he wrote in a 2006 opinion. �One cannot have a system of criminal punishment without accepting the possibility that someone will be punished mistakenly.�

# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:23

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

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

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

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.

e; ^^^ Of course they do, that's what I'm bloody well angry about. I'm saying they shouldn't. I don't honestly know if that is possible, but it should be aimed for nevertheless.

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

Praseodymi: Aug 26, 2010

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

Date of Execution:

February 17, 2004

Offender:

Cameron Todd Willingham #999041

Last Statement:

Yeah. The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man - convicted of a crime I did not commit. I have been persecuted for 12 years for something I did not do. From God's dust I came and to dust I will return - so the earth shall become my throne. I gotta go, road dog. I love you Gabby. [Remaining portion of statement omitted due to profanity.]

EDIT: Do you mean actually found innocent by the law? Yeah, Texas is never going to do that.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 19:51

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

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

bassguitarhero: Feb 29, 2008

Praseodymi posted:

You're in luck!

EDIT: Do you mean actually found innocent by the law? Yeah, Texas is never going to do that.

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.

Scientific experts who debunked the arson evidence used against Willingham at his 1992 trial and a jailhouse witness who recanted his shaky testimony convinced District Court Judge Charlie Baird in 2010 that "Texas wrongfully convicted" him. But Baird's order clearing Willingham's name never became official, because a higher court halted the posthumous inquiry while it considered whether the judge had authority to examine the capital case.

While waiting for permission to finish the case from the Third Court of Appeals, Baird put together the document that "orders the exoneration of Cameron Todd Willingham for murdering his three daughters," because of "overwhelming, credible and reliable evidence" presented during a one-day hearing in Austin in October 2010.

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

Caros: May 14, 2008

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

Badera: Jan 30, 2012; Student Brian Boyko has lost faith in America.

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.

e; ^^^ Of course they do, that's what I'm bloody well angry about. I'm saying they shouldn't. I don't honestly know if that is possible, but it should be aimed for nevertheless.

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

Ms Adequate: Oct 30, 2011; Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling

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

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

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

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

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

Rorac: Aug 19, 2011

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

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

Aves Maria!: Jul 26, 2008; Maybe I'll drown

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

Caros: May 14, 2008

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

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

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....

The spectacle made such an impression on me that it will be long before I get over it. I have seen many horrors in war and in the Caucasus, but if a man were torn to pieces in my presence it would not have been so repulsive as this ingenious and elegant machine by means of which they killed a strong, hale, healthy man in an instant. There [in war] it is not a question of the rational [will], but the human feeling of passion, while here it is a question of calm and convenient murder finely worked out, and there�s nothing grand about it. The insolent, arrogant desire to carry out justice, the law of God. Justice, which is determined by lawyers every one of whom, basing himself on honor, religion, and truth, contradicts each other. With these same formalities they have murdered both the king and Chenier, both republicans and aristocrats.� . . Then the repulsive crowd, the father explaining to his daughter what a convenient and ingenious mechanism it is, and so forth. The law of man � rubbish! The truth is that the state is a conspiracy not only for exploitation, but chiefly to corrupt its citizens. But all the same states exist, and moreover in this imperfect form. And they cannot pass from this system into socialism . . . For my part, I can only see in all this repulsive lie what is loathsome, evil, and I do not want to, and cannot, sort out where there is more and where there is less. I understand moral laws, the laws of morality and religion, binding on no one, that lead people forward and promise a harmonious future; I feel the laws of art which always bring happiness; but the laws of politics constitute for me such an awful lie that I cannot see in them a better or worse. All this is what I felt, understood, and recognized today. And this recognition at least to some extent relieves the burden of the impression for me . . . From this day forward I will not only never go to see such a thing again, but I will never serve any government anywhere."

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.

Our narrative for this event is Indian Justice: A Cherokee Murder Trial at Tahlequah in 1840, a volume derived from the reports of 19th century poet John Howard Payne, who�s best known for writing �Home! Sweet Home!�.

Payne lived with the Cherokees in Georgia immediately preceding their forcible removal to Oklahoma along the Trial of Tears, and then repaired to Oklahoma with the evicted tribe. (Payne unsuccessfully lobbied the U.S. Congress against its removal policy.)

The procurement of Cherokee signatures on the treaty that gave legal cover to the tribe�s expulsion from Georgia was a source of bitter controversy � and a generation of internecine violence. Our principal for this date�s post, Archilla Smith, himself affixed an X-mark to this notorious document, and he was defended at the trial in question here by another signer, Stand Watie.

Payne�s book, however, does not much treat the political context of Indian removal, nor even read as something like a true crime book: the brawl between the killer and the victim, two aggressive men with a passing and private quarrel, is little more than the background fact; the question for the jury turned on little but the degree of wilfulness or intent in the fatal stab wound Smith dealt, and various witnesses describe the same scene of their melee with slight differences of shading.

Rather, it�s a courtroom drama, and an outsider�s sketch of Cherokee jurisprudence (amalgamating tribal and Anglo-Saxon practices) circa 1840. It�s also the first newspaper any Oklahoma trial.

"There as no appearance of bitter feeling on either side. The accused and the judge and jury and spectators, all seemed in the best of humor with one another. The accused smoked much of the time; and his judge, and most of the jury, every now and then would get up and go across the log-court to him with �Arley, lend me your pipe;� and receive his pipe from his mouth (as is the Indian custom); and revel in the loan of a five minutes� smoke. � The wife and handsome young daughter of the accused attended � His three young sons, one a boy about ten, � the others about twelve and fifteen, were in the court room nearly all the time, and often sat by their father�s side."

At one point, the judge digresses into the ancient right of clan vengeance and dismisses it in view of the �improved� system. But Payne�s postscript notes that one of Smith�s own jurors (from the first jury) would himself be killed just days after the execution when the juror attempted to exact family retribution on a murderer who had been acquitted in court. This is the snapshot of an evolving society.

Archilla Smith�s first jury hung. The second jury tried to hang, but was forced by the judge to come to a conclusion. Finally, it convicted Smith on December 26, 1840. Smith took word of his fate evenly.

�You are every one of you old acquaintances of mine, Jurors,� he remarked after hearing his fate. �You have been several days engaged about my difficulty. But I have no hard thoughts against any one of you, Jurors, nor Judge, against you. I believe your object has been that my trial should be a fair one.�

Cherokee law required that after five days, the sentence be executed. Accordingly, the hanging was fixed for New Year�s Day at noon.

Because there was also no tribal prison, Smith was simply held under guard in a log hut, and was able to get around the new Cherokee capital of Tahlequah with those guards. In Payne�s narrative, this invites no trouble on the part of the prisoner, whose bonhommie even after his death sentence belies the ill-tempered knife-slayer described by court witnesses. (Though Smith did once try to bribe his guard to let him escape.)

Accordingly, on one of those five days between sentence and hanging, Archilla Smith and his friends simply rode up to the Cherokee Chief John Ross to appeal personally for a pardon. He�d obtained about two hundred signatures on a petition supporting such an act of clemency.

Nevertheless, Ross, a foe of the removal treaty and of Stand Watie,* told them that the matter was out of his hands � but Smith and his party still ate dinner at Ross�s home that evening and nothing untoward occurred. Open hospitality was a Cherokee custom, and Ross regularly entertained dozens of visitors at his two-and-a-half-story log house, �as many as the table can accommodate.�

....The second gallows-preacher was a half-breed Protestant minister named Reverend Young Wolf � and this reverend had actually been the foreman of the jury which condemned Archilla Smith in the first place. Young Wolf preached in Cherokee, thus:

" God of heaven! Creator of all things! Thou, who knowest our inmost thoughts I pray to thee have mercy on this man. He is standing on the threshold of death. He will presently leave this world to enter the world of spirits. Thou canst see into his heart. Thou art aware whether the charge for which he suffers is true or not. If he is guilty, I supplicate thee to forgive all his sins. Into thy hand we submit ourselves. We assemble together as a people to witness the death which our friend is about to suffer; and may it make us remember that we too, are born to die sooner or later, and prepare to meet thee in peace. May the view of thy power which we are now beholding, humble us before thee. May we continue humble. We are now about to part with our friend Archilla. We give him up to thee. May he receive thy pardon for his sins, that hereafter we may all come together again before thy throne and unite there in thy praise!"

The doomed addressed the multitude last.

He, too, spoke in Cherokee, and the natives whom Payne spoke with were divided as to whether the �escapes� and �third time� which Smith mentioned referred to the two times that his juries refused to convict him, or to two previous, undetected crimes.

"Friends, I will speak a few words. We are to part. You will presently behold how evil comes. I do not suffer under the decree of my Creator but by the law passed at Tahlequah. � Friends, you must take warning. � I think, perhaps, that my being hated has brought me to this. No man can hope every time to escape; and the third I have been overtaken by the law. But avoid such practices. � I suppose I was preordained to be executed in this manner. I am ready to die. I do not fear to die. I have a hope, there, to live in peace. (Tears now gushed from his eyes.) I should not have shed tears had not the women come here to see me. � I have no more to say."

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.

The Saudi Interior Ministry announced that the men had �committed acts of sodomy, married each other, seduced young men and attacked those who rebuked them� � suggesting, despite the allusion to molestation, that homosexuality might have been the primary basis for their execution.

The incident created a ripple of worldwide attention and some pungent speculation, but the particulars remain shadowy � not unlike the ambiguous position of gays in Saudi Arabia even in the face of draconian sodomy laws.

Thankfully there hasn't been a execution in the United States on New Year's Day since 1943.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 21:43

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

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.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:05

Caros: May 14, 2008

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Caros posted:

The death penalty is categorically different because it is final.

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.

Caros posted:

The difference is that there is no remedy for someone who is exonerated after we murder them.

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.

quote:

The difference between your fining someone and imprisoning them for thirty years is that those aren't comparable options.

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.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:23

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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.

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.

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.

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

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.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:35

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

Caros: May 14, 2008

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

twodot fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 1, 2015

# ? Jan 1, 2015 22:59

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

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.

Why do we have appeals for that matter.

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

Do you think people who are wrongfully punished should be compensated? If so, why?

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.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:19

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Sharkie posted:

You can end a prison sentence. You can't end a carried-out death sentence.

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. (edit: A carried out prison sentence also can't be ended, 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)

twodot fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 1, 2015

# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:27

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

Caros: May 14, 2008

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

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

No, these are unrelated concepts. They are both true, but that doesn't make them related. If you still think they are related, feel free to directly state their relation.

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?

No.

Caros posted:

That it is morally repugnant?

Right, you're taking this as an axiom then. That's a fine thing to do, it's just not an argument.

quote:

Are you loving serious? Death is a 'limited' punishment?

Are you prepared to argue that death is an eternal 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.

And therefore all punishments should last forever so that we always possess the capability of stopping them?

twodot fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jan 1, 2015

# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:34

Nude Bog Lurker: Jan 2, 2007; Fun Shoe

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

We compensate people for being wrongly punished (i.e. punished for no reason)

Ah, here's your problem. Wrongly punished people were punished for a 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

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

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

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

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.

I never said it was their fault. Nude Bog Lurker just doesn't understand how words work.

# ? Jan 1, 2015 23:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 04:45

Sharkie: Feb 4, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

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

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > A list of every Inmate Executed in Texas, and their last words.

«‹›6 »