|
quote:Last Statement quote:Last Statement quote:Last Statement All three of these men were almost certainly innocent. Carlos DeLuna is a case of Law enforcement picking the wrong Carlos. Claude Jones would have gotten a new trial via DNA if good old George W Bush had bothered to hear his appeal and Cameron was railroaded into his grave by a prosecutor who put witnesses on the stand knowing they were committing perjury. Caros fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 31, 2014 |
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:No, not really. We just don't have any groups with any type of influence that can hold the state accountable. In fact, as a whole the electorate tends to reward dickish behavior. The quote was an allusion to a 2010 focus group in which one primary voter was quoted as saying "It takes balls to execute an innocent man." in regards to Rick Perry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:I dont mind the death penalty, only that the system which enforces it takes far too long to do so. Give a person 10-20 years with nothing to do but make peace with every god they can name and they turn into boring scripture-quoting types. So you don't mind that we kill innocent people under the guise of justice and would in fact prefer to speed the process along thus causing even more people to be murdered unjustly. Cool story bro.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:Texas does do an effective job relative to other execution states in reducing the time between conviction and execution, and this is for a number of reasons (like expediting state appeals) and working out other statutory or procedural kinks that other states haven't fully tested or affirmed. You realize that 'The process' is murder right? The pointless murder of human beings, including many are innocent. Texas reduced the time between conviction and execution and this is a large reason why Texas leads the nation in the execution of the innocent. A study on the death penalty found that roughly 4% of people on death row are innocent. Speeding things up simply means that those 4% of people will be executed that much faster with less chances for their innocence to come to light. Apparently you are okay with the state murdering people who did nothing wrong so long as they murder many more people who did do something wrong. Caros fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 09:00
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:Yes, in the mid 90s the Texas State Legislature made the habeas process concurrent with appeals.  You really are a horrible person. You know that right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
whoflungpoop posted:There's no reason to be rude or upset over someone explaining a few of the statutory and procedural reasons behind Texas' execution rates. Whether you approve of them or not they're just facts, and fairly boring ones to be honest. You consider the Texas death penalty system to be a good thing. I'm not being rude or upset, I'm trying to explain that Texas kills completely innocent people in their search to pointlessly murder the guilty. And you seem to be okay with that. I think my statement about you is pretty factual honestly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Here is something from a book I once read, in which a person talks to a crowd who do not believe in killing for any reason, including defending themselves from murderers and rapists. Just putting this here as food for thoughts, leaving everyone to make their opinions. quote:Uh is that from the Sword of Truth books because uh... Winner winner! Those quotes are written by a person who follows Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, which is essentially Sociopathy: The Moral and Ethical system. Ayn Rand had a personal obsession with a man who mutilated a twelve year old girl and considered him to be the pinnacle of humanity because he did what he wanted, when he wanted without giving a single gently caress. That all said the simple answer to all of that is we aren't granting mercy to killers by refusing to execute them. People who would be executed would simply spend the rest of their lives in prison at less cost, without us morally sinking to their level by executing them. quote:Capital punishment as it's practiced in Texas is terrible because of the procedural shortcuts and racism inherent in the system. On a philosophical level I've never bought the anti-retributive argument. Why is retribution a "wrong" motive from a justice perspective? Because retributive justice isn't justice, its vengance. Our system of justice largely exists as a utilitarian one with three primary goals: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Security. None of the primary goals of our justice system are met by murdering a murderer, and indeed we cheapen our justice if we do so because it takes it away from an impartial good of society into something that lashes out in vengeance. quote:i'm in support of the death penalty if and only if the condemned are killed gruesomely in a public spectacle, like being disembowled and burned alive, broadcast across all major networks during dinner https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Dalael posted:I don't think the problem is the death penalty itself, rather its the system that administer it. It shouldn't be left to just one or two guys to decide what evidence is presented or which witness qualifies. Prosecutors who withhold evidence, or put witness on the stand that have no right to be there, need to have someone checking over their shoulder. And the penalty for being such a douchebag that you are willing to send an innocent to death just to win your case needs to be so severe, that these guys will not risk it, especially if someone is checking over them. The people who are put on death row are not anymore of a danger to other criminals than any other run of the mill murderer. Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't some massive risk to other prisoners, if anything he was in danger from other prisoners who would have killed him if given the chance. We are perfectly capable of putting murderers in jail without it becoming some sort of Escape from New York situation where every day criminals are at the hands of murderers. And lets be clear, if we keep the death penalty we are going to kill innocent people. That is an inescapable fact of the death penalty so long as justice is administered by something other than a perfected version of Minority Report Pre-Crime. As far as I am concerned, one innocent person begin killed by the state in the search of pointless (and expensive) vengeance is too many. I understand the desire, I look at people like Paul Bernardo and think to myself, why can't we just shoot this motherfucker. Then I look at people like Cameron Todd Willingham and go Oh yeah, because innocent men will end up dead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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 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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No, but if part of the argument against the death penalty is that you can't correct the error if it's found out that someone who was executed is innocent, that argument would also have to apply to a lot of other punishments, which are also similarly uncorrectable, yet it is not generally used against anything except the death penalty. Such as? The defining feature of the death penalty that we are discussing is the fact that you can't even make an attempt at restitution or recompense in any form. You can't give them money, or vindicate their name or do anything to give meaningful relief to the person because they are dead. quote:That ends future prison time, it does nothing for the years already taken. Which is still something. It isn't enough, not nearly enough but it is something that you cannot do for someone after you've given them a lethal injection.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I at no point argued that death penalty is fine. What I've been arguing is that the death penalty is not special in the way people are saying. Punishments carried out can not be revoked. Time can not be undone. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable. Because the death penalty is final you pedant. Here I'll lay it out for you with a goddamned example: Death Penalty Abolished State - Prisoner A is sentenced to life in prison. Fifteen years after his sentence begins DNA evidence comes to light proving his innocence and he is released. Death Penalty State - Prisoner A is sentenced to death. He is executed after fourteen years. One year later DNA evidence comes to light proving his innocence and he is released. Now yes you can argue that evidence might not have come to light, or it might have come to light after his natural death but that is an entirely different argument about our lovely judicial system. quote:And therefore all punishments should last forever so that we always possess the capability of stopping them? Of course not. But if we are talking the difference between life without parole or the death penalty the latter is clearly the worse option when it comes to correcting miscarriages of justice. quote:Are you prepared to argue that death is an eternal punishment? Eternal is a better qualifier as limited since limited would imply that it would end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
quote:Well, you could posthumously vindicate someone's name as easily in death as you could in life, if not more easily, as people are often wont to think better of the dead. But how does money fix the kind of prison sentence you would get in lieu of the death penalty? What can you realistically do to make that better? When I mentioned clearing the name I was specifically refering to the moral relief a person gets from being declared innocent, but I can see how you'd make the mistake. And again, I'm not arguing that money fixes anything, I'm arguing that the ability to let someone out of prison and offer them some form of restitution is ultimately something that the death penalty cannot offer in any way. Its not a case of life in prison for the innocent being a 'good' option so much as the death penalty being a very, very bad option. If you asked me if I'd rather be in jail for twenty years and then released or killed after fifteen (which is the average wait time), it would be a nobrainer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:In both cases, the applied punishment is final, you can not unwind 15 years. You really are straight up autistic aren't you? Like not "Funny ha ha look at the silly guy on the forums" but like "This person does not understand the difference between life and death." The person that is released gets to live the rest of his life as a free man. The person that got the death penalty is dead and does not get to live the rest of his life at all, free or not. Do you seriously not understand that the ability to provide relief by ending the punishment is a good thing for our justice system to have. Hell, I'll ask again since you didn't reply last time, do you think we should have an appeals process? Because the whole point of our appeals process is to provide relief in cases, but apparently that isn't interesting so should we just scrap it? quote:Right, but I already explained that if we apply this reasoning generally, we would conclude that fines would preferable to imprisonment. No, because there are plenty of other reasons why we need to use incarceration, such as public safety. And according to you fines wouldn't be preferable because fines are 'final' too and somehow can't be corrected either. quote:I suppose this depends on what you consider the punishment. The execution certainly ends, and I don't believe we can punish dead people, but you could consider the eternity of death to be the punishment. In either case, it doesn't really affect the argument that our capability to stop a punishment isn't an interesting metric in the justness of the punishment. Why is it not interesting? Because you autistically argue that unless we can rewind time people don't gain any benefit from being set free after fifteen years as opposed to being dead and in the ground?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"It is better not to kill an innocent person than to kill them" isn't the argument. That would be the argument for freeing people who have already been wrongfully convicted, if we are discussing the abolition of the death penalty in general, your choice is between decades of what amounts to torture, or death, because the former is far better than the latter, apparently. No, that is the argument we are having here. This whole discussion is specifically talking about the fact that people who are convicted of the death penalty can prove to be innocent after the fact, and that in absence of the death penalty those people would go free once their innocence is proven. There are plenty of other arguments against the death penalty, this one is specifically about the murder of innocent people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:What? I've directly stated what I actually think multiple times. The death penalty is bad, but not because it is uniquely irrevocable (all carried out punishments can not be undone). You're trying to corner me into a poorly constructed logic trap, for reasons I don't understand. So why do you think the death penalty is bad Captain Autism?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yes, we should have an appeals process. I never suggested otherwise. Your posts sure do. What does the appeal matter, we can't give these people back the time we've taken from them, and clearly future prospects don't figure into your equations. quote:So you would be in favor of the death penalty if there were other reasons to support it, such as public safety? You realize the people who are in favor of the death penalty, will absolutely argue that we need it just as badly as we need incarceration. If there were sufficient arguments in favor of it, and I mean a LOT of them? Maybe, yeah. My argument against the death penalty isn't purely a moral one, its certainly emboldened by the fact that the death penalty has no redeeming features whatsoever beyond simple vengeance seeking. quote:Because it's nonsensical! Can you stop a fine already paid? A prison sentence already served? Of course not, yet we regard those as just punishments. I'm going to start beating you with this pipe around fifteen times. Now would you like me to stop, or would you prefer I just kill you? You are arguing that there would be no real difference between the two because I've already beaten you with the pipe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:We need a consistent set of laws, if individual courts were allowed to have their own interpretations of law, it would lead to madness pretty quickly. There's a reason why the Supreme Court prioritizes Circuit splits. ... did you just troll wikipedia for a random sentence and post it here? This has nothing to do with what I was asking. quote:No, I'm arguing that beating some with a pipe and killing them are not categorically different due to one being more final than another. In each case they happen, and the consequences of them happening can not be avoided. I never said there was no real difference, just that your stated reason for treating death and prison differently doesn't work. Yeah, I'm about done. This is like arguing with some weird chatbot that almost made the turing test but fell a bit short.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not that I agree with these people, but it seems that what they're trying to say, between mouthfuls of Flamin' Hot Cheetos is: "Why should we argue the merits of a societal function only on whether it might ever fail?" I think you are giving twodot way too much credit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm impressed that twodot was able to derail this thread for three pages even though he said he's against the death penalty in his first post. Do you guys really feel like you need to get the last word in your debate with someone who is basically performing the posting equivalent of obsessively stacking cans? Honestly? It was really just confusion on my part. I couldn't quite understand how his position could be quite so insane.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 01:12 |
|
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:No he was pretty obviously saying that neither you killing him or just beating him can be taken back. Therefore it makes no sense to say death is different because it's the only punishment that can't be taken back. Stopping the pipe beating is not taking it back, although it's still preferable to death. Yeah, but it clearly is different. If I beat you with a pipe you'll heal and go on with your life. If I beat you to the point of serious injury you'll still go on with your life. If I put you in prison for thirty years, guess what, you still can have some sort of a life when you get out. If I execute you.... there is nothing. You can't get better from it, you can't move on from it because excluding metaphysical discussions that are outside the scope of this discussion death is the end. I'm not arguing that those punishments aren't lovely, simply that there is a significant qualitative difference between a punishment that can be stopped or repaid in some fashion, and the death penalty which absolutely cannot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 22:46
|
|