Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
They are celebrating the DP verdict, not the conviction per se.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
They are celebrating the DP verdict, not the conviction per se.
How can you be so sure?
And even if they were... given that they might feel strongly that some of the animals they convict warrant death for their brutal offences... why wouldn't they be happy with their efforts?
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
Many many salivate and drool to kill the bad guys just as those salivated and drooled to burn the witches. Exact same thing.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
TB I know it had to suck looking at past humans atrocities then realizing you are them.
And yes if we let them out they are still alive. Don't get this justification Jimmy.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
Many many salivate and drool to kill the bad guys just as those salivated and drooled to burn the witches. Exact same thing.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
TB I know it had to suck looking at past humans atrocities then realizing you are them.
And yes if we let them out they are still alive. Don't get this justification Jimmy.
Thanks for bringing up salem.
Huh? Again... just no. I'm not even going to speak to the Salem DP comparison any more- just silly.
And I'm not 'one of them'. I'm a good person. If you feel you share a common bond with guys like Ted Bundy then that's too bad.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
I wonder if that statistic is applied to account for a 10% racism factor.
So if there's 100% without a doubt video and DNA evidence linking a person to let's say a child murderer, would you be ok with putting that person to death? There is without a shadow of a doubt no way they got the wrong person. Or should we just give him life in prison?
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
I took issue with the being "ok" assessment (not to mention the ridiculous "craving" attribute. It's not anyone else's place to declare MY place. I and I think many who generally support the DP aren't so blase to think that - and have made it known.
It actually goes against the grain of my thinking.
There have been so many instances where there is zero question as to guilt. And some of those crimes - to me - are worthy of that person no longer having the privilege of life.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
I agree with your last statement, however there is something about it that is problematic: for a sentence of death or imprisonment, there is supposed to be no question of guilt.
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
So if there's 100% without a doubt video and DNA evidence linking a person to let's say a child murderer, would you be ok with putting that person to death? There is without a shadow of a doubt no way they got the wrong person. Or should we just give him life in prison?
I'm not sure if you are asking me specifically or just asking in general, but if you are asking me, then my answer is no, we should not put people to death even if we believe we are 100% sure we have the guilty party, and no, this is not due to religious beliefs. My personal ethics don't allow for taking a human life regardless of what that person might have done. I have met many people who have been in custody. Some have done horrific things. Absolutely, some seem to be frankly horrible people, and I have no doubt that psychopathy is real, but not all people who have done horrific things are horrific people (or "animal", to use a term that has been used here).
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
I agree with your last statement, however there is something about it that is problematic: for a sentence of death or imprisonment, there is supposed to be no question of guilt.
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
We will never be certain in all cases; in fact, if we are honest, probably we won't be certain in the majority of cases. Have you spent much time in court? (not meaning that you've been charged yourself )? Kind of a gong show in a lot of instances. That's why the courts don't insist on certainty - it has never been a matter of "no question of guilt" as you've stated. At least if the person is still alive then there's something to work with if new evidence comes to light, new procedures get discovered, or we find out that that particular prosecutor was more interested in a conviction than actually getting the right person.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
I personally know people that get that endorphin rush when we kill em. And for every felony conviction there are people that want perp killed immediately. He'll want cops to shoot. an
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
Let me break it down.
If we have DP, innocent people will die as a result. We've released many in death row. So if you say let's keep executing you ARE okay with few innocents thrown in. This is not an opinion it's not debatable, it's fact.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
I agree with your last statement, however there is something about it that is problematic: for a sentence of death or imprisonment, there is supposed to be no question of guilt.
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
It's a good question but one I don't think we have a good answer for. I think oftentimes juries are placed in a tough spot. They are presented only with evidence that a) lawyers for one side or the other want in and b) that the judge has ruled admissible. From that they have to make a decision. Sometimes guilt or innocence is clear. Sometimes not so much.
I've served on a jury before and while the defendant was clearly guilty, placing that vote in the jury room was still difficult...and those charges were nothing close to capital murder.
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
I personally know people that get that endorphin rush when we kill em. And for every felony conviction there are people that want perp killed immediately. He'll want cops to shoot. an
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
Let me break it down.
If we have DP, innocent people will die as a result. We've released many in death row. So if you say let's keep executing you ARE okay with few innocents thrown in. This is not an opinion it's not debatable, it's fact.
And, again, by that logic you are "OK" with a few innocents being locked away in prison for the rest of their lives. The death penalty is not responsible for executing an innocent man anymore than the prison system is at fault for incarcerating one. The problem lies with false convictions and a breakdown in the judicial process. Focusing solely on the death penalty ignores the true problem.
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
I personally know people that get that endorphin rush when we kill em. And for every felony conviction there are people that want perp killed immediately. He'll want cops to shoot. an
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
Let me break it down.
If we have DP, innocent people will die as a result. We've released many in death row. So if you say let's keep executing you ARE okay with few innocents thrown in. This is not an opinion it's not debatable, it's fact.
Callen...
Firstly... 'you know people that'... well, that settles it then- it's a fact.
Secondly... wrongly convicted people speaks to errors within the investigative and trial processes. This has nothing to do with a mentality that sees a death sentence appropriate for some crimes. So, again, it's only a fact in your mind that people who support the DP for some heinous offences are 'okay with innocents thrown in'.
You're logic is bent to suit your value system. Its way over the top and given what you are trying to insinuate, it's borderline offensive. The Salem piece you offered was really silly... and reeling from that... you're being silly again with this reach.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
I agree with your last statement, however there is something about it that is problematic: for a sentence of death or imprisonment, there is supposed to be no question of guilt.
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
It's a good question but one I don't think we have a good answer for. I think oftentimes juries are placed in a tough spot. They are presented only with evidence that a) lawyers for one side or the other want in and b) that the judge has ruled admissible. From that they have to make a decision. Sometimes guilt or innocence is clear. Sometimes not so much.
I've served on a jury before and while the defendant was clearly guilty, placing that vote in the jury room was still difficult...and those charges were nothing close to capital murder.
So with the inherent ambiguity, sentencing death should only be coupled with indisputable evidence such as the Cheshire idiots running from the house as it was on fire and high fiving each other or the proverbial 'heads in the fridge'- not from testimony on the part of a jailhouse informant or old lady peeking out from her blinds.
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
I believe what callen is saying is that, humans being fallible as they are, there will inevitably be some false convictions and, if you are for the DP, then you have to accept that some of those executed are/were actually innocent, just like some of those incarcerated are innocent. Those who insist that in the future our procedures will be so good that we won't "accidentally" execute any innocent people are being willfully blind.
Are those who are against the death penalty OK with a few innocents being incarcerated in SuperMax prisons for the rest of their lives? Of course not. Claiming then that death penalty proponents are OK with a few innocents being put to death is a double standard.
Honestly, if those are the only two choices, then yes incarceration is the better choice, because that still gives the opportunity for exoneration; with any luck, before they've spent the rest of their live there. Once they're dead, being exonerated is small comfort for anyone, including their families. Prison is no picnic, despite those who protest that "those guys are getting three square meals a day at my expense!", but having the opportunity to work toward justice is at least something.
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It might be the better choice, but it is not a perfect choice. False conviction is its own issue, and we should be working to eliminate it. We may never fully do so but we should still try.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
I agree with your last statement, however there is something about it that is problematic: for a sentence of death or imprisonment, there is supposed to be no question of guilt.
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
It's a good question but one I don't think we have a good answer for. I think oftentimes juries are placed in a tough spot. They are presented only with evidence that a) lawyers for one side or the other want in and b) that the judge has ruled admissible. From that they have to make a decision. Sometimes guilt or innocence is clear. Sometimes not so much.
I've served on a jury before and while the defendant was clearly guilty, placing that vote in the jury room was still difficult...and those charges were nothing close to capital murder.
So with the inherent ambiguity, sentencing death should only be coupled with indisputable evidence such as the Cheshire idiots running from the house as it was on fire and high fiving each other or the proverbial 'heads in the fridge'- not from testimony on the part of a jailhouse informant or old lady peeking out from her blinds.
That is how I look at it. I don't know how often clear evidence like that exists but I'm betting not often. Death penalty sentences should be equally as rare.
You're stuck on my tongue in cheek comment about them 'enthusiastically' moving him through the prison system? Okay... if it makes you feel better... I'll rephrase:
In a stunning manner that defies all common sense and betrays incompetence at least on some levels (if not all), prison officials saw fit to perpetually push him to lower security prisons.
The following link expresses the same and cites McGary's own words to officials that seem to suggest he wasn't fit for anything other than super-maximum security where he was initially sentenced: "Just because I'm in segregation doesn't mean I can't kill somebody."
Now get off the 'why was he downgraded' questions to me. How the fuck can I answer those? The idiots that paid millions of dollars for their grievous errors haven't exactly made those details accessible. Can you blame them? How embarrassing. But not having the paperwork at my disposal doesn't change the fact that this situation was a calamity fraught with errors. Are you disputing this?
And get on with responding to a more challenging point I made.
I said that if this asshole got what I think he deserved as a serial murderer- keep in mind an 11 year old girl was one of his victims- there would be one less victim in his tally. Hence, in this case where there isn't a shred of doubt outside of his public boasts of even more decomposing bodies from Seattle to the maritimes... the DP would have not only served justice, but also acted as a deterrent. Can you dispute this?
* Quote feature required me to edit.
it's not tongue-in-cheek. it's a pattern of hyper-dramatization that doesn't further your cause or the discussion. if it isn't checked, it generally gets worse.
but how can anything defy common sense, when you don't even know why it was done? it's a really big assumption you are making.
"how the fuck can I answer those?". I was wondering if you were privy to some documents that I was not, since you are claiming it was a major clusterfuck. I was wondering where this conclusion was derived from. with zero facts, as you have admitted, I'm still left wondering.
I am asking that because, regardless of the consequences, there may have been a legitimate reason for downgrading him. did they fuck up? possibly. but the result of his downgrading, by definition, does not constitute the fuck up. the reason for his downgrading, possibly does constitute the fuck up. i.e: if an error in judgment was made (or if the facts were merely ignored) based on his risk of reoffending, then yes, obviously, that's a major fuckup. without access to their reasoning, it's impossible to know if they fucked it up or not.
hindsight, as they say, is 20/20, and seems to be 99% of your argument. "see, if they woulda killed him, he never woulda done that!".
you are making a sweeping judgment based on the result of their decision, not on the initial reasoning that was a precursor to that result.
how do you expect the system to improve if questions like the one I posed aren't asked?
well of course if he was dead he couldn't do any more harm. that's obvious. in any case, that does not convince me that we should kill them all in case they might kill again.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Okay, I see where you guys were going with your comments, which isn't where I was going but now I can understand where we diverged. Sorry.
Don't apologize , the way you originally stated your thoughts was my point.
So not comparing victims actions but am comparing the mob mentality and the punishment.
And yes we are okay with throwing in a few innocents to get our blood lust. So that also compares.
That mob mentality exists only in your head, where death penalty proponents are drooling at the prospect of using it.
False conviction is its own, very serious, issue. It should be taken seriously and not pigeonholed exclusively as a death penalty issue. We hear often that life in prison is supposedly worse than death. Don't pretend that a few false convictions leading to innocents dying in prison is somehow better.
And while someone falsely convicted who is exonerated after 30 or 40 years can be let out of prison, the years taken from them can never be given back. Eliminating the death penalty does not eliminate this problem.
With all due respect JimmyV there are indeed people "drooling" at the thought of using the DP. The article I posted just last week talks about some of them, including the prosecutors who celebrate each DP conviction with a party and give each other awards as they rack up the convictions, however they got them.
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
Even so, that hardly constitutes a mob or a mob mentality. A prosecutor's job is to get a conviction. I'm not sure it is any different than defense attorneys celebrating after winning a case when they know their client is guilty as sin.
I personally know people that get that endorphin rush when we kill em. And for every felony conviction there are people that want perp killed immediately. He'll want cops to shoot. an
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
Nope and nope. I think many can, do, and have spoken for ourselves in this thread and others and I can't recall seeing anyone who supported what you're proposing.
Let me break it down.
If we have DP, innocent people will die as a result. We've released many in death row. So if you say let's keep executing you ARE okay with few innocents thrown in. This is not an opinion it's not debatable, it's fact.
And, again, by that logic you are "OK" with a few innocents being locked away in prison for the rest of their lives. The death penalty is not responsible for executing an innocent man anymore than the prison system is at fault for incarcerating one. The problem lies with false convictions and a breakdown in the judicial process. Focusing solely on the death penalty ignores the true problem.
No, you can't take back death. You can release huge difference. And we will never get convictions perfect so we have to end DP.
Comments
I can believe that the crew on this thread isn't "drooling" for executions but let's not pretend that some people aren't.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And even if they were... given that they might feel strongly that some of the animals they convict warrant death for their brutal offences... why wouldn't they be happy with their efforts?
If one is for the death penalty they ARE okay with a few innocents being thrown in to satisfy the vengeance some humans crave.
TB I know it had to suck looking at past humans atrocities then realizing you are them.
And yes if we let them out they are still alive. Don't get this justification Jimmy.
Thanks for bringing up salem.
Is oftenreading right with the surmise?
edit - quoted wrong
And I'm not 'one of them'. I'm a good person. If you feel you share a common bond with guys like Ted Bundy then that's too bad.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Of course the preferred alternate is fewer false convictions; we'll never get to zero. After all, the usual legal standard for conviction in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is estimated to be about 90% certainty - not 100%.
It actually goes against the grain of my thinking.
There have been so many instances where there is zero question as to guilt. And some of those crimes - to me - are worthy of that person no longer having the privilege of life.
At the same time we should use the death penalty rarely. There are plenty of instances where there is no doubt, where there is no question of guilt. The problem with the death penalty is that it is used too often.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Layering degrees of certainty for guilt is problematic. If we choose to imprison someone for a horrific crime they have been convicted of because the level of proof isn't as conclusive or certain as we would like in order to sentence them to death... should we be imprisoning them?
If we have DP, innocent people will die as a result. We've released many in death row. So if you say let's keep executing you ARE okay with few innocents thrown in. This is not an opinion it's not debatable, it's fact.
I've served on a jury before and while the defendant was clearly guilty, placing that vote in the jury room was still difficult...and those charges were nothing close to capital murder.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Firstly... 'you know people that'... well, that settles it then- it's a fact.
Secondly... wrongly convicted people speaks to errors within the investigative and trial processes. This has nothing to do with a mentality that sees a death sentence appropriate for some crimes. So, again, it's only a fact in your mind that people who support the DP for some heinous offences are 'okay with innocents thrown in'.
You're logic is bent to suit your value system. Its way over the top and given what you are trying to insinuate, it's borderline offensive. The Salem piece you offered was really silly... and reeling from that... you're being silly again with this reach.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
but how can anything defy common sense, when you don't even know why it was done? it's a really big assumption you are making.
"how the fuck can I answer those?". I was wondering if you were privy to some documents that I was not, since you are claiming it was a major clusterfuck. I was wondering where this conclusion was derived from. with zero facts, as you have admitted, I'm still left wondering.
I am asking that because, regardless of the consequences, there may have been a legitimate reason for downgrading him. did they fuck up? possibly. but the result of his downgrading, by definition, does not constitute the fuck up. the reason for his downgrading, possibly does constitute the fuck up. i.e: if an error in judgment was made (or if the facts were merely ignored) based on his risk of reoffending, then yes, obviously, that's a major fuckup. without access to their reasoning, it's impossible to know if they fucked it up or not.
hindsight, as they say, is 20/20, and seems to be 99% of your argument. "see, if they woulda killed him, he never woulda done that!".
you are making a sweeping judgment based on the result of their decision, not on the initial reasoning that was a precursor to that result.
how do you expect the system to improve if questions like the one I posed aren't asked?
well of course if he was dead he couldn't do any more harm. that's obvious. in any case, that does not convince me that we should kill them all in case they might kill again.
-EV 8/14/93