If video evidence is being manipulated and crooked cops are planting DNA, then the death penalty is not the issue.
those possibilities absolutely make the DP the issue. that's the entire point.
No, because those possibilities are issues unto themselves. A false conviction that leads to a prison sentence is no small thing. Falsifying evidence is the problem here, not the death penalty.
the propensity of the human race to fuck up is the problem. the death penalty, the penal system, murders themselves, those are all under the same umbrella that makes the death penalty a problem: humans are imperfect beings who produce technology that is able to be manipulated.
you can't go back from death. that's a mistake that cannot be undone.
thirty is big on the "so what do you tell the victim's family? sorry, but we are just going to give the murderer a hug and let him go" idea, let's flip that: how do you tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad? "whoops! callateral damage of the system! but we killed a REALLY guilty guy last night! hope that makes you feel better! here's a wah-wee-pop!"?
It's true, you can't go back from death, but you also can't give back a life wasted in prison. In neither case is the penalty the issue. The false conviction is.
It would be terrible to tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad. But, it would also be terrible to tell a little girl or boy that their dad was killed by a murderer who had already been convicted once for similar crime.
BUT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE.
No, in my scenario the innocent victim is quite dead.
And so is the wrongly convicted innocent victim.
No, that was your scenario. In mine there was no wrongly convicted victim, only a justly convicted murder who was allowed to go to prison and who found a way to kill again.
It actually all started with responding to my scenario. Take a look.
If video evidence is being manipulated and crooked cops are planting DNA, then the death penalty is not the issue.
those possibilities absolutely make the DP the issue. that's the entire point.
No, because those possibilities are issues unto themselves. A false conviction that leads to a prison sentence is no small thing. Falsifying evidence is the problem here, not the death penalty.
the propensity of the human race to fuck up is the problem. the death penalty, the penal system, murders themselves, those are all under the same umbrella that makes the death penalty a problem: humans are imperfect beings who produce technology that is able to be manipulated.
you can't go back from death. that's a mistake that cannot be undone.
thirty is big on the "so what do you tell the victim's family? sorry, but we are just going to give the murderer a hug and let him go" idea, let's flip that: how do you tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad? "whoops! callateral damage of the system! but we killed a REALLY guilty guy last night! hope that makes you feel better! here's a wah-wee-pop!"?
Didn't you just speak to 'hyper-dramatization' and how opposed you are to such tactics for making your point?
Read your last sentence and try to tell me you practice what you preach.
The end of it is, this is like arguing the existence of god. Very few people change their position, everyone gets pissed off, and it never ends well. Have a good night all. I am going to go see if leeziestar knows the weight of her package yet.
If video evidence is being manipulated and crooked cops are planting DNA, then the death penalty is not the issue.
those possibilities absolutely make the DP the issue. that's the entire point.
No, because those possibilities are issues unto themselves. A false conviction that leads to a prison sentence is no small thing. Falsifying evidence is the problem here, not the death penalty.
the propensity of the human race to fuck up is the problem. the death penalty, the penal system, murders themselves, those are all under the same umbrella that makes the death penalty a problem: humans are imperfect beings who produce technology that is able to be manipulated.
you can't go back from death. that's a mistake that cannot be undone.
thirty is big on the "so what do you tell the victim's family? sorry, but we are just going to give the murderer a hug and let him go" idea, let's flip that: how do you tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad? "whoops! callateral damage of the system! but we killed a REALLY guilty guy last night! hope that makes you feel better! here's a wah-wee-pop!"?
It's true, you can't go back from death, but you also can't give back a life wasted in prison. In neither case is the penalty the issue. The false conviction is.
It would be terrible to tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad. But, it would also be terrible to tell a little girl or boy that their dad was killed by a murderer who had already been convicted once for similar crime.
BUT THEY ARE STILL ALIVE.
No, in my scenario the innocent victim is quite dead.
And so is the wrongly convicted innocent victim.
No, that was your scenario. In mine there was no wrongly convicted victim, only a justly convicted murder who was allowed to go to prison and who found a way to kill again.
It actually all started with responding to my scenario. Take a look.
And if you read my response to that you'll see what I'm talking about.
If video evidence is being manipulated and crooked cops are planting DNA, then the death penalty is not the issue.
those possibilities absolutely make the DP the issue. that's the entire point.
No, because those possibilities are issues unto themselves. A false conviction that leads to a prison sentence is no small thing. Falsifying evidence is the problem here, not the death penalty.
the propensity of the human race to fuck up is the problem. the death penalty, the penal system, murders themselves, those are all under the same umbrella that makes the death penalty a problem: humans are imperfect beings who produce technology that is able to be manipulated.
you can't go back from death. that's a mistake that cannot be undone.
thirty is big on the "so what do you tell the victim's family? sorry, but we are just going to give the murderer a hug and let him go" idea, let's flip that: how do you tell a little girl or boy that you fucked up and killed their dad? "whoops! callateral damage of the system! but we killed a REALLY guilty guy last night! hope that makes you feel better! here's a wah-wee-pop!"?
Didn't you just speak to 'hyper-dramatization' and how opposed you are to such tactics for making your point?
Read your last sentence and try to tell me you practice what you preach.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
He's a textbook case for me because there is no question of guilt and his crime warrants the death penalty. I'm conflicted though because I do worry that if executed he will become a martyr and inspiration for other misguided souls who would play at terrorist. Maybe in this case a dark room at a SuperMax prison is better...but maybe not. I just don't know.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
He's a textbook case for me because there is no question of guilt and his crime warrants the death penalty. I'm conflicted though because I do worry that if executed he will become a martyr and inspiration for other misguided souls who would play at terrorist. Maybe in this case a dark room at a SuperMax prison is better...but maybe not. I just don't know.
Every DA will say same. So if we have DP innocents will be out to death. Not worth it. Costs, message about killing , innocents being out to death , allowing government ability to kill etc etc.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
the endless argument rolls on, but I gotta say when its all said and done and properly considered, I find myself always coming back to what you say. I'll always be uncomfortable with the DP. Perhaps im weak, I don't know, I just find myself emotionally unable to process it.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
the endless argument rolls on, but I gotta say when its all said and done and properly considered, I find myself always coming back to what you say. I'll always be uncomfortable with the DP. Perhaps im weak, I don't know, I just find myself emotionally unable to process it.
I understand. We all should be uncomfortable with it. It should be the ultimate penalty reserved for the absolute worst crimes.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
Not okay. I believe I've said that numerous times- unless you are right in the middle of a vision quest... I'm not sure how you fail to comprehend this?
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
Not okay. I believe I've said that numerous times- unless you are right in the middle of a vision quest... I'm not sure how you fail to comprehend this?
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
But you know this already.
exactly. which is ONE BIG reason it's use should be unacceptable to all.
one thing that dawned on me last night after "shutting off", was that many DP proponents here argue that if we use the DP, the criminal can never kill an innocent civilian again. how on earth would that person have killed another innocent civilian again anyway? someone who is on death row, if they aren't being put to death, they are going to be in jail until they are dead. No? so how is this even a talking point? surely you aren't suggesting we kill someone just in case they break out and murder again? what are the stats on someone on death row or life in prison breaking out and killing again?
and now we will surely get to the argument where DP proponents also call fellow inmates "innocents". I mean, in the eyes of the many DPers, as stated in this thread and several others over the years, all convicts in max security are worthless human beings. But as soon as one of them is murdered while incarcerated, all of a sudden they become examples of innocents being murdered by someone who should have been put to death, thus preventing that murder. why, out of nowhere, does someone serving a maximum security sentence, someone you previously called names like "waste of skin", "piece of garbage", etc, suddenly become a "hapless victim" that didn't deserve to die? did you become an advocate for the child rapist, simply because he was murdered by another one?
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
Not okay. I believe I've said that numerous times- unless you are right in the middle of a vision quest... I'm not sure how you fail to comprehend this?
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
But you know this already.
exactly. which is ONE BIG reason it's use should be unacceptable to all.
To my way of thinking, if a process is flawed... a process is flawed. We don't look at the product and throw it away when we know the process has failed it... we refine the process to ensure the product's integrity is as it should be.
And we're close. The DP should be unacceptable to almost all. There's a few special cases where we want to keep that option available to us (there's a guy being sentenced in Boston right now that needs to walk the green mile in my mind).
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
I just tend not to try not to speak of things before I have the facts. And the facts in this case, with the link you provided, are few and far between. Your tendency is a shoot-first,-ask-questions-later type of response.
It seems obvious that there was a major fuck up. No question about it. SEEMS. Maybe there were underlying reasons they moved him. Until it's known, it's not. Simple as that.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
the endless argument rolls on, but I gotta say when its all said and done and properly considered, I find myself always coming back to what you say. I'll always be uncomfortable with the DP. Perhaps im weak, I don't know, I just find myself emotionally unable to process it.
it is a misconception that those who wish not to kill are weak. it's actually quite the opposite.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
the endless argument rolls on, but I gotta say when its all said and done and properly considered, I find myself always coming back to what you say. I'll always be uncomfortable with the DP. Perhaps im weak, I don't know, I just find myself emotionally unable to process it.
it is a misconception that those who wish not to kill are weak. it's actually quite the opposite.
I know. Doesn't that just irk you? It's a big misconception that those that support the DP are bloodthirsty savages too.
Weak bleeding heart softies versus blood thirsty savages.
I find myself returning here today purely due to the horrendous news that the Indonesian authorities are about to put to dealt the Bali 9........I find that absolutely repugnant. Yet on news sites reporting it, the masses of comments are baying for their blood. I find it unbelievable
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
Killing is wrong. We tell others not to use this avenue to solve a problem yet society condones. Just one of the many reasons we don't kill him.
the endless argument rolls on, but I gotta say when its all said and done and properly considered, I find myself always coming back to what you say. I'll always be uncomfortable with the DP. Perhaps im weak, I don't know, I just find myself emotionally unable to process it.
it is a misconception that those who wish not to kill are weak. it's actually quite the opposite.
I know. Doesn't that just irk you? It's a big misconception that those that support the DP are bloodthirsty savages too.
Weak bleeding heart softies versus blood thirsty savages.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
I just tend not to try not to speak of things before I have the facts. And the facts in this case, with the link you provided, are few and far between. Your tendency is a shoot-first,-ask-questions-later type of response.
It seems obvious that there was a major fuck up. No question about it. SEEMS. Maybe there were underlying reasons they moved him. Until it's known, it's not. Simple as that.
Says you I guess.
Something tells me the multimillion dollar law suit betrays a fuck up. Or two. Or ten.
And as for you pointing out my tendency... man I sure suck, eh? Are you open to hearing how you present yourself now and again? I mean... it hasn't been lost on me the last few shots you've taken at me- disguised within the body of your posts. What's up?
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
I just tend not to try not to speak of things before I have the facts. And the facts in this case, with the link you provided, are few and far between. Your tendency is a shoot-first,-ask-questions-later type of response.
It seems obvious that there was a major fuck up. No question about it. SEEMS. Maybe there were underlying reasons they moved him. Until it's known, it's not. Simple as that.
Says you I guess.
Something tells me the multimillion dollar law suit betrays a fuck up. Or two. Or ten.
And as for you pointing out my tendency... man I sure suck, eh? Are you open to hearing how you present yourself now and again? I mean... it hasn't been lost on me the last few shots you've taken at me- disguised within the body of your posts. What's up?
says me? no, says our court system. maybe he was moved for political reasons. for spacial reasons. maybe a major miscommunication. probably a major fuckup.
not trying to take shots, seriously. I'm not. just pointing out how I think things are being presented. I'm not saying you suck. if you think I'm taking personal shots, my apologies. that's not my intention.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
I just tend not to try not to speak of things before I have the facts. And the facts in this case, with the link you provided, are few and far between. Your tendency is a shoot-first,-ask-questions-later type of response.
It seems obvious that there was a major fuck up. No question about it. SEEMS. Maybe there were underlying reasons they moved him. Until it's known, it's not. Simple as that.
Says you I guess.
Something tells me the multimillion dollar law suit betrays a fuck up. Or two. Or ten.
And as for you pointing out my tendency... man I sure suck, eh? Are you open to hearing how you present yourself now and again? I mean... it hasn't been lost on me the last few shots you've taken at me- disguised within the body of your posts. What's up?
says me? no, says our court system. maybe he was moved for political reasons. for spacial reasons. maybe a major miscommunication. probably a major fuckup.
not trying to take shots, seriously. I'm not. just pointing out how I think things are being presented. I'm not saying you suck. if you think I'm taking personal shots, my apologies. that's not my intention.
Fair enough. This post coupled with that 'mocking' post (wah-wee-pop) had me wondering what I had done or said to agitate you. No problems.
and as to paul's question about the boston bomber: no, you don't kill him. besides reasons previously stated about why I'm against the DP, one added here is exactly what someone else said: this is what he wants. he wants his virgins. he wants to be a martyr. he wants to be the reason more like him pop up.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
Not okay. I believe I've said that numerous times- unless you are right in the middle of a vision quest... I'm not sure how you fail to comprehend this?
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
But you know this already.
exactly. which is ONE BIG reason it's use should be unacceptable to all.
To my way of thinking, if a process is flawed... a process is flawed. We don't look at the product and throw it away when we know the process has failed it... we refine the process to ensure the product's integrity is as it should be.
And we're close. The DP should be unacceptable to almost all. There's a few special cases where we want to keep that option available to us (there's a guy being sentenced in Boston right now that needs to walk the green mile in my mind).
and as to paul's question about the boston bomber: no, you don't kill him. besides reasons previously stated about why I'm against the DP, one added here is exactly what someone else said: this is what he wants. he wants his virgins. he wants to be a martyr. he wants to be the reason more like him pop up.
maximum security for natural life.
I think he will be a martyr, I don't think he exactly wants to be one. If he did he could have stood up in the boat in Watertown. There were plenty of bullets flying. He didn't need to be taken alive.
and as to paul's question about the boston bomber: no, you don't kill him. besides reasons previously stated about why I'm against the DP, one added here is exactly what someone else said: this is what he wants. he wants his virgins. he wants to be a martyr. he wants to be the reason more like him pop up.
maximum security for natural life.
I think he will be a martyr, I don't think he exactly wants to be one. If he did he could have stood up in the boat in Watertown. There were plenty of bullets flying. He didn't need to be taken alive.
No, he wanted to live and still does.
really? I incorrectly assumed he wanted to be a martyr.
edit: and yes, he didn't need to be taken alive. but I just thought that maybe he wanted his trial proceedings to be covered in the media so as to get his "message" out. like his middle finger to the camera.
and as to paul's question about the boston bomber: no, you don't kill him. besides reasons previously stated about why I'm against the DP, one added here is exactly what someone else said: this is what he wants. he wants his virgins. he wants to be a martyr. he wants to be the reason more like him pop up.
maximum security for natural life.
I think he will be a martyr, I don't think he exactly wants to be one. If he did he could have stood up in the boat in Watertown. There were plenty of bullets flying. He didn't need to be taken alive.
No, he wanted to live and still does.
really? I incorrectly assumed he wanted to be a martyr.
edit: and yes, he didn't need to be taken alive. but I just thought that maybe he wanted his trial proceedings to be covered in the media so as to get his "message" out. like his middle finger to the camera.
It is one of those things we'll never know, of course. The sense I get - and I could be wrong - is that he wants to live. His entire defense has been built not around innocence but around escaping the death penalty.
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.
You can call my characterization of this shit show anything you like to downplay the simple truth to the matter: a colossal string of horrible decisions were made and a homicidal maniac was placed in a- get ready for it- cushy, medium security prison where he killed again (if you read any of the links you'd remember he did just as he said he was going to all along throughout his entire incarceration).
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
So TB you are okay with innocent humans put to death as well. No gray area. But we got the other fker.
Not okay. I believe I've said that numerous times- unless you are right in the middle of a vision quest... I'm not sure how you fail to comprehend this?
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
But you know this already.
Okay so you are for stopping executions till we fool proof the process. So your for stopping all executions.
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Read your last sentence and try to tell me you practice what you preach.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
www.headstonesband.com
And of course I speak only to the result of their decision- that is all I have to go with. Trust me though, when I say if I had been a vioice at a rubber stamping session... I would have said to the soft, mamby wamby, 'give him a chancers', "Are you out of your fucking minds?"
They would have likely gone ahead, rubber stamped it anyways- thinking I'm just a bloodthirsty caveman that didn't know anything-- and probably given me a wah-wee-pop to run along with.
but whilst here, once putting aside the potential for wrong convictions etc, how does everyone feel about that bastard whos currently having his DP hearing.....the Boston bomber? I mean unquestionable guilt, zero remorse.......
im not a pro DP person whatsoever, but I am having a hard time arguing against it for him when the case is so open and shut.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The DP itself is not flawed- just as a prison term or community service are not either. What is flawed somewhat are the processes we utilize to determine someone's guilt. Investigative and trial processes have been known to fail us on rare occasion.
But you know this already.
www.headstonesband.com
and now we will surely get to the argument where DP proponents also call fellow inmates "innocents". I mean, in the eyes of the many DPers, as stated in this thread and several others over the years, all convicts in max security are worthless human beings. But as soon as one of them is murdered while incarcerated, all of a sudden they become examples of innocents being murdered by someone who should have been put to death, thus preventing that murder. why, out of nowhere, does someone serving a maximum security sentence, someone you previously called names like "waste of skin", "piece of garbage", etc, suddenly become a "hapless victim" that didn't deserve to die? did you become an advocate for the child rapist, simply because he was murdered by another one?
www.headstonesband.com
And we're close. The DP should be unacceptable to almost all. There's a few special cases where we want to keep that option available to us (there's a guy being sentenced in Boston right now that needs to walk the green mile in my mind).
It seems obvious that there was a major fuck up. No question about it. SEEMS. Maybe there were underlying reasons they moved him. Until it's known, it's not. Simple as that.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Weak bleeding heart softies versus blood thirsty savages.
Misconceptions.
www.headstonesband.com
Something tells me the multimillion dollar law suit betrays a fuck up. Or two. Or ten.
And as for you pointing out my tendency... man I sure suck, eh? Are you open to hearing how you present yourself now and again? I mean... it hasn't been lost on me the last few shots you've taken at me- disguised within the body of your posts. What's up?
not trying to take shots, seriously. I'm not. just pointing out how I think things are being presented. I'm not saying you suck. if you think I'm taking personal shots, my apologies. that's not my intention.
www.headstonesband.com
maximum security for natural life.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
No, he wanted to live and still does.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
edit: and yes, he didn't need to be taken alive. but I just thought that maybe he wanted his trial proceedings to be covered in the media so as to get his "message" out. like his middle finger to the camera.
www.headstonesband.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."