Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
besides that, I have no idea how someone can reconcile that the flaws in the system that is directly leading to an incorrect decision, leading to the deaths of innocents, is not the cause of it. that simply does not compute.
can you imagine if a car (or any) company operated like that and someone died as a result? they'd be sued into oblivion and jailed. when QA finds a flaw, they send it back to development to correct it before releasing the product into production.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
it's flawed enough that innocent people die as a result. that's enough for me.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
Human nature guarantees flaws. Death penalty means innocents will die. Period. End if story. So if you are for death penalty you are okay with few innocents dying to ensure all the baddies get it. There is no debating this. Admit your okay with few innocents dying. And Be done with it.
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
Human nature guarantees flaws. Death penalty means innocents will die. Period. End if story. So if you are for death penalty you are okay with few innocents dying to ensure all the baddies get it. There is no debating this. Admit your okay with few innocents dying. And Be done with it.
You've said this a few times now, Callen- obviously you've figured out copy and paste feature.
No. No I'm not okay with innocents dying. I've spoken about this several times so... as you searched your previous posts to 'copy and paste'... search my previous posts and see where I've spoken to this and what conditions I saw to consider the DP.
A South Carolina bill wants to add the firing squad to the list of ways to kill inmates in the state. This is coming about because the drugs used in lethal injection expired in 2013 and the companies that sell the drugs don't want to open the door for harassment. The default mode of execution in the state is lethal injection unless the inmate specifically asked for the electric chair.
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
it's flawed enough that innocent people die as a result. that's enough for me.
Me too. It's either flawed or it's completely infallible. And I think we can all agree that police forces and the criminal justice system are far from infallible. Until they are, the death penalty is 100% wrong in my mind.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Unless you have been there then you really can't state that as being true.
edit - grammar
I don't think that is true at all. There are plenty of credible sources of information that one could use to make that determination, enough that it becomes pretty much common knowledge. Do you not have prison documentaries in Canada? Do you need to go to Antarctica to state that it is cold?
we are now at the stage of the death penalty sentence that has always bothered me, the dayof execution is upon him and how the fuck does he start to comprehend that when he wakes up that is it? during that waking day he will stop breathing. meanwhile behind the scenes there is a truck load of posturing going on, applications, hearings, desperate attempts that might actually prolong his life if successful - all of which goes on away from him. The clock ticks closer to 3pm, and hes none the wiser.
I know some of these guys who take the walk are absolute monsters and don't deserve any sympathy, but that is the bit that always troubles me the most. Its a form of torture, and in a case as uncertain as todays its really not something I can start to get to grips with. I hear all the comments before about child killers caught at the scene and all that, and I get the sentiment around those comments, but there comes a time when we really have to be better than them.
For now, a potentially innocent man, will be sat alone, waiting for his fate, conscious of every minute ticking by.......I don't know how the human mind can deal with that.
Innocent people sentenced to death is horrific, but this situation speaks to the processes before sentencing. The penalty phase is after the error has been made. If you don't want innocent people executed.. then don't wrongly convict- be thorough in the investigative and trial processes. But in my mind... the fact to the matter is as follows: some people commit crimes so heinous that death is an appropriate sentence for them.
but it's all part of the same process. they are not independent processes. they are seperate, but not independent. you can't seperate the two and blame the part that doesn't work. especially if the part that doesn't work has a direct influence on the part you think is necessary.
in any other facet of life, if step 2 is flawed, you don't keep going to step 3, you stop further steps until step 2 is no longer flawed.
The penalty incurred is not a process- it's a product. I don't see how one can hold the DP even remotely responsible for wrongful convictions. The investigative and trial processes bear the entire weight of responsibility for a wrongful conviction.
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
semantics. if it is a product of a flawed process, which it is and you agree that it is, you cease production. simple as that. the DP isn't a vehicle you can recall.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
It's not entirely flawed.
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
Human nature guarantees flaws. Death penalty means innocents will die. Period. End if story. So if you are for death penalty you are okay with few innocents dying to ensure all the baddies get it. There is no debating this. Admit your okay with few innocents dying. And Be done with it.
You've said this a few times now, Callen- obviously you've figured out copy and paste feature.
No. No I'm not okay with innocents dying. I've spoken about this several times so... as you searched your previous posts to 'copy and paste'... search my previous posts and see where I've spoken to this and what conditions I saw to consider the DP.
No I re type each time and again pointed this Fact out as it relates to the current topic.
There are so many reasons DP is wrong. And see no benefit. None. Well other than satisfying craving for revenge. Hmmm probably same feeling many killers have. Ironic. Sadly.
Unless you have been there then you really can't state that as being true.
edit - grammar
I don't think that is true at all. There are plenty of credible sources of information that one could use to make that determination, enough that it becomes pretty much common knowledge. Do you not have prison documentaries in Canada? Do you need to go to Antarctica to state that it is cold?
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
No. There are many reasons I'm against death penalty, would just seem to me that realizing innocents WILL be put to death would cause pause. But no. It's okay to kill a few to get that child rapists. Simple as that. I'm not stretching as are you in your reply.
And forensic science isn't used to convict all, it too can be wrong and evidence can be planted. So there is no way to guarantee guilt using evidence.
There is only one way ONE to ensure innocents aren't put to death.
As discussed in earlier posts we can't allow victims families to dictate what they want. And many forgave the offenders.
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
im afraid I'm probably the stereotypical hypocrite when it comes to these questions.
objectively I could never support the punishment.
subjectively (in the shoes of Dr Petit) Im not so sure I would hold up to my beliefs.
that said, emotion cant be the driver of a justice system in a democratic society likes ours.
and I don't allow killers actions to enflame me or bother me. They turn into humans that need to be incarcerated and housed as efficiently as possible. Maybe study them and find out how they ended up this way. .
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
No. There are many reasons I'm against death penalty, would just seem to me that realizing innocents WILL be put to death would cause pause. But no. It's okay to kill a few to get that child rapists. Simple as that. I'm not stretching as are you in your reply.
And forensic science isn't used to convict all, it too can be wrong and evidence can be planted. So there is no way to guarantee guilt using evidence.
There is only one way ONE to ensure innocents aren't put to death.
As discussed in earlier posts we can't allow victims families to dictate what they want. And many forgave the offenders.
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
actually, maybe not in that post, but in several others, you have described the "comforts of prison life", so yes, you have described it as some sort of country club.
you assume wrong. just because I didn't comment on his position, doesn't mean that I agree with it. He has posted that same sentence several times, and I believe many moons ago I addressed it as not being my position. Again, I don't need to address everyone's repeated posts every time it is done.
I wouldn't call it "bloodthirst" (even though you have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down, which begs the question, is it?), but I do agree that pro-DPers are able to reconcile with innocents being put to death so that other, seemingly deserving folks, meet the same fate. and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think someone who you've described should get life. and when I say life, I mean FOREVER. No release. ever. not 30 years. not 50 years. release the dead body.
just as you believe that my position would change if someone I knew were a victim, so do I believe yours would change if you knew someone on death row you thought were innocent.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
I have stated many many times how awful it must be for the victims and their families. I didn't in this instance, as it isn't necessary to point out the obvious in every single post. I was responding to a direct point you made, that "prison is too good for them". you seem to think it's a country club, when in fact, it is quite the opposite.
I said prison is too good for them- which it is. I never said prison is a 'country club'... but even if I did... you said 'prison is utter hell'. Why wouldn't I be able to exaggerate to support my position if you can freely employ the same tactic to support yours?
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
actually, maybe not in that post, but in several others, you have described the "comforts of prison life", so yes, you have described it as some sort of country club.
you assume wrong. just because I didn't comment on his position, doesn't mean that I agree with it. He has posted that same sentence several times, and I believe many moons ago I addressed it as not being my position. Again, I don't need to address everyone's repeated posts every time it is done.
I wouldn't call it "bloodthirst" (even though you have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down, which begs the question, is it?), but I do agree that pro-DPers are able to reconcile with innocents being put to death so that other, seemingly deserving folks, meet the same fate. and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think someone who you've described should get life. and when I say life, I mean FOREVER. No release. ever. not 30 years. not 50 years. release the dead body.
just as you believe that my position would change if someone I knew were a victim, so do I believe yours would change if you knew someone on death row you thought were innocent.
To the bolded statement... when have I described in any detail how I'd like to see someone put down? The most graphic I think I have ever been on this forum is when I used the expression 'shit sandwiches' as a suggestion for the Boston Bomber while he spent his time in a cell.
Outside of this... two things:
1. Is Rafferty's sentence 'justice' for Tori Stafford in your mind? Have we determined that 25 years without the possibility of parole is adequate? Does this punishment fit the crime?
2. I'd like to think my position wouldn't change if I knew someone on Death Row. I'd concede that it might. The family of Hayes (one of the Cheshire murderers) want him dead.
Comments
The irreversibility of the DP speaks to managing the flaws inherent in the investigative and trial processes. And I can see how one can argue that the removal of it safeguards the mistakes made in the aforementioned processes.
With that said... the scumbags fleeing the scene in the Cheshire murders didn't leave any doubt about their guilt. And their crimes: kidnapping, bondage, rape, and murder (of the horrific variety) warranted a penalty that reflected the brutality of their work.
and innocence or guilt is not my only problem with it, as we all know.
-EV 8/14/93
There are errors made and these errors beg for refinements of some sort, but the penalties attached to any verdicts are not responsible for generating the errors made.
And a horrific crime isn't something you ignore either. I understand you feel differently than me on this, but life in prison is simply too good for some in my opinion.
besides that, I have no idea how someone can reconcile that the flaws in the system that is directly leading to an incorrect decision, leading to the deaths of innocents, is not the cause of it. that simply does not compute.
can you imagine if a car (or any) company operated like that and someone died as a result? they'd be sued into oblivion and jailed. when QA finds a flaw, they send it back to development to correct it before releasing the product into production.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
But being Dr. Petit... or any of the other family members that live daily knowing their children were murdered in horrific fashion would be a Hell far worse. Far worse.
Say nothing of the victims and their final moments.
No, Hugh... sorry man. I'm still not there. Some people have more than earned their sentences of death.
And some have met their end through malicious or incompetent investigative and trial proceedings. This is really brutal.
No. No I'm not okay with innocents dying. I've spoken about this several times so... as you searched your previous posts to 'copy and paste'... search my previous posts and see where I've spoken to this and what conditions I saw to consider the DP.
It's either flawed or it's completely infallible. And I think we can all agree that police forces and the criminal justice system are far from infallible. Until they are, the death penalty is 100% wrong in my mind.
edit - grammar
Do you need to go to Antarctica to state that it is cold?
I know some of these guys who take the walk are absolute monsters and don't deserve any sympathy, but that is the bit that always troubles me the most. Its a form of torture, and in a case as uncertain as todays its really not something I can start to get to grips with. I hear all the comments before about child killers caught at the scene and all that, and I get the sentiment around those comments, but there comes a time when we really have to be better than them.
For now, a potentially innocent man, will be sat alone, waiting for his fate, conscious of every minute ticking by.......I don't know how the human mind can deal with that.
There are so many reasons DP is wrong. And see no benefit. None. Well other than satisfying craving for revenge. Hmmm probably same feeling many killers have. Ironic. Sadly.
If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html
If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...
1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?
2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?
If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
And forensic science isn't used to convict all, it too can be wrong and evidence can be planted. So there is no way to guarantee guilt using evidence.
There is only one way ONE to ensure innocents aren't put to death.
As discussed in earlier posts we can't allow victims families to dictate what they want. And many forgave the offenders.
asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?
objectively I could never support the punishment.
subjectively (in the shoes of Dr Petit) Im not so sure I would hold up to my beliefs.
that said, emotion cant be the driver of a justice system in a democratic society likes ours.
-EV 8/14/93
it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.
justice + emotion = chaos.
which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.
-EV 8/14/93
And in the last post to me you pointed out my- admittedly- absurd statement... but not surprisingly, you never pointed out Callen's absurd statement which prompted my silly comment. I say not surprisingly because 'pro DP people are cool with murdering innocents as long as they get their bloodthirst quenched' fits your narrative- it sat well with you I assume.
You speak of emotion too. Who's the emotional one? The definition of justice as it pertains to sentencing is as follows: the administering of deserved punishment or reward. To frame what I'm about to say... consider fellow countryman, Michael Rafferty, who lurks behind bars as we speak? After snatching Tori Stafford from the streets as a random victim... he raped her twice and after satisfying himself... he tried to crush her with his boots kicking her ribs in. Failing to murder her with his feet, he resorted to a hammer to kill her- proceeding to unceremoniously dump her 8 year old body under a pile of rocks in the middle of the field, go home and shower.
You think 30 years behind bars is the deserved punishment for such a crime? I don't. I think prison is a great place for gangsters who kill each other... jilted lovers that murder in a fit of jealous rage... serial drunk drivers who run over people in crosswalks... and the like. For the murders of the grotesque variety- serial or mass fashion, involving torture, or where children are the victims... warm meals, television, books, and internet usage while killing time is simply not my idea of justice.
you assume wrong. just because I didn't comment on his position, doesn't mean that I agree with it. He has posted that same sentence several times, and I believe many moons ago I addressed it as not being my position. Again, I don't need to address everyone's repeated posts every time it is done.
I wouldn't call it "bloodthirst" (even though you have often described the ways in which you wish these people to be put down, which begs the question, is it?), but I do agree that pro-DPers are able to reconcile with innocents being put to death so that other, seemingly deserving folks, meet the same fate. and I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I think someone who you've described should get life. and when I say life, I mean FOREVER. No release. ever. not 30 years. not 50 years. release the dead body.
just as you believe that my position would change if someone I knew were a victim, so do I believe yours would change if you knew someone on death row you thought were innocent.
-EV 8/14/93
Outside of this... two things:
1. Is Rafferty's sentence 'justice' for Tori Stafford in your mind? Have we determined that 25 years without the possibility of parole is adequate? Does this punishment fit the crime?
2. I'd like to think my position wouldn't change if I knew someone on Death Row. I'd concede that it might. The family of Hayes (one of the Cheshire murderers) want him dead.
-EV 8/14/93