Nothing short of clear video evidence that is proven to have not been doctored can be 100% certainty. Not confession, not DNA evidence, nothing. I'm not sure how many cold-blooded murders happen on video where the murderer is 100% identifiable, but I'm thinking not all that many.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
Yes, it's irrelevant to the point I was making, because the point I was making was obviously not that we can never be 100% certain of guilt in any case at all; it was that we can never be 100% certain in the whole process by which this is determined. It's not possible to write a law that says the DP can be applied and only applies in cases of 100% certainty because the law doesn't work like that. What's more, people don't work like that. We know exactly what will happen anytime that the DP is legally available - it gets misused. People who are innocent are given the DP. That's just what happens when human beings are in charge of the system. After all, that's what happens with the current law, despite the fact that we all know this and the law is already supposed to ensure that people really are guilty before sentencing them, right?
Believing that we can make this a foolproof system takes an astounding amount of faith in the competency and goodwill of so many people that we already all know is misplaced that it seems to me to be deliberately ignoring reality.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.
I understand it. I guess I'm hung up on the legal reality of it.
Nothing short of clear video evidence that is proven to have not been doctored can be 100% certainty. Not confession, not DNA evidence, nothing. I'm not sure how many cold-blooded murders happen on video where the murderer is 100% identifiable, but I'm thinking not all that many.
Well there's no uncertainty whatsoever in this case.
An interesting turn in the discussion. Here's why I say this: if there is a shred of doubt... a person is not supposed to be convicted.
So, while I agree with the general premise of what you guys are saying (indisputable evidence lending itself to a stronger penalty such as death)... in theory... nobody should be facing penalties of any kind if there isn't indisputable evidence to begin with.
But since humans are fallible there will always be convictions of innocent people, there will always be people who we are certain committed a crime but actually didn't , and, where the DP exists, there will always be executions of innocent people. There is no way around it. We can talk about making sure it is only used when there is irrefutable evidence of guilt but in practice that won't and can't happen, due to human fallibility and all the associated flaws of pride and greed and revenge and fear. The law can not be written to require 100% certainty; that's why the standard for a criminal conviction is beyond reasonable doubt, which is roughly defined as 95-99% certain. We will never get 100% certainty.
In certain cases... you get 100% certainty.
Roof is 100% guilty.
That is irrelevant to the point being made.
Is it? The point being made was that we will never get 100% certainty. If we're talking about 100% of all cases, then of course that would be correct. But we can have 100% certainty in specific applications, and for those specific applications, the DP can be appropriate. In Roof's case, I don't know anyone (even on the defense side) who has expressed even the slightest doubt that he did it. It is pretty safe to say that there is 100% certainty that Roof committed this heinous crime. With that 100% certainty, I'm comfortable with the DP for him. Fuck him.
You're asking for the law to establish another level of guilt. If someone is super duper guilty, then the death penalty is applicable? No. You're either guilty or not guilty.
Nope. I'm simply putting conditions on the punishment. There are already conditions on what the crime must be prior to seeking the death penalty, no? Or are you under the impression that murder is murder? There are varying degrees of murder, and jurisdictions typically only seek the death penalty when what you might refer to as a super duper murder was committed. I'm saying if he's been convicted of a super duper murder, found guilty (doesn't need to be super duper), and have the super duper conditions met, then I'm fine with him being executed.
We're not talking about applying the death penalty based on severity of the crime, it was about doing it when guilt is 100% certain. That means there would be cases of 60 and 80% certainty where you would have to establish some sort of criteria for that partial certainty. The jury says guilty or not guilty, though. Not sort of guilty.
To get a guilty conviction you just need "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've stated that that is probably not quite enough for me, but I have no problem with the DP if there is 100% certainty. That certainty can be based on evidence, confessions, videos, etc... It doesn't have to be an actual, new, legal verdict. I have never talked about that. I said for me to be comfortable with it I would like 100% certainty. I'm not sure why you're unable to understand that.
I understand it. I guess I'm hung up on the legal reality of it.
Ah, ok. Well the thing is, I haven't been arguing for any changes to the legal system, and have expressed my discomfort with the DP. At the same time, I see a few reasons to have it which I've listed in previous posts (leverage for a plea, public safety knowing the scumbag won't ever walk the streets again, even with a life sentence, and lastly keeping the scumbag from committing further violence against guards and other inmates). The legal reality is that the DP is a form of punishment in this country. Nothing I've been talking about changes that reality. I am only expressing my opinion that I, personally, feel more comfortable with the application of the death penalty when there is 100% certainty that the accused/convicted did, indeed, commit the heinous act(s). In this specific case I have no doubt (and if anyone does, they are delusional) that Roof is guilty and have no problem with the application of the death penalty being applied here.
"I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed."
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.
It remains to be seen if the punishment will be swift though. It usually isn't. But the guy seems to have been trying to get the DP (which is an argument against this sentence IMO), so perhaps there won't be a bunch of appeals, which would drag this out for years. Plus the federal government has only put 3 other people to death since the federal death penalty was reinstated in the '80s. The Justice Department has actually declared a moratorium on federal executions anyhow, while they review the policy. Isn't it ironic that the Church in which the victims were killed actually opposes the death penalty? Also, 65% of black people polled oppose the death sentence for Roof, while only 35% of white people polled oppose it. Huh.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.
It remains to be seen if the punishment will be swift though. It usually isn't. But the guy seems to have been trying to get the DP (which is an argument against this sentence IMO), so perhaps there won't be a bunch of appeals, which would drag this out for years. Plus the federal government has only put 3 other people to death since the federal death penalty was reinstated in the '80s. The Justice Department has actually declared a moratorium on federal executions anyhow, while they review the policy. Isn't it ironic that the Church in which the victims were killed actually opposes the death penalty? Also, 65% of black people polled oppose the death sentence for Roof, while only 35% of white people polled oppose it. Huh.
The process is too long given what we have here- irrefutable guilt. Just march him downstairs, erase his blemish on society, and let his moment become a memory.
Critics are speaking to the fact that the ensuing trials will cause additional pain and suffering by survivors. The same pain and suffering occurs when news of him applying for parole... or getting married to some idiot happens as well.
If the punishment meant prison for life- and by life I mean life where he dies in prison- and with no measures to make his stay comfortable such as protective custody... I'd be okay with that.
god bless america is close to the stupidest and most arrogant thing a human can muster.
Allah wills it ranks up there.
at least they aren't shouting for allah to bless a man-made geographical area. that is just such a stupid concept to me.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not in disagreement with you.
Makes me cringe as well. "And may God continue to bless the United States of America." Obama, 1/10/17
yeah, I get the heebie jeebies no matter whose mouth it comes from.
sometimes I wonder how many politicians (democrats) hate saying that, but have to, as they'd be villified if they didn't.
well you seem to hate America and Americans, so this isnt a surprise. God Bless Canada to , eh....
what an idiotic statement. as I have stated repeatedly, it is impossible for any reasonably intelligent person to hate a country. I like visiting America, and some of my family are Americans.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Comments
Believing that we can make this a foolproof system takes an astounding amount of faith in the competency and goodwill of so many people that we already all know is misplaced that it seems to me to be deliberately ignoring reality.
"I have not shed a tear for the innocent people I killed."
Is anyone really surprised? Glad sentencing was swift.
Isn't it ironic that the Church in which the victims were killed actually opposes the death penalty? Also, 65% of black people polled oppose the death sentence for Roof, while only 35% of white people polled oppose it. Huh.
Critics are speaking to the fact that the ensuing trials will cause additional pain and suffering by survivors. The same pain and suffering occurs when news of him applying for parole... or getting married to some idiot happens as well.
If the punishment meant prison for life- and by life I mean life where he dies in prison- and with no measures to make his stay comfortable such as protective custody... I'd be okay with that.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
"And may God continue to bless the United States of America." Obama, 1/10/17
sometimes I wonder how many politicians (democrats) hate saying that, but have to, as they'd be villified if they didn't.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93