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.
interesting.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
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.
Come on, man... I've went through this already- stop with the trolling.
When the heads are piled up in the fridge... there's no need to scratch the pea brains and wonder about guilt. If we're executing on the testimony of a junkie, jailhouse witness... let's slow down. That's all you're going to get from me: I'm still in favour of the DP when the situation warrants it.
You can talk all day about how Steve Smith- the guy who raped and murdered a 6 month old- is a quality enough human being that was above a death sentence for his offence... but I'll never buy it. The guy was executed and the world is a better place without him.
He pleaded for his life saying he didn't mean to kill Autumn, he just wanted to rape her. A gawddamned 6 month old.
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
You are left with people who, if the charges warrant it and guilt has been determined, are able to vote for the death penalty. It is a necessary qualification to serve on a jury that may have to vote on such a sentence. Its not a guarantee that anyone will vote for the death penalty or that they will vote to convict the defendant. I don't really see it as stacking the deck at all.
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
not really. it's really no different than having a potential juror saying they are against finding a person guilty of 1st degree murder, as they don't believe in life in prison. the system has to have no prejudice against any of their legal possibilities in order to have a just system.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Just because someone favors the death penalty, doesn't mean they will for vote for it in every case. Every situation is different. I am for the DP. If I was on that jury for the Boston bomber, based on what I've seen and read, I wouldn't vote for it for him. I'd rather see him sit in solitary for the rest of his life. So each case is different.
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
not really. it's really no different than having a potential juror saying they are against finding a person guilty of 1st degree murder, as they don't believe in life in prison. the system has to have no prejudice against any of their legal possibilities in order to have a just system.
I've never heard someone say they are against life in prison.
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.
Come on, man... I've went through this already- stop with the trolling.
When the heads are piled up in the fridge... there's no need to scratch the pea brains and wonder about guilt. If we're executing on the testimony of a junkie, jailhouse witness... let's slow down. That's all you're going to get from me: I'm still in favour of the DP when the situation warrants it.
You can talk all day about how Steve Smith- the guy who raped and murdered a 6 month old- is a quality enough human being that was above a death sentence for his offence... but I'll never buy it. The guy was executed and the world is a better place without him.
He pleaded for his life saying he didn't mean to kill Autumn, he just wanted to rape her. A gawddamned 6 month old.
See ya. Oh yeah... and... rot in Hell, fucker.
Not trolling. You may bit like my questions and see your not able to counter.
Again due to human nature that can't be changed if we have the death penalty innocent people will be killed. So if you are fir the death penalty you are okay with a few innocent people being killed. Just admit this and move on. Simple really.
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
Yes in criminal trails the jury has to be okay with punishment available and even type of case. This stacks the deck unfortunately with pride at penalty people and associated biases. Been selected and didn't have big enough pool cause many didn't agree with punitive damages for employer negligence.
Just because someone favors the death penalty, doesn't mean they will for vote for it in every case. Every situation is different. I am for the DP. If I was on that jury for the Boston bomber, based on what I've seen and read, I wouldn't vote for it for him. I'd rather see him sit in solitary for the rest of his life. So each case is different.
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Disagree on first I feel it does skew but yes agree that having one that doesn't does in affect eliminate possibility.
I just found out something interesting today. A potential juror for a capital case needs to be what they call "death qualified". This essentially means that the prosecution is allowed to disallow any potential jurors that are opposed to the death penalty.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
not really. it's really no different than having a potential juror saying they are against finding a person guilty of 1st degree murder, as they don't believe in life in prison. the system has to have no prejudice against any of their legal possibilities in order to have a just system.
I've never heard someone say they are against life in prison.
Of course not. I was only illustrating that you cant have someone who is prejudiced against the system on a jury. It eas merely an example. The death penalty in some states is just like any other sentence. It all has to be available to be a just system. As much as i despise the DP.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
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.
Come on, man... I've went through this already- stop with the trolling.
When the heads are piled up in the fridge... there's no need to scratch the pea brains and wonder about guilt. If we're executing on the testimony of a junkie, jailhouse witness... let's slow down. That's all you're going to get from me: I'm still in favour of the DP when the situation warrants it.
You can talk all day about how Steve Smith- the guy who raped and murdered a 6 month old- is a quality enough human being that was above a death sentence for his offence... but I'll never buy it. The guy was executed and the world is a better place without him.
He pleaded for his life saying he didn't mean to kill Autumn, he just wanted to rape her. A gawddamned 6 month old.
See ya. Oh yeah... and... rot in Hell, fucker.
Not trolling. You may bit like my questions and see your not able to counter.
Again due to human nature that can't be changed if we have the death penalty innocent people will be killed. So if you are fir the death penalty you are okay with a few innocent people being killed. Just admit this and move on. Simple really.
Lol.
The only person that is having troubles here are you my friend. It's been spelled out in as simple manner as possible for you... yet you stubbornly persist with your flawed line of reason.
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.
Come on, man... I've went through this already- stop with the trolling.
When the heads are piled up in the fridge... there's no need to scratch the pea brains and wonder about guilt. If we're executing on the testimony of a junkie, jailhouse witness... let's slow down. That's all you're going to get from me: I'm still in favour of the DP when the situation warrants it.
You can talk all day about how Steve Smith- the guy who raped and murdered a 6 month old- is a quality enough human being that was above a death sentence for his offence... but I'll never buy it. The guy was executed and the world is a better place without him.
He pleaded for his life saying he didn't mean to kill Autumn, he just wanted to rape her. A gawddamned 6 month old.
See ya. Oh yeah... and... rot in Hell, fucker.
Not trolling. You may bit like my questions and see your not able to counter.
Again due to human nature that can't be changed if we have the death penalty innocent people will be killed. So if you are fir the death penalty you are okay with a few innocent people being killed. Just admit this and move on. Simple really.
Lol.
The only person that is having troubles here are you my friend. It's been spelled out in as simple manner as possible for you... yet you stubbornly persist with your flawed line of reason.
I'll stop there.
Maybe math is better for you TB. Some simple addition that can't be disputed. Okay here we go.
FH + DP=IHD
FH=Flawed Humans DP=Death Penalty IHD=Innocent Human Death
Simple addition Thirty and this is it. You can twist and squirm but much easier to just admit your okay with few innocents being sacrificed to satisfy your thirst for revenge. Okay come out Thirty. You'll be liberated. We won't judge.
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Both options lead to bias of the result, one way or the other. Since execution is a currently available penalty this is likely the way it has to be, but it is disingenuous to claim there is no bias introduced when you start with a random pool of people and then deliberately remove all people opposed to a particular outcome. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all of those involved will automatically vote for the DP, but it does alter the discussion. It also doesn't actually reflect the larger opinion, since current support for the DP is at about 62%, not 100%.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Both options lead to bias of the result, one way or the other. Since execution is a currently available penalty this is likely the way it has to be, but it is disingenuous to claim there is no bias introduced when you start with a random pool of people and then deliberately remove all people opposed to a particular outcome. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all of those involved will automatically vote for the DP, but it does alter the discussion. It also doesn't actually reflect the larger opinion, since current support for the DP is at about 62%, not 100%.
again, I have to disagree. you can't have a just system and have portions of that system unavailable at the disposal of said system.
if the DP is legal, it is prejudicial to have anti-DPers on the jury. it is not preducial to have DP proponents on the jury. they aren't people hoping to convict so they can use the DP (hopefully). they are people who, if reach a conviction verdict, have to have all of their options available to them.
"every society honours its live conformists and its dead troublemakers"
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Both options lead to bias of the result, one way or the other. Since execution is a currently available penalty this is likely the way it has to be, but it is disingenuous to claim there is no bias introduced when you start with a random pool of people and then deliberately remove all people opposed to a particular outcome. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all of those involved will automatically vote for the DP, but it does alter the discussion. It also doesn't actually reflect the larger opinion, since current support for the DP is at about 62%, not 100%.
again, I have to disagree. you can't have a just system and have portions of that system unavailable at the disposal of said system.
if the DP is legal, it is prejudicial to have anti-DPers on the jury. it is not preducial to have DP proponents on the jury. they aren't people hoping to convict so they can use the DP (hopefully). they are people who, if reach a conviction verdict, have to have all of their options available to them.
Okay, guess we'll disagree.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Both options lead to bias of the result, one way or the other. Since execution is a currently available penalty this is likely the way it has to be, but it is disingenuous to claim there is no bias introduced when you start with a random pool of people and then deliberately remove all people opposed to a particular outcome. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all of those involved will automatically vote for the DP, but it does alter the discussion. It also doesn't actually reflect the larger opinion, since current support for the DP is at about 62%, not 100%.
One leads to an ASSURANCE of the result, not a bias. If you are unable to vote for the death penalty then you will not vote for the death penalty. Therefore, no unanimous death penalty decision can be reached and no death penalty sentence can be handed down. That is assuring a particular result will not happen, not stacking the deck or increasing the probability one way or the other.
Putting death penalty opponents on death penalty juries, making death penalty sentences impossible to get, would be skewing the pool. Not the other way around. Because someone can vote for the death penalty doesn't mean they will, but because someone cannot vote for the death penalty does mean they won't.
Both options lead to bias of the result, one way or the other. Since execution is a currently available penalty this is likely the way it has to be, but it is disingenuous to claim there is no bias introduced when you start with a random pool of people and then deliberately remove all people opposed to a particular outcome. Of course it doesn't guarantee that all of those involved will automatically vote for the DP, but it does alter the discussion. It also doesn't actually reflect the larger opinion, since current support for the DP is at about 62%, not 100%.
But as it has been stated, the DP comes into play 'after' the process has played out.
The jurors aren't there to try and make the trial details 'fit' a sentence of death. They are there initially to determine level of guilt. Just because they might approve of the DP, it doesn't mean they cannot be a suitable juror.
The 'bias' is likely inherent to some degree with regards to approving of the sentence sought after guilt is established, but if the prosecution is seeking a DP verdict and is successful with their case... they shouldn't be stymied at the point of sentencing because somebody is opposed to it. Not while the DP is a legally accepted measure of punishment for a crime.
I'm surprised this thread hasn't seen any action ... I guess I'll be the one to throw fuel on the fire ...
Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill that ends the death penalty in the state. Nebraska of all places! The "Big Red" state.
The interesting thing is that it passed because Christian lawmakers finally realized that it was hypocritical to be against abortion and be for the death penalty. Which I've pointed out is pure hypocracy in the past.
Anywho, I don't have any skin in this game, just thought it was interesting. I will still be for promoting the creation of dinosaur island for a drop-off point for killers and rapists. Let T Rex judge their fate ....
One by one I think all states will outlaw it now. There just isn't the support. More importantly, to me, is that most states that still use it do so recklessly. Executions should not be common.
One by one I think all states will outlaw it now. There just isn't the support. More importantly, to me, is that most states that still use it do so recklessly. Executions should not be common.
there isn't the support? really? that would surprise me. even a slim majority of Canadians want it back.
One by one I think all states will outlaw it now. There just isn't the support. More importantly, to me, is that most states that still use it do so recklessly. Executions should not be common.
there isn't the support? really? that would surprise me. even a slim majority of Canadians want it back.
I could be wrong of course but I just don't get the sense that there is anymore. Part of that might be living in Massachusetts, though. Time will tell but I do think this is something on the way out at the state level.
Also, I do think the idea that life in prison could be worse is gaining steam. That is reflected in your article:
But Mukerji said the poll also reveals that it is “not a black and white” issue for many Canadians. Given the choice of supporting the death penalty or life imprisonment, 50 per cent chose the latter, the survey found.
“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”
Comments
When the heads are piled up in the fridge... there's no need to scratch the pea brains and wonder about guilt. If we're executing on the testimony of a junkie, jailhouse witness... let's slow down. That's all you're going to get from me: I'm still in favour of the DP when the situation warrants it.
You can talk all day about how Steve Smith- the guy who raped and murdered a 6 month old- is a quality enough human being that was above a death sentence for his offence... but I'll never buy it. The guy was executed and the world is a better place without him.
He pleaded for his life saying he didn't mean to kill Autumn, he just wanted to rape her. A gawddamned 6 month old.
See ya. Oh yeah... and... rot in Hell, fucker.
On a purely practical level I suppose this makes sense. After all, one could argue, why go through the process if the DP is likely to be taken off the table by one or more jurors? But on another level it just seems as if it's really stacking the deck in favour of the death penalty. After all, if you remove all the people who are going to be opposed to it, you are left with the people likely to be in favour of it.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Again due to human nature that can't be changed if we have the death penalty innocent people will be killed. So if you are fir the death penalty you are okay with a few innocent people being killed. Just admit this and move on. Simple really.
Been selected and didn't have big enough pool cause many didn't agree with punitive damages for employer negligence.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The only person that is having troubles here are you my friend. It's been spelled out in as simple manner as possible for you... yet you stubbornly persist with your flawed line of reason.
I'll stop there.
FH + DP=IHD
FH=Flawed Humans
DP=Death Penalty
IHD=Innocent Human Death
Simple addition Thirty and this is it. You can twist and squirm but much easier to just admit your okay with few innocents being sacrificed to satisfy your thirst for revenge. Okay come out Thirty. You'll be liberated. We won't judge.
FL(D) + SP= TR
FL= Flawed Logic
D= Denial (of flawed logic successfully refuted numerous times by various sources)
SP= Stubborn Persistence
TR=Trolling
Slightly more complicated, but remember to keep order of operations in mind when considering this formula.
Have a nice day!
if the DP is legal, it is prejudicial to have anti-DPers on the jury. it is not preducial to have DP proponents on the jury. they aren't people hoping to convict so they can use the DP (hopefully). they are people who, if reach a conviction verdict, have to have all of their options available to them.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The jurors aren't there to try and make the trial details 'fit' a sentence of death. They are there initially to determine level of guilt. Just because they might approve of the DP, it doesn't mean they cannot be a suitable juror.
The 'bias' is likely inherent to some degree with regards to approving of the sentence sought after guilt is established, but if the prosecution is seeking a DP verdict and is successful with their case... they shouldn't be stymied at the point of sentencing because somebody is opposed to it. Not while the DP is a legally accepted measure of punishment for a crime.
Nebraska lawmakers passed a bill that ends the death penalty in the state. Nebraska of all places! The "Big Red" state.
The interesting thing is that it passed because Christian lawmakers finally realized that it was hypocritical to be against abortion and be for the death penalty. Which I've pointed out is pure hypocracy in the past.
Anywho, I don't have any skin in this game, just thought it was interesting. I will still be for promoting the creation of dinosaur island for a drop-off point for killers and rapists. Let T Rex judge their fate ....
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2012/02/08/majority_of_canadians_support_return_of_death_penalty_poll_finds.html
Also, I do think the idea that life in prison could be worse is gaining steam. That is reflected in your article:
But Mukerji said the poll also reveals that it is “not a black and white” issue for many Canadians. Given the choice of supporting the death penalty or life imprisonment, 50 per cent chose the latter, the survey found.
“We ask the question in two ways — do you support or oppose the death penalty — and in that context people really do support it,” he said. But when the option of life imprisonment is introduced as an option for those convicted of murder, “50 per cent actually say they would prefer life in prison.”
"...I changed by not changing at all..."