9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.

I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.

DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?

now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.

It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.

I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.

de·ter·rent
dəˈtərənt/
noun
1.
a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More
adjective
1.
able or intended to deter.
"the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200

now here is a "the DP is a detterent" article that states no actual facts, just suppositions

http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm

find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.

We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.

I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.

neither does mine.

so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?

not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

but that's all because of the application of it.

sure.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?

I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:
I support the DP in some cases. I have changed by views a bit though given cases like the West Memphis Three, etc.

I think the DP should only be an option when the defendant pleads guilty and/or there is direct indisputable evidence that they are guilty.

DP should be swift after conviction. I think that would make it more of a deterrent.
but it's been proven time and again that it's not a deterrent. where the DP should be involved, as many proponents have stated, in extreme cases like serial murderers, pre meditated murders of children, etc, do you really think those types would have stopped to think about the consequences of their actions?

now, if people are suggesting the DP for those convicted of lesser crimes (2nd degree murder, etc), then that's a whole other ball of wax.
No.

It's never been proven time and again it's not a deterrent. If it was employed in more than 0.0006 percent of all muder cases... we could definitively state- one way or another- whether it served as a deterrent or not.

I'm not inclined to test the idea, but as JeffBR consistently asserts, in one regard... it does serve as a deterrent given the killer can't kill again (just like in that example pointed out to you three posts or so ago... and many other times I might add).
that's not a deterrent. that's prevention.

de·ter·rent
dəˈtərənt/
noun
1.
a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.
synonyms: disincentive, discouragement, damper, curb, check, restraint; More
adjective
1.
able or intended to deter.
"the deterrent effect of heavy prison sentences"

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2200

now here is a "the DP is a detterent" article that states no actual facts, just suppositions

http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/arguments/argument1a.htm

find me any 2 studies that experts agree, with stats to back it up, that murder rates would decrease if the DP were in effect.
The entire point is moot.

We could never actually state one way or another whether the DP is a deterrent or not given its current and historical application. I only countered what you suggested stating that you cannot declare 'it is proven to not be a deterrent '. Such a statement is inaccurate.

I wish to clarify that my position doesn't stem from a deterrent standpoint.
neither does mine.

so the overwhelming majority of experts in the field suggest it is not a detterent, and the entire point is moot to you?

not only that: look at these statistics: indisputable proof. the murder rate in states WITH the death penalty is HIGHER. and has been every year since 1990.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

but that's all because of the application of it.

sure.

Well I guess if you ignore all other variables you can come to any conclusion you like, Hugh.

I've reviewed all those studies and they are all flawed given the testing parameters cannot possibly yield definitive results. Objective scholars all concede what I've tried to impress upon you, however... just as you preferred to view the pro comments in that piece you submitted as inferior to the anti comments given their content... you're choosing to do the same here.

You are trying to pass unfounded speculation and theory as fact.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:
so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?

I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?

No. You are wrong and again... you're just casually tossing stuff out there to discredit. I have consistently stressed the point is moot.

My arguments typically come from the victims corner (their rights).

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:
so then, how should it be applied, if it has been done the wrong way "currently and historically"? what is the right way for the state to kill a citizen?

I believe, also, you have made the "deterrent" argument often. Not as your main argument, no, but you have. but now you are backing away from that. why?

And synapse is not really happening here.

Very simply: it's impossible to tell whether the DP would serve as a deterrent or not when it is used so infrequently (0.006 percent of all muder cases... or something like that).

If one wanted to firmly establish its effectiveness, or lack thereof, one would need to measure results after a lengthy duration of time with consistent administration of the penalty for most, if not all, offences. I'm obviously not advocating for this.

The point is moot. Don't let that stop you from speculating though.

jeffbr · January 2017

Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.

The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.

Gern Blansten · January 2017

jeffbr said:
Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.

The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.

Actually I said "or there is direct indisputable evidence"....which is kind of hard to describe but I'm picturing a case like Aaron Hernandez where he didn't plead guilty but there was security camera footage of him with the gun, etc.

To me there is a clear line between cases like that and a case like the West Memphis Three where (even though there was a confession) where there was absolutely no direct evidence at all.

jeffbr · January 2017

Gern Blansten said:

jeffbr said:
Again, the DP certainly deters the asshole who was convicted from ever perpetrating another crime against a person. So that is good enough for me. But as Thirty states, being a deterrent isn't the reason for my support in most cases. I also agree with Gern's conditional support of the DP, except for his one condition that the defendant pleads guilty. But if there is overwhelming physical evidence (not a case built on circumstantial evidence) and a confession, then it is a no-brainer for me.

The other benefit of having the DP on the table is that often the DP is used as leverage to get the asshole to plea bargain to a life without parole punishment in exchange for foregoing a lengthy, emotionally painful (for the victims' families) trial, or in exchange for helping victims' families get closure by recovering bodies. If there were no DP, then there's no leverage to get the dirtbag to offer a plea, unless you're then allowing him to plea to lesser charges or sentences. Of course this leverage can only exist if the DP is actually occasionally carried out. So while I'm uneasy and uncomfortable with the DP, it has a purpose, and a real benefit to society if used sparingly and only in cases where there is absolutely zero doubt about guilt.
Actually I said "or there is direct indisputable evidence"....which is kind of hard to describe but I'm picturing a case like Aaron Hernandez where he didn't plead guilty but there was security camera footage of him with the gun, etc.

To me there is a clear line between cases like that and a case like the West Memphis Three where (even though there was a confession) where there was absolutely no direct evidence at all.

Completely agree, and I am opposed to the DP being used in cases that were built on circumstantial evidence. The West Memphis Three case is a good example of the danger of a broad application of the DP. It should only be used for cases meeting very specific and stringent requirements like those you listed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

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.

PJ_Soul · January 2017

What is the matter with you Thirty? AGAIN you act like we care about killers, despite how many we've so clearly explained that that is not the case.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:
What is the matter with you Thirty? AGAIN you act like we care about killers, despite how many times we've so clearly explained that that is not the case.
I said for some. Whether that meant you or not is up for you to decide.

I thought when we went over this last time... I explained to you exactly some of the comments that were made in this forum where people ACTUALLY DO CARE about killers (remember the "it would be far worse to await execution than be the victim of a murder" statement made, supported, and argued?).

And even with that said... if you do lament a child killer's execution for his crimes... you do care at least a little. To this... you've actually never clearly explained. Not at all.

Actually, yes I have very clearly explained to you that that is not the case, not even a little, several times, and it also explained by every single argument I have ever made against the DP in any case. I'm not going to bother doing it again.

oftenreading · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

tweedyfanjen · January 2017

wistv.com/story/34191244/live-roofs-ex-attorney-criticizes-witness-testimony-it-is-not-a-memorial-service

well then.

PJ_Soul · January 2017

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

Exactly.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

HughFreakingDillon · January 2017

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

this point has been made several times before. the retort is always the same: "that is the fault of the justice system, not the application of justice".

so, in his eyes, he'd rather continue to drive a car that needs repair instead of stopping all operation of that car until it is safe to drive again.

PJ_Soul · January 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

tweedyfanjen said:
wistv.com/story/34191244/live-roofs-ex-attorney-criticizes-witness-testimony-it-is-not-a-memorial-service

well then.

So in other words... "Damn it. All this testimony is so damaging to Mushroom Head. If we could only have people forget the rich existence his innocent victims had we could maybe extend some forgiveness."

jeffbr · January 2017

tweedyfanjen said:
wistv.com/story/34191244/live-roofs-ex-attorney-criticizes-witness-testimony-it-is-not-a-memorial-service

well then.

I think Judge Gergel doesn't really understand "fair". Saying it would be unfair to have 38 witnesses testify in the sentencing phase against Roof doesn't make sense, unless Roof was denied his own witness testimony. The fact that there aren't 38 people lined up to sing Roof's praises doesn't make this process unfair. What is unfair is that there are 9 families that have been destroyed by Roof. And to have Bruck say that it isn't a memorial service seems insensitive at best. Someone should kick him in the nuts.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.
this point has been made several times before. the retort is always the same: "that is the fault of the justice system, not the application of justice".

so, in his eyes, he'd rather continue to drive a car that needs repair instead of stopping all operation of that car until it is safe to drive again.

Or the alternative... throw the car away because it needs new wipers.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · January 2017

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
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.

The point hasn't been lost on me. I understand that we need to move forward with caution when considering the DP. We don't want to execute a wrongfully convicted person.

When someone says we will never get 100% certainty... that is wrong. This post you quoted was in response to that comment.

9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

Comments

Categories