9 Dead in Shooting at Black Church in SC

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

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.

jeffbr said:

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.

jeffbr said:

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 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

this isn't making any sense.

other variables? like what?
statistics aren't theory.
interesting I have never read one "objective scholar" to be pro-DP, and also interesting you have not posted about this prevoiusly, and we've been discussing this for how long now? post something. I'd honestly like to read the take of an "objective scholar".

I guess career criminologists aren't objective enough? nor are they experts in their field I suppose?

Hmmm. Oh. Say. Maybe socioeconomics? Demographics? Culture? And a multitude of other variables that might more accurately account for discrepancies between countries, states, or whatever it might be one would try to compare.

Not all career criminologists and experts in the field agree, Hugh. And even if the majority felt the same as you... that wouldn't necessarily mean they were right.

Bottom line: you cannot draw definitive conclusions from poorly flawed data fields. Stating the DP is or isn't a deterrent given its used in 0.006 of all murder cases does not demonstrate construct validity in the slightest.

If you choose to ignore that very basic principle... then you are choosing to believe what you want to believe based on theory, speculation, or hunch- anything but something that has been quantified with data because the data to support such a premise... is... not... there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

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.

it's not unfair to Roof. it's unfair to give more credence to victims who have family and friends as opposed to the homeless guy who was murdered and no one knew him, so there's no "impact statement" given. it's not prejudicial to the defendent. it's prejudicial in precedence for other victims who don't have the same social influence.

So because a homeless guy doesn't have someone to speak for them... nobody else should either?

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

this isn't making any sense.

other variables? like what?
statistics aren't theory.
interesting I have never read one "objective scholar" to be pro-DP, and also interesting you have not posted about this prevoiusly, and we've been discussing this for how long now? post something. I'd honestly like to read the take of an "objective scholar".

I guess career criminologists aren't objective enough? nor are they experts in their field I suppose?

Hmmm. Oh. Say. Maybe socioeconomics? Demographics? Culture? And a multitude of other variables that might more accurately account for discrepancies between countries, states, or whatever it might be one would try to compare.

Not all career criminologists and experts in the field agree, Hugh. And even if the majority felt the same as you... that wouldn't necessarily mean they were right.

Bottom line: you cannot draw definitive conclusions from poorly flawed data fields. Stating the DP is or isn't a deterrent given its used in 0.006 of all murder cases does not demonstrate construct validity in the slightest.

If you choose to ignore that very basic principle... then you are choosing to believe what you want to believe based on theory, speculation, or hunch- anything but something that has been quantified with data because the data to support such a premise... is... not... there.

I asked you to support your assertion that objective scholars concede what you've tried to impress on me with back up. you did not do so.

never said they all agree. but I'm curious........about an hour ago you stated quite emphatically that the majority of people wish the DP to be reinstated, supporting your opinion for it to be brought back. But now, if the majority does not support your opinion, and even when those with that opinion are experts in their field and not just laymen, that opinion is to be ignored or dismissed entirely?

You're all over the place.

When I said the majority wish for reinstatement I did so expressing that was the popular sentiment. I never expressed it was one that everyone should get in line for. Believe what you want.

And I never said opinions to the contrary should be ignored or dismissed entirely. I said being in the majority doesn't automatically make them right (same stands for popular opinion).

Are you going to continue to dance around the fact that the data is simply not here and never could be without sweeping changes to the implementation of the DP (none which anyone wants) to quantify the 'not a deterrent' argument? Or are you going to concede that testing parameters simply cannot yield a definitive answer leaving this portion of the discussion moot?

jeffbr said:

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.

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.