so was what I said, sounds like the process works pretty good. THose found guilty have decades to prove themselves innocent before they are put to death.jord wrote:
Was just another fact, food for thought.lowing wrote:
So what was the point of saying 127 people were found to be innocent?jord wrote:
I wasn't arguing anything, I was just telling Roc he's wrong about the cost of life imprisonment v death.
Poll
Execute the man?
| Yes | 29% | 29% - 12 | ||||
| No | 70% | 70% - 29 | ||||
| Total: 41 | ||||||
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
No, lowing, it's more like: the investigation is not done well enough so a person must sit on death row while the outside world decides if they made the right decision. Imagine what it is like for the man who sits for a decade in solitude, awaiting his death. Now, unless that man is a Buddhist monk and lives on the Tibetan plateau, then I doubt he desires to be in that situation.
I think instead of cracking our skulls together over the qualities of the legal/criminal justice system, the root of this problem should be addressed: the poor implication of the scientific method in criminal investigation, and the many muses of psychosis and derangement in our society.
If 10% of our citizens are in prison, cannot we blame both the prisoners and the jail keepers? We may have a shit ton of ridiculous laws and punishments, but we also have a shit ton of ridiculous people breaking those laws... apparently. Unless many of them are innocent. This is why you employ the best of scientific genius to solve the problem from both ends.
I think instead of cracking our skulls together over the qualities of the legal/criminal justice system, the root of this problem should be addressed: the poor implication of the scientific method in criminal investigation, and the many muses of psychosis and derangement in our society.
If 10% of our citizens are in prison, cannot we blame both the prisoners and the jail keepers? We may have a shit ton of ridiculous laws and punishments, but we also have a shit ton of ridiculous people breaking those laws... apparently. Unless many of them are innocent. This is why you employ the best of scientific genius to solve the problem from both ends.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-09-24 07:17:48)
hmmmmmmmmmmmm so everything I just listed goes before courts and juries ...... just like murder cases ..... just like this case doubleDilbert_X wrote:
Everything you've raised goes before courts and juries - they can weigh it and make judgements accordingly.SEREMAKER wrote:
the speeding ticket you got ..... get a lawyer and fight it and if he is good he will be able to show that the steering wheel didn't fit ..... if the wheel doesn't fit, must acquit
the rape you committed ( bc of being forever alone ) and you're found guilty and sentenced 10 years in prison ..... get a new lawyer, have him look over your case and determine that because you were tormented on this site is why you snapped and raped that elderly lady .... you had a brief mentally break down and didn't really mean to ..... get acquitted
Do we really have to point out to you that Police and prosecution lawyers get up to all sorts of corrupt activity, falsifying evidence, tampering with evidence, witholding evidence which might point to innocence, intimidating witnesses, lying - which carries a lot of weight when a Police officer does it and so on? There've been so many cases of all of the above that you can't say it rarely happens.
Much of this rarely gets brought to a juries attention, so its right that appeal lawyers are free to dig into it.
Pocketbook justice is simply more reason for not having a death penalty - the OJ case being the perfect example.
Do we really have to point out to you you're distaste for America and police and anything that represents authority .................. what I was getting at in the above was if you're going to appeal murder cases then appeal them all .... all cases
and by the way .......... its not a ladyglock ..... its very manly
The process is as perfect and as fair as imperfect humans can make it and still deal out justice and due process.Superior Mind wrote:
No, lowing, it's more like: the investigation is not done well enough so a person must sit on death row while the outside world decides if they made the right decision. Imagine what it is like for the man who sits for a decade in solitude, awaiting his death. Now, unless that man is a Buddhist monk and lives on the Tibetan plateau, then I doubt he desires to be in that situation.
I think instead of cracking our skulls together over the qualities of the legal/criminal justice system, the root of this problem should be addressed: the poor implication of the scientific method in criminal investigation, and the many muses of psychosis and derangement in our society.
If you watch the video you see all of the "reasonable doubt" that was presented was manufactured reasonable doubt, NOT based on the facts of the case, and when the defense was asked to present their recanting witnesses in a court of law under oath, they neglected to do so. THis was their reasonable doubt. It was made up.
Where was all of this publicity and screams of racism in the justice system when the state of TX. executed a white supremacist on the same night as Davis, for dragging a black man? This, "reasonable doubt", is not about justice, this is about self serving opportunity for publicity by those that know absolutely nothing about the facts of the case.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
You don't really believe we have a perfect system do you? How could we be the epitome of human potential? That's way to short sighted a comment.lowing wrote:
The process is as perfect and as fair as imperfect humans can make it and still deal out justice and due process.
Re-read what I said, I think you will find that I do not think it is a perfect system, that, since humans are not perfect, nothing endeavored by humans can possibly be perfect. THe best we can do is strive for perfection, and I think our justice system does exactly that.Superior Mind wrote:
You don't really believe we have a perfect system do you? How could we be the epitome of human potential? That's way to short sighted a comment.lowing wrote:
The process is as perfect and as fair as imperfect humans can make it and still deal out justice and due process.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
Our justice system does not strive for perfection-- clearly, because it is so imperfect.
We are not doing the best possible job. And saying that humans are imperfect is a lame excuse for our justice system.
We are not doing the best possible job. And saying that humans are imperfect is a lame excuse for our justice system.
Last edited by Superior Mind (2011-09-24 08:27:12)
for the pro-appeals - How many appeals would you allow before you finally pop the guilty?
The 1st trial ... found guilty, 1st appeal .. found guilty, 2nd appeal ... found guilty, 3rd appeal ... found guilty
And would you allow for as many appeals or any if sentenced to life ?
The 1st trial ... found guilty, 1st appeal .. found guilty, 2nd appeal ... found guilty, 3rd appeal ... found guilty
And would you allow for as many appeals or any if sentenced to life ?
How many would be sufficient in your opinion sere?
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6950
Like I said, the root of the problem is in the criminal society and the harshness of penalties. I don't think people should jailed for life/executed unless it's a mortal offense provable with scientific data.
dont answer a question with questionjord wrote:
How many would be sufficient in your opinion sere?
its just a legit question and i aint looking to kick a can of gas into the fire
and you know this how? I mean, it takes 20 fuckin years to execute a convicted killer to exhaust all reasonable doubt. What other country expends that much time money and effort in such a process? (I mean countries that think killers should be punished and not put up in a resort.)Superior Mind wrote:
Our justice system does not strive for perfection-- clearly, because it is so imperfect.
We are not doing the best possible job. And saying that humans are imperfect is a lame excuse for our justice system.
and yes, saying humans are imperfect and therefore can not possibly implement a perfect judicial system is a PERFECT excuse as to why it can not be done.
"harshness of penalties"?!...You do realize there are VICTIMS involved in these cases.......right? Those victims are someone's wife, daughter, husband son brother sister etc.....Would your attitude change if it were your daughter who was raped and killed at 11 years old?Superior Mind wrote:
Like I said, the root of the problem is in the criminal society and the harshness of penalties. I don't think people should jailed for life/executed unless it's a mortal offense provable with scientific data.
When all reasonable doubt has been exhausted. and certainly not when Al Sharpton decides he needs a soap box.jord wrote:
How many would be sufficient in your opinion sere?
As was said on the video, and I agree, you do not give into the mob when they want to hang a prisoner, and you do not give into a mob when they want to save one. Due process, the facts and the truth as it was decided in court, are the only things that matter. and certainly after 20 years if you can not present evidence to reverse a court, wellll, to the best of our ability the truth has been sought and decided.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-24 10:13:20)
2.SEREMAKER wrote:
dont answer a question with questionjord wrote:
How many would be sufficient in your opinion sere?
its just a legit question and i aint looking to kick a can of gas into the fire
There's always a possibility someone is innocent.Poseidon wrote:
If there's even a slim chance that there's a possibility someone is innocent, the death penalty should be put on hold. It's pathetic that that's not how it is.
Also if you admit to any doubt it's not hard to argue reasonable doubt, and is why the death penalty can never work and should never be an option.
No it's a poor excuse of why you can't be bothered to improve the one you have.lowing wrote:
and yes, saying humans are imperfect and therefore can not possibly implement a perfect judicial system is a PERFECT excuse as to why it can not be done.Superior Mind wrote:
Our justice system does not strive for perfection-- clearly, because it is so imperfect.
We are not doing the best possible job. And saying that humans are imperfect is a lame excuse for our justice system.
can't be bothered? The defense was given 20 years to bring forth all of those witnesses they claimed recanted their testimonies. They didn't. I think 20 years is ample time to make sure they get it right. What other country strives for the truth as much as the US does in a judicial system. What other country spends more money in seeking the truth before committing a prisoner to death?DrunkFace wrote:
No it's a poor excuse of why you can't be bothered to improve the one you have.lowing wrote:
and yes, saying humans are imperfect and therefore can not possibly implement a perfect judicial system is a PERFECT excuse as to why it can not be done.Superior Mind wrote:
Our justice system does not strive for perfection-- clearly, because it is so imperfect.
We are not doing the best possible job. And saying that humans are imperfect is a lame excuse for our justice system.
The key word is REASONABLE doubt. NOT ANY doubt. With ANY doubt, you can always argue spacemen from mars did it. and if you can't prove spacemen from mars DIDN'T do it, then you have shown ANY doubt. and that my friend is bullshit.DrunkFace wrote:
There's always a possibility someone is innocent.Poseidon wrote:
If there's even a slim chance that there's a possibility someone is innocent, the death penalty should be put on hold. It's pathetic that that's not how it is.
Also if you admit to any doubt it's not hard to argue reasonable doubt, and is why the death penalty can never work and should never be an option.
Reasonable is not quantifiable and subjective to every individual, the simple fact the prosecution is not pursuing the death penalty would be enough for some people to claim there's enough reasonable doubt of someone's guilt. Which basically makes the DP a mandatory option to pursue if available and causes innocent people to be put to death. Ergo it should NEVER be an option to consider.lowing wrote:
The key word is REASONABLE doubt. NOT ANY doubt. With ANY doubt, you can always argue spacemen from mars did it. and if you can't prove spacemen from mars DIDN'T do it, then you have shown ANY doubt. and that my friend is bullshit.DrunkFace wrote:
There's always a possibility someone is innocent.Poseidon wrote:
If there's even a slim chance that there's a possibility someone is innocent, the death penalty should be put on hold. It's pathetic that that's not how it is.
Also if you admit to any doubt it's not hard to argue reasonable doubt, and is why the death penalty can never work and should never be an option.
Innocent people have been convicted and killed, you undoubtedly have many people currently incarcerated who are either innocent or serving outlandish sentence for minor crimes. You also have many guilty people running free or serving minor sentences for very serious crimes, and you think the system does not need improvement?lowing wrote:
can't be bothered? The defense was given 20 years to bring forth all of those witnesses they claimed recanted their testimonies. They didn't. I think 20 years is ample time to make sure they get it right. What other country strives for the truth as much as the US does in a judicial system. What other country spends more money in seeking the truth before committing a prisoner to death?DrunkFace wrote:
No it's a poor excuse of why you can't be bothered to improve the one you have.lowing wrote:
and yes, saying humans are imperfect and therefore can not possibly implement a perfect judicial system is a PERFECT excuse as to why it can not be done.
Being the 'best' is no reason to stagnate progression and improvement, if it were we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Also most developed countries don't commit prisoners to death and consider that an improvement.
No sir, reasonable doubt goes toward guilt or innocence NOT death or life in prison. If there is "reasonable doubt", he would be found not guilty.DrunkFace wrote:
Reasonable is not quantifiable and subjective to every individual, the simple fact the prosecution is not pursuing the death penalty would be enough for some people to claim there's enough reasonable doubt of someone's guilt. Which basically makes the DP a mandatory option to pursue if available and causes innocent people to be put to death. Ergo it should NEVER be an option to consider.lowing wrote:
The key word is REASONABLE doubt. NOT ANY doubt. With ANY doubt, you can always argue spacemen from mars did it. and if you can't prove spacemen from mars DIDN'T do it, then you have shown ANY doubt. and that my friend is bullshit.DrunkFace wrote:
There's always a possibility someone is innocent.
Also if you admit to any doubt it's not hard to argue reasonable doubt, and is why the death penalty can never work and should never be an option.
You are correct reasonable doubt is subjective, which is why it is up to the prosecutor, NOT the defense to prove their case. It is up to the jury 12 people to decide if the prosecutor proved his case beyond a reasonable doubt. If all 12 decide he did, then pretty much your argument of subjectivity is nullified.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-24 13:00:58)
Didn't say a word about being content with our system being stagnate, nor did I say it was. I also did not claim that our system is good enough. I said it strives for the truth, while recognizing it is not perfect. In doing so, yes, innocent people are in prison and guilty people have been let go.DrunkFace wrote:
Innocent people have been convicted and killed, you undoubtedly have many people currently incarcerated who are either innocent or serving outlandish sentence for minor crimes. You also have many guilty people running free or serving minor sentences for very serious crimes, and you think the system does not need improvement?lowing wrote:
can't be bothered? The defense was given 20 years to bring forth all of those witnesses they claimed recanted their testimonies. They didn't. I think 20 years is ample time to make sure they get it right. What other country strives for the truth as much as the US does in a judicial system. What other country spends more money in seeking the truth before committing a prisoner to death?DrunkFace wrote:
No it's a poor excuse of why you can't be bothered to improve the one you have.
Being the 'best' is no reason to stagnate progression and improvement, if it were we'd still be stuck in the stone age. Also most developed countries don't commit prisoners to death and consider that an improvement.
I then asked which other nations spends so much money and time in digging for the truth before someone is executed?
If other countries decide not to execute its murderers that is fine. I however am an advocate of punishment more than rehabilitation or coddling for violent crime that renders victims.
Last edited by lowing (2011-09-24 13:05:55)
Ok, support that point by showing me numbers and I'll believe you.jord wrote:
The death penalty costs more. You can't really argue your point further because it's a fact.Roc18 wrote:
lol who do you think is paying for the prisons?Hurricane2k9 wrote:
true, wrong, debatable
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/03/09/ … in-prison/ AOL finance sectionRoc18 wrote:
Ok, support that point by showing me numbers and I'll believe you.jord wrote:
The death penalty costs more. You can't really argue your point further because it's a fact.Roc18 wrote:
lol who do you think is paying for the prisons?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-10-20/just … s=PM:CRIME CNN article which sites an independent study
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/ … arceration ACLU research
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issu … nalty-cost Amnesty international
Various other news agencies from Fox News to MSNBC to the Economist
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29552692/ns … n_8HOxlXcc
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/ju … e-budgets/
A very very well known fact. Everyone knows it. Now the arguments over cost of child raising vs the cost of abortion is a fun one we can have if you feel like defending your antiquated views of it.
Last edited by Macbeth (2011-09-25 21:21:20)