|
Post by akamai on Sept 8, 2011 21:26:22 GMT -5
[/quote] And once again you duck the issue. Address it, please: Name the venue for proving (or disproving) wrongful execution once the condemned is dead. This call for proof has been posted repeatedly - and you keep evading it. Of course you can't return life to the person you've wrongfully executed - any more than that execution restores life to the putative victim. But by a venue that PROVES innocence after execution - you can thereby be forced to confront the ugly truth: By executing an innocent person, you, too, have committed murder.[/quote] Lewis, I am sure you are familiar with the posthumous DNA tests in the Roger Keith Coleman case? If not, please read: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.htmlIf you are saying there is no venue to prove innocence after an execution, the Coleman case re-proved guilt. Guess what they were looking for? Again, every executed person in the past century has been proven guilty in a trial by jury or judge, and none have been definitively proven innocent after any execution. There is a venue to prove innocence after an execution, but none so far have ever been proven. Ak
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:14:21 GMT -5
I can't speak to California, but this is familiar territory in Texas. Let's begin with the trial. A trial is SUPPOSEDLY an equal contest between prosecution and defense, a contest in which truth is exposed. Now, Texas has no "Public Defender" system - none at all. To meet the constitutional requirement for defense counsel, the judge appoints an attorney for the defense. There is no requirement for the appointed attorney to have any experience trying ANY kind of case; all that is required is an attorney's license. Thus, if you're on trial for your life, your defense may have spent his entire career transferring titles in a used car lot. Or, he may be a senile old drunk. (In one noteworthy case, the defense counsel WAS drunk and slept throughout the entire trial. Appeals up through the state courts were fruitless - the ruling was that the constitution required that the defendant have counsel; but there was no requirement that he be sober, and awake). Now, who's arrayed against the defense? The best and brightest that the state can bring to bear, and the state additionally has the evidence collection capability of the police. The gathering of exculpatory evidence is no part of it. All this, versus counsel who may be a has-been/never was. As to "proof" - there really is none, as such; the verdict is rendered based on the OPINIONS of human beings - who make human errors. Then there is the problem of "reasonable doubt", and considering evidence not available (or suppressed) at trial. Once the verdict is in and the gavel falls, raising reasonable doubt doesn't get it; proof of innocence must be overwhelming. In the final analysis, you can't execute someone unless you already have that person imprisoned and helpless. The punishment should fit the crime? It can't. If you execute someone because he was "proven" to have killed one person - how many times can you hang him for multiple offenses? Sooner or later, the punishment available will NOT match the crime - no matter what the punishment. A line must be drawn and I, for one, would draw it short of death. Until, of course, someone demonstrates a workable reverse gear on the device of execution. you certainly don't know much about texas law. in the first place, in the case of the lawyer who slept through the trial, the verdict was tossed by the court of appeal. in texas, as in most jurisdictions, an attorney must be death certified in order to try a death penalty case. there is NO contract lawyers ever trying a death penalty case. also, in texas, the prosecution must conclusively prove that the murderer is a FUTURE danger in order to get the death penalty. having committed the murder that he's convicted of is not enough to get the death penalty
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:15:43 GMT -5
The genius of the death penalty is that it's irreversible. That's what I like about it. The best way to reduce the murder rate is with an iron fist. Unfortunately, my fellow citizens are not as keen to reduce or punish murder. And if the wrong man is killed by this iron fist? since the irrefutable reality is that there is NO possibility of that happening, it's irrelevant
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:17:12 GMT -5
And if the wrong man is killed by this iron fist? That's an acceptable risk. of course it's NOT an acceptable risk. totally aside from the fact that the chap that dies is innocent, there is a murderer running loose. that is NOT an acceptable risk
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:20:04 GMT -5
Most of the people that kill don't sit and think about punishment. They don't plan to get caught anyway. When they do then it's a big surprise most of the time. Another thing is that life in prison is just as bad as death for a lot fo people. Death is death. Executing someone is an eye for an eye. We can do better than that. there is simply no intelligent or rational reason not to execute a murderer. the simple fact is, when you allow an individual who has made the conscious and wilful choice to deprive someone of their sacrosanct right to life, you are equating the two, and saying that the life of that individual is equal to the life of the victim, which, prima facie, is insane
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:24:55 GMT -5
The death penalty is just another killing . . . period. If in so doing you kill an innocent person - have you not also committed murder? And made me a part of it? If the wrongfully executed person was someone close to you - son, daughter, or parent - I expect you'd see the matter differently. As it stands, you could not even clear their name later - no matter WHAT proof of innocence you had. Now, then - as to how many have been wrongly convicted, and subsequently executed: Jumbo frequently makes the assertion that NO innocents have been executed. This cannot be proved, one way or another, because there is no protocol for addressing the issue once the condemned is dead. Before making such an assertion, provide a means of proving or disproving it. Just FYI, a young man was electrocuted and killed in my back yard while playing basketball with my son. There were quite a few young men there at the time, and my son was the only white youth there. (They'd dug a malfunctioning light out of my trash and had it mounted on the chain link fence. When he went to move it, he gave the current a path it couldn't refuse). The case was carried and investigated as homicide. A clever prosecutor very well could have made the assertion that the homicide was racially motivated, and that the light was a deadly trap I'd laid. Interestingly enough, the death certificate for an executed person has as the cause of death "HOMICIDE". Several times in Turkey I had the unpleasant experience of being present for public hangings (attendance was not an option. If you were out on the street, the police herded you to the place of execution). The crowds saw such things not as grim justice, but as free blood sport. The executions did not deter crime one iota; they seemed to increase it. obviously, the death penalty DOES deter the ONLY individual that counts, and that is the murderer. i have yet to hear about an executed murderer who ever killed again. just as obviously, that is the ONLY deterrent that has any relevance whatsoever. if someone else chooses not to murder because of the fear of execution, all well and good, but, deterrence is the most abjectly stupid argument, aside from the innocent bs, on either side of the debate. NO rational person cares if an execution deters ANYONE other than the executed murderer
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:31:00 GMT -5
Do you mean you don't think the death penalty is very effective in Texas .. even though it's widely accepted and encouraged there? That surprises me. That surprises you? It shouldn't. After all - for some 6,000 years now we've been killing people to show people that killing people is wrong - yet it still happens - with disgusting frequency. Bundy, a famous serial killer in Florida, moved to Florida to commit his serial murders BECAUSE OF the death penalty - he wanted to use his "superior intelligence" to "dance with the hangman" without getting caught. For many years, KENS5 (Local CBS affiliate) had an anchorman named Chris Marou, whose brother ran unsuccessfully as the Libertarian party candidate several times. He contacted the heads of the local gangs (who frequently kill one another here) and set up a "Geneva" type meeting at the famous "undisclosed location". The taped interview covered many issues, and one of them the death penalty. When asked why the DP didn't deter them from killing one another, the response was that they killed BECAUSE OF the DP - said it "challenged their honor". And, of course, you can apply the DP very frequently if you don't bother to sort out the guilty from the innocent - as witness Ruben Cantu (no choir boy, and certainly not "innocent". He was, however, undeniably innocent of the crime for which he was executed). no, cantu was NOT innocent, but that's irrelevant. what you are saying is that there should be NO punishment of any kind for ANY crime. obviously, prison is not a deterrent to crime. california has a seventy percent recidivism rate. that means that, even after going to prison, prison does not stop a criminal from wanting to go back. since prison doesn't deter crime any more than the death penalty, you obviously don't believe in sending anyone to prison. what the hell do you propose doing with garbage since you consistently state that you don't believe in punishment for crime
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:37:41 GMT -5
Ah, yes - the old biblical concept. I'm bemused by the way debates usually go - the bible is brought in to justify one stance, but declared "out of scope" for other positions by the same people. However, as it was brought up, let me speak to that. Jesus was involved in two executions: One he stopped (in spite of overwhelming proof of guilt); to the other, he WAS the condemned (undeniably innocent) and yet submitted. He mentioned that the "harsh laws of Moses" were not God's will, but that He ALLOWED them because of the "harshness of men's hearts". The most telling of all was the very first murder - of Able, by Cain. This murder was witnessed, tried, and punished by God Himself - and (although imminently capable of it) did NOT use the death penalty as punishment. In fact - He promised dire punishment to those who harmed Cain. But as to the "eye for an eye" thing - the original concept was as a limit to punishment: You could collect no more damages than you actually suffered. For the loss of a sheep, you could collect NO MORE than one sheep; and no more that ONE eye if you lost but one eye. The urge to kill is primal - and the same urge that causes men to murder one another is the same urge that drives the death penalty. And the difference is . . . . ? you lose all the way around lad. what happened to aachen when he simply took the gold and silver? if you recall, god ordered that, not only he, but his family, and his animals, be executed. annanias and saphirus learned the hard way also, didn't they? of course, that was before christianity. we'll see what jesus believed about the death penalty. try to remember the vineyard, and the lessees who murdered all the messengers the landlord sent to collect the rent. what did jesus say should happen to them? can we say "execution"? when jesus was on the cross, he wasn't alone, remember? what did he tell the thief who repented? he forgave him. however, he did NOT stop him from dying. obviously, the death penalty was, and still is, appropriate for theft, particularly since jesus ordained it. sorry about your luck
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 9, 2011 7:38:17 GMT -5
And if the wrong man is killed by this iron fist? since the irrefutable reality is that there is NO possibility of that happening, it's irrelevant That's the best laugh of the day, jumbo!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:50:45 GMT -5
the thousands of years killing of people who had committed murder was not to show that murder was wrong...but was to punish those who had taken a life by taking their lives... And the purpose of punishment is . . . ? We punish children to teach them right from wrong, and to deter them (and others present) from doing the same thing. The most effective punishment I remember was watching a misbehaving kid get his backside warmed with a paddle, in front of the entire class. but that was when we had a decent society, and such things were done the right way
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 7:59:37 GMT -5
Absolutely. But we're reacting in a childish way . . . If someone is judged "unfit to live", who makes that judgment, and by what right? How can you revoke a person's right to live, when that life did not come from you? Can you restore that life, if a human court has made a human error of judgment? that is the most rhetorical question yet. when you start from such a patently false premise, everything derived from that premise is false. FACT! it is the murderer, and the murderer alone, who makes the judgement that he is unfit to live. the simple reality is that life is sacrosanct, and any individual who chooses to violate that right of someone else has conclusively proven that he has chosen to forfeit his right to life. it is TOTALLY the murderer's choice, no one else
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 8:12:21 GMT -5
But that's just the problem, isn't it? "If they murdered one of (yours) " - But did they? You may have undeniable evidence that murder was done - but factually proving guilt isn't as reliable as many people think. Ohio just recently released a man who spent 29 years in prison for a rape that he did not commit. New DNA testing conclusively proved that he had nothing to do with it .... Had the victim been murdered as well, he would have been executed and dead long ago. And the actual guilty person still free to do it again . . . . All (repeat, ALL) courts are made up of humans, and humans make human errors. Let's address it from the other side. If your (husband, father, son, daughter, whatever) was arrested for a crime that you knew damned well he didn't commit, and subsequently executed - how would you feel? Under our present system, you couldn't even clear his name - no matter WHAT evidence you had of innocence. don't be daft. the fact that there have been a few convicted who have been proven innocent is conclusive PROOF that an innocent could not be executed in the first place, and even further proof that if it did happen, they would still be exonerated. the present system has been proven, time and time again, to be infallible in that regard
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 8:17:40 GMT -5
"What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever." As I've posted before - those who would use the bible to justify it have not thoroughly read the bible - or, at least, not with any great understanding. Jesus spoke to that little matter over a thousand years ago. yes, he did, and as i've shown you, jesus was adamantly pro death penalty. by the way, the story of mary magdalene has NO relevance to the death penalty whatsoever. that is NOT what the story is about, by any stretch of the imagination
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 8:21:30 GMT -5
I have nothing to rebut, we don't kill in the name of the state. I see the DP as the hallmark of a barbaric society. Now that would include Islamic countries, China etc etc. What a shame the biblical response is alive and well in the US. It does you no credit whatsoever. Hi Alpha. Actually, we DO kill in the name of the state. Whenever there is a death sentence, the trial is named "The PEOPLE against whomever". While you may believe that it isn't right, the state does impose death for certain criminals. Barbaric? Nothing can be more barbaric than the heinous murder of a human who hasn't been convicted of anything. AK[/quote] There's one thing even more barbaric: The needless and wanton execution of a person who ALSO hasn't done anything. And, please don't say it doesn't happen - I posted proof of just such a recent case.[/quote] if you really want to try and make a case against the death penalty, you really do need to dump the idiotic innocent executed trip. that lunacy has been totally discredited time and time again. while there is not a single intelligent, or rational argument against the death penalty, there are at least a few that have at least an iota of relevance. the innocent execution insanity certainly is not one of them
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Sept 9, 2011 8:26:06 GMT -5
Hi Joseph, While I basically agree with your post, I think Lewis does have a point in stating that we should not execute any innocent, which very likely happened during the days of segregation in this country, although as far as I know, there has been no definitively proven wrongful execution in the US for the past century. Where Lewis is wrong, is refuting the statement I made stating that there is nothing more barbaric than a heinous murder of an innocent who has not been convicted of anything. Lewis thinks that the wrongful execution, if it exists, is more barbaric than the heinous murder of a person who hasn't been convicted of anything. He is wrong. Even in a wrongful execution, if there are any, the executed has a trial by a jury of his peers, is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and put to death by a process that is quick and relatively painless. A murder victim does not have a last meal of his choice, have a chance to say "goodbye" to those he loves and love him, is given the time to make his terms with God, or has his remains readily available for a proper burial or disposal. AK Well, let's look at that a little more closely. Elsewhere I cited the case of Ruben Cantu, executed for a murder he did not commit. The proof? It was a multiple shooting - and one of the victims survived, now testifying that Cantu was not even present at the time. But thereby hangs a tale. "No proven ... etc."? How would you prove (or disprove) that? As there is no way of addressing the question after you killed someone - how do you prove it - no matter WHAT evidence you have? Now, as to which is more cruel - the "unofficial" murder, which occurs relatively quickly - or the "official" murder of a factually innocent person - who has months and years in which to build up fear? Wild animals kill one another - but none of them stuffs a fellow animal into a cave, to let him live in fear until they drag him out later to kill him with great ceremony. cantu was NOT innocent. the fact that a witness decides to recant years later proves NOTHING except that he is a liar.
|
|