And I notice you are still ducking this. If you are going to call people out for ducking your posts, you might not want to be ducking theirs.
Well, I'm not really a "death penalty opponent" (although I may be on my way to becoming because my views have changed somewhat recently), but the problem most people have with the death penalty isn't that it kills guilty people, it's that it kills innocent people as well...
It's a wonder to me that people don't think government is reliable enough to do anything from determine tax rates to implement social programs, but they're totally cool with letting it determine who lives and dies.This is exactly why people should note the phrase government inefficiency. If you believe the government isn't the solution, and smaller is better, then don't give it the authority to kill it's own people. It's common sense. This defies the principles of small government Conservativism as far as I see it, and this also shows how devastatingly ineffective the government is run.
Apparently a jury did believe his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. True though, I was not on that jury and neither was anyone else here (I'm fairly certain).
The fact that Brewer was a mean, nasty, and guilty son of a bitch is not, at all, uncommon for people on death row.
If the objection is that the government shouldn't be carrying out executions, then the guilt/innocence shouldn't matter. This is why I could never become anti death penalty. Guilt and the actions of the killer do matter to me.
FAR too often these cases involve LE and prosecutors who ride the convictions to advancement in their careers.
THATS why they defend them so stridently.
I hope everyone who supports this the way it went down enjoys the same justice as Troy Davis.
And his family and friends.
How in the **** did they get a death penalty conviction with NO physical evidence in the first place?
It would be nice if our legal system had prosecutors who sought justice instead of convictions. But that's not the case. Their actual JOB is to convict people, to prosecute. Its not in their job description to make sure only the guilty go to prison. Notches in the belt.
Id love to know where the prosecution in this case is today. LE involved too. Just their current jobs and some indication how much this case propelled their careers.
So maybe THEIR kids are better off, so some good came of this.
And don't bother trying to brand me as soft.
I think the surely guilty of heinous crimes should sit alone in a cell with nothing but a picture of their victims to look at. Until they die in gibbering madness.
The death penalty is far too clean a death for some.
But if you're on death row and there is DNA evidence available that could prove innocence, anyone who opposes running what is now a simple test is an ASSHOLE of the highest order. Frees the innocent and shuts the guilty the **** up.
But we don't do this, because it could damage the responsible prosecutions political career. "Vote for Bob! He didn't send an innocent man to his death".
The fact that Brewer was a mean, nasty, and guilty son of a bitch is not, at all, uncommon for people on death row.
If the objection is that the government shouldn't be carrying out executions, then the guilt/innocence shouldn't matter. This is why I could never become anti death penalty. Guilt and the actions of the killer do matter to me.
I don't know Redress. When I hear the facts of certain types of cases, I just cannot imagine sympathy for the victim translating easily to some lesser punishment. Also, if your wish is to spare the killer, there'd need to be some sympathy for the killer (though I'm not saying, at all, it necessarily outweighs sympathy for the victim).
I would say that such a scenario is irrelevant to the death penalty discussion. If he had not been convicted and had been released or had been allowed to plea bargain and ended up killing another police officer, it would have happened regardless of whether or not the death penalty were in place. If he had been convicted, he could have gotten life without parole or something similar had the death penalty not been in place.
With regard to your particular scenario, if that's what ended happening, then that's what happens. You convict someone and lock him up if you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime he is alleged to have committed. You don't get to jail anyone you want just because you think he might potentially kill someone in the future. That's a very slippery slope. I mean, we can play "what if" games all day, but no one hypothetical anecdote is good enough of an argument in favor of or against the death penalty.
Cover Your Ass.
Plain and simple.
The cops and prosecution in this case will see irreparable damage to their careers if it comes out that they almost killed an innocent man (which lets the ACTUAL perpetrator off scott free, in case you guys were conveniently forgetting that in your bloodlust).
So they circle the wagons and put their heads down and play code of silence, instead of owning up and facing JUSTICE. Which is why its DISGUSTING when it happens. Because JUSTICE is supposed to be their JOB, remember?
Sorry, this just pisses me off. Imagine lying strapped to a table with needles in your arm, KNOWING, you didn't do what you are about to be killed for. Makes me want to slap the **** out of everybody who pulled a "too bad, so sad. C-ya wouldn't want to be ya" attitude about this. But I don't have the time or energy to slap that many people, so this'll have to do.
You are completely missing the point. The point is that the CJS cannot avoid making life and death decisions. There is no way around this.
When it exonerates a defendant who looked pretty danm guilty during a death penalty trial, or allows him to plea bargain to something like manslaughter, and then releases him back into society and he kills again, or even kills while he is incarcerated, the CJS has blood on its hands no differently than it would for wrongfully convicting a defendant of a capital offense.
Therefore, the argument against capital punishment on the grounds of human fallibility or the fallibility of the CJS is bunk.
Troy Davis may have been guilty, or he may not have been guilty. It does not matter as far as a sentence of death is concerned because no matter which disposition the CJS hands down--even life without parole--it is still running the risk of fatally persecuting the innocent.
That's quite the rant...
Ok, I'd agree with this. *On the flip side, supporting the death penalty doesn't mean we're doing it out of fear as you have suggested before. Sure, public safety is one important issue. Generally, punishment has a 3 fold purpose; retribution (I know, nobody likes that term but it means a just punishment IE the punishment is commensurate with the crime), deterrence and rehabilitation. Obviously, imposing the DP means that rehabilitation is not a consideration for that person and retribution is the the biggest factor in capital punishment. Regarding deterrence; there are actually 2 kinds, general and specific. General meaning the threat of DP deters others from committing crimes and specific meaning it deters the particular person from committing more crimes. There is some argument about whether the DP is effective as a general deterrent but there's no doubt that, if carried out, it is 100% effective as a specific deterrent.*I am not sure how what you said here addresses what I said, so I will try and make my point better. *If you oppose the death penalty, the most likely reasons are you consider it immoral to kill under those circumstances(ie a defenseless person), or you are concerned about the finality of the death penalty(ie if more evidence comes out, it's too late, and mistakes can and do happen), or some combination of both. *Those are not the only possible reasons, but I think that encompasses the reasons most oppose the death penalty.
All this pretty much comes down to something I've said already, to oppose the death penalty means that the victim is irrelevant and the actual guilt/innocence of the criminal is also irrelevant. Both are things that, personally, are extremely relevant to me. I think CP pointed out earlier that the time it takes from conviction to actual execution makes it easier to feel for the guy who's still around (the killer) and in the news or the cause du jour, and forget the person who has been dead for a decade (or more) already.In the case of the first, the victim is irrelevant to the reason for opposing the death penalty. *The concept is that the government simply should not be killing people outside of war, that it is morally wrong. *If it is morally wrong, then justice, which should be the goal of a judicial system, is not served by killing some one. *While you can feel for the victim of the crime, you cannot undo the crime by killing any one. *As far as the criminal, it has nothing to do with sympathy for them. *If for example it is wrong to steal, then it is still wrong to steal from a mean, nasty person. *If it is wrong for the government to sanction killing in the name of justice, then this is true whether the person is nice or nasty. *Morality does not depend on who you are acting towards, but on how you act.
Actually, the victim is dead and beyond protection at this point. I just don't think that means he/she should be beyond consideration.In the second case, the goal is to not dispense injustice. *The person holds to the concept that it is to not execute a guilty person than to execute an innocent man. *Again, there is no sympathy for the guilty, only concern for the innocent. *In both cases, it is easy to justify that society is protected equally well by life in prison as by execution, as is the victim.
And, of course, what is "right" is the crux of the disagreement. Often it's said that the DP devalues life. I don't believe that to be the case. It actually shows a respect for life by exacting the highest possible price for taking another life in the worst way (remember that not all murders are capital murders. Capital murders are only those with the most aggravating factors; killing a cop, killing a child, serial and mass killings, etc.)I used the torture example in my earlier post, and I think that helps make it clear. *If you feel that torture is morally or legally wrong, then this is true even if the person in question is totally vile. *I do not care about his well being, I care about doing what is right, even when that is not easy. *I feel no sympathy whatsoever for those we waterboarded. *Hell, I hope it hurt like hell and made their life hell. *I still do not think we should have done it as it is morally wrong to torture.
The interesting thing is, the underlying problem of this case, which is that the courts simply refused to consider the new evidence/arguments, is a product of policy designed to make the judicial system more "efficient." In our obsessive desire to cut corners, we are cutting safeguards and justice as well. What does the Constitution have to say about that?This is exactly why people should note the phrase government inefficiency. If you believe the government isn't the solution, and smaller is better, then don't give it the authority to kill it's own people. It's common sense. This defies the principles of small government Conservativism as far as I see it, and this also shows how devastatingly ineffective the government is run.
The interesting thing is, the underlying problem of this case, which is that the courts simply refused to consider the new evidence/arguments, is a product of policy designed to make the judicial system more "efficient."
It can, if all cases that previously would have involved the death penalty were simply replaced by the sentence of life without parole.
Regardless of whether or not the death penalty is implemented, why would a defendant who "looks pretty damn guilty" be exonerated in the first place?
Why would he be released back into society in the first place?
????????????????
If everyone that is on death row were to suddenly be resentenced to life without parole, and integrated into the mainstream prison population, there would more than likely be a number of inmates and C.O.s murdered.
Your idea makes no sense whatsoever, unless your only concern is for the inmates on death row, most of whom are pathologically violent, extremely dangerous individuals who will undoubtedly put the lives of a great many other inmates--most of whom were not convicted of first degree murder and do not deserve to be killed by someone who has--in very serious danger.
Ahhhh... For all the same reasons that an an innocent defendant might be wrongfully convicted?
Believe it or not, the guilty are often exonerated or allowed to plea bargain to a much lesser charge. And just so you know, the guilty go free a lot more often than the innocent are convicted.
Ever heard of O.J. Simpson?
How about Arthur Bomar?
Man Paroled from a life sentence kills college student
Because the CJS makes mistakes on both sides the scales of guilt and innocence.
"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." - Thomas Jefferson
I think someone may have posted this quote earlier but here goes...
Wonderful, but what has it to do with the issue at hand?
Man Paroled from a life sentence kills college student
"Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned." - Thomas Jefferson
Don't know if this is been posted yet but this is the decision from the Aug 2010 Federal District Court, Judge Moore was presiding over the hearing. Breaks down the recantations towards the end (pg 128 to the end) and includes the judge's summary
http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf
I didn't know much about this case but after reading the breakdown of the recantations during the hearing, the guy was guilty.
I don't think anybody here cares about the facts of this case.
They want to use it to argue their side for or against the death penalty.
The law says if he was there, even if he didn't pull the trigger, he is just as guilty as the man who did pull the trigger.
You want to argue if he pulled the trigger or not, if he was there, he was guilty.
You have to look at why somebody would recant their story after 20 years. They had nothing to lose, no consequence for them. They can say anything the defense wants them to say. If you believe they recanted their stories, that makes 7 of those witnesses liars.
I don't believe that the cops could coerce 7 witnesses to lie. Maybe one or two scumbags had something hanging over their heads, but 7?
What about the other three? Why didn't they change their story?
@Sig
Yeah...so the CJS makes mistakes...I think that I've already pointed that out. Again, I would rather err on the side of letting a killer live, than putting an innocent man to death. This isn't an unusual or unreasonable position.
As for guilty who are exonerated - they are, most of the time if not all, exonerated only after new evidence comes to light that exonerates them. And hence they no longer look "pretty damn guilty."
And as for plea bargaining to lesser charges and eventually getting released, that happens regardless of whether or not the death penalty is in place. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but plea bargaining doesn't happen AFTER you're sentenced.
I really don't understand what argument you're trying to make here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?