Democrats introduce bill to end the death penalty

[ryoder 1,590]

jclalor

Another great documentary, it won the Academy award a few years ago. This is one of the best you will ever see, even my conservative friends even loved it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwf-uHrCIA

I'm watching it right now. Holy shit! The defense attorney is shredding a witness on the stand, in a scene I thought only happened in the movies! I almost feel sorry for the incompetent cop.

BTW The last 3 minutes are missing from that video. They are included in this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BluRCHhMISQ

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jclalor 12]

ryoder

***Another great documentary, it won the Academy award a few years ago. This is one of the best you will ever see, even my conservative friends even loved it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwf-uHrCIA

I'm watching it right now. Holy shit! The defense attorney is shredding a witness on the stand, in a scene I thought only happened in the movies! I almost feel sorry for the incompetent cop.

BTW The last 3 minutes are missing from that video. They are included in this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BluRCHhMISQ

Sorry about the link missing the final 3 minutes , they were kind of important. A lot of times you see shows like this and you always end up having a lingering doubt about their true guilt or innocence, not this time.

Brenton was very lucky to end up with this guy as his public defender.

[ryoder 1,590]

jclalor

******Another great documentary, it won the Academy award a few years ago. This is one of the best you will ever see, even my conservative friends even loved it.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wWwf-uHrCIA

I'm watching it right now. Holy shit! The defense attorney is shredding a witness on the stand, in a scene I thought only happened in the movies! I almost feel sorry for the incompetent cop.

BTW The last 3 minutes are missing from that video. They are included in this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BluRCHhMISQ

Sorry about the link missing the final 3 minutes , they were kind of important. A lot of times you see shows like this and you always end up having a lingering doubt about their true guilt or innocence, not this time.

Brenton was very lucky to end up with this guy as his public defender.

This was a classic case of the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.
But the fact the three thugs-with-badges were neither fired nor charged was inexcusable.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kelpdiver 2]

regulator

How about telling the inmate WHILE in solitary that on a random day sometime between now and 10 years from now they will be taken out of solitary and beaten to death. I'm sure not knowing when, while in solitary would make them go insane.

may need to review the 8th Amendment.

[ryoder 1,590]

kelpdiver

***How about telling the inmate WHILE in solitary that on a random day sometime between now and 10 years from now they will be taken out of solitary and beaten to death. I'm sure not knowing when, while in solitary would make them go insane.

may need to review the 8th Amendment.

I always thought this was a novel punishment, but I suppose it would also violate the 8th: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kKzO1mfaK8&t=8m18s

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[ryoder 1,590]

Sigh.
No good deed goes unpunished.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/112908/met_361369960.shtml

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[turtlespeed 226]

ryoder

Sigh.
No good deed goes unpunished.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/112908/met_361369960.shtml

Obviously they are cracking down on the ability to defend against the system.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[regulator 0]

kelpdiver

***How about telling the inmate WHILE in solitary that on a random day sometime between now and 10 years from now they will be taken out of solitary and beaten to death. I'm sure not knowing when, while in solitary would make them go insane.

may need to review the 8th Amendment.

---------------------------------------------------------
explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

According to the testimony of the Knox County Acting Medical Examiner Dr. Darinka Mileusnic-Polchan at the subsequent trial of Eric Boyd, Newsom was sodomized with an object and then raped by an individual. When his body was discovered near a set of nearby railroad tracks, it was found that he had been bound, blindfolded, gagged, and stripped naked from the waist down. He had been shot in the back of the head, neck, and back and his body had been set on fire.

According to the testimony of the medical examiner, Channon's death came after hours of torture, having suffered injuries to her vagina, anus, and mouth as a result of repeated sexual assaults. It was also reported that her body was scrubbed with bleach which was also poured down her throat, in an attempt by her attackers to remove DNA evidence, while Channon was still alive. She was then bound with curtains and strips of bedding, her face covered with a trash bag and her body stashed within five large trash bags, before being placed inside a residential waste disposal unit and covered with sheets. The medical examiner said there was evidence that Channon slowly suffocated to death.


Now explain to me why someone like this doesn't deserve what I suggested. They have no respect for life of any kind, so why should they live the rest of their lives getting 3 meals a day when their victims suffered probably a worse fate than some in jewish concentration camps.

[kelpdiver 2]

regulator

---------------------------------------------------------
explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

if you have to ask a question like that, then you really missed point of the Constitution. And it's hard to give any meaningful response, other than to review history a bit.

[bigbearfng 18]

We just need to reroute more cases from the DA to Dexter..............

[ryoder 1,590]

regulator

Now explain to me why someone like this doesn't deserve what I suggested. They have no respect for life of any kind, so why should they live the rest of their lives getting 3 meals a day when their victims suffered probably a worse fate than some in jewish concentration camps.

It's not a question of whether the perp deserves death or not; Of course they do. But first you must have a 100% foolproof method to prove guilt, and we have nothing close to that.

Every week I read stories like these:
- Prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence
- Crime lab falsified test results
- Police beat man to force confession
- Mistaken eyewitness identification
- Police framed innocent man
- Fingerprint Analysis is Unreliable

Google any of those phrases for lots of examples.

As long as we have a criminal justice system composed of humans who can make mistakes, (accidental or deliberate), we have nothing close to a system that can be trusted to impose irreversible punishments.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

A) It applies to everybody. That's the point.

B) You have an incredibly short memory. We've just been talking about the problem with the death penalty being that you will execute innocent people. That still applies here. So the 8th amendment is not just there to protect the heinous criminal, it's there to protect the falsely accused and mistakenly convicted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jclalor 12]

ryoder

Sigh.
No good deed goes unpunished.

http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/112908/met_361369960.shtml

At least McGuinness is starting his own firm, I would hire that guy in a second.

[jclalor 12]

jakee

Quote

explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

A) It applies to everybody. That's the point.

B) You have an incredibly short memory. We've just been talking about the problem with the death penalty being that you will execute innocent people. That still applies here. So the 8th amendment is not just there to protect the heinous criminal, it's there to protect the falsely accused and mistakenly convicted.

Most people don't care when innocent people are executed, this is because when innocent people are executed, they are still people with serious criminal records.

Execute a innocent white person with no previous criminal record and then watch them howl.

[regulator 0]

jclalor

***

Quote

explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

A) It applies to everybody. That's the point.

B) You have an incredibly short memory. We've just been talking about the problem with the death penalty being that you will execute innocent people. That still applies here. So the 8th amendment is not just there to protect the heinous criminal, it's there to protect the falsely accused and mistakenly convicted.

Most people don't care when innocent people are executed, this is because when innocent people are executed, they are still people with serious criminal records.

Execute a innocent white person with no previous criminal record and then watch them howl.


Ironically I never heard of this. No howling happened.

http://camerontoddwillingham.com/

[jclalor 12]

regulator

******

Quote

explain to me exactly why the 8th amendment should be referenced to people like this?

A) It applies to everybody. That's the point.

B) You have an incredibly short memory. We've just been talking about the problem with the death penalty being that you will execute innocent people. That still applies here. So the 8th amendment is not just there to protect the heinous criminal, it's there to protect the falsely accused and mistakenly convicted.

Most people don't care when innocent people are executed, this is because when innocent people are executed, they are still people with serious criminal records.

Execute a innocent white person with no previous criminal record and then watch them howl.


Ironically I never heard of this. No howling happened.

http://camerontoddwillingham.com/

Exactly, an innocent man with a criminal record was wrongly executed. This is an old story, Frontline did an excellent story on this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/death-by-fire/did-texas-execute-an-innocent-man-answers-remain-elusive/

[Tink1717 2]

Quote

but the fact that dead people never get out of prison to commit more murder is a bigger plus.

We aren't talking about unconditional release of the worst among us: we're talking about life vs execution. There is essentially zero recidivism among lifers.

Quote

Nah, final closure to the victim's families is a plus,

The victims family will never have any sense of closure through the courts. The courts are not set up with that in mind, nor is it their mission. Studies from Middle Eastern contries where the victims family is involved in metting out the punishment show that they're NEVER sastisfied with the final solution. Closure is best done in a therapists office and not at the court house.

All that aside, I don't trust the state or the states AT ANY LEVEL with the power and authority to execute. Far too often there are innocent victims wrongfully executed becuse they were simply too poor to afford the dream team of lawyers. There are many more reasons these days to distrust the court system than to trust it. It makes no sense to trust them with the power of life and death.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[kallend 2,175]

Tink1717

Quote

but the fact that dead people never get out of prison to commit more murder is a bigger plus.

We aren't talking about unconditional release of the worst among us: we're talking about life vs execution. There is essentially zero recidivism among lifers.

Quote

Nah, final closure to the victim's families is a plus,

The victims family will never have any sense of closure through the courts. The courts are not set up with that in mind, nor is it their mission. Studies from Middle Eastern contries where the victims family is involved in metting out the punishment show that they're NEVER sastisfied with the final solution. Closure is best done in a therapists office and not at the court house.

All that aside, I don't trust the state or the states AT ANY LEVEL with the power and authority to execute. Far too often there are innocent victims wrongfully executed becuse they were simply too poor to afford the dream team of lawyers. There are many more reasons these days to distrust the court system than to trust it. It makes no sense to trust them with the power of life and death.

Isn't it funny that the people who whine incessantly that the government can't do anything right are the very same people that want the government to have the power to kill its own citizens.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davjohns 1]

kelpdiver

***
Don't give me anecdotes about juries messing up. They are made of humans and subject to an infinite variety of screw ups. They are still preferable to the infinite variety of screw ups we call legislators who manage to make infinite screw ups look finite by comparison.

Don't sprain your brain trying to figure that out. I'm saying juries are ordinary people who judge the individual situation based on the best facts available. Legislation is charismatic people of dubious mental facility making attempts to pre-judge lots of situations with very few facts and lots of emotion / politics.

Given the choice, I'll take the jury.

If you acknowledge that the juries are failable, that sounds like an argument against the death penalty. You can free a guy after 20 years - it's still shitty and his life was mostly ruined, but at least he gets something afterwards. You kill him, it's done. Clearing his name post death doesn't do anything for him.

The rant about legislators being of poor intelligence is just asinine. By any measure you could suggest, they're well above average.

Everything is fallible. My parachute is one. I still use it.

I did recommend a measure. I would like to see them pass a budget on time. Hasn't happened in over 15 years. I would like them to pass a balanced budget. Another fail. Do you really want me to go on? If this group is above average, no wonder we have such a mess of an economy.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

I continue to put my faith in a jury of 12 ordinary citizens guided by a Judge.

I continue to think the 535 legislators in D.C. are clearly incompetent at the most basic of tasks and should try to figure out the easy stuff like balancing a budget before they tackle the more difficult matters like this.

Cop-out non-sequitur.

You refer to them as 'legislators' - the clue's in the fucking name. They write the laws (including mandatory sentencing), the juries try the people accused of breaking them. It isn't the other way around.

Quote

Don't sprain your brain trying to figure that out.

Doesn't take much of one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[davjohns 1]

jakee

Quote

I continue to put my faith in a jury of 12 ordinary citizens guided by a Judge.

I continue to think the 535 legislators in D.C. are clearly incompetent at the most basic of tasks and should try to figure out the easy stuff like balancing a budget before they tackle the more difficult matters like this.

Cop-out non-sequitur.

You refer to them as 'legislators' - the clue's in the fucking name. They write the laws (including mandatory sentencing), the juries try the people accused of breaking them. It isn't the other way around.

Quote

Don't sprain your brain trying to figure that out.

Doesn't take much of one.

I take no offense at you calling it a cop-out if you insist on discussing the issue. We've certainly discussed it plenty before. Myself included.

It is certainly not, however, a non-sequitur. On the contrary, I am arguing that the government needs to be able to handle the simple and requisite tasks before tackling more difficult and controversial matters. My argument is 'first things first'. That is, by definition, sequential.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

It is certainly not, however, a non-sequitur. On the contrary, I am arguing that the government needs to be able to handle the simple and requisite tasks before tackling more difficult and controversial matters. My argument is 'first things first'. That is, by definition, sequential.

Then even by your own metric your argument falls down. Saying no to the death penalty is clearly easier and more straightforward than balancing a budget.

(But your metric is dumb. The concept that things must happen one after the other, with each issue tied up with a little bow before moving on to the next is nonsense. As you pointed out, there are 535 of them. They can't think about 2 things at once?)


((And the juxtaposition of jury/legislator is still a cop-out non-sequitur. There's no suggestion of trusting a legislator over a jury or vice versa. They operate in 2 different spheres and the proposed legislation doesn't change that.))

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

Everything is fallible. My parachute is one. I still use it.

This is an odd example to use. Take any group of people outside dz.com and they overwhelmingly consider the risk of parachute failure to be unacceptable. It's a terrible argument to use for executing people over imprisoning them.

Quote

I did recommend a measure. I would like to see them pass a budget on time. Hasn't happened in over 15 years. I would like them to pass a balanced budget. Another fail. Do you really want me to go on? If this group is above average, no wonder we have such a mess of an economy.

It's the largest economy on Earth...by far. If you think problems in DC are caused by lack of intelligence or other qualities, you need to actually look at it more closely.

Who are you proposing take their place and meet your objectives?

[billvon 3,132]

>I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent either, but I feel that some liberals are
>more interested in saving the life of a mass murderer than even considering the impact
>on the victims family.

And I am sure some conservatives would rather have him murder another ten people rather than have any change in gun laws.

But most people are not like either one of those extremes.

>Expensive or not, "it should be about preventing similar acts from reoccurring", and
>executed people are never repeat offenders.

Neither are people who spend their lives in jail. And overall, that's cheaper.

[normiss 905]

We have more than enough current gun laws to cover any aspect of every incident.
Why do people chose to ignore that?
Or just the fact that criminals could generally care less about laws anyway?
Sure, create more gun laws, to what end?
More charges against someone going away for life for a gun crime?