Democrats introduce bill to end the death penalty

[rehmwa 2]

kelpdiver

in particularly the continuing trend of cops and DAs to make shit up to get a conviction.

I doubt that it's a 'trend', or widespread, but the point that it even happens infrequently is enough to make your point - IMO

but that's another failure and crime that should be attacked as well

(But I also doubt that a case with 'overwhelming' evidence would eliminate the perceived need for any shenanigans)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Remster 30]

Quote

I doubt that it's a 'trend'

You're right. I think it's SOP.

Remster

[Southern_Man 0]

rehmwa

(But I also doubt that a case with 'overwhelming' evidence would eliminate the perceived need for any shenanigans)

Well, I'm not sure whether "overwhelming evidence" is a higher or lower evidentiary standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the current one doesn't seem high enough to prevent wrongful convictions.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Southern_Man

***
(But I also doubt that a case with 'overwhelming' evidence would eliminate the perceived need for any shenanigans)

Well, I'm not sure whether "overwhelming evidence" is a higher or lower evidentiary standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" but the current one doesn't seem high enough to prevent wrongful convictions.

ooohhhh 'semantics' yay! (however, perhaps I stated it that way on purpose under the concept that a much higher standard, not just for the criminal, but for the evidence and those conducting the case, needs to apply to even consider DP)


I'm seeing a couple things to address:

1 - beta error (kill an innocent) due to sincerely and morally and legally conducted trials

2 - beta error due to shenanigans within the system, (or in false accusations, etc)

#1 is a tragedy and really the true discussion here.
#2 is a horrible crime that should be wiped out

I think that arguing #2 is a tangent to the real discussion which should be centered around #1. But #2 is easy to discuss.

(now some want to be absolutist and state beta error = 0. fine, that's a legit position - but then it's void of discussion at all and any old argument can suffice - and i think that's what's happening here - so pointless)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

rehmwa

I'm seeing a couple things to address:

1 - beta error (kill an innocent) due to sincerely and morally and legally conducted trials

2 - beta error due to shenanigans within the system, (or in false accusations, etc)

#1 is a tragedy and really the true discussion here.
#2 is a horrible crime that should be wiped out

I think that arguing #2 is a tangent to the real discussion which should be centered around #2. [Believe you meant 1 here] But #2 is easy to discuss.

When I talked about bad cops/DAs, I would like to think this was an artifact of the past, before civil rights for minorities, as well as civil rights for criminal suspects went thru a revolution in the 50s and 60s. But sadly, we see egregious examples every year. The DA examples are rarer (hopefully because they are rare), the LEO ones a bit more often, and false accusers/witnesses ever more so. It may be better now than it would be in the 30s for a black hitchhiker, but it's still not acceptable.

Short of outright lying, the DA/LEOs do a lot of sins of omissions where they don't look for or don't present evidence that could cloud the picture. And it is the DA's job to convict, not argue both sides, so you have a lot of cases that are really in between 1 and 2 where the defense was inept or could not overcome the selective bias.

To me, #1 would be a case where a finger print or dna sample was used to place the defendant at the scene without actually proving he committed the crime, and getting a conviction. (#2 would be where the LEO planted said evidence)

[rehmwa 2]

thanks for the correction - you had it right

good discussion points


I'm NOT a fan of the idea that the public servant's job is to convict. I think it "should" have been defined to get to the truth.

shoulda coulda

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

rehmwa

thanks for the correction - you had it right

good discussion points


I'm NOT a fan of the idea that the public servant's job is to convict. I think it "should" have been defined to get to the truth.

shoulda coulda

Nah. "Truth" would be too hard a metric for our beancounter mentality society to measure.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

(however, perhaps I stated it that way on purpose under the concept that a much higher standard, not just for the criminal, but for the evidence and those conducting the case, needs to apply to even consider DP)

But then how do you deal with convictions that fall in the middle ground? "We're sure enough that you did it to lock you up forever, but we're not sure enough that you did it to kill you."

It's a moral quagmire and (politically more importantly) a PR nightmare.

Quote

I think that arguing #2 is a tangent to the real discussion which should be centered around #1. But #2 is easy to discuss.

I don't understand. The real discussion should be centred around what really happens. Both #1 and #2 really happen, both need to be addressed in a discussion of the death penalty. Am I missing something?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

I don't understand. The real discussion should be centred around what really happens. Both #1 and #2 really happen, both need to be addressed in a discussion of the death penalty. Am I missing something?

nope - your first part addressed this. as did Kelpd

I just mean that people that focus on #2 alone are just taking the easy argument and letting cynicism drive the obvious facet. if you go to #1, that's where the tricky parts are.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

But then how do you deal with convictions that fall in the middle ground? "We're sure enough that you did it to lock you up forever, but we're not sure enough that you did it to kill you."

I think the converse, though, can be used by the other side.

We're not sure enough to kill you......but we're happy enough to lock you up forever.


(IMO - both presentations acknowledge that this cannot be a perfect system - so it's not an absolutist discussion that people try to make from oversimplification, it's about what is acceptable for both types of errors for the good of the species)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,610]

rehmwa

***But then how do you deal with convictions that fall in the middle ground? "We're sure enough that you did it to lock you up forever, but we're not sure enough that you did it to kill you."

I think the converse, though, can be used by the other side.

We're not sure enough to kill you......but we're happy enough to lock you up forever.

Yep. I think that speaking practically, at some point you've got to say yeah, that's good enough, lock him up. Convictions in general can't be held to a standard of perfect evidence, it just wouldn't work. I think everyone agrees on that.

I do see a problem in a system where there are two standards of evidence, even if in isolation I would agree with either one of them. I don't see how you can expect a jury to decide if they think someone is guilty enough and if he's absolutely guilty and get any kind of consistent results.

(In the case linked to earlier it sounds like the jury was being asked to decide on the grounds of the egregiousness of the crime rather than the certainty of the prosecution. I.e. he was guilty of murder through complicity in the criminal conspiracy but didn't personally kill anyone.)

Quote

(IMO - both presentations acknowledge that this cannot be a perfect system - so it's not an absolutist discussion that people try to make from oversimplification, it's about what is acceptable for both types of errors for the good of the species)

Honestly, I don't see any problem with the absolutist statement on the DP. IMO there is no societal benefit (and no backsies) so there is no acceptable margin of error. People can still have a discussion over the premise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

jakee

Yep. I think that speaking practically, at some point you've got to say yeah, that's good enough, lock him them up. Convictions in general can't be held to a standard of perfect evidence, it just wouldn't work. I think everyone agrees on that.

Agreed. My point was simply that there is a miniscule number of false convictions and of those most if not all likely have committed the same or worse crimes.

Once you extrapolate to death penalty cases, it just becomes mathematically insignificant.

Until someone shows evidence of wrongly convicted and executed persons with no previous similar crimes in the US within the last 30 years...

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[grue 1]

Bolas

***
Yep. I think that speaking practically, at some point you've got to say yeah, that's good enough, lock him them up. Convictions in general can't be held to a standard of perfect evidence, it just wouldn't work. I think everyone agrees on that.

Agreed. My point was simply that there is a miniscule number of false convictions and of those most if not all likely have committed the same or worse crimes.

Once you extrapolate to death penalty cases, it just becomes mathematically insignificant.

Until someone shows evidence of wrongly convicted and executed persons with no previous similar crimes in the US within the last 30 years...

I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

if you imprison a guy for 50 years and 10 years after his death, realize, 'shit, we messed up.' Yeah, not a heck of a lot better.

But if you give him life in prison, and figure out after 20 years (right around the time the death penalty would finally have been applied....you seriously messed up his life in ways that can't be undone, but at least he's only middle aged and can try to enjoy the latter half.

[AndyBoyd 0]

rehmwa

I'm NOT a fan of the idea that the public servant's job is to convict. I think it "should" have been defined to get to the truth.

You are more correct than you realize. A prosecutor's responsibility is not, in fact, to get convictions. It is to "seek justice." Prosecutors have different ethical obligations that defense attorneys. The linked article describes the difference between the prosecutor's obligations and the defense attorney's obligations, and the reasons for the difference.

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_20_2_ethics.html

For those who don't care to read the whole article, here is the key part:

The government’s overarching interest in justice. A primary rationale for requiring a prosecutor at times to act differently than a defense lawyer flows from the fact that a prosecutor represents the government and not an individual client. All lawyers must under Model Rule 1.2 allow the client to determine the objectives of the representation. Usually, a client charged with a crime directs the lawyer to seek acquittal on any charges and to minimize punishment if convicted, regardless of the client’s guilt or the punishment the client may deserve. When the client is the government, determining the client’s interests is not so simple. In representing the government, a prosecutor represents all of the citizenry—including, in a sense, the accused. In this role of representing the citizenry, a prosecutor must decide what is in the public’s interest and then advance that position.

[Bolas 5]

grue

I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

What's your thoughts on letting people get way with crimes?

There has to be a balance.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[grue 1]

Bolas

***
I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

What's your thoughts on letting people get way with crimes?

There has to be a balance.

I'd rather have people get away with it than people wrongfully convicted. I'm not willing to sit in prison to make the system seem better, it'd be hypocritical to expect someone else to.

cavete terrae.

[jakee 1,610]

Quote

Agreed. My point was simply that there is a miniscule number of false convictions and of those most if not all likely have committed the same or worse crimes.

That makes no sense. Wrongly convicted people on death row have committed crimes worse than those that carry the death penalty? Who have they got sitting in there, Pol Pot? Bin Laden?

Wikipedia has a short example list of extremely likely cases of wrongful execution in the US. Why don't you go over it and find evidence that the people mentioned committed other murders or worse. Whatever that means.

Quote

Once you extrapolate to death penalty cases, it just becomes mathematically insignificant.

Funny, I never thought to test my position on this using maths.

Quote

Until someone shows evidence of wrongly convicted and executed persons with no previous similar crimes in the US within the last 30 years...

Cameron Willingham, Johnny Garrett, Carlos deLuna.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

grue

******
I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

What's your thoughts on letting people get way with crimes?

There has to be a balance.

I'd rather have people get away with it than people wrongfully convicted. I'm not willing to sit in prison to make the system seem better, it'd be hypocritical to expect someone else to.

Let's say you committed an armed robbery and got away with it. Either acquitted or never tried. Then you were wrongly convicted for a robbery you didn't commit. The result is correct, but there was a process flaw.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[grue 1]

Bolas

*********
I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

What's your thoughts on letting people get way with crimes?

There has to be a balance.

I'd rather have people get away with it than people wrongfully convicted. I'm not willing to sit in prison to make the system seem better, it'd be hypocritical to expect someone else to.

Let's say you committed an armed robbery and got away with it. Either acquitted or never tried. Then you were wrongly convicted for a robbery you didn't commit. The result is correct, but there was a process flaw.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your assessment of it because it ignores the fact that people who have committed no crime get swept up in this shit, too.

cavete terrae.

[turtlespeed 226]

grue

************
I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

What's your thoughts on letting people get way with crimes?

There has to be a balance.

I'd rather have people get away with it than people wrongfully convicted. I'm not willing to sit in prison to make the system seem better, it'd be hypocritical to expect someone else to.

Let's say you committed an armed robbery and got away with it. Either acquitted or never tried. Then you were wrongly convicted for a robbery you didn't commit. The result is correct, but there was a process flaw.

I see what you're getting at, but I disagree with your assessment of it because it ignores the fact that people who have committed no crime get swept up in this shit, too.

So what is your solution? No law enforcement?

No jury of your piers? No Judges? No law at all?

No system is perfect, this is a pretty damn good one, or at least it USED to be. Or maybe it just seemed to be.

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

[grue 1]

kelpdiver

***
I don't think wrongly imprisoning someone is that much better than wrongly executing them. Imprisonment is social murder, execution is physical murder.

if you imprison a guy for 50 years and 10 years after his death, realize, 'shit, we messed up.' Yeah, not a heck of a lot better.

But if you give him life in prison, and figure out after 20 years (right around the time the death penalty would finally have been applied....you seriously messed up his life in ways that can't be undone, but at least he's only middle aged and can try to enjoy the latter half.

I cannot imagine the damage that 20 years in prison would do to my life. If I heard that someone was imprisoned for 1/4 of his expected life (and really more than that since the stuff between 20 and 65 is what really matters, for the most part), and upon release he killed every single person who was involved with putting him behind bars, I would totally understand and probably applaud his effort.

cavete terrae.

[grue 1]

turtlespeed

So what is your solution? No law enforcement?

No jury of your piers? No Judges? No law at all?

No system is perfect, this is a pretty damn good one, or at least it USED to be. Or maybe it just seemed to be.

My solution? Quit fucking murdering people in the name of the state, for starters.

Frankly I have little hope for our system anymore, especially seeing as the shitlords in our federal government think it's perfectly ok to hunt down and murder US citizens overseas without a trial.

cavete terrae.

[turtlespeed 226]

grue

***
So what is your solution? No law enforcement?

No jury of your piers? No Judges? No law at all?

No system is perfect, this is a pretty damn good one, or at least it USED to be. Or maybe it just seemed to be.

My solution? Quit fucking murdering people in the name of the state, for starters.

That is a step in a process, not the solution.

What is the your solution.

I'm not being a smart ass. I am interested in what you see the solution being.

I, for one, am reluctantly looking forward to being present as a witness to the death of a guy named Miguel Oyola, when it happens. He was convicted of murdering a very good friend of mine as well as a good friend to a LOT of people on this forum site.

I would rather have my friend back, but that isn't possible.

I'll have to take what satisfaction I can, what closure I can, watching Miguel take his final breaths.

I'll just consider it a very late term abortion.

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

[wmw999 2,600]

Cameron Todd Willingham was very possibly innocent of arson, and didn't have a significant criminal record otherwise. Carlos DeLuna's conviction is also doubtful.

Were they still alive, there's a good chance there would be a second trial.

BTW, those are just ones I knew of off the top of my head. Let's not forget people who died in prison who were innocent of what they were charged with, like Tim Cole.

That these are all in Texas doesn't mean only Texas is capable of this -- it just means I live here, and read the news here.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)