This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Thoughts on the Troy Davis case?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
So many issues....so little time :-)
Since its really off-topic (but I feel compelled to at least respond)Well, there's documented evidence......The result of the official investigation was that claims of drug smuggling by the CIA were "exaggerated" - not even an official denial.
There is corruption at all levels of goverment. There are also some very "rediculous" policies that get enacted by governments when dealing with certain issues. The Contra's were one of those. The "Operation Fast and Furious" gun smuggling ring to Mexico is another. Its a massive reasin why politics in general needs more common sense, and less political influences. Anyhow.....
Studies of sex offenders in Germany showed that those who were treated to remove testosterone as part of their sentencing became repeat offenders only 3 percent of the time. This rate was in stark contrast to the usual 46 percent repeat rate. These and similar studies indicate testosterone can have a strong bearing on criminal behavior.
That'd be an appropriate (fitting to the crime) punishment for rapists and molesters.
Only if the removal process was done without anesthesia with dull, rusty implements. Seriously, in my opinion, rape, especially of a child, is the worst of crimes. Worse than murder because at least a murder victim has found peace. A rape victim is left to live with their assault for life.
@Supremacy
My "lie detector" was theroretical. As I mentioned, the current technology is full of flaws. My retorical observation was that with all the technology that we have, especially about the human body and mind, It is actually surprising that we dont have a 100% accurate way to detect a lie. And if we did, that that technology could be provide the final bit of evidence in a case. Consider it to be "quality control", so to speak.
I would invite you to watch some kind of special on prisons, or talk to an employee of a prison, or some such.
I promise you that it is not summer camp.
How about spend 3 months, 9 days, 14 hours in one? As I have mentioned in other posts, I am a 10 year sober, recovering drug addict. For me, it was second only to hell. For hundreds of others there, it was home. It was all they knew. My cellmate during intake was one of these people. He had been released after doing his second 10 year stint, and pulled a strongarm robbery at a gas station, then waited for the cops to arrive. He had no intention of hurting anyone, he just had nowhere else to go. He was free for less than a week.
I was actually going to say "It does suck when someone guilty walks because of that," , but then I remembered that if the state can't prove a case against someone, then they're not guilty.
On this, we will have to agree to disagree. Casey Anthony is a perfect example of this. Almost any reasonable, intelligent person knows she is guilty of either killing her child, or at the least, covering up her death. But because the state presented a horrible case, that does not make her "innocent".
I understand your side, and in theroy, we probably actually agree to a point. The problem is that "reasonable doubt" has been twisted to be "unreasonable doubt". Using your example, if 99.99% of the evidence in a case points to guilt, but a court clerk put the wrong address, that person should NEVER walk free. That is not "Justice" by any definition.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Supremacy
If the worst you have to expect is 15-20 years of reasonable housing, medical treatment, an education, and finally a quiet, painless death....why not kill that cop...or those kids? Now if your potential execution was to be disemboweled while still alive, and have your limbs torn from your body in 4 different directions....you might think twice.
Well, as a strict constitutionalist, you'd probably know that it'd contravene the "cruel and unusual punishment" thingy.
Should people who commit murder/rape/torture etc be protected under this, when they obviously contravened it in their actions against their victim?
/Ponder
Yes.
That's the short answer.
The thing about "equal rights" is that if they're not extended to everyone, they're not really equal. Friend of mine summed it up kind of nicely.
"Great thing about this country? Everyone has equal rights.
Irritating thing about this country? Everyone has equal rights."
You can't just go around picking and choosing when the Constitution applies. To paraphrase a line from a television show, "You took an oath. You can't just choose to ignore it when it's convenient for you. That oath was
made
for times like these."
Someone else had also pointed out that the government has to be held to a higher standard than, well, criminals. I think he said "The government is held to a higher standard than individuals. If someone breaks into my home and steals everything I own, I am going to be upset. If the government breaks into my home and steals everything I own, I am going to be furious. I expect to get taken by commoners. Not all individuals are going to treat me fairly. But when the government treats a person unfairly it is a far greater injustice if for no other reason than because the government was given power by the person it took advantage of. The government has a lot of power and we accept that under the assumption that they will use it fairly. "
And even if you don't agree with the above statement, exactly what crime would merit being drawn and quartered as opposed to a cleaner form of execution as opposed to life in prison without the possibility of parole as opposed to life in prison as opposed to 15-20?
And I will be perfectly honest with you: I am not comfortable with someone who says "Right, then...double murder? Looks like you're going to get drawn and quartered" receiving a government paycheck. Especially if he has the power to do so.
But, right. Back to your actual question. You don't subject someone to extra punishment because of the gruesome and heinous nature of his crimes by inflicting a gruesome and heinous crime upon them. Because you no longer have any kind of moral standing to say "Only monsters do this" once you go ahead and do the same thing, with no repercussions. Especially if what both of you did is explicitly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Because laws have to be the same for everyone.
And I'll end up on one more quote from a TV show I enjoy:
"That's the nice thing about the law. One size fits all."
Post by
gamerunknown
Isn't this pretty much the same point I pondered, just in different words?
There's a pretty big gap between using rape and torture as punishments and depriving a person of their liberty though. Some libertarians believe that jail as a notion should be thrown out - societies did function without them, but only because they'd have instant and unpleasant punishments for relatively minor crimes. Amputation or whipping for the least, execution for stealing anything worth more than a week's wage - can't imagine that being Enron's maxim, eh? I don't agree with those libertarians, since I think some people should just be permanently cut off from society since they physically have nothing to offer it. Oh, also, countries such as Iran that utilise rape and torture (they can't execute a virgin woman, so will rape young women in order to make sure they qualify), have pretty crappy quality of life and higher crime rates than countries with "laxer" punishments but better prevention and more prospects.
10 year sober
Glad to hear it mate! Sorry to hear you were in prison for a while too, but hope it had a positive effect (if possible).
Edit: grammar
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I used to be pro death penalty, but I couldn't reconcile being pro death on the death penalty issue, but being pro life on the abortion issue. One of them had to give, so I'm now pro life on the death penalty issue.
Post by
Supremacy
@Supremacy
My "lie detector" was theroretical. As I mentioned, the current technology is full of flaws. My retorical observation was that with all the technology that we have, especially about the human body and mind, It is actually surprising that we dont have a 100% accurate way to detect a lie. And if we did, that that technology could be provide the final bit of evidence in a case. Consider it to be "quality control", so to speak.
I may have misspoken, or I may have misinterpreted your comment. Or I may have just not been clear when I was talking.
I wasn't entirely being facetious when I mentioned the whole "magical lie detector" thing. The point I was trying to make actually touches on what you just said. The reason there's no accurate way to detect a lie is because that would more or less be, well, magic. That kind of technology doesn't exist. I don't think it will ever exists. I don't think it can exist. For a couple of reasons.
1. Practiced liars don't have any real physiological changes when they tell a lie. And even with imaging studies, you don't...there's no real way to know what someone's thinking.
2. "Lie". That's kind of an idea more than an actual thing. Some guy who thinks his wife is fooling around with the milkman might be 100% sure that she is. He might be 100% sure that he saw her. But he could be mistaken.
A "lie" is more related to someone's belief than anything else; that is, someone saying something that they believe to be a falsehood. But people are wrong. All the time. Some guy could truly believe that the reason he can't get a date or hook-up or whatever with any of the women in a club is because they're all secretly lesbians. I have heard people express that belief. I have suspected that they actually believed it. They would pass a lie detector test.
But that's just one person's belief. Not necessary factual.
How about spend 3 months, 9 days, 14 hours in one? As I have mentioned in other posts, I am a 10 year sober, recovering drug addict. For me, it was second only to hell. For hundreds of others there, it was home. It was all they knew. My cellmate during intake was one of these people. He had been released after doing his second 10 year stint, and pulled a strongarm robbery at a gas station, then waited for the cops to arrive. He had no intention of hurting anyone, he just had nowhere else to go. He was free for less than a week.
While I completely get what you're saying? I would argue that there is a difference between someone returning to prison because there aren't any viable options on the outside and someone just going to prison because it beats the ol' rat race.
I'm not trying to single you out, by the way. As I said, I have seen several other people in several other threads and forums saying things that suggest they have no real experience with prison, inmates, or anything like that.
I was actually going to say "It does suck when someone guilty walks because of that," , but then I remembered that if the state can't prove a case against someone, then they're not guilty.
On this, we will have to agree to disagree. Casey Anthony is a perfect example of this. Almost any reasonable, intelligent person knows she is guilty of either killing her child, or at the least, covering up her death. But because the state presented a horrible case, that does not make her "innocent".
I understand your side, and in theroy, we probably actually agree to a point. The problem is that "reasonable doubt" has been twisted to be "unreasonable doubt". Using your example, if 99.99% of the evidence in a case points to guilt, but a court clerk put the wrong address, that person should NEVER walk free. That is not "Justice" by any definition.
I understand your position on this. And it's far from unreasonable.
The problem I have with this, I suppose, is that it deviates from that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. Someone is accused of something, has their day in court, and is cleared of all charges, or found not guilty. Now, either you did something or you didn't. The state gave their side, you told your side. The jury and the judge agreed the state didn't really prove that you were guilty.
I don't like that whole "oh, we all know you actually did it" thing. It just undermines that whole presumption of innocence. And it's fine to have that as, you know, an opinion. You can think until the day you die "You know, that person did it." But you have to accept that you are saying that with no proof.
Which, again, is fine. I have no proof that I wouldn't like cottage cheese or escargot. But I'm fairly certain that's not for me. No proof, though.
Oh. And the last part, about the clerk who was watching the game instead of paying attention to, you know, his job? That is a boneheaded move on his part. But the wrong address on the search warrant means the cops had no legal right to enter his home. So, when they found him, I don't know, taking a bath in kitten stew while chopping the heads off of babies? Doesn't matter. All the evidence they collected? Doesn't matter. The state broke the law by entering his home. State had no right to do that.
Can I see why people would be upset about that? Yes.
Can I see why people would think that was a travesty of justice? Yes.
Can I see why people would be demanding the book to be thrown at this guy? Yes.
Can I see why his case was tossed out? Yes.
Do I agree with that? Yes.
If you don't toss his case out? You are giving the government carte blanche to ignore all those pesky little "laws" and things like "citizen's rights". And in this case, you would also be saying "Ah, you violated the U.S. Constitution, but whatever."
I would argue that it would be a greater injustice to allow the state to just do whatever the hell they wanted to, and have no accountability for it.
Post by
gamerunknown
I used to be pro death penalty, but I couldn't reconcile being pro death on the death penalty issue, but being pro life on the abortion issue. One of them had to give, so I'm now pro life on the death penalty issue.
At the risk of dragging religion into this once more (and going off topic), I agree. When people differ (pro one and anti the other), I can see why framing is the reason though. I'd make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies which would result in the death of both mother and child though and probably abortions before the baby has developed a nervous system, because it cannot think or feel anything until that point.
Supremacy, out of interest, would you speculate on OJ's culpability in the murder of his ex-wife?
and I have to bust out a quote from one of my favourite films.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
As an aside, I find it rare that I enjoy a film about religion. Ben-Hur left a bad taste in my mouth when the only people that were cured on Jesus' death were ones that were integral to the plot. Bad lieutenant and Chariots of Fire both mixed sports and religion and I don't think they go. Boondock Saints and The Book of Eli both had main characters that spent a large portion of their time meditating over the Bible, but repeatedly skipping sections where it says "let he who is without sin" and "turn the other cheek".
Err, on topic... I don't think it will ever be possible to conclusively know who committed the murder. Would it be possible to try and execute two people for the same murder?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
If it could be proven they were both involved, then yes, I see no reason why they couldn't both be found guilty.
What if they found the original guy not guilty after he'd been executed though?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
If it could be proven they were both involved, then yes, I see no reason why they couldn't both be found guilty.
What if they found the original guy not guilty after he'd been executed though?
If you are referring to the current topic in question, then from what I have read, no one seems to dispute he was involved, just if he was the one who actually pulled the trigger.
I'm not condoning the execution, but the guy seems really scummy. The two things that caught my attention were the rap artists that took his side, which just stinks of hypocracy, and the fact that the guy he killed was a security guard at a burger king. Burger King needs a security guard? Yikes. The place this guy comes from sounds horrible, and this guy was out an about on the streets at night either with guns or with guys with guns. I can't say Troy Davis strikes me as an individual who I would want baby sitting my kids.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Supremacy
At the risk of dragging religion into this once more (and going off topic), I agree. When people differ (pro one and anti the other), I can see why framing is the reason though. I'd make exceptions for ectopic pregnancies which would result in the death of both mother and child though and probably abortions before the baby has developed a nervous system, because it cannot think or feel anything until that point.
Supremacy, out of interest, would you speculate on OJ's culpability in the murder of his ex-wife?
It's been a while since I've heard of the specifics of that case, so I might be missing some things.
There was a forensic pathologist who reviewed that case for an HBO special. He pointed out numerous flaws with evidence not being collected, or evidence being contaminated, or other flaws with how the forensics of that case was handled. So, the science wasn't exactly a lock. His DNA was found at a house he had been to before. That's...that's the definition of circumstantial evidence.
You end up having to rely more heavily on other things. And, yes. It's worth noting when the arresting officer or someone who discovered some key evidence in a case has a past history of prejudice and racial epithets against the race of the prime suspect. I think Chris Rock said "Cause if that was Jerry Seinfeld charged with double murder and the only person that found the glove just
happened
to be in the Nation of Islam, Jerry would be a free man."
But, you know. The jurors who listened to all the testimony, received all the evidence, and actually got all the information said it's not definitive that they did it. Judge accepted the jury's decision. So, there ya go.
and I have to bust out a quote from one of my favourite films.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
I haven't seen this movie, but Thomas is right. Even a cursory glance at history supports that. You start playing fast and loose with laws, why even bother calling them laws? They're just suggestions.
Also, not having seen that movie? I would have to applaud anyone having the stones to try to prosecute...well, The Devil.
Err, on topic... I don't think it will ever be possible to conclusively know who committed the murder. Would it be possible to try and execute two people for the same murder?
That would be hilarious.
Mostly because when things are just...I mean, the screw-ups that would have to happen would be of epic - nay, biblical proportions in order to have that happen.
"You know...one of them probably did it. I'm not sure who, but, can't let the guilty one free. Just kill 'em both."
I'm assuming you mean a case where people aren't specifically acting in concert; but rather when the state isn't really sure who did it but, hell. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Post by
Squishalot
On a slightly off topic note:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/no-more-food-to-die-for-in-texas-prisons-20110923-1kog0.html
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Re: final meals, what's also sad is that Philip Workman requested a pizza be given to a homeless guy and the prison didn't comply.
Post by
Magician22773
My "lie detector" was theroretical. As I mentioned, the current technology is full of flaws. My retorical observation was that with all the technology that we have, especially about the human body and mind, It is actually surprising that we dont have a 100% accurate way to detect a lie. And if we did, that that technology could be provide the final bit of evidence in a case. Consider it to be "quality control", so to speak.
This is woefully ignorant. We know virtually
nothing
about the brain. We have only been able to study it properly since MRI came around in the 1970s. We can't even cure Alzheimer's yet -- we use a bunch of holistic remedies to try to slow it down, but we have no idea what causes it.
You might as well argue that we should have hoverbikes "by now", given our knowledge with magnetic levitation on trains.
www.hover-bike.com
Yeah, I know, its not mag-lev, but then again, I don't think my "idea" was exactly "woefully ignorant" either.
If we can do this
, I would argue that is a little more than "virtually nothing" about the brain.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Up til now, I have kind of avoided this thread. I am pro-death penalty as a concept. Also, in most cases, I tend to say that any case we try in the court of public opinion has about 3-5% of the evidence given to those who try the case in reality, and that the majority of the information given is released by the defense, since they're not trying to preserve the integrity of an investigation by not tampering with the jury pool, not the prosecution. It's hard to say that we have a much better idea of how the case "should" have gone. The things that I have heard in the media leave me uneasy about this case and how it was resolved, but I have often seen the same set of facts presented by people with two different opinions, and the differences in what you'd conclude based on hearing one side or the other are night and day. So I don't know.
One of the things that worries me, whenever these trials are made public, is that very often the jury will make a decision that seems to have no basis in the law. A defendant will ADMIT that they did something wrong, and the jury will decide not to punish them for it. Casey Anthony may or may not have killed her child, and may or may not have left the child to die, but she said in court that she left the child alone and unsupervised in a pool for a period of time and that led to her death. And THAT is why people are outraged- it doesn't help that she's a liar, that she desecrated her child's body, that she partied like a teenager once her child was dead- but the real reason it's disgusting is that SHE said she didn't watch her child and it lead to the child's death. And she didn't get charged with anything resembling endangering the welfare of a minor, or negligent manslaughter. She didn't get punished for what she SAID she did.
There have been other cases like that. I remember that in one of the Michael Jackson trials, he had admitted to giving a child alcohol, and the jury found him non-guity of serving alcohol to a minor. I don't understand how someone can admit to a minor crime, as the explaination as to why they hadn't committed the major crime, and then not get sentenced for either.
We already exclude felons and people who are not of sufficient competency from serving on a jury. Should there be a higher standard? Should you have to be capable of understanding evidence as it's presented, and understanding how the legal system works? Should we expect decisions about whether a piece of DNA evidence is credible to be made by people who still think that a capful of bleach will cure AIDS, or that you can get pregnant from watching a porno? (Google is an enlightening and scary thing). Is it "justice" to allow people who have no ability to comprehend the work done by the scientists on either side to make a decision about whether or not someone is guilty?
On the other side, where would you draw the line? Would it be too easy to abuse the system, and select candidates that were more pro- police than the mainstream? Would people feel that it was unfair to be judged by people who are different from them, if they themselves are not able to comprehend how the prosecution proved that they were the one who comitted the crime? Is it unfair?
I'm honestly divided. I think that there's a lot in the legal system that needs to be changed. I also think that the media takes a lot of stories and turns them into shock pieces, when someone who looks at all the evidence would take a more middle of the road opinion.
I'm not sure there is a single, solid answer to "This is the way it should all actually be done." I understand the need for double jeopardy laws, but it makes me sick when a man is found not guilty and then writes a book about the details of the murder of his wife and makes money off of it. I understand that jury trials are necessary, but it's hard for me to rest easy when decisions about whether or not the state has met the burden of evidence are made by people who are "friending" the defendant on facebook mid-trial, or who think that chicken comes from a cow.
So- in this case, I'm not going to weigh in, other than as a concept, I do support the death penalty for first degree murderers, rapists and child molestors. I believe that your right to live ends when you intentionally destroy other people's lives for fun, for money or for convenience. I believe that people like that are predators, and poison society, and that it's better to cut them out entirely. I don't care that, given the right incentives and environment, they might be persueded to never do that again. It's enough that they did it the first time. There's a story on CNN about a man who raped an 11-month-old baby, filmed it, and sold the film. I think with that kind of video evidence, he should be taken out and shot after his trial. However, with our current legal system, I'm not sure that the way in which the burden of proof is presented, or judged, makes the death penalty a viable option in many of the cases where the crime calls for it.
Off Topic: (Cause my post wasn't long enough already :P) I don't personally have a problem being both pro-life on the abortion issue, and pro-death penalty. It's about accountability. I think that a person who commits a heinous enough crime to warrant the death penalty deserves it, that it protects society not only from those offenders but those who would judge whether or not to kill someone on a risk vs. reward basis. They knew what they were doing when they cold-bloodedly killed (or in my opinion raped) another person, and they removed themselves from human consideration. I also think that consensual sex is a voluntary act, and in most societies even the most un-informed adult knows that it leads to pregnancy. If the result of your decision is that you become pregnant, I don't think you have the right to kill an unborn child and make them pay for your mistake or the chance you took. I can't say that I'd outlaw it in cases of life of mother, incest or rape- in the first case it's one life or the other, and in the other two the person didn't make the decision to have sex- but to use it as a form of birth control should be illegal, IMO.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.