Forked from "22-year-old...": My thoughts on the Death Penalty

[USS Triumphant]

Cultcross can verify this or call me an ignoramus but I think an uncorroborated confession isn't enough to convict in the UK, for the very reason that it could be later refuted and put down to coersion. Verdicts are therefore reached on evidence and argument, as in most courts of law.

Well, sure. But Jinglebell JaRock seemed to be saying that neither confession nor evidence is sufficient, and I'm just not sure what is left after that. Weighing them against a duck, maybe?

 

[Colonel Green]

It's just my opinion when the DP is called for and there are plenty of times a killer is caught where there's mountains of evidence against him, the Beltway Sniper and the BTK Killer both come to mind. (Though the BTK guy confessed to his crimes.)

People make false confessions all the time, sometimes coerced, sometimes because they are crazy.

That we value his life more than he valued the lives of his victims.

The fact that we value life is what makes us better than them. Do you value revenge more than the lives of the many innocent people who have been wrongfully murdered by the state?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Personally, these days, I don't find "confessions" particularly convincing evidence. I've also seen several cases where mountains of evidence resulted in a conviction that was overturned later in life.

So basically what you're implying is that confessions can't be trusted to make a judgement, and evidence is not trustworthy for that purpose, either.

If I were to accept both of those (which I certainly don't), then what, pray tell, are we supposed to make judgements based on?!

Well, no. I think confessions aren't useful.

As for the other half, I think evidence (both circumstantial and physical) should be used because it's the only thing that can be. However, I always keep in mind the fact that the evidence could point to the wrong person. That's why there should always be an appeal that could get the conviction overturned.

I'm of the opinion that no evidence is strong enough to give someone the death penalty because I recognize the possibility of reaching an irreversible incorrect decision.

 

[paudemge]

Well, no. I think confessions aren't useful.

As for the other half, I think evidence (both circumstantial and physical) should be used because it's the only thing that can be. However, I always keep in mind the fact that the evidence could point to the wrong person. That's why there should always be an appeal that could get the conviction overturned.

I'm of the opinion that no evidence is strong enough to give someone the death penalty because I recognize the possibility of reaching an irreversible incorrect decision.

I don't think there are a whole lot of convictions with mountains of evidence that are later overturned, most likely we hear about a lot more of those than of the far larger number that are not over turned.

And confessions can be very good pieces of evidence, but they have to be more than 'i did it', most of the time the police will try to get details of the crime that only the perpetrator and police would know.

 

[StarryEyed]

...That we value his life more than he valued the lives of his victims.

Of COURSE we value his life more than he valued the lives of his victim. We respect life. We're better than him. Or at least some of us are.

 

[John Picard]

In my younger days, I was a hard-core Death Penalty supporter. I laughed when someone went to either the chair or the gas chamber and jeered the process of Lethal Injection.

And then, something changed. One of the incidents that helped herald that change was the Joyce Gilcrest fiasco as I worked with Jeffery Pierce's cousin. I learned of the atrocities of so-called investigations, how a DA will do whatever it takes to convict someone, and how (yes, even today) the family of the accused will be terrorized by law enforcement although it can't be proven.

Then came the review of DNA evidence on cases 10, 15, and 20 years old. States, such as Texas, had to own up to having convicted the wrong person. Fortunately for people in Texas, there is a degree of monetary compensation even though all of those years lost behind bars cannot be regained or replaced.

Then, after a semester of Introduction to Philosophy, I began to review a lot of my old thoughts and feelings of certain beliefs and values. I realized that one of the very awful aspects of the death penalty is how permanent it is and that there have been people wrongfully executed.

No matter what, our system is flawed. It is that point alone that leads me to say that I do not agree with the Death Penalty. Life imprisonment is a more suitable punishment for even the most savage murderer, because he will never be able to breathe freedom.

 

[StarryEyed]

I used to support it too. I even thought they should be used for medical research. It can be natural to feel that way when you're young and just going on emotion when you hear about some horrible crime.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, no. I think confessions aren't useful.

As for the other half, I think evidence (both circumstantial and physical) should be used because it's the only thing that can be. However, I always keep in mind the fact that the evidence could point to the wrong person. That's why there should always be an appeal that could get the conviction overturned.

I'm of the opinion that no evidence is strong enough to give someone the death penalty because I recognize the possibility of reaching an irreversible incorrect decision.

I don't think there are a whole lot of convictions with mountains of evidence that are later overturned, most likely we hear about a lot more of those than of the far larger number that are not over turned.

That tends to be true. But, if there's only one case of overturned in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt, that casts doubt on all others. And even if there's one case in the entire United States where a person is falsely convicted when it appears that he is clearly guilty, then that's one too many and is a travesty. Especially if that person is killed before they could prove him innocent.

And confessions can be very good pieces of evidence, but they have to be more than 'i did it', most of the time the police will try to get details of the crime that only the perpetrator and police would know.

Confessions could be useful in leading to other evidence, but a statement by itself should not be enough. When you consider how police operate, the idea of getting them to provide details no one else knows isn't practical or reliable (sometimes details get out or are assumed, things like that. If we're dealing with a specific type of serial killer, maybe, but not most murders).

 

[StarryEyed]

If anyone has not yet done so, you really need to click on Ebeneezer/John Picard's Joyce Gilcrest link 3 posts up.

Damn! That is some really scary shit. Imperfect system indeed.

 

[John Picard]

If anyone has not yet done so, you really need to click on Ebeneezer/John Picard's Joyce Gilcrest link 3 posts up.

Damn! That is some really scary shit. Imperfect system indeed.

Yep. She botched/lied in several cases. It was big news here when the FBI came in and tore the Forensics Lab apart. You wouldn't believe the number of cases that were exonerated, and all because of that arrogant SOB DA Bob Macy.

 

[StarryEyed]

If anyone has not yet done so, you really need to click on Ebeneezer/John Picard's Joyce Gilcrest link 3 posts up.

Damn! That is some really scary shit. Imperfect system indeed.

Yep. She botched/lied in several cases. It was big news here when the FBI came in and tore the Forensics Lab apart. You wouldn't believe the number of cases that were exonerated, and all because of that arrogant SOB DA Bob Macy.

To me, this kind of thing just screams for independent oversight of every aspect of law enforcement. We need these people but they absolutely cannot be trusted to act properly without oversight. It's not a problem with law enforcement per se but with human flaws and limitations. You just can't give people this kind of power without monitoring them VERY closely.

This woman may be responsible for multiple wrongful incarcerations and possibly even wrongful executions - and she has the nerve to bitch about the indignity of "counting test tubes!" She should be counting years - behind bars!

 

[sidious618]

Some people do not deserve to live. Yes, prison isn't great and cushy, but these "monsters" still get to suck air, they still get the comfort of their own thoughts. They doesn't sit right with me, shouldn't sit right with anyone, and shouldn't sit right with society.

No matter how you try and restate it your argument comes down to revenge. It's completely based off of anger and not logic hence it is revenge.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Some people do not deserve to live. Yes, prison isn't great and cushy, but these "monsters" still get to suck air, they still get the comfort of their own thoughts. They doesn't sit right with me, shouldn't sit right with anyone, and shouldn't sit right with society.

No matter how you try and restate it your argument comes down to revenge. It's completely based off of anger and not logic hence it is revenge.

Yep. "It just feels right" can't be quantified or turned into any kind of meaningful debate, and is equally matched by me saying "It just feels wrong." In which case you have to look at the merits of capital punishment versus life imprisonment, and in that sense capital punishment falls short by every metric.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I used to be in favor of it, too.

You really have to examine why you believe the things you do. If you believe in something because it "just feels right," that's fine, but it does no good to try to cover it up with faulty logic.

 

[MarianLH]

Anyone who would like to talk about the TNZ discussion here can feel free to do so as long as we don't get into mentioning any specific posters, events, or moderator actions in a negative way.

I think we have a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about TNZ and get some people involved who might have hesitated to check it out before.

Well, it worked in my case. I've always avoided TNZ before, but now I've given it a shot. And I have a question: what would be the appropriate place to discuss the 10 rules? Because the 'sexual' part of #10 seems to be completely unenforced.


Marian

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Anyone who would like to talk about the TNZ discussion here can feel free to do so as long as we don't get into mentioning any specific posters, events, or moderator actions in a negative way.

I think we have a good opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about TNZ and get some people involved who might have hesitated to check it out before.

Well, it worked in my case. I've always avoided TNZ before, but now I've given it a shot. And I have a question: what would be the appropriate place to discuss the 10 rules? Because the 'sexual' part of #10 seems to be completely unenforced.

If you want to discuss a specific issue or incident in detail, I'd recommend PMing one or more of the TNZ mods (Christmas Jewel, Borgminster, or Frontline, though Frontline hasn't been around much), since the "What happens in TNZ stays in TNZ rule" would apply.

If it's something more general that can be tamed down a bit for the board at large and doesn't mention any one poster or any specific incident, you can discuss it here.

 

[MarianLH]

It does fall under "something more general". In fact it would fall under "nearly universal". It seems like everybody's favorite putdown in TNZ is a certain word that

Spoiler: a word I probably can't say here

starts with "c" and rhymes with "punt".

And really, given some of the targets involved, it's not at all fair to the organ in question. (That's me trying to keep this light and friendly, and not Too Serious, but I'm probably not succeeding.)


Marian

 

[sidious618]

Well if you get rid of that word then you have to get rid of dick, cocksucker, pussy etc. and I guess no one really wants that. But I can't say that the word is all that popular in TNZ. It gets used but not too often.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

It does fall under "something more general". In fact it would fall under "nearly universal". It seems like everybody's favorite putdown in TNZ is a certain word that

Spoiler: a word I probably can't say here

starts with "c" and rhymes with "punt".

We were just discussing this in the BR the other day. The problems with banning it are:

- C*unt is not a slur in the same sense that N*gger, F*ggot, K*ke, and so forth are, as it does not malign an entire group of people even when directed at an individual, but just compares one person to a body part. The rule you cited was meant to address group-related slurs like the ones I mention above.

- If it was to be banned, as sidious mentions you have numerous other body part related insults that would seem hypocritical to allow, including other words for the same part of the female anatomy.

- While in the US c*nt is considered about the worst thing you can call a woman and is even rarely heard in friendly banter, in Britain and Australia it's far more commonly used and relatively innocuous by comparison.

- In about 99% of the cases where it's used in TNZ, it's directed at men rather than women. While I understand that it can still be considered insulting to women regardless of not being specifically directed at a woman, it does seem to minimize the effect of using it when it's against a guy judging from how most people react to it in that context. The last time it was used against a woman there were some posters who said to knock it off IIRC.

So, while I appreciate that it's troubling for you to hear, banning it would probably cause more problems down the road than it helps.

That's just my opinion though, and I don't have a vote on the matter in TNZ or anything.

 

[MarianLH]

Thanks for taking the time to address it. Some points worth thinking about. I was wondering, while writing the previous post, about why a certain nickname for Richard doesn't bother me in the same way.


Marian