Kidnapped girl found 18 years later
well not found so much as walked into a police station with two children allegedly fathered by her kidnapper who was assisted by his wife :eek:
wow
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8225621.stm
the stepfather saw the kidnap happening too.
Maybe all those missing children like Ben Needham do have a chance of being found eventually
poor, poor girl :(
I'm hoping for more details. News said she was 29? I'm wondering what she was doing/thinking in the years since she turned 18.
ETA: okay the sex offender who abducted her got 2 kids on her, and kept them all in a backyard shed.
:(
Sick sick bastards. For those of you who don't believe there is a place for torture in our "civilized" society, I present you with *drumroll* kidnappers.
The reunion with her real parents has got to be very strange. After all the hugs you're just standing there, staring at someone who is essentially a stranger.
I am fascinated with this story. Thinking of the step-dad trying to chase down the car, seeing the mother's news plea for the return of her daughter...
Man, what freaks, from what little I've caught it seems kidnapper man (who had already been convicted of rape at the time of this girl's abduction) is just talkin' talkin' talkin'. Ain't no thing, ya know?
:(
yeah, he said he completely turned his life around, and "get ready for a heartwarming story."
What B.S. And the wife? Just sat around and let her pedophile husband imprison and rape this girl?
People are so strange.
Eliminate them both from the planet - What are they gonna go to prison and "reform" - Puhlease!
I cannot BELIEVE he said the thing about the heartwarming story. I read that and thought "you fricking freak!"
I'm sure I'll feel all fuzzy inside when that little Hallmark Hall of Fame story hits Lifetime.
:mad:
I'm wondering what kind of "literature" he was trying to pass out at Cal. The news said he didn't know what it was. WTF?
I read in a couple of different articles taht it was religious literature - he thought God spoke to him through a box, and that he could read people's minds. And of course that what he had done was God's will. What a winner.
Wonder if his wife is schizo, too.
Shouldn't there be some kind of rule: "I'm sorry, you're a psycho fuck, and you're a psycho fuck. There can only be one psycho fuck in any marriage at any given time. Plus, you're both ugly. New legislation requires that one of you jump off a cliff and the other one stand in front of a speeding train. NEXT?"
Like Elizabeth Smart's captors, who are both too deranged to stand trial.
Another reason to dislike religion.
Another reason to dislike religion.
You probably dislike Jodie Foster too, using that logic.
If it wasn't religion, it'd be some other damn thing. Crazy comes in many forms.
How in the world is this girl going to restart her life? I can't imagine what she's going to tell the kids when they're older--I have friends who were born of rape that turned out ok, so it's certainly possible...but still.
The guy should be on death row. No pardon. Too many criminals are getting off on "whoops, sorry, I was insane."
Followup--I just said as much to my wife, and she laid some wisdom on me.
"So let's say the 29-year-old woman turns around and kidnaps a child. Does the same thing to him that was done to her. Do we kill her?"
"That's a different situation," I replied. "This guy inflicted a lot of suffering on this girl for a long time."
She smiled. "How do you know what happened to him when he was a kid?"
I had no reply.
Who cares what happened to him as a child? What difference does that make.
If he was treated horribly perhaps he should know how that felt and NOT inflict that on another?
Remove them both from the planet - next.
Followup--I just said as much to my wife, and she laid some wisdom on me.
"So let's say the 29-year-old woman turns around and kidnaps a child. Does the same thing to him that was done to her. Do we kill her?"
"That's a different situation," I replied. "This guy inflicted a lot of suffering on this girl for a long time."
She smiled. "How do you know what happened to him when he was a kid?"
I had no reply.
That's because you gave the wrong answer to her question.
"So let's say the 29-year-old woman turns around and kidnaps a child. Does the same thing to him that was done to her. Do we kill her?"
Kill her, no. Lock her up permanently? Sorry, but yes. The only thing that makes her situation different is maybe she gets put in minimum security, with as many perks as they can reasonably give her along the lines of library privileges, etc. The fact that you have a valid mental excuse for something wrong doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep doing it.
This guy was a registered sex offender. Recidivism rates for this type of criminal are staggering. They need to start accepting that there is no psychological recovery for most of them, and stop letting them out just so they can do it again and again.
Permanent lock-up was my wife's suggestion, as well. She certainly doesn't feel sorry for them, but her P.O.V. is that killing them is going too far.
Sadistic behavior likes this makes me sick, so my gut reaction is to kill the offender and be done with it--but she suggested that it may truly be sickness resulting from something that was done to him, so locking him up permanently is the only solution.
classicman: like i said, that's my gut reaction--but consider this: kids who are abused by their parents are 10 times as likely to abuse their own children. These horrible acts don't teach their victims not to do it; rather, it corrupts them, makes them think that such harmful abuse is normal behavior.
Ah...the idea of the philosophy of justice in a world where it seems that justice does not truly exist.
I strongly do not believe in purely genetically good or bad people but that we are all products of a mix of genetic and more prominent environmental influences. That means for the most part, who we are as people is largely out of our control but this argument is meaningless when attempting to form a stable and civil society.
Jodie Foster is a religion?
A guy tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan because he was obsessed with Jodie Foster and thought in his delusions that it was what she wanted. The point is, it's not religion's fault that some retards are drawn to it.
Permanent lock-up was my wife's P.O.V. is that killing them is going too far.
my gut reaction is to kill the offender and be done with it
These horrible acts don't teach their victims not to do it; rather, it corrupts them.
there is no real solution - thats the problem.
That's because you gave the wrong answer to her question.
Kill her, no. Lock her up permanently? Sorry, but yes. The only thing that makes her situation different is maybe she gets put in minimum security, with as many perks as they can reasonably give her along the lines of library privileges, etc. The fact that you have a valid mental excuse for something wrong doesn't mean you should be allowed to keep doing it.
This guy was a registered sex offender. Recidivism rates for this type of criminal are staggering. They need to start accepting that there is no psychological recovery for most of them, and stop letting them out just so they can do it again and again.
I completely agree. I am absolutely not in favour of the death penalty. But nor am I in favour of allowing people who are driven to do harm, just continue to do it. Burglars can be reformed. Even violent killers can (and sometimes are) reformed. But paedophilia is a compulsion. If someone has proved unable to resist that compulsion then they will always be a risk.
I don't believe in 'punishment' for damaged people. I don't think it helps society and I don;t think it helps the perps either. I think there's a strong argument for compassionate but permanent incarceration.
I think there's a strong argument for compassionate but permanent incarceration.
No compassion deserved.
So, if this woman was to repeat the crimes against her, because she's basically been warped by the things done to her, she deserves no compassion?
There is a place in life for mercy.
poor woman. She just got freed and you all have her guilty and incarcerated again! if you are jailed awaiting trial it counts as time served, so surely she'd be freed anyway ;)
Good point Monnie :P
but...@ Classic: to my mind, mercy and compassion aren't about what the recipients of them deserve; they're about what the giver is prepared to give. And for justice truly to be justice it needs both, else it's just vengeance. And I'd like to think most of us are better than that. Better than the murderers or the paedophiles or the rapists. Better than those who are devoid of compassion and who have no mercy.
[eta] that's not to say , by the way, that I see no place in life for vengeance. I just don't think its place is in our justice system. As individuals, if hurt we may well want vengeance. But I want my society to be a just one, not a vengeful one. I want a justice system that tempers its judgements with mercy and compassion, even if I as an individual might prefer vengeance.
Sick sick bastards. For those of you who don't believe there is a place for torture in our "civilized" society, I present you with *drumroll* kidnappers.
Kidnappers, abusers, drunk drivers, ect: all have no place in civilized society, and neither does torture.
So, if this woman was to repeat the crimes against her, because she's basically been warped by the things done to her, she deserves no compassion?
There is a place in life for mercy.
poor woman. She just got freed and you all have her guilty and incarcerated again! if you are jailed awaiting trial it counts as time served, so surely she'd be freed anyway ;)
I was referring to the wife of the shitbag kidnapper - not the girl. Sheesh!
Wow. that guy is really creepy and evil looking. I changed the channel rather than hear his voice. (shudder)
Fumigate the neighborhood.
Speaking of the neighbourhood, how the hell can a registered sex offender get away with maintaining a private prison in his backyard?
I heard on the news that in about 2005, a neighbour did phone concerns like this in to the cops. EvilPrick was already a registered sex offender by that time.
Cops came by, quick chat, did NOT look about ... result: nothing. WTF?
...but...@ Classic: to my mind, mercy and compassion aren't about what the recipients of them deserve; they're about what the giver is prepared to give. And for justice truly to be justice it needs both, else it's just vengeance. And I'd like to think most of us are better than that. Better than the murderers or the paedophiles or the rapists. Better than those who are devoid of compassion and who have no mercy.
[eta] that's not to say , by the way, that I see no place in life for vengeance. I just don't think its place is in our justice system. As individuals, if hurt we may well want vengeance. But I want my society to be a just one, not a vengeful one. I want a justice system that tempers its judgements with mercy and compassion, even if I as an individual might prefer vengeance.
You wimpy Brit! In America, we have no compassion. The guy did what he did because he could, and had no compassion for an eleven year old girl. He was bigger and stronger, so he did what he wanted to do. Now that we, as a society, have captured him, the collective we, as the bigger and stronger entity, get to do whatever we want to do to him. Torture, death, the sky is the limit! It's a shame that the first person on the scene didn't just shoot him, or better yet, the girl didn't shoot him at the time of her abduction. And his wife.
The girl now has to pull herself up by her own bootstraps. No welfare or healthcare for her or her's. She'll have to get a job and pay for her own housing and healthcare, and maybe she should immediately get her own gun so that this kind of thing can't happen to her again.
What would be better than prison or execution would be to round up all the bad people in the world and quarantine them somewhere - I know, put them all on Manhatten Island![/ugly conservative American]
*laughs* I call bullshit. I genuinely believe that Americans are some of the most compassionate people on the planet: as individuals. One glance at the third world will show that American teenagers flock in their thousands to help villages build wells, to help save orangutans in the rainforest, and in their own country manning soup kitchens and running thrift sales for charity.
I think most people, even if they believe in capital punishment, even if they believe very strongly that the perpetrator of terrible crimes deserves to be tortured and killed: if sat in a room with an individual who has done these things, listening to them tell their tale of what took them down that path: whatever their belief in what constitutes justice, would hear that tale with empathy and compassion. It is the human condition. We are wired for empathy. That's why we find psychopaths and sociopaths so damned disturbing and frightening. They are alien to us. They have no empathy and compassion and that is unlike the rest of us.
But. . . society has to protect itself. At some level, that's its basic function. Removing known threats (either through incarceration or state-sanctioned murder) is part of that self-preservation ethic.
On what occasions do we allow empathy for a dangerous individual to come before societal good? That's the critical question.
[COLOR=LemonChiffon]Who says liberals can't be nuanced?[/COLOR]
Kidnappers, abusers, drunk drivers, ect: all have no place in civilized society, and neither does torture.
Softy. Personally I wouldn't shed a tear while watching that piece of shit get beat to death. or slowly bled to death. or any other method you can think of.
Stoning. :thumb:
I don't think getting him stoned is much of a punishment.
Sure it is, if you don't give him anything to drink when he gets the drys, or any food when he gets the munchies.;)
But. . . society has to protect itself. At some level, that's its basic function. Removing known threats (either through incarceration or state-sanctioned murder) is part of that self-preservation ethic.
I agree. Which I why I am in favour of incarcerating those who are a continued danger.
On what occasions do we allow empathy for a dangerous individual to come before societal good? That's the critical question.
We don't at any point allow empathy to come
before societal good. But nor should we allow our need to protect ourselves to rob us of our empathy. There is no good reason, in my mind, to act without mercy even to those who have none themselves. Mercy can come in many forms. It doesn't mean allowing dangerous predators the freedom to prey.
Sure it is, if you don't give him anything to drink when he gets the drys, or any food when he gets the munchies.;)
Good God man, where is your humanity?!
Bruce you sadistic bastard!
Although, that could be some REAL enhanced interrogation.
(1) Spliff up.
(2) So, Mr Achmed Abdul, you see the mars bar and banana smoothie behind the glass window? While you're staring at those, let's just chat about where Osama likes to hang out, shall we.
I think it would work! You guys are all geniuses! :)
Well here is some more detail:
http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_13233303
"Meanwhile those, like Christenson who came into contact with Garridos during the past year, are reporting his increasingly bizarre behavior. Once, both the Garridos came into Christenson's office at the recycling center, shut the door and asked for money to fund a new bathroom and backyard church.
"He started preaching and doing all this stuff. He was telling me about his voices. And then he said, 'You know I've been to prison, and I don't masturbate anymore.' Out of the blue," she said. "Then he started crying, and she was crying. I was looking at them — what is this about? I got freaked out."
Karunaratne also recalled increasingly strange behavior. When he picked up his orders at the Garridos' house, Garrido would often hop in Karunaratne's car, Bible in hand, trying to preach to him. Once Garrido played him a CD of religious country-rock songs — recorded, he said, in a soundproofed backyard studio.
To some, Garrido announced plans to give up the printing business and preach full time. Last year, he launched a company, God's Desire. His blog, called Voices Revealed, describes a fascination with mind control and the ability to hear the voices in people's heads.
"The Creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake-up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world," he wrote."
And
"Reports show that Garrido managed to somehow slip through the cracks of the legal system. In 1977, he was sentenced to 50 years for a kidnapping conviction and given a life sentence for a rape conviction, but served only 10 years in federal prison in Leavenworth, Kan., and was granted parole in 1988. Less than three years later, he allegedly kidnapped Dugard.
Garrido had tried to convince a jury that his pot and LSD use were to blame for a 1976 rape in Reno, and he told the victim she was at fault because of her good looks, according to news accounts. A retired Reno police detective Dan DeMaranville, 74, told The Associated Press that a cooperative Garrido came across as intelligent and educated during his interviews with him, despite heavy drug use that started in 1968."
I am so tired of reading about crimes committed by somebody who should never have been let out of jail in the first place. A person in my neighborhood was killed by a guy who had been convicted of armed robbery, and had served only a token sentence.
Decriminalize marijuana and free up prison cells for people we need to incarcerate. I would happily pay $20-30K a year to keep this guy locked up. I really don't care about any idiot caught with a few ounces of pot.
Why pay $20-30K a year indefinitely when for a fraction of that we can put him to death and let that be the end of it?
You wanna give him a trial before we kill him? Or should we just shoot him now?
Honestly? I'm cool with killing him now and saving the expense, but I'm pretty sure you know I was responding to the idea of paying $20-30K each year to keep him locked up, which would really be post conviction.
Who needs trials anyways? The guilty should not get trials.
Why pay $20-30K a year indefinitely when for a fraction of that we can put him to death and let that be the end of it?
Typical person uninformed about the real costs of the death penalty. :headshake
Feels good to say though, huh? "Hellll yeah, kill that dadburn varmint. Yee-fucking-ha."
Because putting people to death has other costs. I do not want my government to have power of life and death over any of its citizens, guilty or innocent. Not all cases are as cut and dried as this. Though these are usually the ones wheeled out by those who are pro-death penalty.
Death is irreversible. To date no justice system has proved itself flawless. Too many people get convicted and go to prison only to have their cases overturned years later, for the death penalty ever to be considered safe. And whilst one can point to this case and say it is pretty damn clear he's guilty, legislation can only be made on the assumption that all convictions are generally safe.
I also believe the death penalty is morally wrong. Aside from that there is enough evidence to show that where it is used the death penalty is often painful and extended. Electrocutions can take many minutes of agony. Lethal injection also often causes agony. If the point of the death penalty is simply to deny that person life and remove them from our world, then there is no reason to do so in a painful fashion. The fact that they will no longer live is enough. If the point of execution is to punish with pain, then I think that is brutal and unwarranted. That they have been brutal does not mean that we should be brutal.
You wanna give him a trial before we kill him? Or should we just shoot him now?
Who needs trials anyways? The guilty should not get trials.
"Hellll yeah, kill that dadburn varmint. Yee-fucking-ha."
Right on sister :eyebrow::cool:
(the above quote was modified for humor)
I envision some chaw-spittin' going on, too.
before or after we kill him?
Too many people get convicted and go to prison only to have their cases overturned years later, for the death penalty ever to be considered safe.
What percentage would you attribute to this "Too many"? Just asking. Please just don't say "even one is too many" I'm trying to quantify this.
Electrocutions can take many minutes of agony. Lethal injection also often causes agony.
That they have been brutal does not mean that we should be brutal.
Good - I hope they die a horribly painful death. For someone to actually make it through to where the death penalty is actually meted out, they must be a virtual monster. No mercy deserved. Toss 'em out like yesterdays garbage.
From the New York Times:
The most far-reaching study of the death penalty in the United States has found that two out of three sentences were overturned on appeal, mostly because of serious errors by incompetent defense lawyers or overzealous police officers and prosecutors who withheld evidence.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/061200death-penalty.html
Obviously the death penalty is handed out in many cases where the case is less than clear cut.
Now dar, quit letting facts get in the way of all the god-playing. ;)
Honestly Classic, I do believe one is too many.
And as I may have posted before: mercy resides in the person giving it. Not the person receiving it. Whether or not someone deserves that mercy is irrelevant to me.
You're a better person than I am Dana. I personally feel that in a case like this after the person has received a fair trial the death penalty should be applied. If that means the poor guy feels pain along the way then so be it. He has forfeited his right to breathe, imo. If that makes me a barbarian, then I'm cool with that. I've been called worse.
I personally feel that in a case like this...
Unfortunately, laws do not apply exclusively to cases "like" the ones which you may cite as an example of their suitability.
I personally feel that in a case like this after the person has received a fair trial the death penalty should be applied.
What aspects of the case are you thinking of when you say "like this"?
And as I may have posted before: mercy resides in the person giving it. Not the person receiving it. Whether or not someone deserves that mercy is irrelevant to me.
Stupid aside to Dana:
If "the quality of mercy is not strain'd", how do you get the lumps out?
Now dar, quit letting facts get in the way of all the god-playing. ;)
I actually wanted to bring facts into the discussion - Again how many people are we talking about here? How many are on eath row right now in the US?
Honestly Classic, I do believe one is too many.
Well utopia doesn't exist. Not that we should strive for it, but we have to deal with reality.
Where suitable, I agree with Lookout.
...we have to deal with reality.
Where suitable, I agree with Lookout.
Please describe how, in "reality," a law can be made to apply only "where suitable" (according to a criteria which hasn't been defined).
Stupid aside to Dana:
If "the quality of mercy is not strain'd", how do you get the lumps out?
Am I allowed to use cheesecloth?
If by 'where suitable' you mean definately guilty: then that in no way resolves the problem of a flawed justice system. ALL convictions are deemed to show that the convicted felon has committed the crime and is definately guilty. At no point is someone found 'probably guilty'. There's no grading system involved in applying the death penalty. Either you've been found guilty or you haven't. Some people who are found guilty are in fact innocent of the crime. Some, as in this case, are most definately guilty. There is no legislative way to differentiate.
... and some found innocent are in reality guilty. <devils advocate>
Yeh I know these are the ones who don't get put to death.
Am I allowed to use cheesecloth?
:D
... and some found innocent are in reality guilty. <devils advocate>
Yeh I know these are the ones who don't get put to death.
Because the system is flawed. Having the death penalty does nothing to ensure that no guilty person is ever acquitted. It just ensures that the effects of wrongful conviction are more terrible and irreversible.
Unfortunately, laws do not apply exclusively to cases "like" the ones which you may cite as an example of their suitability.
OK. Let me be more clear - cases of kidnapping, rape, and murder are all worthy of the death penalty in my opinion. yeah i know that is extreme but it isn't some knee jerk reaction i just threw out there for the first time today either.
Dana, I understand your concerns about the possible wrongly convicted death row rider. Quite simply I don't care.
I'm an American, I don't have to care.
- Denny Crane
God, you're sexy when you're cold! :P
I do care. As is probably apparent by now :) I fail to understand why someone would care what happened to the innocent victims of a brutal murderer (enough to wish death upon their killer) and yet not care about an innocent victim of a brutal state execution.
Fair question. I do/would care about a "innocent victim of a brutal state execution".
Trials and appeals are there for a reason. Is it possible that someone wrongly convicted might make it all the way through the appeals and land with a needle in their vein? Sure. Would the lack of a death penalty suddenly make everything lollipops and butterfly kisses for them? No.
You are against the death penalty because there is a chance someone will be tried and wrongly convicted of a crime, receive the death penalty, work their way through years of appeals and maneuvering, then sit and wait their turn on death row which can be decades long, and then actually be executed.
I guess you'd have to show me some statistics on the likelihood of that happening on anything more than an anecdotal basis before I'd really be moved.
I often hear people stating that they do not feel comfortable giving their government the power to end a person's life--the reason being that an institution conceived of and administered by human beings is inherently flawed, and that this power over life and death should not be trusted to such an institution.
Also...
I often hear people stating that they do not feel comfortable giving their government the power to administrate a healthcare system--the reason being that the government cannot be trusted to do a good job at anything, i.e. delivering mail, etc. therefore this power should not be trusted to such an institution.
What happens when you throw all of these assessments together and try to make them work in the same reality?
__________________
...cases of kidnapping, rape, and murder are all worthy of the death penalty in my opinion...
You don't think that some objective assessment of
whether the person is actually guilty or not should factor into this (other than the original verdict of guilty, the 100% reliability of which is precisely what is at question here)? Let me be more clear: if an innocent person is wrongly convicted of something
really bad how does that make them
more guilty than an innocent person convicted of a lesser offense?
I guess somewhere in here I've not made it clear that I'm not in favor of killing people who aren't guilty. My starting point on this was 1) the person was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, 2) that person still had the right to enter the appeal process.
I am NOT saying we should starting killing people accused of these crimes.
My basic position is that unless you can claim 100% reliability of the legal system, then you are "okay with" the possibility of an innocent person being murdered by the state. The same "state" whom we aren't supposed to trust with anything of importance [SIZE="1"](depending on our level of cognative dissonace).[/SIZE]
As to the first part of your post: I'm American - I'm entitled to inconsistencies, deal with it.
My view is pretty simple. a vital function of government is to create and uphold laws. that might be constitutional or something. no other organization or system makes sense.
medical care already has a system in place. private companies exist to provide medical care at a price. I don't want the government stepping in and trying to do something I believe is better handled by private organizations.
I see what you are saying, but I don't really see why leaving someone to rot in prison is better than an execution on the off chance that one person "might" be innocent.
An execution is irreversible.
because a prison sentence can be ended if new evidence or a successful appeal shows that they were wrongfully convicted. A death sentence cannot be reversed once it is applied.
As to the appeal process: does everybody on death row have the same access to the same quality of lawyer? is the appeal process also dependant upon people to carry it out and make the decision? I know of several cases in the UK where initial appeals have upheld the conviction and later appeals (brought when new evidence has been brought forward, or when a lack of probity in the police case has been uncovered) have resulted in their being freed.
The Birmingham Six are a classic case. They were convicted because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time and happened to be Irish:
In March 1976 their first appeal was dismissed by Lord Chief Justice Widgery[12].
Journalist (later Government minister) Chris Mullin investigated the case for Granada TV's World in Action series. In 1985, the first of several World in Action programmes casting serious doubt on the men's convictions was broadcast. In 1986, Mullin's book, Error of Judgment - The Truth About the Birmingham Pub Bombings, set out a detailed case supporting the men's innocence including his claim to have met with some of those actually responsible for the bombings. Home Secretary Douglas Hurd MP referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.
In January 1988, after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal appeal hearing ever held), the men's convictions were upheld. The appeal judges, under the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane, in their summing up strongly supported the original conviction. Over the next three years newspaper articles, television documentaries and books brought forward new evidence to question the conviction while campaign groups calling for the men's release sprang up across Britain, Ireland, Europe and the USA.
Their third appeal, in 1991, was successful. Hunter was represented by Lord Gifford QC, others by noted human rights solicitor, Gareth Peirce. New evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence, the discrediting of both the confessions and the 1975 forensic evidence led to the Crown withdrawing most of its case against the men.
The Court of Appeal stated about the forensic evidence that: Dr. Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974
This is disturbing on a number of levels. Firstly, had the death penalty been an option at the time of their conviction these men would almost certainly have been executed. The impetus to keep pushing for appeals would therefore have been greatly lessened (although a recent pardon of a man wrongly hanged in the 60s would suggest it may have been possible) and the best outcome would be a posthumous pardon. The political nature of their conviction may have led to continued investigation into the safety of their conviction. That impetus would be a rarity, however. The man hanged in the 60s was a cause celeb because of his severe learning disabilities. An average bloke wrongfully convicted of rape or murder and hanged for it, wuold simply be dead and there wuold be no lengthy process of uncovering an uncomfortable truth: we would never know he'd died an innocent.
Secondly, because there was no death penalty involved, these men were eventually freed. Having lost half theirlives to a prison sentence for a crime of which they were entirely innocent, they at the least have had the opportunity to experience freedom again. It's a small comfort, but it's better than nothing.
Thirdly, the political element of this conviction and the unwillingness of the system to overturn it worries me. Class, race and politics. This is in our system where the judges are not elected. Add the potential for a Judge losing his job if he acts in a way that upsets his electorate (opens him to charges of being soft on crime for example) and the risks are, in my opinion, all the greater. How are you that there is never a racial/class/political element in either your original trials or subsequent appeals process?
As a final question, to repeat myself somewhat: is everyone able to access the same quality of legal representation? Is it free at the point of need? Are the lawyers representing the poor, the same as those representing the wealthy?
Well... they were Irish.
The wait on death row is loooong. Appeals constantly being refiled. Can we guarantee that everyone has the same quality of attorney? hell, no. Can I guarantee that two heart transplant patients have the same quality of surgeon? hell no, welcome to life.
I completely understand why you feel the way you do and I respect that. Your concerns just don't really move me. I simply feel some crimes are worthy of the death penalty so I believe we should have it and use it.
How sure are you that every person who is actually executed, is guilty of the crime they were convicted of?
you're playing to the wrong guy. I understand your point. It just doesn't grab me. Am I certain that no one who has been executed was innocent? Nope.
Ok. How convinced are you that the system willl never be subject to political considerations, rather than judicial ones?
I doubt that those in favour of the death penalty would be quite so philosophical about it if it were them or their loved ones wrongly convicted.
What I find really difficult to get my head around, is the fact that people who have such little trust in government and/or elected officials in most other respects, are prepared for them to have life and death power over individual citizens when it comes to judicial processes. (as Flint pointed out)
The world is full of double standards Dana. You should know that by now. ;)
Oh I do I do. But if your gut instinct is that government is inefficient and less competant at delivering services, open to corruption and partisan in nature: how can your gut instinct also lead you to allow it to have the power of life and death over you?
Perhaps that's the problem. It's other innocent people who go to death row.
What I find really difficult to get my head around, is the fact that people who have such little trust in government and/or elected officials in most other respects, are prepared for them to have life and death power over individual citizens when it comes to judicial processes. (as Flint pointed out)
But the jury isn't government or elected... although I agree there is enough possibility of meddling by those who are (or even just politically motivated).
Surely one cannot try and argue that the system of law is not a government organization? The fact that the jury is selected from 'peers' is not particularly relevent considering it is only one facet of the system.
Who pays the judges?
That's a good point Jinx. But the Judge that directs the jury is. And the appeals process is governed and administrated by officials.
Incidentally: how many appeals are death row convicts allowed to make, and on what grounds can they make them? Anyone here know?
Also, is it the jury that decides the sentence over there? Or do they just deliver the verdict?
Over here our jury reaches a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but it's the judge who then sentences: they are strictly governed on what sentences can and should be applied, with some crimes carryng mandatory sentences. Mandatory sentences are decided by the legislative process, which is of course, governmental.
It varies by state Dana. Here's
Oklahoma's process though (came up first in google)
Oh heck, this is worrying:
All discoverable mistakes must be presented in this appeal--they cannot be brought up at a later step in the appeal process, even if they hadn’t been discovered at the time of the direct appeal. It’s a "now or never" situation.
Y'know. I'm not sure which I find more worrying: the idea of a judge making the sentencing decisions, or the idea of a jury making the decision ( I realise the jury makes a recommendation, but it would appear the judge's decision is a formality based on that recommendation). Especially if the appeals proces is as difficult as it would appear from this page. I realise it's a partisan reading of the system, but the 'routine' dismissing of applications for appeal at each of the different stages that this describes has a horrible ring of truth to it. Fits with the attitudes my own system had towards the Birmingham Six for most of their sentence. It's all very well people saying they have many chances to appeal, but if it's not acually given much of a hearing, or is routinely dismissed then it's not much of a safeguard.
I know from my own country's use of an appeals process in asylum decisions how fraught that can be and hhow easily barriers can be placed on the process. For example: a second appeal on an asylum decision can only be brought if 'new' evidence is available. Which means that evidence that has been seen and summarily and unfairly/disingenuously dismissed cannot be reviewed. Prior to that law being passed, it was very common for asylum cases to fall at the first and second hearings and pass on the third, when it was heard at a higher level. Which suggests that the first and second hearings were often faulty decisions.
Actually I should fact check that. It may be that the first appeal now requires 'new evidence' I know that was in the pipeline. Particularly concerning after a parliamentary commission found that the Home Office asylum system (which deals with the initial hearings) had 'a kafkaesque culture of disbelief'. So when good evidence is routinely dismissed and has to go through two and three appeals to be taken seriously, our response was to make it virtually impossible to get to that second and third appeal and allow the initial poor reading of the evidence to stand.
Fuck. Now I've drifted into a topic I really feel angry about. I know so many people who've been unfairly denied asylum, and whose cases have been dismissed despite very clear physical evidence of torture and brutality. I know several (one of whom was a volunteer who worked with mum) who've been refused and deported back to their country of origin only to vanish suspected of being imprisoned or killed; two we actually know were killed.
So...I don't trust 'appeals systems' as a true safeguard against miscarriages of justice. I know only too well how they can be skewed against actual usefulness.
Present me with the facts of a case where an innocent person was executed. Together we can go through the details on how the system failed and you can change my viewpoint.
Sorry Jinx, I went back and added some stuff. Didn;t think anyone had posted in the meantime, and got carried away as I got onto a subject that's a bit of a sore one for me
Here's
Alabama's process. (pdf)
Present me with the facts of a case where an innocent person was executed. Together we can go through the details on how the system failed and you can change my viewpoint.
Unfortunately that's not all that likely. How many lawyers are going to fight to get a conviction overturned posthumously? Surely their main concern wold be to work on cases where they might have a chance of getting a conviction overturned before the sentence of death is carried out.
Interestingly, on the wiki page that shows overturned convictions where the death penalty has been passed, there are no posthumous examples given for the USA. There are however, a number of cases where the death penalty has already been commuted and the person is serving a life sentence. One of these was overturned 9 years after he was convicted when new DNA evidence which was not available at the time of his conviction showed he coulld not have committed the crime. Had his sentence not been commuted, there is a good possibility he;d already have been executed by the time DNA evidence was available. There are several such cases of people whose sentence had previously been commuted to life sentences and then later were cleared by new evidence.
It wuold be interesting to find out how many appeals are either sought or granted after execution has been carried out.
What I can point you to is a few examples of convictions where the death penalty has been carried out and where serious doubts as to the safety of the convictions have been raised. The site is partisan, but some of the testimonial evidence from people involved in the trials is fairly disturbing. Including jury members and witnesses for the prosecution:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
Here's one example from the list:
Ruben Cantu Texas Convicted: 1985, Executed: 1993
A two-part investigative series by the Houston Chronicle casts serious doubt on the guilt of a Texas man who was executed in 1993. Ruben Cantu had persistently proclaimed his innocence and was only 17 when he was charged with capital murder for the shooting death of a San Antonio man during an attempted robbery. Now, the prosecutor and the jury forewoman have expressed doubts about the case. Moreover, both a key eyewitness in the state's case against Cantu and Cantu's co-defendant have come forward to say that Texas executed an innocent man.
Juan Moreno, who was wounded during the attempted robbery and was a key eyewitness in the case against Cantu, now says that it was not Cantu who shot him and that he only identified Cantu as the shooter because he felt pressured and was afraid of the authorities. Moreno said that he twice told police that Cantu was not his assailant, but that the authorities continued to pressure him to identify Cantu as the shooter after Cantu was involved in an unrelated wounding of a police officer. "The police were sure it was (Cantu) because he had hurt a police officer. They told me they were certain it was him, and that's why I testified. . . . That was bad to blame someone that was not there," Moreno told the Chronicle.
In addition, David Garza, Cantu's co-defendant during his 1985 trial, recently signed a sworn affidavit saying that he allowed Cantu to be accused and executed even though he wasn't with him on the night of the killing. Garza stated, "Part of me died when he died. You've got a 17-year-old who went to his grave for something he did not do. Texas murdered an innocent person."
Sam D. Millsap, Jr., the Bexar County District Attorney who charged Cantu with capital murder, said he never should have sought the death penalty in a case based on testimony from an eyewitness who identified a suspect only after police showed him Cantu's photo three seperate times.
Miriam Ward, forewoman of the jury that convicted Cantu, said the jury's decision was the best they could do based on the information presented during the trial. She noted, "With a little extra work, a little extra effort, maybe we'd have gotten the right information. The bottom line is, an innocent person was put to death for it. We all have our finger in that." (Houston Chronicle, November 20 & 21, 2005 and Associated Press, November 21, 2005).
Oh heck, this is worrying:
Y'know. I'm not sure which I find more worrying: the idea of a judge making the sentencing decisions, or the idea of a jury making the decision
...
So...I don't trust 'appeals systems' as a true safeguard against miscarriages of justice. I know only too well how they can be skewed against actual usefulness.
So the judge, jury, and the appeals process are crap. What then? Just take the accused's word for it... or just don't bother having laws at all?
*chuckles* no. But don't have an irreversable sentence. I am not arguing against laws. I am arguing against capital punishment. Political situations change. Views on race and class change. Standards of evidence change, as do types of evidence as new techniques are developed.
Georgia Board to Pardon Woman 60 Years After Her Execution - The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has announced that it will issue a formal pardon this month for Lena Baker (pictured), the only woman executed in the state during the 20th century. The document, signed by all five of the current board members, will note that the parole board's 1945 decision to deny Baker clemency and allow her execution was "a grievous error, as this case called out for mercy." Baker, an African American, was executed for the murder of Ernest Knight, a white man who hired her . Baker was tried, convicted, and sentenced to die in one day by an all-white, all-male jury. Baker claimed she shot Knight in self-defense after he locked her in his gristmill and threatened her with a metal pipe. The pardon notes that Baker "could have been charged with voluntary manslaughter, rather than murder, for the death of E.B. Knight." The average sentence for voluntary manslaughter is 15 years in prison. Baker's picture and her last words are currently displayed near the retired electric chair at a museum at Georgia State Prison in Reidsville. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, August 16, 2005).
Since this woman's conviction and execution times have changed. Likewise in the period that the Birmingham Six were convicted in Britain, English attitudes towards the Irish changed. Their conviction didn't survive that change in racial attitudes.
The man who was cleared of a crime 9 years after he was convicted because of new DNA evidence was released. The new evidence was because of scientific advances during that 9 year period.
The point I was making about appeals, is that they are not a gurantee that someone wrongly convicted will get a fairer hearing. Nor are they a guarantee that they won;t. There are many deathrow convicts whose cases are heard and whose convictions are overturned on appeal. But...we don;t know how many people are wrongly executed. So no, I am not arguing against having laws. Nor am I saying that removing the death penalty removes the potential for miscarriages of justice: clearly it doesnt. There will no doubt be people who will unfairly serve long sentences for crimes they did not commit. People who fall through the gaps in the system: all justice systems are flawed, because all rely on us, flawed human beings. But where miscarriages are discovered the wrongly imprisoned can be released, the wrongly executed cannot be revived. And, we are less likely to discover the miscarriage once the victim of that miscarriage is executed. Whilst they remain alive and incarcerated there is an impetus for the legal system to review new evidence as and when it arises, or as and when the political winds change direction.
Ya, that's a good argument Dana...
Present me with the facts of a case where an innocent person was executed. Together we can go through the details on how the system failed and you can change my viewpoint.
A highly emotional case in Texas where a man was convicted of intentionally setting his house on fire with his three young kids inside:
Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for starting a house fire in Corsicana 13 years earlier that killed his three young daughters. From the time of his arrest until a lethal injection ended his life on a prison gurney in Huntsville, Willingham maintained his innocence, refusing to enter a guilty plea at trial in exchange for a life sentence.
At the time of his state-inflicted death, it appeared Willingham's fate was to be remembered as a monster who burned his children alive for no conceivable motive. With the release of a report by renowned arson expert Craig Beyler, commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, history may hold him in a very different light: the first person executed since capital punishment resumed in the United States in 1974 who was posthumously proven innocent.
Beyler's report doesn't flatly say that, but it demolishes the findings by arson investigators that the fire was deliberately set. According to Beyler, they had “poor understanding of fire science” and misread burn patterns....
...Shortly before his execution, a well-known arson investigator, Gerald Hurst, examined the evidence that led to Willingham's conviction and came to the conclusion that the original finding of arson was wrong. All of the indications cited as proof of a deliberate fire could have been caused by a so-called flashover, when intense heat triggers flame bursts that can mimic arson.
Hurst's report was submitted as part of last-minute appeals to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry to stay Willingham's execution. The appeals were denied....
...Whether or not it officially acknowledges that Willingham was wrongfully executed, the members of the Forensic Science Commission deserve thanks for their willingness to launch a thorough and impartial investigation. Since there are no do-overs where capital punishment is involved, the commission's next step should be formulating recommendations to upgrade and standardize forensic investigations and testing to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6598054.html
Convicted and sentenced to death after a two-day trial....no motive was ever presented by the prosecution.
Additional evidence at the time of his executive that suggested the initial arson investigation was flawed.
And now, more compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction. At the very least, serious doubt.
You can NEVER undue a wrongful execution. The system failed.
A system based on punishing the worst of the worst should never fail those similarly charged but where the facts are in doubt from the very start.
Putting the morality of the death penalty aside with the understanding that morality is subjective, a system of justice should never be based on the worst case but rather on preventing the miscarriage of justice for any case.
I would like to hear the arguments FOR the death penalty.
Considering that we all damn well know that any human institution is prone to glitches and imperfections, what is the payoff that society receives in exchange for granting our government the power to take a human life? What are the benefits?
Followup--I just said as much to my wife, and she laid some wisdom on me.
"So let's say the 29-year-old woman turns around and kidnaps a child. Does the same thing to him that was done to her. Do we kill her?"
"That's a different situation," I replied. "This guy inflicted a lot of suffering on this girl for a long time."
She smiled. "How do you know what happened to him when he was a kid?"
I had no reply.
I have a nephew who had shit for parents, now he has a small son and he's a great father. He's determined to be better than what he saw / experienced growing up. So lots of folks do decide to go an entirely opposite route....we all do have choice....(unless, of course, we're completely deranged...!)
I would like to hear the arguments FOR the death penalty.
what is the payoff that society receives in exchange for granting our government the power to take a human life? What are the benefits?
We get to save about $50,000 a year. Oh and it works really well as a deterrent. <dripping with sarcasm>
I would like to note that the number of federal death row inmates was infantecimally small. But as we all know, even one is too many.
To add to Redux's post. The problem with this is we cannot nor will we ever be able to legislate morality.
What are the benefits?
I'm not in favor but the answer, for those who are in favor, is "perceived justice".
Dana, I understand your concerns about the possible wrongly convicted death row rider. Quite simply I don't care.
I'm an American, I don't have to care.
- Denny Crane
As an American you
should care. Part of the basis for the formation of the US was the respect of the rights of the individual. Not just you. Every individual.
We get to save about $50,000 a year. ....
Cite?
The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.
The California example. More
here.
I would like to hear the arguments FOR the death penalty.
Considering that we all damn well know that any human institution is prone to glitches and imperfections, what is the payoff that society receives in exchange for granting our government the power to take a human life? What are the benefits?
We the tax payers don't have to pay for the care, food, accomidations and education of those prisoners. That is the pay off...
I personally don't want to pay for keeping ANY prisoner... solution: kill em or put them to work to support their own keep. Let them make the decision for themselves. Make sure you tax them yearly and charge them for the cost of the wasted realestate space that the prison is located on while you're at it... make the prsion 100% self sustaining. There is no reason they can't grow their own food, use old parts to build solar panels and turbines to supply power. Prisioner don't need gyms or TV... let them work the fields. Its healthier and cheeper. Strip away all the nicities... no vending machines... no basket ball courts or play yards. No cafeteria... they can eat in their cells. No education... donated books and a library only. No internet. In fact... now that I think about it ... what is wrong with letting them live like the Amish. Its a good clean healthy lifestyle that costs the rest of us nothing.
@Pooka
I like it. Why isn't it like that?
I would like to hear the arguments FOR the death penalty.
Considering that we all damn well know that any human institution is prone to glitches and imperfections, what is the payoff that society receives in exchange for granting our government the power to take a human life? What are the benefits?
I believe that is why they call it Capital
Punishment. It is used for punishment.
Cite?
We get to save about $50,000 a year. Oh and it works really well as a deterrent. [SIZE="5"] <dripping with sarcasm>[/SIZE]
We the tax payers don't have to pay for the care, food, accomidations and education of those prisoners. That is the pay off...
I personally don't want to pay for keeping ANY prisoner... solution: kill em or put them to work to support their own keep. Let them make the decision for themselves. Make sure you tax them yearly and charge them for the cost of the wasted realestate space that the prison is located on while you're at it... make the prsion 100% self sustaining. There is no reason they can't grow their own food, use old parts to build solar panels and turbines to supply power. Prisioner don't need gyms or TV... let them work the fields. Its healthier and cheeper. Strip away all the nicities... no vending machines... no basket ball courts or play yards. No cafeteria... they can eat in their cells. No education... donated books and a library only. No internet. In fact... now that I think about it ... what is wrong with letting them live like the Amish. Its a good clean healthy lifestyle that costs the rest of us nothing.
You bitch - I love it!!! :D
Prisoners are paid far less than minimum wage, which creates an unfair playing field. Small business owners hate competing with prison labor. They consider it to be unfair competition. If you own a wood working shop and pay your employees $10/hr to make furniture, how are you going to compete with a prison shop that only pays its workers $0.25/hr? Your bar stool will cost $75 and you will have $5 profit, while the prison can sell its bar stool for $40 and have $30 profit. (Numbers pulled out of my ass to illustrate a point.)
change your business to make disposable wooden electric chairs and coffins.....
Also, the idea of them living like the Amish is all very attractive: but the Amish are peaceful rule-following folk. By the very nature of the prison population that's not going to work without a degree of coercion/compulsion and that requires guards and security. It is safer for the guards if they can persuade prisoners to good behaviour through positives and negatives. Carrot and stick. Rewards and withdrawals. The little elements of ordinary life to which prisoners have access (such as tv, access to education courses, a smattering of comforts) are powerful because they can be given or withdrawn according to the prisoner's behaviour. If they only had the stick and no carrot the prisoners would soon lose all respect for and fear of that stick and become uncontrollable. Bear in mind a significant number of them are violent and lacking in restraint. Without the option of rewarding good behaviour, prison guards would be in an ever-tightening cycle of brutality until brutality lost all effect beyond immediate injury. That would then create an even more volatile and dangerous situation for both the prisoners (some of whom will not be causing trouble) and the guards.
The worse prisoners are treated the more likely they are to become fractious and dangerous and the more likely it is that prisons will erupt into riot and mayhem. Especially if someone is in for a long sentence: they've very little left to lose. TVs and radios and a chance to leave their cell and learn a new skill/earn a few cents are all things they can lose. Much cheaper than trying to control them without those things.
We get to save about $50,000 a year. Oh and it works really well as a deterrent. <dripping with sarcasm>
I would like to note that the number of federal death row inmates was infantecimally small. But as we all know, even one is too many.
To add to Redux's post. The problem with this is we cannot nor will we ever be able to legislate morality.
We're killing small babies? Are they recidivists? :confused:
;)
I believe that is why they call it Capital Punishment. It is used for punishment.
That didnt work out so well for Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas?
Why dont the capital punishment supporters want to address the fact that system is not fail-proof? And when it fails, it cant be corrected for at least one innocent person.
Is it acceptable that even one innocent person be executed or is it just a numbers game....a willingness to sacrifice one or a few to get rid of the worst permanently?
Why dont the capital punishment supporters want to address the fact that system is not fail-proof?
I never said it wasn't.
I never said it wasn't.
So is it acceptable to you, assuming you are a capital punishment supporter, that even one innocent person be executed?
I'm not singling you out, the question is for all the capital punishment supporters.
______
So is it acceptable to you, assuming you are a capital punishment supporter, that even one innocent person be executed?
No. But I still fully support it for those who are convicted and deserve it. It is certainly a moral delima for the legal system and society at large.
No. But I still fully support it for those who are convicted and deserve it. It is certainly a moral delima for the legal system and society at large.
It is not a moral dilemma for me.
I am not willing to support a system that allows the state to execute one innocent person.
As an American you should care. Part of the basis for the formation of the US was the respect of the rights of the individual. Not just you. Every individual.
It is not a moral dilemma for me.
I am not willing to support a system that allows the state to execute one innocent person.
Amen, and amen.
It is not a moral dilemma for me.
I am not willing to support a system that allows the state to execute one innocent person.
Good for you.
There is, of course, reasonable doubt as to the guilt of one Bruno Hauptmann. However, there had to be closure on The Crime of the Century, in the public eye.
Good for you.
IMO, shrugging it off as a moral dilemma and a "good for you" is a cop-out.
Just admit that you are willing to accept that an innocent person can be put to death to preserve a flawed system of justice.
Well thats no fun. Way to kill a discussion.
Me and Redux sure can clear a room. ;)
I brought lunch!
Kung Pao Chicken.
Trade you my salad...
Even death row inmates deserve a better lunch than salad.
So is it acceptable to you, assuming you are a capital punishment supporter, that even one innocent person be executed?
No. But I still fully support it for those who are convicted and deserve it. It is certainly a moral delima for the legal system and society at large.
You can't answer "no" to that question unless you knowingly choose to exit the realm of reality. If you accept that the system is not 100% infallible, and you accept that said system has the power to take a human life, and you support said system, then you have to answer "yes" to the question, i.e. it must, logically, be acceptable to that an innocent person could be put to death by the state. You can choose to ignore this, but palming it off on "society" doesn't make it go away, or remove you from taking responsibility for your own position.
As an American you should care. Part of the basis for the formation of the US was the respect of the rights of the individual. Not just you. Every individual.
Why? It is my right as an individual not to care.
Originally Posted by Redux View Post
So is it acceptable to you, assuming you are a capital punishment supporter, that even one innocent person be executed?
Apparently so.
We the tax payers don't have to pay for the care, food, accomidations and education of those prisoners. That is the pay off...
I personally don't want to pay for keeping ANY prisoner... solution: kill em or put them to work to support their own keep. Let them make the decision for themselves. Make sure you tax them yearly and charge them for the cost of the wasted realestate space that the prison is located on while you're at it... make the prsion 100% self sustaining. There is no reason they can't grow their own food, use old parts to build solar panels and turbines to supply power. Prisioner don't need gyms or TV... let them work the fields. Its healthier and cheeper. Strip away all the nicities... no vending machines... no basket ball courts or play yards. No cafeteria... they can eat in their cells. No education... donated books and a library only. No internet. In fact... now that I think about it ... what is wrong with letting them live like the Amish. Its a good clean healthy lifestyle that costs the rest of us nothing.
No no no no no no no no no.
Ideally, this is a good solution and I used to fully support this but with this setup, it becomes
profitable for the government to have
more prisoners. If we had this setup, what social control would we have to prevent rampant classist laws from rounding up all the people that are doing nothing for our economy (unemployed, etc) and putting them in prison on bullshit charges?
Remember the story a while back where a large amount of teenagers were sent to a
private juvenile detention facility on bullshit charges because the judge was paid off by the detention facility? The risk of this happening is too large for me to trust any prison system that works for profit, private or public. I don't care how much of social burden someone is, as long as they stay within the law, they should not have their freedom taken away.
So is it acceptable to you, assuming you are a capital punishment supporter, that even one innocent person be executed?
Apparently so.
To answer your question in another thread. Yes, I think this position qualifies you for the official heartless bastard sticker in the largest available size.
Fair enough. When that bothers me I'll let you know.
I don't subscribe to the "it is better to let a thousand guilty people go than to convict one guilty person" philosophy. I believe that if you find that one innocent person you should fight for them with everything you've got, rather than scrapping the system because someone fell through the cracks.
If that seems cold and calculating, it is, but this is just these are just words on the web. If you introduced me to a real flesh and blood person I might articulate my belief differently, but the point would still be the same.
Fair enough. When that bothers me I'll let you know.
I don't subscribe to the "it is better to let a thousand guilty people go than to convict one guilty person" philosophy...
I dont recall reading any post here that suggested letting any guilty person go free.
Life imprisonment w/o parole is not freedom and allows for the correction of the worst act the state can undertake....executing an innocent person.
alright, if it makes you feel better keep them in prison til they rot. when i'm dictator i'll off who i see fit. til then we'll just have to work with the system we have.
alright, if it makes you feel better keep them in prison til they rot. when i'm dictator i'll off who i see fit. til then we'll just have to work with the system we have.
Or work to change the system so that the criminal justice system in the US resembles every other western democracy w/o capital punishment and not tin pot dictatorial governments.
After that, we go for your guns ;)
(j/k about the guns...I dont want another UG lecture on how a nation w/o a guaranteed and unlimited right to bear arms is on the road to mass genocide of its people.)
You can't answer "no" to that question unless you knowingly choose to exit the realm of reality. If you accept that the system is not 100% infallible, and you accept that said system has the power to take a human life, and you support said system, then you have to answer "yes" to the question, i.e. it must, logically, be acceptable to that an innocent person could be put to death by the state. You can choose to ignore this, but palming it off on "society" doesn't make it go away, or remove you from taking responsibility for your own position.
No, you are wrong. I can answer it any way I choose and you are free to read into it. I don't have to answer it any way other than I did. I fully support the Death Penalty as punishment. I have not "palmed" it off on anyone. I have stated that it remains a moral delima for the legal system and society at large when innocent victims are accidently put to death by the system. I have not shirked my responsiblity for my position, merely stated the facts as they now exist.
After that, we go for your guns
WOW, I am shocked.
Not really.
IMO, shrugging it off as a moral dilemma and a "good for you" is a cop-out.
But see your opinion of my opinion is really not important to me. I thought we already established that premise.
Just admit that you are willing to accept that an innocent person can be put to death to preserve a flawed system of justice.
At this point I am not willing to support the death of an innocent person nor am I willing to remove the notion of Capital Punishment for those who deserve it.
And if they don't deserve it but the court mistakenly believes that they do :P
And if they don't deserve it but the court mistakenly believes that they do :P
My condolences. Sorry for the loss. Truely. A bad day for our imperfect system of justice.
But see your opinion of my opinion is really not important to me. I thought we already established that premise.
At this point I am not willing to support the death of an innocent person nor am I willing to remove the notion of Capital Punishment for those who deserve it.
Cheap attempt at semantics?
I didnt say you were willing to
support the death of an innocent person.
I said you were willing to
accept the death of an innocent person.
Its a fact, not my opinion. If you support the current system of capital punishment, you accept the fact that an innocent person can be executed.
Cheap attempt at semantics?
I didnt say you were willing to support the death of an innocent person.
I said you were willing to accept the death of an innocent person.
Its a fact, not my opinion.
If you support the current system of capital punishment, you accept the fact that an innocent person can be executed.
Not semantics. It is a fact. It happens. But I am not willing to get rid of the system because errors occur. The errors are few and far between, unless you can prove other wise. They are rare.
Not semantics. It is a fact. It happens..
Right...its a fact, not my opinion, that you are willing to accept it.
I'm curious.
If one wrongful execution is acceptable, what is the limit? What do you consider rare?
How many innocent people have to die at the hands of the state execution system before it becomes unacceptable?
right...its a fact, not my opinion.
I'm curious.
If one wrongful execution is acceptable, what is the limit? What do you consider rare?
How many innocent people have to die at the hands of the state execution system before it becomes unacceptable?
Provide me with evidence that there is a huge disparity between those put to death wrongly and those who deserved it. I am certainly not going to box myself into some number game. Innocent people die all the time in many situations. I am sorry for it. It is not my place to put a limit on it. It is a very sad situation for that one person, his family and all his or her connections to the eventual death. As I stated earlier these are questions for the legal system to tackle and a moral quandry for society at large. In the meantime, I will continue to support Capital Punishment as a form of ultimate punishment. Do the time do the crime.
Right...its a fact, not my opinion, that you are willing to accept it.
I never disputed the fact that it happens.
Is it more or less acceptable for a soldier to be killed in action than for an innocent person to be executed?
If you believe in one or more deities, then the chances are you believe that an executed innocent has gone to better place, and if you don't, then the chances are you believe the executed innccent no longer exists, so why do they matter any more...so what's the problem?
If you reject CP on the grounds that it is irreversible and cruel, in what way to you envisage years of wrongful maximum security detention less irreversible and less cruel?
Just askin'.....
Is it more or less acceptable for a soldier to be killed in action than for an innocent person to be executed?
Absolutely.
They are dying for a cause and they know what they are getting into.
So the executed innocents...... are they not dying for a cause?
And did they not volunteer by living and voting/not voting in a state with CP? ANd even if they're anti CP and protest violently about it, what were they doing that made them a suspect? isn't doing something dodgy in a state with the DP akin to volunteering?
I know that the following isn't a difficult idea to understand. Once again:
If 1) you know that the system isn't perfect (i.e. that the possibility of the execution of an innocent person exists), and 2) you choose to support the practical reality of that system, then 3) it must, logically, be acceptable to you that an innocent person could be executed. This is clear, stark logic.
As regards the formulation of your own, personal position, this isn't a moral dilemma for "society" at large, it clearly is a moral dilemma you must face within yourself. The honest, adult response would be to state "I am okay with the possibility of the execution of an innocent person."
If you feel strongly that this is the right position, you shouldn't be ashamed to just say so.
I know that the following isn't a difficult idea to understand. Once again:
If 1) you know that the system isn't perfect (i.e. that the possibility of the execution of an innocent person exists), and 2) you choose to support the practical reality of that system, then 3) it must, logically, be acceptable to you that an innocent person could be executed. This is clear, stark logic.
As regards the formulation of your own, personal position, this isn't a moral dilemma for "society" at large, it clearly is a moral dilemma you must face within yourself. The honest, adult response would be to state "I am okay with the possibility of the execution of an innocent person."
If you feel strongly that this is the right position, you shouldn't be ashamed to just say so.
It is completely a moral delimma for society at large and the legal system. I don't execute people. They do it within the framework of the legal system. I am not ok with the execution of an innocent person. But I still support the idea of Capital Punishment as a useful tool to punish those rightfully convicted.
If you support capital punishment in an imperfect system then you are okay with the possible execution of an innocent.
This is a dilemma which only you can decide for yourself: facing facts, weighing pros versus cons, and forming a position.
If you support capital punishment in an imperfect system then you are okay with the possible execution of an innocent.
That is not what I said. You said that.
There are numerous moral questions like this in life. This one is no different. It is not black and white it is gray.
I accept that it happens. I don't accept that it is ok.
When you state two contradictory positions as if they can work together, this indicates that a problem exists in your logic.
2 + 2 = 4. If your position requires it to be 3 in one instance and 5 in another, the logical contradiction indicates a problem.
That is not what I said. You said that.
That's right. My problem is the glaring disparity between the statements you are making and their logical consequences.
You support capital punishment + Capital punishment means an innocent could be executed = You are okay with that.
I accept that it happens. I don't accept that it is ok.
Your support of capital punishment logically means that any possible death of an innocent that "happens" is "ok."
When you state two contradictory positions as if they can work together, this indicates that a problem exists in your logic.
2 + 2 = 4. If your position requires it to be 3 in one instance and 5 in another, the logical contradiction indicates a problem.
That's right. My problem is the glaring disparity between the statements you are making and their logical consequences.
You support capital punishment + Capital punishment means an innocent could be executed = You are okay with that.
Your support of capital punishment logically means that any possible death of an innocent that "happens" is "ok."
Do you support the killing of innocent people in Afganistan by US troops? Probably not. But I bet you would support the troops and understand that they have to do a job and sometimes innocent people get killed, as bad as it may be. It is not a black and white 2+2 situation. It is not a simple logic equation question.
It is the very fact that it is not a black and white logic equation which makes it a moral dilemma for society and the legal system, which eventually is responsible for prosecuting and sentencing these people to death.
The question isnt whether you support an innocent person being killed. The question is are you prepared to accept the execution of innocents, which is the somewhat inevitable consequence of having capital punishment. Given that no system is infallible, you either support capital punishment and accept the reality of innocent people being executed. Or, you don't accept the execution of innocent people in which case you cannot support capital punishment. You cannot support capital punishment without accepting that innocent people will be executed.
Lookout at least has the strength of his convictions (if you'll pardon the pun).
It is not just a moral dilemma for society. It is a moral dilemma for you, as a member of that society and for you as a voting citizen.
When facing a decision you evaluate all possible aspects and weigh them against each other to form your postition. This can be a tough choice, but one of the things you cannot do, in reality, is simply ignore the parts that make you uncomfortable. If a less desirable aspect falls on the side of the position you support, you cannot disown it. As an honest person, you cannot repeatedly deny that it exists when asked to account for your position.
Given that no system is infallible, you either support capital punishment and accept the reality of innocent people being executed.
I have stated that I understand it happens but I am not "ok" with it as that is how the question was poised to me. And whether you like it or not it remains a moral question for society and our legal system because there is evidence to suggest that innocent people may have been put to death wrongly and yet we still have Capital Punishment.
If a less desirable aspect falls on the side of the position you support, you cannot disown it. As an honest person, you cannot repeatedly deny that it exists when asked to account for your position.
I have disowned nothing. I have not denied that it happens. I have accounted for my position completely.
So the executed innocents...... are they not dying for a cause?
They are dying as a punishment for their convicted actions. I do not consider that a cause unless you consider "making an example out of someone" as a cause, which I don't.
And did they not volunteer by living and voting/not voting in a state with CP?
So someone is just suppose to leave their entire life and move to a different state/country that does not have capital punishment just because of the extremely small possibility that they might go on death row? I do not call that rational. I call that paranoia.
ANd even if they're anti CP and protest violently about it, what were they doing that made them a suspect?
You can be a suspect just from being in the wrong place at the wrong time or even by your skin color or dress. Is it likely? Hell no. Can it happen? Yes.
isn't doing something dodgy in a state with the DP akin to volunteering?
Define dodgy. And no.
In reality, doing something out of the norm will make you a suspect and that must be recognized by everyone who wants to stay out of trouble. That is how the world works. Is that fair or just? No. But, I would prefer a justice system that is as just as realistically possible. So because of this, I strongly disagree that doing something dodgy in a state with the death penalty is akin to volunteering. Its just being stupid.
Especially given that 'doing something dodgy' might actually be as simple as driving yourcar along a road where a murder has occurred. Or being the stepfather of a child who is later killed. Or, probably more a factor 50 years ago, being a black man in a town where someone has been killed by a black man.
I know that the following isn't a difficult idea to understand. Once again:
If 1) you know that the system isn't perfect (i.e. that the possibility of the execution of an innocent person exists), and 2) you choose to support the practical reality of that system, then 3) it must, logically, be acceptable to you that an innocent person could be executed. This is clear, stark logic.
...
What if the executioner is on a treadmill?:p
A highly emotional case in Texas where a man was convicted of intentionally setting his house on fire with his three young kids inside:
Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for starting a house fire in Corsicana 13 years earlier that killed his three young daughters. From the time of his arrest until a lethal injection ended his life on a prison gurney in Huntsville, Willingham maintained his innocence, refusing to enter a guilty plea at trial in exchange for a life sentence.
At the time of his state-inflicted death, it appeared Willingham's fate was to be remembered as a monster who burned his children alive for no conceivable motive. With the release of a report by renowned arson expert Craig Beyler, commissioned by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, history may hold him in a very different light: the first person executed since capital punishment resumed in the United States in 1974 who was posthumously proven innocent.
Beyler's report doesn't flatly say that, but it demolishes the findings by arson investigators that the fire was deliberately set. According to Beyler, they had “poor understanding of fire science” and misread burn patterns....
...Shortly before his execution, a well-known arson investigator, Gerald Hurst, examined the evidence that led to Willingham's conviction and came to the conclusion that the original finding of arson was wrong. All of the indications cited as proof of a deliberate fire could have been caused by a so-called flashover, when intense heat triggers flame bursts that can mimic arson.
Hurst's report was submitted as part of last-minute appeals to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry to stay Willingham's execution. The appeals were denied....
...Whether or not it officially acknowledges that Willingham was wrongfully executed, the members of the Forensic Science Commission deserve thanks for their willingness to launch a thorough and impartial investigation. Since there are no do-overs where capital punishment is involved, the commission's next step should be formulating recommendations to upgrade and standardize forensic investigations and testing to prevent future miscarriages of justice.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...l/6598054.html
Convicted and sentenced to death after a two-day trial....no motive was ever presented by the prosecution.
Additional evidence at the time of his executive that suggested the initial arson investigation was flawed.
And now, more compelling evidence of a wrongful conviction. At the very least, serious doubt.
You can NEVER undue a wrongful execution. The system failed.
A system based on punishing the worst of the worst should never fail those similarly charged but where the facts are in doubt from the very start.
Putting the morality of the death penalty aside with the understanding that morality is subjective, a system of justice should never be based on the worst case but rather on preventing the miscarriage of justice for any case.
Texas Governor Rick Perry doesn't want you to know that Texas executed an innocent man.
The panel's post-mortem look at the Cameron Todd Willingham arson-murder case goes to the heart of Texas justice – including the governor's role in it – and whether an innocent man was railroaded into the death chamber at Huntsville.
Since Perry signed off on the Willingham execution in 2004, his own accountability is at stake. So perhaps it's no surprise that two days before the Texas Forensic Science Commission was to proceed with the case this week, Perry replaced the chairman and set things back.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=rick%20perry%20willingham&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wnHonestly, Mo, I can't remember your stance on capital punishment.
I suspect it's the majority Brit opinion. Which is narrowly NO - despite Telegraph and Mail attempts to skew it otherwise.
But I've answered your questions as if they were posed by someone I didn't know (which I always do when it's something I have a strong opinion about) because even if you're playing devil's advocate, I'll choose my ownside anyway.
Is it more or less acceptable for a soldier to be killed in action than for an innocent person to be executed?
There is choice and subsequent payment involved. And it seems (only from my reading here) that there is some underlying belief too. An
innocent executed - has no such belief, no such drive, no such meaning. An atheist executed in such a way simply has their single chance at life terminated.
If you believe in one or more deities, then the chances are you believe that an executed innocent has gone to better place, and if you don't, then the chances are you believe the executed innocent no longer exists, so why do they matter any more...so what's the problem?
Shoot them all and let God sort them out is one of the most awful mottos of those who want to abrogate their actions. Thou Shalt Not Kill, should be a hard and fast rule. It was a Commandment handed down by God himsef. That's pretty damned important. Jesus said Turn the Other Cheek. HE was the Son of God. He preached a parable about the Samaritan (untouchable) where the man who was blessed was the man who did not pass on by. And yet some of the modern churches embrace those who want to hurt gay people, claim the devil's influence or other derogatory term for not believing in their sect/ religion, call other religions dirty names, form militia.
I've isolated Christianity here, but I include all the major religions that judge people on sexuality, differences because of gender and books written in another country before your great great grandmothers were born. Murder, rape, theft - yeah we all know those were bad. But if we're going back to Leviticus for our opinions on gay sex, why not have the same rules across the board? Dwellars are well read enough, and intelligent enough to know what I mean. I wish the rest of th country was.
If you reject CP on the grounds that it is irreversible and cruel, in what way to you envisage years of wrongful maximum security detention less irreversible and less cruel?
Just askin'.....
A good point.
America would not be welcomed into the EU on that point.
I know you're not really bothered.
But it means you're denied entry to the Eurovision Song Contest.
Ah well, you wouldn't win anyway. We know - we have an even better record in Euro Pop than American artists (we know the market exists for a start) and we still get nul pointe.