PDA

View Full Version : Why I Am Against Capital Punishment



Pages : [1] 2

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 09:22 AM
Because the government is so incompetent they botch this too. No one should be put through this, the government is as big a criminal as the one they executed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/23/arizona-inmate-was-alive-and-gasping-for-air-more-than-one-hour-into-execution-his-lawyers-say/

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 09:26 AM
Remember, corporations are people too.

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 09:34 AM
????

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:35 AM
I am against the death penalty in the US, but I don't care about this guy and his extended death.

Society has the right to choose death for certain crimes. But the US is so diverse that we often get these cases wrong for many reasons. So we should opt out of the death penalty for that reason, or severely restrict it to special instances.

Ransom
07-24-2014, 09:53 AM
I oppose the death penalty as well.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 10:03 AM
????

Executable - in theory.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:13 AM
Hey! Everyone makes mistakes.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:17 AM
Hey! Everyone makes mistakes.

Right. And we should want to execute the wrong person. How many people have been found innocent on death row in the last 10 years?

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:19 AM
Right. And we should want to execute the wrong person. How many people have been found innocent on death row in the last 10 years?
Would you be for it with 100% certainty?

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:22 AM
Would you be for it with 100% certainty?

I said that above. Yes.

Cigar
07-24-2014, 10:25 AM
The reason why lean agaisnt capital Punishment is because we're obviously not good at it. :wink:

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:31 AM
The reason why lean agaisnt capital Punishment is because we're obviously not good at it. :wink:

I agree. I don't have a problem with the concept.

Libhater
07-24-2014, 10:32 AM
Because the government is so incompetent they botch this too. No one should be put through this, the government is as big a criminal as the one they executed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/23/arizona-inmate-was-alive-and-gasping-for-air-more-than-one-hour-into-execution-his-lawyers-say/

OMG coons, you're sounding more and more like these touchy-feely politically correct leftist whiners every day. Didn't you watch the end of that video with the guy saying how the monster was found guilty of a horrific murder and all you're concerned with is how the executed scumbag was gasping for breath? C-mon coons, grow a set and get off the fucking pity pot for these losers. We should or could save time, money, and heartache by setting up a firing squad or finding a strong oak tree (one that could hold the weight of say a Michael moore) in which to lynch these monsters in front of the public.

Ethereal
07-24-2014, 10:48 AM
Why don't they just use a firing squad? Oh, right, because it doesn't require a fat contract for some special interest group like a pharmaceutical corporation.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:49 AM
Why don't they just use a firing squad? Oh, right, because it doesn't require a fat contract for some special interest group like a pharmaceutical corporation.

A rope is cheaper. And you can reuse it. :smiley:

Ethereal
07-24-2014, 10:51 AM
A rope is cheaper. And you can reuse it. :smiley:

I think firing squad is the least cruel and the most effective method. It's how I'd want to die.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:55 AM
I think firing squad is the least cruel and the most effective method. It's how I'd want to die.

Me too. The rope is better for cheap people.... :smiley:

1751_Texan
07-24-2014, 10:56 AM
Capital punishment is a provision of the US Constitution. Because we do not administer it completely judiciously or ideally does not negate its validity.

In a perfect world, capital punishment would not opperate perfectly...in a perfect world, capital punishment would not be needed.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:59 AM
I would err on the side of not executing innocent people.


Capital punishment is a provision of the US Constitution. Because we do not administer it completely judiciously or ideally does not negate its validity.

In a perfect world, capital punishment would not opperate perfectly...in a perfect world, capital punishment would not be needed.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 11:06 AM
The problem with no death penalty is that there is no differential penalty for killing 1 person or 30. Or for killing one person quickly or 5 people over 10 days of torture.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 11:07 AM
Capital punishment is a provision of the US Constitution. Because we do not administer it completely judiciously or ideally does not negate its validity.

In a perfect world, capital punishment would not opperate perfectly...in a perfect world, capital punishment would not be needed.

This.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 12:11 PM
I am opposed to the death penalty. I'm also opposed to calling it euphemisms like "capital punishment."

Chris
07-24-2014, 12:14 PM
The reason why lean agaisnt capital Punishment is because we're obviously not good at it. :wink:

Government's not good at anything. Do we thus conclude we should all lean against government? Hmm, what a novel idea.

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:24 PM
Because the government is so incompetent they botch this too. No one should be put through this, the government is as big a criminal as the one they executed.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/23/arizona-inmate-was-alive-and-gasping-for-air-more-than-one-hour-into-execution-his-lawyers-say/

The inmate was completely knocked out.

When my surgeon cut me open, I felt nothing. They use a strong anesthesia to knock them out.

I probably gasped for air too during the surgery.

We have to stop feeling sorry for killers.

exotix
07-24-2014, 12:27 PM
The 2nd Amendment see's more executions in one year than all executions combined evar since the birth of America.

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:33 PM
I have been on both sides of killing inmates.

Many who don't want to kill inmates are not troubled by the mass murder of children using the tepid term called abortion.

A move to do it proper and to keep innocents from execution would create a lawyer jury. Stop using non lawyer juries. A team of lawyers know the ropes and can figure out the correct questions. I have little faith in a non educated public in charge of justice.

OJ Simpson escaped justice. Some allege the shooter of Trayvon escaped. Some claim the woman that killed Caylee escaped justice.

When you have non professionals as the jury, it happens.

I would have a staff of paid lawyers as the jury.

Chris
07-24-2014, 12:34 PM
The 2nd Amendment see's more executions in one year than all executions combined evar since the birth of America.

Agree, it's terrible the way government executes the second amendment. Yet it still stands. Time for another round? Fire!

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:36 PM
The 2nd Amendment see's more executions in one year than all executions combined evar since the birth of America.

And at the same time, prevents far more executions than it causes.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 12:37 PM
I have been on both sides of killing inmates.

Many who don't want to kill inmates are not troubled by the mass murder of children using the tepid term called abortion.

A move to do it proper and to keep innocents from execution would create a lawyer jury. Stop using non lawyer juries. A team of lawyers know the ropes and can figure out the correct questions. I have little faith in a non educated public in charge of justice.

OJ Simpson escaped justice. Some allege the shooter of Trayvon escaped. Some claim the woman that killed Caylee escaped justice.

When you have non professionals as the jury, it happens.

I would have a staff of paid lawyers as the jury.

That would be a terrible idea. If you want to change the jury system (we shouldn't), then we ought to change it to the roots of the jury system, which was ancient Germanic. The ancient Germanic tribes placed men of good character in a position to investigate and judge crimes. This practice evolved into the medieval German vehmic courts.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 12:47 PM
The 2nd Amendment see's more executions in one year than all executions combined evar since the birth of America.

No it doesn't. In English, words have meaning. Study up!

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 12:52 PM
Would you be for it with 100% certainty?

That's a theoretical question with no real basis in probability. The government isn't suddenly going to get competent. Quite the opposite.

They cannot be trusted with anyone's life.

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:53 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=700487#post700487)
I have been on both sides of killing inmates.

Many who don't want to kill inmates are not troubled by the mass murder of children using the tepid term called abortion.

A move to do it proper and to keep innocents from execution would create a lawyer jury. Stop using non lawyer juries. A team of lawyers know the ropes and can figure out the correct questions. I have little faith in a non educated public in charge of justice.

OJ Simpson escaped justice. Some allege the shooter of Trayvon escaped. Some claim the woman that killed Caylee escaped justice.

When you have non professionals as the jury, it happens.

I would have a staff of paid lawyers as the jury.


That would be a terrible idea. If you want to change the jury system (we shouldn't), then we ought to change it to the roots of the jury system, which was ancient Germanic. The ancient Germanic tribes placed men of good character in a position to investigate and judge crimes. This practice evolved into the medieval German vehmic courts.

As I correctly outlined, a lot of time is wasted over points of law. A jury of paid lawyers that also are fluent in law cuts down on errors. Appeals based on errors consume a lot of time of the courts.

When the current jury system was imposed on the USA, even those who were so called lawyers learned law on their own.

I am not fluent in the German court system but it is entirely possible the person on trial has a better chance with a paid jury, if it has such a jury.

I don't understand the resistance to a highly trained jury with powers the present jury system lacks.

When the jury system started, they did not have a lot of lawyers to use for juries. They did however defend the person using professionals as both lawyers and judges.

I see no downside to a jury of professionals.

Also, there is no such thing as a jury of your peers.

This was a hold over from the King deciding on your fate. To protect you, supposedly you got the good deal from locals in your area.

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 12:53 PM
Apologies to Exo for this duplicate thread. Mods, you can combine the two if you'd like or just delete this one.

kilgram
07-24-2014, 12:55 PM
Hey! Everyone makes mistakes.
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake.

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:56 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by exotix http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=700480#post700480)
The 2nd Amendment see's more executions in one year than all executions combined evar since the birth of America.


No it doesn't. In English, words have meaning. Study up!

I went along with his false remark only to bring up that guns save many more lives than they take.

Bob
07-24-2014, 12:57 PM
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake.

Well, since you are in charge of Spain, so be it.

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 12:58 PM
I don't want them free, I just can't support state sponsored murder.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 01:06 PM
Apologies to Exo for this duplicate thread. Mods, you can combine the two if you'd like or just delete this one.

I can merge them if I find Exo's thread. If Main or Exo knows where it is hit the report button and include the links.

Mainecoons
07-24-2014, 01:08 PM
Exo's thread is "another botched execution." It is showing right under this one on my page.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:12 PM
As I correctly outlined, a lot of time is wasted over points of law. A jury of paid lawyers that also are fluent in law cuts down on errors. Appeals based on errors consume a lot of time of the courts.

When the current jury system was imposed on the USA, even those who were so called lawyers learned law on their own.

I am not fluent in the German court system but it is entirely possible the person on trial has a better chance with a paid jury, if it has such a jury.

I don't understand the resistance to a highly trained jury with powers the present jury system lacks.

When the jury system started, they did not have a lot of lawyers to use for juries. They did however defend the person using professionals as both lawyers and judges.

I see no downside to a jury of professionals.

Also, there is no such thing as a jury of your peers.

This was a hold over from the King deciding on your fate. To protect you, supposedly you got the good deal from locals in your area.

Lawyers exist to defend or condemn the accused. Their job is to make the jury believe the accused is either guilty or innocent. Putting lawyers on the jury will lead to more corruption of justice, not less. The current system is just fine, because the only interest the average citizen has in the case is that justice be done, because who wants a murderer on the same streets their kids play on?

Citizens thus have incentive to judge the case and the evidence presented fairly. It's not perfect, but no system is perfect.

exotix
07-24-2014, 01:13 PM
I'm good either merged or keep this one as stand alone ..

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:14 PM
Can we keep this one as a stand alone?

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:15 PM
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake.

Moral relativity has caused more deaths in history than anything else...

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:16 PM
Moral relativity has caused more deaths in history than anything else...

Which is relevant how, exactly?

Bob
07-24-2014, 01:17 PM
OK, I like the German court system far better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Germany#Ordinary_courts

Some of my common complaints with the US system is:
1. Jury is mute
2. Judge does not ask questions
3. This system is known as broken to most people
4. Jury is amateur and not trained

A note
I was well trained to judge cases we got on a professional panel. We heard evidence and decided the case based on majority verdicts won. There was an appeal but not on the facts of the case, but on the process which could be appealed.

Germans have the superior system.

Bob
07-24-2014, 01:20 PM
Lawyers exist to defend or condemn the accused. Their job is to make the jury believe the accused is either guilty or innocent. Putting lawyers on the jury will lead to more corruption of justice, not less. The current system is just fine, because the only interest the average citizen has in the case is that justice be done, because who wants a murderer on the same streets their kids play on?

Citizens thus have incentive to judge the case and the evidence presented fairly. It's not perfect, but no system is perfect.

You brought up the German system. Try studying it.

That system would be much better implemented in the USA.

Citizens are dumb.

A lot is made of the present broken system.

PolWatch
07-24-2014, 01:21 PM
I could not vote to send someone to death...and its not because I 'feel sorry' for the convicted person....I just don't think I could live with MY part in taking the life of another human. What if the evidence were wrong? What if I misunderstood some fact presented? What if the wrong person was tried for something he actually didn't do? I couldn't live with the uncertainty I would experience...just call me a wuss.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:22 PM
You brought up the German system. Try studying it.

That system would be much better implemented in the USA.

Citizens are dumb.

A lot is made of the present broken system.

I brought up the medieval German system. You brought up the modern German system. There's a difference.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 01:24 PM
The concept of professional jurors has been around for a while.

I'm undecided as to the death penalty for a number of reasons. Moral reasoning isn't really one of them.

One can argue strongly that the death penalty is flawed because our justice system is flawed and I won't argue that, but it's part of the reason I'm undecided.

I have no sympathy for violent criminals.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:26 PM
Which is relevant how, exactly?

The idea that letting 1,000 criminals go vs. incarcerating one innocent man is moral relativity. The idea being that if you let 1,000 criminals go you will have many more innocent deaths than just 1.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:27 PM
I could not vote to send someone to death...and its not because I 'feel sorry' for the convicted person....I just don't think I could live with MY part in taking the life of another human. What if the evidence were wrong? What if I misunderstood some fact presented? What if the wrong person was tried for something he actually didn't do? I couldn't live with the uncertainty I would experience...just call me a wuss.

Thats all good but are you going to impose that view on others?

Matty
07-24-2014, 01:28 PM
That's a theoretical question with no real basis in probability. The government isn't suddenly going to get competent. Quite the opposite.

They cannot be trusted with anyone's life.
The gov. Is we the people. We the people make up the judge, and jury. Each person has a prosecutor and a defense, with DNA now accepted science you get almost 100% certainty. If the judge and jury aren't competent enough for the death sentence then neither are they competent to award a life sentence.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:28 PM
We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and found chemicals so old they couldn't be used and it was like oops, my bad. A guy shoots another dude on the street over money in Florida and he gets fried.

This is why in spite of my eye for an eye mentality I don't believe in state sanctioned death penalties. It's hypocritical. All that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone crap.

Our government is brutal but expects citizens not to be brutal.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:30 PM
The idea that letting 1,000 criminals go vs. incarcerating one innocent man is moral relativity. The idea being that if you let 1,000 criminals go you will have many more innocent deaths than just 1.

Except he wasn't suggesting we let 1,000 criminals go. I don't know the technical term for it, but the point of the rhetorical device is to say that condemning innocent people to die should be avoided at all costs.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:32 PM
Except he wasn't suggesting we let 1,000 criminals go. I don't know the technical term for it, but the point of the rhetorical device is to say that condemning innocent people to die should be avoided at all costs.

Really?




Originally Posted by kilgram
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:34 PM
We killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and found chemicals so old they couldn't be used and it was like oops, my bad. A guy shoots another dude on the street over money in Florida and he gets fried.

This is why in spite of my eye for an eye mentality I don't believe in state sanctioned death penalties. It's hypocritical. All that he who has not sinned should cast the first stone crap.

Our government is brutal but expects citizens not to be brutal.

They could have been used...the yellow cake was there too...

I think intent matters...

TheInternet
07-24-2014, 01:34 PM
A move to do it proper and to keep innocents from execution would create a lawyer jury. Stop using non lawyer juries. A team of lawyers know the ropes and can figure out the correct questions. I have little faith in a non educated public in charge of justice.

OJ Simpson escaped justice. Some allege the shooter of Trayvon escaped. Some claim the woman that killed Caylee escaped justice.

When you have non professionals as the jury, it happens.

I would have a staff of paid lawyers as the jury.

Terrible idea. Being on a jury should not be a profession. It would become mundane and dull. How would you assess their job performance? I think citizens who get selected generally take it pretty seriously. A professional jury is ripe for corruption and laziness.




The idea that letting 1,000 criminals go vs. incarcerating one innocent man is moral relativity. The idea being that if you let 1,000 criminals go you will have many more innocent deaths than just 1.

At least people have the chance to defend themselves against criminals. You cannot defend yourself against gov.

PolWatch
07-24-2014, 01:34 PM
Thats all good but are you going to impose that view on others?

how would I impose my conscience on anyone else?

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:37 PM
They could have been used...the yellow cake was there too...

I think intent matters...

They were fucking degraded and in quantities that weren't going anywhere. 155 shells or something? Iraq could not have invaded the US and we hate most of its neighbors. It was a bullshit war and everyone knows it.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:37 PM
Thats all good but are you going to impose that view on others?

Don't you want to impose yours?

Chris
07-24-2014, 01:39 PM
What about preventative justice? In China, I hear, they will execute someone guilty or not as a deterrence to others committing similar crimes.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 01:40 PM
They were fucking degraded and in quantities that weren't going anywhere. 155 shells or something? Iraq could not have invaded the US and we hate most of its neighbors. It was a bullshit war and everyone knows it.

We were going to war no matter what, even if it was over a dozen cans of wasp and hornet spray.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:43 PM
They were fucking degraded and in quantities that weren't going anywhere. 155 shells or something? Iraq could not have invaded the US and we hate most of its neighbors. It was a bullshit war and everyone knows it.

Well I won't argue that the reasoning was bullshit but the war was necessary.

Talk to Pete about what was there...he handled some of it..

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:43 PM
What about preventative justice? In China, I hear, they will execute someone guilty or not as a deterrence to others committing similar crimes.

Unconstitutional.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:43 PM
We were going to war no matter what, even if it was over a dozen cans of wasp and hornet spray.

We broken and destabilized a country that we now don't want to fix. We also helped but the Baathists in power and our CIA handed over lists of dissidents for them to kill. Our epic awesomeness on the dirty asshole scale in Iraq should make Americans wonder why we feel this government is moral enough to decide who deserves to die, but it won't.

We only think as far as (Right Leaning) fry the mutherfucker! or (Left Leaning) what if we make a mistake?

So we just sit on the fence and go with the flow.

Bob
07-24-2014, 01:44 PM
What about preventative justice? In China, I hear, they will execute someone guilty or not as a deterrence to others committing similar crimes.

The justice system of the USA, using amateur juries is messed up. German courts rely on professionals.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:44 PM
Well I won't argue that the reasoning was bullshit but the war was necessary.

Talk to Pete about what was there...he handled some of it..

Why should I take to Pete? I was there in Iraq, deployed to Hadith, Garmah, and Fallujah. I know we found shit. I know what we found was mostly bullshit, degraded and in such low numbers as to only effect maybe the Iranians who at the time we were calling part of an Axis of Evil.

Chris
07-24-2014, 01:46 PM
Unconstitutional.

Justice is bigger and broader than the Constitution.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 01:48 PM
The jury system in America is the citizen check and balance against the government. A professional jury system would likely move away from that and become more of an ally to the state.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 01:49 PM
The jury system in America is the citizen check and balance against the government. A professional jury system would likely move away from that and become more of an ally to the state.

Agreed. I mentioned the professional jury concept because it's discussed from time to time.

The Xl
07-24-2014, 01:49 PM
My biggest issue here is the fact that our justice system sucks and innocent men and women have been brutally murdered by the government and incompetent juries.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:51 PM
No one should kid themselves on here. We brutally murdered plenty of people overseas and the people at the top of the conspiracy not only get away with it but have nice retirements because of it.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 01:52 PM
Justice is bigger and broader than the Constitution.

What you described is not justice.

PolWatch
07-24-2014, 01:55 PM
No one should kid themselves on here. We brutally murdered plenty of people overseas and the people at the top of the conspiracy not only get away with it but have nice retirements because of it.

true...but I'd kinda like to limit the future carnage...

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:57 PM
true...but I'd kinda like to limit the future carnage...

The carnage was fun at first, then somewhere along the lines I got a conscience. Those things suck to have in the middle of a war.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:58 PM
Justice is bigger and broader than the Constitution.

No...the Constitution defines what justice is...

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 01:58 PM
No...the Constitution defines what justice is...

no

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 01:59 PM
Why should I take to Pete? I was there in Iraq, deployed to Hadith, Garmah, and Fallujah. I know we found shit. I know what we found was mostly bullshit, degraded and in such low numbers as to only effect maybe the Iranians who at the time we were calling part of an Axis of Evil.

Because his first hand experience was different then yours...

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 01:59 PM
No...the Constitution defines what justice is...

I wholly disagree with that.

Libhater
07-24-2014, 01:59 PM
no one should kid themselves on here. We brutally murdered plenty of people overseas and the people at the top of the conspiracy not only get away with it but have nice retirements because of it.

do tell!

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:00 PM
No...the Constitution defines what justice is...

Justice is not a subset of the Constitution, the Constitution attempts, imperfectly, to design a system to administer justice, among other things.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Because his first hand experience was different then yours...

Does his firsthand experience negate the UN report too?

PolWatch
07-24-2014, 02:07 PM
The carnage was fun at first, then somewhere along the lines I got a conscience. Those things suck to have in the middle of a war.

We spend 20 years teaching our chldren to respect life, be honest, kind & compassionate. We then hand them weapons & tell them "those people (who they don't know) are your enemies...kill them". We then return our children home & wonder why they might have problems. We then repeat the exercise again in 10 or 15 years.

You are fortunate your conscience spoke up...I only know 1 person who returmed from Viet Nam saying it was fun and he turned out to be a child molester.....

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:12 PM
We spend 20 years teaching our chldren to respect life, be honest, kind & compassionate. We then hand them weapons & tell them "those people (who they don't know) are your enemies...kill them". We then return our children home & wonder why they might have problems. We then repeat the exercise again in 10 or 15 years.

You are fortunate your conscience spoke up...I only know 1 person who returmed from Viet Nam saying it was fun and he turned out to be a child molester.....

I knew a guy who volunteered several times to return to active duty in Vietnam to the point that the Army refused his final request.

He was a little off a bit I think but otherwise a good and honest guy as far as I knew him.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:12 PM
no

Yes. It defines your rights in any court of law in th States.

Among which is:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Which is in direct conflict with Chris' proposal.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:14 PM
Does his firsthand experience negate the UN report too?

Probably...I would trust Pete's word over the UN any day and twice on Sunday...

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:15 PM
Justice is not a subset of the Constitution, the Constitution attempts, imperfectly, to design a system to administer justice, among other things.

I was referring to the rights one have... If those rights are adhered to then justice can be served...

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:15 PM
What you described is not justice.

The Chinese believe it is. Being more holistic, more socially oriented, it makes sense to put society above the individual. That may well seem odd in an individualistic West.

Mind you, I'm not saying I support their sense of social justice, executing even an innocent for crime, just putting it out there as contrast.

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:17 PM
No...the Constitution defines what justice is...

Justice is part of natural law tradition, the Constitution merely posited law, man-made law.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:18 PM
I was referring to the rights one have... If those rights are adhered to then justice can be served...

The concept of "justice" is pure and absolute, our definition of it or how we structure our system to preserve and administer is it not.

If what you're saying is what you believe then you are admitting to absolute faith in our criminal justice system as designed by the Constitution.

Is that what you're saying?

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:18 PM
Yes. It defines your rights in any court of law in th States.

Among which is:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Which is in direct conflict with Chris' proposal.


Just to clarify, I wasn't proposing a Chinese system of social justice, just throwing it out there. As an individualist, to some degree, I don't know that I would go along with it, but that is a somewhat parochial view.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 02:19 PM
Right. And we should want to execute the wrong person. How many people have been found innocent on death row in the last 10 years? Zero. On review, they hadn't left enough evidence to convict them. Besides, most of them were professional criminals who should have been executed for that defect.

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 02:20 PM
Probably...I would trust Pete's word over the UN any day and twice on Sunday...

I'm glad you're bros and shit but I know what my seniors told me, what I saw, and I can read the UN report. What came out of Iraq was going to harm absolutely no one in the states or give them a warfighter edge with their neighbors.

Neighbors we hated anyway.

Ransom
07-24-2014, 02:20 PM
Justice is part of natural law tradition, the Constitution merely posited law, man-made law.

man made laws based on what rights?

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:23 PM
I'm glad you're bros and shit but I know what my seniors told me, what I saw, and I can read the UN report. What came out of Iraq was going to harm absolutely no one in the states or give them a warfighter edge with their neighbors.

Neighbors we hated anyway.

Your call on trusting the UN...I find the concept laughable...

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 02:24 PM
Your call on trusting the UN...I find the concept laughable...

I believe I included it with the list that also had on it my own eyes and the assessment of my senior marines. Maybe I imagined that's what I said. It happens.

PTSD and shit.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:26 PM
The concept of "justice" is pure and absolute, our definition of it or how we structure our system to preserve and administer is it not.

If what you're saying is what you believe then you are admitting to absolute faith in our criminal justice system as designed by the Constitution.

Is that what you're saying?

I disagree that the concept of justice is pure nor absolute...that's why it's a concept..

Until it is pure and absolute I think our justice system does OK for itself if one's rights are adhered to...

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:27 PM
I disagree that the concept of justice is pure nor absolute...that's why it's a concept..

Until it is pure and absolute I think our justice system does OK for itself if one's rights are adhered to...

Justice is absolute, we just haven't achieved it yet nor will we ever.

If I were a religious person I could argue that only God is just.

You're confusing the concept of justice and our version of it, two different subjects.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:28 PM
Justice is absolute, we just haven't achieved it yet nor will we ever.

If I were a religious person I could argue that only God is just.

Then justice isn't absolute...

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:28 PM
man made laws based on what rights?

See the Declaration, "...That to secure these rights...."

The point, though, is, given man is flawed, so are the laws he posits.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 02:28 PM
Zero. On review, they hadn't left enough evidence to convict them. Besides, most of them were professional criminals who should have been executed for that defect.

Oh!

Animal Mother
07-24-2014, 02:29 PM
Peter1469

all those weapons you personally found...what could they have realistically accomplished. It seems the pickle thinks that they could have been some serious hot shit against their neighbors with it.

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:30 PM
Then justice isn't absolute...

Rather, then man's implementation isn't absolute.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:31 PM
Then justice isn't absolute...

Of course it is, we just haven't nor will we ever be able to administer it absolutely.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:35 PM
Rather, then man's implementation isn't absolute.

Thus justice isn't absolute... I'm not talking about a pie in the sky concept...I'm talking about reality...

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:36 PM
Of course it is, we just haven't nor will we ever be able to administer it absolutely.

Then why kid ourselves? It's just a saying that makes us feel better and it's completely false...

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 02:36 PM
Thus justice isn't absolute... I'm not talking about a pie in the sky concept...I'm talking about reality...

Then the clearer way to say it is "our system of justice administration is not absolute".

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:39 PM
Then the clearer way to say it is "our system of justice administration is not absolute".

No system is given justice will never be absolute...

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:44 PM
Thus justice isn't absolute... I'm not talking about a pie in the sky concept...I'm talking about reality...

If then there is no justice, what are we talking about, why pursue it, why try to better our sense and drive for it? If you can say our system is not just, what are you measuring against? Is that mere pie in the sky?

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 02:44 PM
I didn't personally find anything in Iraqi Freedom. I was a major and had lots of other crap to do. My unit did and sent lots of the stuff off to Canada to deal with (no idea how they got the short straw).

But, the stuff that was found was nowhere near the amounts proclaimed prior to the invasion. There were a lot of chemical labs ready to go into production.

A lot was not disclosed because it was supplied to Saddam by the French. And the Administration didn't want the French to look bad. Not sure why, the French weren't helping out in Iraq....

Also some stuff was captured that was likely newly smuggled in from Iran (not made in Iraq). That was nasty stuff.


In Desert Storm I did personally capture a shit load of chemical munitions. All marked with US chem markings. Thanks Cheney.


@Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10)

all those weapons you personally found...what could they have realistically accomplished. It seems the pickle thinks that they could have been some serious hot shit against their neighbors with it.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 02:44 PM
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake. 1,000 criminals = 1,000 innocent people killed by those the weak or anti-social turn loose on the society. Robespierre was against capital punishment and later proved that the real motivation of people like that is that they hate the public.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:45 PM
If then there is no justice, what are we talking about, why pursue it, why try to better our sense and drive for it? Is that mere pie in the sky?

Just because we will never obtain it doesn't mean we shouldn't try...

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:47 PM
Just because we will never obtain it doesn't mean we shouldn't try...

Try for what? You mean try to achieve a justice more absolute? But that's pie in the sky.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:47 PM
Try for what? You mean try to achieve a justice more absolute? But that's pie in the sky.

It is...we will never reach absolute justice...it is an impossible concept...

Chris
07-24-2014, 02:54 PM
It is...we will never reach absolute justice...it is an impossible concept...

But it exists. Agree, we will never achieve it, may never truly know it, just try to.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 02:56 PM
But it exists. Agree, we will never achieve it, may never truly know it, just try to.

The concept exists..the reality never will...

I think our justice system does a pretty good job comparatively...

Redrose
07-24-2014, 02:57 PM
I am against the death penalty in the US, but I don't care about this guy and his extended death.

Society has the right to choose death for certain crimes. But the US is so diverse that we often get these cases wrong for many reasons. So we should opt out of the death penalty for that reason, or severely restrict it to special instances.

It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 02:58 PM
We were going to war no matter what, even if it was over a dozen cans of wasp and hornet spray. It was a transferred reaction to our sissiness back in 1973 in letting the Arabs start gouging us on oil prices. Sissies strike out at anybody their rulers let them, never at the collaborationist rulers themselves. That's why we fought for Kuwait too, irrationally saving a price-gouger just to get even with another price-gouger.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 03:00 PM
It was a transferred reaction to our sissiness back in 1973 in letting the Arabs start gouging us on oil prices. Sissies strike out at anybody their rulers let them, never at the collaborationist rulers themselves. That's why we fought for Kuwait too, irrationally saving a price-gouger just to get even with another price-gouger.

I feel the Kuwait military action was wholly justified.

It was a coalition (US led) effort. If we need to be militarily involved, that's how to do it. Go in, do the job, GTFO.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 03:03 PM
It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.

"Basically impossible" isn't good enough.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:03 PM
I have zero sympathy for the killers- draw and quarter him for all that I care. My concern is for our society.


It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.

Matty
07-24-2014, 03:06 PM
It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.



100% correct.

Redrose
07-24-2014, 03:08 PM
"Basically impossible" isn't good enough.
It's impossible, unless you want to argue with DNA.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 03:10 PM
I have zero sympathy for the killers- draw and quarter him for all that I care. My concern is for our society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_the_Impaler

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Vlad_Tepes_002.jpg

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 03:11 PM
It's impossible, unless you want to argue with DNA.

We are human. What is impossible is for us to get anything 100% right.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 03:12 PM
The jury system in America is the citizen check and balance against the government. A professional jury system would likely move away from that and become more of an ally to the state. It's to discourage people to avoid registering to vote because that will cause them to get called for jury duty and miss their paycheck. People who have work and family to take care of are the reality, not your anarchist fantasy hypocritically in favor of citizens, whom you elsewhere call 2/3 wolves and 1/3 sheep. We could vote on a Juror General if we don't believe the government is providing unbiased and well-trained juries.

Common Sense
07-24-2014, 03:12 PM
It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.

It's not about sympathy for the killers. It's about rule of law and about cruel and unusual punishment. And no, I'm sorry, but even with DNA, these errors are not "basically impossible".

Capital Punishment, or executions are wrong because...

It is not a deterrent.

It ends up costing a lot more.

It's not guaranteed to exclude wrongful convictions.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I really don't understand why Christians can and do support the death penalty. Wasn't your savior a victim of Capital Punishment himself?

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:14 PM
It's to discourage people to avoid registering to vote because that will cause them to get called for jury duty and miss their paycheck. People who have work and family to take care of are the reality, not your anarchist fantasy hypocritically in favor of citizens, whom you elsewhere call 2/3 wolves and 1/3 sheep. We could vote on a Juror General if we don't believe the government is providing unbiased and well-trained juries.

How would the Juror General keep ties closer to the people rather than the government?

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 03:15 PM
No...the Constitution defines what justice is... And that ruling-class manifesto against democracy defines justice as "Just Us."

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:17 PM
And that ruling-class manifesto against democracy defines justice as "Just Us."

Oh!

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:18 PM
And that ruling-class manifesto against democracy defines justice as "Just Us."

And the colored girls go "do do do do do do do do do doooooo"

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:22 PM
I feel the Kuwait military action was wholly justified.

It was a coalition (US led) effort. If we need to be militarily involved, that's how to do it. Go in, do the job, GTFO.

We didn't finish the job and we let 180,000 Iraqis who supported us be massacred...

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 03:27 PM
Yes. It defines your rights in any court of law in th States.

Among which is:


No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

Which is in direct conflict with Chris's proposal. First, that was an amendment and not part of the Constitution the lawyers for the 1% plotted behind closed doors in Philadelphia. Second, if the people had the right to vote on laws, they would have voted for those rights and so do not need any Constitution taking credit for what they would have given themselves. I'll let you Reply, which by Constitionalist thinking means I've created your right to Reply.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 03:29 PM
We didn't finish the job and we let 180,000 Iraqis who supported us be massacred...

We liberated Kuwait.

Ergo we finished the job.

Focus.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:29 PM
First, that was an amendment and not part of the Constitution the lawyers for the 1% plotted behind closed doors in Philadelphia. Second, if the people had the right to vote on laws, they would have voted for those rights and so do not need any Constitution taking credit for what they would have given themselves. I'll let you Reply, which by Constitionalist thinking means I've created your right to Reply.

The rights are inalienable.... That means they can't be given or taken away... The Constitution limits governmental involvement in order to protect those rights...

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:29 PM
We liberated Kuwait.

Ergo we finished the job.

Thats like saying we should have been done after we retook France in 44.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 03:31 PM
Thats like saying we should have been done after we retook France in 44.

The objective was to liberate Kuwait.

We liberated Kuwait.

Trying to clean up the worlds mess is fundamental Neoconism and the reason why we're in the clusterfuck mess we're in now.

Codename Section
07-24-2014, 03:32 PM
We didn't finish the job and we let 180,000 Iraqis who supported us be massacred...

Finish what job, exactly? Set up a vassal state? Give them "freedoms" we don't have here? Kill them all? Not sure what you're talking about.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:32 PM
The objective was to liberate Kuwait.

We liberated Kuwait.

Trying to clean up the worlds mess is fundamental Neoconism and the reason why we're in the clusterfuck mess we're in now.

We wouldn't have been cleaning up the world's mess...we would have been setting our own dinner table...

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:32 PM
Finish what job, exactly? Set up a vassal state? Give them "freedoms" we don't have here? Kill them all? Not sure what you're talking about.

See Japan.

Codename Section
07-24-2014, 03:33 PM
See Japan.

Oh yeh, because they are so culturally similar and everything.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 03:35 PM
I didn't personally find anything in Iraqi Freedom. I was a major and had lots of other crap to do. My unit did and sent lots of the stuff off to Canada to deal with (no idea how they got the short straw).

But, the stuff that was found was nowhere near the amounts proclaimed prior to the invasion. There were a lot of chemical labs ready to go into production.

A lot was not disclosed because it was supplied to Saddam by the French. And the Administration didn't want the French to look bad. Not sure why, the French weren't helping out in Iraq....

Also some stuff was captured that was likely newly smuggled in from Iran (not made in Iraq). That was nasty stuff.


In Desert Storm I did personally capture a shit load of chemical munitions. All marked with US chem markings. Thanks Cheney. And again, you refuse to explain the contradiction of Bush believing his own scare stories, which meant he willingly sent ground troops in to get slaughtered by WMDs.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:36 PM
Oh yeh, because they are so culturally similar and everything.

They weren't too far off...

Bob
07-24-2014, 03:42 PM
The objective was to liberate Kuwait.

We liberated Kuwait.

Trying to clean up the worlds mess is fundamental Neoconism and the reason why we're in the clusterfuck mess we're in now.

That is okay. The Chinese can handle it.

Redrose
07-24-2014, 03:43 PM
We are human. What is impossible is for us to get anything 100% right.
GA, if you want to split hairs to support your position, fine. DNA is not 100% accurate. But...when the results indicate the odds of it being someone else, one in 100 billion, or even greater, that's good enough for me, science, academia, the courts, the law. There're aren't 100 billion people in the world. Ignoring those stats just to disagree serves no purpose.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:44 PM
And again, you refuse to explain the contradiction of Bush believing his own scare stories, which meant he willingly send ground troops in to get slaughtered by WMDs.

We would not have gotten "slaughtered" by WMDs. Chem weapons are poor killing tools if you have the proper MOPP gear. Plus, in a desert environment the chems don't persist for very long.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:45 PM
They weren't too far off...

The Japanese were defeated. Most warmongering males were dead.

Iraq was not prepped properly for a classic occupation.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:47 PM
The Japanese were defeated. Most warmongering males were dead.

Iraq was not prepped properly for a classic occupation.

It could have been...especially in '91.

Common Sense
07-24-2014, 03:48 PM
GA, if you want to split hairs to support your position, fine. DNA is not 100% accurate. But...when the results indicate the odds of it being someone else, one in 100 billion, or even greater, that's good enough for me, science, academia, the courts, the law. There're aren't 100 billion people in the world. Ignoring those stats just to disagree serves no purpose.

Not every conviction uses DNA as evidence. The nature of some crimes makes it impossible.

But DNA is invaluable. The use of DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of wrongly convicted and some of them were death row inmates.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 03:50 PM
They weren't too far off...

They are extremely different, actually.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:51 PM
They are extremely different, actually.

Today they are thanks the the U.S.

I would agree that before '45 the Japanese were more fanatical...

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 03:51 PM
It could have been...especially in '91.

Maybe. The Syrian army was at my left flank so I am sort of glad we didn't mission creep that time.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 03:51 PM
That is okay. The Chinese can handle it.

They can have it.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 03:53 PM
Maybe. The Syrian army was at my left flank so I am sort of glad we didn't mission creep that time.

After the greatest beat down in history no one would have interfered...

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:09 PM
I feel the Kuwait military action was wholly justified.

It was a coalition (US led) effort. If we need to be militarily involved, that's how to do it. Go in, do the job, GTFO. Kuwait has no right to exist. With all the oil loot they gouged out of us, they could have hired mercs to stop Saddam and bought superior weapons from us to defend their "country," actually the private estate of some fatcat emir. Besides their cowardice and cheapskating on defense, they were also an illegitimate country because they had belonged to Mesopotamia for thousands of years and Saddam was just trying to get them back. His party had claimed Kuwait for Iraq back in 1969 and no country demanded they take that plank out of their platform. Everyone understood that it naturally belonged to Iraq.

But then, defying his OPEC quotas, he overproduced on oil in order to fund his war against our enemy, Iran. That drove down the profit margins of the Western oil companies, who created OPEC in order to piggyback off its price-gouging. All of a sudden the enemy of our enemies became our enemy.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:13 PM
How would the Juror General keep ties closer to the people rather than the government? Because he'd lose his job if he disappointed the voters. He'd be a separate elective office, not appointed by the President or Governor.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:15 PM
I prefer 1,000 criminals free rather than one innocent executed by a mistake.

And then, how many innocents will die BECAUSE of those free criminals ? For that matter, how many will die, killed by those criminals, even if they're incarcerated ? Thousands of people have been killed, both inside and outside of prisons, by incarcerated criminals.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:15 PM
Oh! If you have no answer to it, you should pronounce 0 as Zero, not as O.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:16 PM
And the colored girls go "do do do do do do do do do doooooo" Weewee on the People

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:21 PM
We didn't finish the job and we let 180,000 Iraqis who supported us be massacred... Shiite terrorists who would have allied with Iran. Good riddance. And the Kurds aren't any better. If you're looking for Good Muslims, look in their cemeteries.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:23 PM
I don't want them free, I just can't support state sponsored murder.

On the other hand, if you don't perform that "state sponsored murder", you will get many more murders from the deranged killer that you didn't kill when you had the chance.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Michael-Adebolajo.jpg

Bob
07-24-2014, 04:27 PM
We spend 20 years teaching our chldren to respect life, be honest, kind & compassionate. We then hand them weapons & tell them "those people (who they don't know) are your enemies...kill them". We then return our children home & wonder why they might have problems. We then repeat the exercise again in 10 or 15 years.

You are fortunate your conscience spoke up...I only know 1 person who returmed from Viet Nam saying it was fun and he turned out to be a child molester.....

While I never asked Uncle Gene who fought both the Japanese and North Koreans, the way he showed off his combat photos I figured he liked war. His final letter told grandma that he was a professional so was ready. Gene died the next day. I recall his photos of dead Japanese lying about on some Pacific Island. As a kid, I guess I had not yet felt death in the family. The first funeral I attended was his.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:29 PM
What about preventative justice? In China, I hear, they will execute someone guilty or not as a deterrence to others committing similar crimes.

The most important deterrence of the death penalty is that which deters the executed killed from again killing anyone, and many who got prison instead of the death penalty, HAVE killed again. In fact even imprisoned convict who never killed anyone go on to fill someone in the prison. On some occasions they kill people outside the prison, while still incarcerated. Al Capone is thought to have ordered dozens of hits in the few years that he was in prison. Gang leaders in prison now, do the same.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:30 PM
The rights are inalienable.... That means they can't be given or taken away... The Constitution limits governmental involvement in order to protect those rights... This overriding group of laws protects the ruling class and its government from the people's will. The fact that we first have to ask whether a proposed law is Constitutional rather than only ask whether it is good for the country proves that being ruled by a Constitution is not good for the country.

Matty
07-24-2014, 04:32 PM
This overriding group of laws protects the ruling class and its government from the people's will. The fact that we first have to ask whether a proposed law is Constitutional rather than only ask whether it is good for the country proves that being ruled by a Constitution is not good for the country.
Well good then. When we execute the murderer we'll just let the victims family decide how best to do it. Fuck the constitution.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:32 PM
My biggest issue here is the fact that our justice system sucks and innocent men and women have been brutally murdered by the government and incompetent juries.

This is sometimes, in some cases, true, BUT this has no bearing on those cases where guilt is 100% POSITIVE >>>

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Michael-Adebolajo.jpg

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 04:34 PM
After the greatest beat down in history no one would have interfered...

Really? I didn't trust the Syrians enough to take that gamble. Not that I had a say....

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 04:35 PM
If you have no answer to it, you should pronounce 0 as Zero, not as O.

It is an answer. Just a polite one.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:39 PM
It is very restricted, you know that. Very few murders qualify for the death penalty, and many who do qualify, are not sentenced to death by the jury. That is why there is a penalty phase to see if the crime meets the criteria for death. The State must show the court it's evidence to seek that enhanced penalty.

We have made terrible errors in the past. Never should happen. But today with DNA, and decades of appeals, those errors are basically impossible.

Those stories about "extended" execution time receive too much coverage. The reason he is on that table is because he murdered two innocent people. Where is the sympathy for them and what they suffered?

Sympathy for the killer is misplaced in my opinion.

Those who might disagree with you, should watch a few episodes of the TV show "Forensic Files", before they comment. The decades of appeals is riduculous, and should be shortened.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:40 PM
Finish what job, exactly? Set up a vassal state? Give them "freedoms" we don't have here? Kill them all? Not sure what you're talking about. No one has produced beyond his OPEC quotas since we got Saddam hanged. So we finished the job Big Oil ordered their governments to sucker us into doing. Royal Dutch Shell also piggybacks off the cartel's price-gouging and they wouldn't even send the Dutch military to enforce the price-fixing quota system. I think we ought to send only the sons of petrocrats to die in order to make their Daddies richer.

Bob
07-24-2014, 04:43 PM
I think this is the thread where I positied the US converting to the Germany system of trying crimes.

I pointed out that Lawyers who already are judges and prosecute and defend, are best suited to be a jury.

Even in the USA, criminals can have the Judge hear the case and pass judgment.

I find nothing wrong with that.

My honest belief is the jury system costs people a lot more cash to get a defense. (when you suggest a way to save legal fees, of course you get resistance from .... guess who? Lawyers of course.)

Ask OJ Simpson who clearly is guilty of capital murder.

The Sage of Main Street
07-24-2014, 04:45 PM
We would not have gotten "slaughtered" by WMDs. Chem weapons are poor killing tools if you have the proper MOPP gear. Plus, in a desert environment the chems don't persist for very long. Wearing gas masks in the heat, the GIs would have passed out quickly and been easy to pick off.

protectionist
07-24-2014, 04:48 PM
I think this is the thread where I positied the US converting to the Germany system of trying crimes.

I pointed out that Lawyers who already are judges and prosecute and defend, are best suited to be a jury.

Even in the USA, criminals can have the Judge hear the case and pass judgment.

I find nothing wrong with that.

My honest belief is the jury system costs people a lot more cash to get a defense. (when you suggest a way to save legal fees, of course you get resistance from .... guess who? Lawyers of course.)

Ask OJ Simpson who clearly is guilty of capital murder.

If OJ Simpson was "clearly" guilty of capital murder, he would have been convicted of it. The prosecution simply didn't have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They were only able to show that OJ was there, not that he killed anyone. Marcia Clark herself admitted that after the trial.

Matty
07-24-2014, 04:58 PM
If OJ Simpson was "clearly" guilty of capital murder, he would have been convicted of it. The prosecution simply didn't have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They were only able to show that OJ was there, not that he killed anyone. Marcia Clark herself admitted that after the trial.
Oh bullshit. The evidence was there. The defense lawyers decided to convict the police instead of the murderer. This case came on the heels of Rodney King. The jury could have watched OJ carve up the ex wife and Ron Goldman and still let him walk. It was payback. Period.

Bob
07-24-2014, 05:03 PM
If OJ Simpson was "clearly" guilty of capital murder, he would have been convicted of it. The prosecution simply didn't have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They were only able to show that OJ was there, not that he killed anyone. Marcia Clark herself admitted that after the trial.

No, it does not work that way.

Just as some of the innocent were put into prison, some of the guilty were not convicted.

I happen to have watched just about all of the most vital parts of the case live. I had no doubt the DNA convicted him. Not only was OJ there, but Ito denied presenting evidence proving he was there and did the murders.

I am calling for a professional Jury. It can actually be just the judge that hears it weighing the evidence.

In Germany for crimes such as this, they use up to 5 Judges. I believe as professionals they have a better track record than here in the USA. I suspect the time of Appeal is much shorter.

webrockk
07-24-2014, 05:06 PM
Arizona Inmate Was ‘Alive’ and ‘Gasping’ for Air More Than One Hour Into Execution, His Lawyers Say

Jebus, hire a veterinarian.

It would be horrible to learn that "botched" executions weren't botched at all, but were premeditated by infiltrators who vehemently oppose capital punishment, and are looking to generate outrage.

I'm joking....but, seriously, how hard could it be!

Disclaimer: I'm not an advocate of an increasingly immoral and unethical "state" imposing the ultimate punishment on the governed.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 05:20 PM
Incorrect.


Wearing gas masks in the heat, the GIs would have passed out quickly and been easy to pick off.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 05:21 PM
The police were also caught planting evidence, so some jury nullification may have occurred.


If OJ Simpson was "clearly" guilty of capital murder, he would have been convicted of it. The prosecution simply didn't have the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They were only able to show that OJ was there, not that he killed anyone. Marcia Clark herself admitted that after the trial.

Matty
07-24-2014, 05:25 PM
The police were also caught planting evidence, so some jury nullification may have occurred.
No they weren't that was pure "theoretical conjecture" by the dream team.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 05:26 PM
Wearing gas masks in the heat, the GIs would have passed out quickly and been easy to pick off.

You're trained to live in MOP gear, to shoot in it, to drink water while wearing the mask... It sucks but troops are trained to deal...

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 05:27 PM
No they weren't that was pure "theoretical conjecture" by the dream team.

Incorrect.

Adelaide
07-24-2014, 05:29 PM
I think this is the thread where I positied the US converting to the Germany system of trying crimes.

I pointed out that Lawyers who already are judges and prosecute and defend, are best suited to be a jury.

Even in the USA, criminals can have the Judge hear the case and pass judgment.

I find nothing wrong with that.

My honest belief is the jury system costs people a lot more cash to get a defense. (when you suggest a way to save legal fees, of course you get resistance from .... guess who? Lawyers of course.)

Ask OJ Simpson who clearly is guilty of capital murder.

I don't think the jury system is what really costs defendants or the public. There are so many other things that go into a trial that cost great amounts of money that would be necessary regardless of whether you were paying a jury a minimal amount and the same evidence would need to be discussed with a judge as a jury. The theatrics might be a different. But the defendant is still going to have to pay everyone from a psychiatrist to an independent pathologist, to their own weapons expert to a DNA specialist and so on and so forth - those people are not cheap. Defense lawyers are not cheap. Then court costs, which means paying for every single person who works in the court from the judge to security to the stenographer.

As far as OJ, he was cleared by a jury of his peers. It doesn't matter what people think - same goes for Casey Anthony or Zimmerman, to use two prominent examples of controversial rulings in recent years.

Anyways, I am against capital punishment in all situations but am for reforming the system specifically related to certain crimes which do not carry a heavy enough penalty.

Matty
07-24-2014, 05:29 PM
Incorrect.


Not incorrect. Conjecture.

Redrose
07-24-2014, 05:48 PM
Not every conviction uses DNA as evidence. The nature of some crimes makes it impossible.

But DNA is invaluable. The use of DNA testing has exonerated hundreds of wrongly convicted and some of them were death row inmates.

Yes that's right. Before DNA there were wrongly convicted people and the appeals process was insufficient. The system has improved greatly. The murderer we started this discussion on had his conviction upheld with DNA. His crime was in 1989 I believe, evidence was eventually verified by DNA. More than 2 decades of appeals and the DNA insured his guilt. No one, absolutely no one convicted of capital murder today will be sentenced to death without a DNA match. Cases without DNA may still get a conviction, but the death penalty will not be sought. Not all crimes have DNA, and of course, not all crimes are eligible for death.

Jesus was convicted and executed as a heretic, according to the laws of His day.

Execution some say is not a deterrent, that may be true, the criminal mind is not a reasonable one, does not think of the consequences. But one thing is true, they don't reoffend.

We have a relative who while in surgery was not completely under. He was aware of his prostate surgery, felt pain. Terrible story. He is a nice man, not a criminal, never hurt anyone, a Deacon in his church. There was nothing in the news about him, his horrors. No outcry of sympathy from the public.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 05:56 PM
Not incorrect. Conjecture.

Incorrect. (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/man_8.html) Probably why the jury acquitted.

zelmo1234
07-24-2014, 05:59 PM
The way that the death penalty is administered in the USA it is a worthless deterrent.

If we want it to work we have to change the system, if not then there is no reason to continue with the death penalty

Bob
07-24-2014, 06:22 PM
Yes that's right. Before DNA there were wrongly convicted people and the appeals process was insufficient. The system has improved greatly. The murderer we started this discussion on had his conviction upheld with DNA. His crime was in 1989 I believe, evidence was eventually verified by DNA. More than 2 decades of appeals and the DNA insured his guilt. No one, absolutely no one convicted of capital murder today will be sentenced to death without a DNA match. Cases without DNA may still get a conviction, but the death penalty will not be sought. Not all crimes have DNA, and of course, not all crimes are eligible for death.

Jesus was convicted and executed as a heretic, according to the laws of His day.

Execution some say is not a deterrent, that may be true, the criminal mind is not a reasonable one, does not think of the consequences. But one thing is true, they don't reoffend.

We have a relative who while in surgery was not completely under. He was aware of his prostate surgery, felt pain. Terrible story. He is a nice man, not a criminal, never hurt anyone, a Deacon in his church. There was nothing in the news about him, his horrors. No outcry of sympathy from the public.

I have never heard of the hung man, the shot man, the head cut off man committing any other crimes once dead.

That to me deters.

These criminals can't be depended on to study law to see various court cases. The idea the death of this man will stop some other criminal is not why this man died.
He died for his crime, not to make a lesson for others. If a person refuses to kill based on this 2 hour death, great.

I have long advocated making them take all day long to die. Keep them terrorized. If the word gets out they don't die fast, that perhaps could deter.

sachem
07-24-2014, 07:07 PM
I have never heard of the hung man, the shot man, the head cut off man committing any other crimes once dead.

That to me deters.

These criminals can't be depended on to study law to see various court cases. The idea the death of this man will stop some other criminal is not why this man died.
He died for his crime, not to make a lesson for others. If a person refuses to kill based on this 2 hour death, great.

I have long advocated making them take all day long to die. Keep them terrorized. If the word gets out they don't die fast, that perhaps could deter.We can be grateful you have no political power. What a horrible thing to say.

Becoming the slime that these criminals are, lessens us, and they win.

Private Pickle
07-24-2014, 07:20 PM
Give them a short drop and a quick stop...effective enough... /done

Redrose
07-24-2014, 07:52 PM
I have never heard of the hung man, the shot man, the head cut off man committing any other crimes once dead.

That to me deters.

These criminals can't be depended on to study law to see various court cases. The idea the death of this man will stop some other criminal is not why this man died.
He died for his crime, not to make a lesson for others. If a person refuses to kill based on this 2 hour death, great.

I have long advocated making them take all day long to die. Keep them terrorized. If the word gets out they don't die fast, that perhaps could deter.


The gas chamber was the slowest method. I believe it took about 3 minutes to suffocate. I still prefer firing squad.

Matty
07-24-2014, 07:54 PM
Incorrect. (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/man_8.html) Probably why the jury acquitted.
Show proof.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:03 PM
Show proof.

That blue thing is a link.

Matty
07-24-2014, 08:06 PM
That blue thing is a link.


I read it. It supports my charge of conjecture. Not one shred of proof was submitted that the police planted evidence. It was all speculation and conjecture. Had that been the case the judge would have and should have adjourned the jury and set Simpson free.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:10 PM
I read it. It supports my charge of conjecture. Not one shred of proof was submitted that the police planted evidence. It was all speculation and conjecture. Had that been the case the judge would have and should have adjourned the jury and set Simpson free.

It was enough for the jury. You don't get 100% in criminal trials. I tried enough of them to know that.

zelmo1234
07-24-2014, 08:20 PM
The biggest problem in the Simpson case is you have a person that people wanted to be not guilty.

Then the police and prosecution tampered with evidence, lied and generally ran a terrible trial.

My favorite was when the Scientist was swearing that nobody actually touched or handled the glove in any way, then they showed a video of him carrying the glove across the parking lot in his hand.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 08:36 PM
The most important deterrence of the death penalty is that which deters the executed killed from again killing anyone, and many who got prison instead of the death penalty, HAVE killed again.

This is just me shooting in the dark here, but I think that's because a dead criminal can't kill anyone. Unless you believe in zombies...

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:37 PM
The biggest problem in the Simpson case is you have a person that people wanted to be not guilty.

Then the police and prosecution tampered with evidence, lied and generally ran a terrible trial.

My favorite was when the Scientist was swearing that nobody actually touched or handled the glove in any way, then they showed a video of him carrying the glove across the parking lot in his hand.
Matalese???

That is sort of my point with the death penalty. If the jurors hate you, for whatever reason, you are screwed. Too often that is because of race. The Juice was different. He was a professional football player who deserved certain latitude in society. j/k

Redrose
07-24-2014, 08:38 PM
It was enough for the jury. You don't get 100% in criminal trials. I tried enough of them to know that.

That jury was never going to find Simpson guilty. 9 months of trial and they deliberate for 40 minutes. That's unheard of. Heck, it would take more than 40 minutes to gather up all verdict forms and look at the evidence. They went in there with a predetermined verdict, not guilty. It was a travesty.

It was payback for the LA police beating of Rodney King.

All the evidence pointed to OJ and nobody else. Even Bob Kardashian, OJ's attorney, looked stunned at the verdict. He knew he was guilty.

Matty
07-24-2014, 08:39 PM
It was enough for the jury. You don't get 100% in criminal trials. I tried enough of them to know that.


Correct. In every courtroom one side is telling you the truth and the other is spinning lies hoping stupid people will believe them. Like I said, this jury could have watched OJ and still set him free.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:39 PM
This is just me shooting in the dark here, but I think that's because a dead criminal can't kill anyone. Unless you believe in zombies...

Deterrence is one of the valid justifications for sentencing. Specific deterrence for the defendant. General deterrence for those who might hear about the sentence and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Punishment and rehabilitation are the other two.

Captain Obvious
07-24-2014, 08:41 PM
@Malatese???

That is sort of my point with the death penalty. If the jurors hate you, for whatever reason, you are screwed. Too often that is because of race. The Juice was different. He was a professional football player who deserved certain latitude in society. j/k

Can't put characters immediately after the tag - the ? is killing that link.
Matalese

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:41 PM
Correct. In every courtroom one side is telling you the truth and the other is spinning lies hoping stupid people will believe them. Like I said, this jury could have watched OJ and still set him free.

As a prosecutor who tried lots of jury trials that is not really the case. Both the prosecution and the defense get to present their cases. So long as the attorneys are not clowns, the system works more often than not.

The OJ trial was jury nullification, as I have always said.

Matty
07-24-2014, 08:42 PM
The biggest problem in the Simpson case is you have a person that people wanted to be not guilty.

Then the police and prosecution tampered with evidence, lied and generally ran a terrible trial.

My favorite was when the Scientist was swearing that nobody actually touched or handled the glove in any way, then they showed a video of him carrying the glove across the parking lot in his hand.



The only people who lied in that case was the defense team.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 08:43 PM
Deterrence is one of the valid justifications for sentencing. Specific deterrence for the defendant. General deterrence for those who might hear about the sentence and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Punishment and rehabilitation are the other two.

Sure, but there's no evidence the death penalty deters crime.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:45 PM
The only people who lied in that case was the defense team.

You must have missed the cross examination of the prosecution's key witnesses... :shocked:

Matty
07-24-2014, 08:46 PM
As a prosecutor who tried lots of jury trials that is not really the case. Both the prosecution and the defense get to present their cases. So long as the attorneys are not clowns, the system works more often than not.

The OJ trial was jury nullification, as I have always said.
I watched the OJ trial start to finish. I am convinced lawyers stop at nothing to win a case and that includes lying through their teeth.

Just as in the Casey Anthony case. No one but Casey caused the death of her kid but the lying attorney's for the defense made it about Casey's father and her brother. So don't sit there and try to tell me lawyers don't lie in court.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:51 PM
I watched the OJ trial start to finish. I am convinced lawyers stop at nothing to win a case and that includes lying through their teeth.

Just as in the Casey Anthony case. No one but Casey caused the death of her kid but the lying attorney's for the defense made it about Casey's father and her brother. So don't sit there and try to tell me lawyers don't lie in court.

I don't think that you understand the judicial system and the role of defense attorneys. They advocate for their clients. If they go too far they can lose their licenses. They argue based off the evidence admitted - that that opens up lots of stuff. I never wanted to do defense work. But when the wars started I was considering it for soldiers accused of war crimes. Many of those charges were bull shit (not all of course).

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 08:54 PM
I watched the OJ trial start to finish. I am convinced lawyers stop at nothing to win a case and that includes lying through their teeth.

Just as in the Casey Anthony case. No one but Casey caused the death of her kid but the lying attorney's for the defense made it about Casey's father and her brother. So don't sit there and try to tell me lawyers don't lie in court.

The job of defense lawyers is to DEFEND their clients. Are you suggesting we do away with defense attorneys?

Matty
07-24-2014, 08:55 PM
The job of defense lawyers is to DEFEND their clients. Are you suggesting we do away with defense attorneys?
And your brilliant non existent mind reached this conclusion how?

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 08:56 PM
And your brilliant non existent mind reached this conclusion how?

How can a non existent mind be brilliant? Would that like be the zombie leader?

Mr. Right
07-24-2014, 09:01 PM
Justice is bigger and broader than the Constitution.

Wow, Chris... I never thought I'd hear that from you.

Matty
07-24-2014, 09:01 PM
I don't think that you understand the judicial system and the role of defense attorneys. They advocate for their clients. If they go too far they can lose their licenses. They argue based off the evidence admitted - that that opens up lots of stuff. I never wanted to do defense work. But when the wars started I was considering it for soldiers accused of war crimes. Many of those charges were bull shit (not all of course).


Yep, and you can bet your ass that some lawyer was in that court lying and besmirching the reputation of the innocent.

the OJ case was lost when they presented the tape of mark Furhman saying *n*****" not one shred of evidence that they planted evidence.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:01 PM
Wow, Chris... I never thought I'd hear that from you.
Why?

Matty
07-24-2014, 09:02 PM
How can a non existent mind be brilliant? Would that like be the zombie leader?
Works for me.

Mr. Right
07-24-2014, 09:27 PM
Why?

Because the Constitution contains 99.9% of the fabric needed for 99.9% of the judicial cases.... There's a jack for every jill in this document.

Mr. Right
07-24-2014, 09:28 PM
Now, feel free to pile on.

Bob
07-24-2014, 09:28 PM
Sure, but there's no evidence the death penalty deters crime.

We know one thing for sure. The killer is deterred.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 09:34 PM
And your brilliant non existent mind reached this conclusion how?

Well, you seem to think it's wrong for defense attorneys to defend their clients. It's only logical that you'd want to do away with defense attorneys.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:35 PM
Yep, and you can bet your ass that some lawyer was in that court lying and besmirching the reputation of the innocent.

the OJ case was lost when they presented the tape of mark Furhman saying *n*****" not one shred of evidence that they planted evidence.

But somebody just posted evidence above. Shall we disregard it? :smiley:

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:37 PM
Because the Constitution contains 99.9% of the fabric needed for 99.9% of the judicial cases.... There's a jack for every jill in this document.

I would beg to differ. The Constitution is rarely at issue in any court case.

The adjudication of traffic tickets likely exceeds all other court cases in your district by miles.

Matty
07-24-2014, 09:37 PM
Well, you seem to think it's wrong for defense attorneys to defend their clients. It's only logical that you'd want to do away with defense attorneys.


Watch my lips. It is wrong for a lawyer to go into a courtroom and lie through their teeth.

Matty
07-24-2014, 09:40 PM
But somebody just posted evidence above. Shall we disregard it? :smiley:
Evidence that a cop handled a glove. Not that he planted it.

BB-35
07-24-2014, 09:40 PM
why I'm NOT against capital punishment



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jennifer_Ertman_and_Elizabeth_Pe%C3%B1a

And

http://www.odmp.org/officer/2071-police-officer-james-charles-boswell

And
http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/sanmiguel650.htm

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 09:49 PM
Watch my lips. It is wrong for a lawyer to go into a courtroom and lie through their teeth.

If a lawyer believes their client is guilty, they still have to defend their client. That would be lying.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:55 PM
Watch my lips. It is wrong for a lawyer to go into a courtroom and lie through their teeth.

That would cause the lawyer to lose his license.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 09:57 PM
If a lawyer believes their client is guilty, they still have to defend their client. That would be lying.


Not really. If you know that your client is guilty, you can still attack the State's procedure in the arrest and detention. If for instance, the police planted evidence (like OJ) you can legitimately bring that up.

If the prosecution violates the speedy trail act, you can bring that up. If the prosecution mistreats the defendant in pre-trial confinement, you can bring that up.

Matty
07-24-2014, 09:59 PM
That would cause the lawyer to lose his license.


Answer me this. If it was proven in court that the police planted evidence against an innocent man, why didn't the judge dismiss the case? Because it was not proven that's why. And no, lawyers rarely lose their license, they cover for one another.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:01 PM
Why weren't the "proven" cops planting evidence prosecuted? Because they were not that's why.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:04 PM
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/simpson/simpsonaccount.htm

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:04 PM
Answer me this. If it was proven in court that the police planted evidence against an innocent man, why didn't the judge dismiss the case? Because it was not proven that's why. And no, lawyers rarely lose their license, they cover for one another.

The judge left it to the jury. Lawyers lose their licenses all the time. I belong to two bars. The only part of the monthly mags that I read are the disciplinary parts. Funny shit there!

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:05 PM
Why weren't the "proven" cops planting evidence prosecuted? Because they were not that's why.

Because things are not as simple as you wish them to be. There was too much publicity around the case.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 10:06 PM
Not really. If you know that your client is guilty, you can still attack the State's procedure in the arrest and detention. If for instance, the police planted evidence (like OJ) you can legitimately bring that up.

If the prosecution violates the speedy trail act, you can bring that up. If the prosecution mistreats the defendant in pre-trial confinement, you can bring that up.

But you can't keep arguing they are not guilty?

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:12 PM
Because things are not as simple as you wish them to be. There was too much publicity around the case.


It was simple. I sat right there for months and watched the defense lawyers lie. And, "deal the race card from the bottom of the deck" do you remember who said that?

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:13 PM
But you can't keep arguing they are not guilty?
They can and they do.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 10:14 PM
They can and they do.

I don't remember asking you. I was asking the guy who actually knows what he's talking about.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:14 PM
But you can't keep arguing they are not guilty?

Why would a defense attorney argue that? Alyosha

In a criminal trial in the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means each element of the charged offense(s).

A lawyer should never create a greater burden of proof than the one they have. That is malpractice. "You honor, I don't want to show that the prosecution didn't prove its case- I want to prove my client is innocent." That defense lawyer is out of work!

If you might think that your client is guilty you attack with reasonable doubt. That is the gold mine.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:15 PM
I don't remember asking you. I was asking the guy who actually knows what he's talking about.
This is a public forum. You didn't specify so stfu.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:17 PM
Why would a defense attorney argue that? @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

In a criminal trial in the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means each element of the charged offense(s).

A lawyer should never create a greater burden of proof than the one they have. That is malpractice. "You honor, I don't want to show that the prosecution didn't prove its case- I want to prove my client is innocent." That defense lawyer is out of work!

If you might think that your client is guilty you attack with reasonable doubt. That is the gold mine.


See? The gold mine to the observer is the lie.

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 10:20 PM
Why would a defense attorney argue that? @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863)

In a criminal trial in the US the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means each element of the charged offense(s).

A lawyer should never create a greater burden of proof than the one they have. That is malpractice. "You honor, I don't want to show that the prosecution didn't prove its case- I want to prove my client is innocent." That defense lawyer is out of work!

If you might think that your client is guilty you attack with reasonable doubt. That is the gold mine.

Huh. Interesting. Learn something new every day :tongue:

Green Arrow
07-24-2014, 10:20 PM
This is a public forum. You didn't specify so stfu.

I quoted him. That's specific.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:21 PM
See? The gold mine to the observer is the lie.

Incorrect. :smiley:

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:22 PM
I quoted him. That's specific.
It's a public forum. You want to talk only to him use PM.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:22 PM
Huh. Interesting. Learn something new every day :tongue:

Some people can. Others just say no. Lie. :shocked:

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:23 PM
Incorrect. :smiley:
Nope. If you know the dude is guilty and you manufacture reasons to get him off, it's a lie. Because the truth is he's guilty.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:25 PM
And, if you can lie to get the guilty off don't whine when someone lies to get the innocent convicted.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:25 PM
Nope. If you know the dude is guilty and you manufacture reasons to get him off, it's a lie. Because the truth is he's guilty.

So you are on the record stating that the prosecution ought not have the burden of proving each and every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt? :smiley:

Did I get that right?

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:27 PM
So you are on the record stating that the prosecution ought not have the burden of proving each and every element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt? :smiley:

Did I get that right?
I am on the record as saying a trial should be about the truth. And the truth is one side is lying and the other side is telling the truth.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:27 PM
And, if you can lie to get the guilty off don't whine when someone lies to get the innocent convicted.

In general lawyers don't do that. I think that you are confused with the process.

Defense attorneys are essential to our nation. Without them you would soon be a slave.

Matty
07-24-2014, 10:28 PM
I am on the record as saying if you know a man is guilty and you lie to get him off don't whine when someone lies to get the innocent convicted.

Peter1469
07-24-2014, 10:30 PM
I am on the record as saying if you know a man is guilty and you lie to get him off don't whine when someone lies to get the innocent convicted.

I know that you are. But I am telling you that the lie part is bull shit. Good lawyers don't lie; bad ones do and lose their licenses.

Did you comprehend what I said about attacking procedure and what not? Or no?