How many of you heard about this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.

---

Excellent point.

All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.

They hold no faith with the historical record, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.

---

O rly.

I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.

Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:


TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaxOverlord

Conviction is different from sentencing,of course.
What sentence is handed down is purely up to the judges discretion(as the law allows) as well as whatever precedence there is for such a sentence.

As far as a sentence for death the precedence would be a moot point having no practical need for discussion..as in...there have been countless death sentences handed down.

Certain situations may warrant certain factorial discussion,but the end is still someone was killed.
If you believe, beyond the reasonable doubt,that someone killed someone what would be the argument for not handing down a death sentence other than the insanity plea..which is almost impossible to prove in our modern court system,and as I've said earlier, when they want to die for Allah.

As you've said before some have been executed who were indeed innocent..I don't refute that.
But it is an accepted rule in our society that you go before a jury of your peers and they have the power of conviction.
I'm not quite sure how there could be a better way. As j2k4 stated... polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

Again, the human element is at play always.
You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.

That and in such a system the Gov. would undoubtedly have complete control and that is tantamount to a very,very,dangerous situation.

---

You seem to be missing the point. (and rambling off )

Precedent is not the point.

The point is the standard of proof is not good enough in many cases to justify applying the death penalty. That the death penalty has been applied in such cases before is irrelevant.

Death should only be handed out where there is no doubt at all, and even then there should be an exhaustive safety net. It's that simple. Where there can be any doubt whatsoever (no matter how small or insignificant) then life without parole should be the option.

If you feel this cannot be achieved then the best we can do is to remove the death penalty as an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.

---

O rly.

I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.

Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:


TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.

---

This part-

"the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep"

-should go without saying, and, in our past arguments here, it has.

Point is, the liberals would have you believe that merely sentencing someone to death goes automatically into the potentially "wrongfully convicted" column, and therefore qualify for statistical inclusion as "at risk".

The fact is that, every once in a while, someone comes off death row because they've been exonerated.

These people do not count as wrongs of the system; rather, they are successes, as the system's (admittedly) cumbersome appeals process has worked.

There is no cause for counting "close calls", which are, to reinforce my point, more properly attributable to the imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place.

I will, at this point, ask that anyone so compelled furnish the history of wrongful executions they purport to amend.

I took a pretty comprehensive look at this question several years ago and found no basis for the argument, but hey...feel free. :whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snee

O rly.

I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.

Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:


TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.

---

This part-

"the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep"

-should go without saying, and, in our past arguments here, it has.

Point is, the liberals would have you believe that merely sentencing someone to death goes automatically into the potentially "wrongfully convicted" column, and therefore qualify for statistical inclusion as "at risk".

The fact is that, every once in a while, someone comes off death row because they've been exonerated.

These people do not count as wrongs of the system; rather, they are successes, as the system's (admittedly) cumbersome appeals process has worked.

There is no cause for counting "close calls", which are, to reinforce my point, more properly attributable to the imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place.

I will, at this point, ask that anyone so compelled furnish the history of wrongful executions they purport to amend.

I took a pretty comprehensive look at this question several years ago and found no basis for the argument, but hey...feel free. :whistling

---

Not much argument from me there. However, what do you mean by "imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place"?

I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).

I'm wondering, this being the USA and all where the best representation comes at a cost very few can afford (not to belittle the efforts of defense attorneys) how many investigations continue or reviews allowed after the execution has taken place.

The DNA testing is a helpful tool but sometimes DNA is not the path to proof of innocence.


I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.

http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm

Sometimes it's a case of:

"he slept with a sheep"

"no he didn't"

"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

what do you mean by "imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place"?

---

The system is administered by humans, is it not?

Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?

It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?

Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).

---

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.

---

Now, that doesn't even make any sense, Nigel.

Please back up your silly sentence with logic and resubmit.

Start with the crime Pat Fitzgerald set about investigating, then tell us how the million-pound shit hammer falls on Libby when it should have fallen on Richard Armitage, please, there's a good lad. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"

---

So it's not the "death" part of the formulation you object to, it's where the detention occurs? :huh:

Wow.

You really are incredibly liberal, aren't you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The system is administered by humans, is it not?

Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?

It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?

Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?

First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"? Would your statement make sense? Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).

---

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

The system is administered by humans, is it not?

Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?

It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?

Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.

---

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

---

What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

---

But it isn't, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

---

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

---

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

---

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

---

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

---

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.

---

Now, that doesn't even make any sense, Nigel.

Please back up your silly sentence with logic and resubmit.

Start with the crime Pat Fitzgerald set about investigating, then tell us how the million-pound shit hammer falls on Libby when it should have fallen on Richard Armitage, please, there's a good lad. :)

---

LIbby was convicted of perjury which obstructed the investigation. (wasn't that what you wanted Clinton impeached for? ) Not the outing of a covert agent. Even a wingnut like yourself should understand that. (BTW like it or not it has been officially confirmed she was covert)

Please explain what the F@#k his conviction has to do with crimes others may or may not have committed.

Is that a good enough start?

secondly he was convicted yet you wingnuts think him innocent based on what you call "no underlying crime". He lied, he obstructed the investigation. The fact that the investigation couldn't bring a prosecution because it couldn't be proven it was a deliberate act is irrelevant to the charges against libby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"

---

So it's not the "death" part of the formulation you object to, it's where the detention occurs? :huh:

Wow.

You really are incredibly liberal, aren't you.

---

would it make you happier if I had put "they said he did, I believe them, so unless you prove he didn't before we execute him he is going to be executed" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.

---

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

---

What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

---

But it isn't, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

---

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

---

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

---

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

---

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

---

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

---

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if there's is something wrong with the system?

---

What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

---

But it isn't, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

---

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

---

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

---

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

---

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

---

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

---

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

---

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

LIbby was convicted of perjury which obstructed the investigation. (wasn't that what you wanted Clinton impeached for? ) Not the outing of a covert agent. Even a wingnut like yourself should understand that. (BTW like it or not it has been officially confirmed she was covert)

Please explain what the F@#k his conviction has to do with crimes others may or may not have committed.

Is that a good enough start?

secondly he was convicted yet you wingnuts think him innocent based on what you call "no underlying crime". He lied, he obstructed the investigation. The fact that the investigation couldn't bring a prosecution because it couldn't be proven it was a deliberate act is irrelevant to the charges against libby.

---

Okay, try to follow me here:

Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).

After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.

Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.

Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.

End result:

Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.

Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.

Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.

The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.

You're right, by the way; Libby's conviction has naught to do with the crimes of others...why, then, did you bring it up?

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Okay, try to follow me here:

Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).

After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.

Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.

Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.

End result:

Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.

Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.

Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.

The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.

---

So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."

It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.

Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?



BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.
We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

---

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."

It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.

Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?

---

Wrong.

If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?

BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.

---

The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.

Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

---

And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

---

Hmmm.

Now who's making excuses?

BTW-

Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?

Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.

You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel. :frusty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Don't talk down to you?

Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.

Now-

As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.

If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.

My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.

That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.



What if there is?

Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?

---

But it isn't, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

---

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

---

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

---

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

---

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

---

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

---

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

---

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

---

It means I have my reservations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

But it isn't, you see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]

---

The system might be improved; agreed.

The question is how to go about it.

Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?

If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.

The point remains:

People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.

---

Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:

CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.

WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.

So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.

---

Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).

That's talking down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.

---

If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.

...and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back

---

I refer you to my previous post.

Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".

---

Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).

Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:

One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.

---

Question:

Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?

Do you believe in your argument or not?

---

It means I have my reservations.

---

Listen-

I have reservations of my own, but not about the efficacy of putting someone who is positively guilty out of our mutual misery.

I am not sanguine about sloppy judicial proceedings that result in wrongful incarceration, but-

The problem is not with a procedure that says innocent-until-proven-guilty, it is with the flaws of the humans charged with it's administration.

Competence, in other words; rich man's lawyer/poor man's lawyer - you know what I mean.

There is, however, the occasional supremely, clearly, and/or self-admittedly guilty person.

No problem there.

Your mistake is proffering time spent on death row is worse than time spent doing "life" to an extent that the fact alone is worth tossing the death penalty...at least until you solidly document the wrongful deaths, which you correctly indicate are irretrievable; in such cases, however, you can bet some enterprising lawyer in search of a stray dollar will volunteer to test the DNA for free, and if he/she ever gets the desired result, you'll hear about it.

In the meantime, however...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Wrong.

If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?

BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.

---

The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.

Sorry.

---

Firstly, don't complain again if I quote your words, I have not altered what you have said.
Secondly, I don't care that Armatage is a democrat or Libby is a republican, that's something you care about.

Thirdly, you make the argument a 5 year old makes. "He did it first" doesn't cut it.....sorry..... they all still leaked the name....the phrase is "multiple leakers"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.

---

And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?

---

No.
The investigation closed early IMO.
IMO they all should have been charged, but the law is that it has to be intentional, which is almost impossible to prove. Fitz can prove they outed her, he couldn't prove they knowingly outed her. (have you considered that it may have been impossible to prove because of the lies?)

But the case not having been completed has no relevance to the bystander "being nailed". He wasn't nailed for the case being investigated, he was nailed for committing a crime while the case was being investigated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.

---

Hmmm.

Now who's making excuses?

---

Excuses????? for what????? I said he did what he did, What am I excusing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

BTW-

Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?

Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.

---

Probably for the same reason you feel you need to keep calling me a liberal. Your opinions don't point to you being a conservative from where I am standing (sitting actually), even if you think they do. The do however point to you being a right wing partisan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel. :frusty:

---

I brought libby up because contrary to the evidence of his guilt the wingnuts are claiming him innocent, without being able to prove it (other than unconnected conspiracy theories). We were talking about standard of proof required to be sentenced to death and the view given that the system is sound enough already to give the sentence. Sometimes the innocent can't prove it. would you accept the word of those people?

The judge in the libby trial had an interesting footnote in the court order he issued allowing 12 top lawyers, including Robert Bork to issue briefs on Libby’s behalf.

Quote:

---

It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.

The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.

---

source (copy of the order)


assuming this is genuine it's a nice comment.:shifty: