How many of you heard about this...

[j2k4]

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.

[Snee]

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


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.

[vidcc]

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.

[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


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.

[Busyman™]

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


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.

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).

[vidcc]

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"

[j2k4]

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?

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.

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.

"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?

Wow.

You really are incredibly liberal, aren't you.

[Busyman™]

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.

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

[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.

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.

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?

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

But it isn't, you see.

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.

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.

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.

[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).

[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.

[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...".

[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.

"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?

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"