Jump to content
El Diablo

Texas And The Death Penalty

Recommended Posts

Y'all are wasting your time. Rex don't give a shit about truth or justice or fairness. He understands debt and that fucker owes him a pound of flesh. 

He's not going to wield the knife though. He'd get all messy.

Edited by cactusflinthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

He's not going to wield the knife though. He'd get all messy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, former alkie said:

I feel the exact same way.

Capital punishment serves as no deterrent, so really, what's the point.

For any punishment to be a deterrent, it must be administered swiftly, and with certainty.....this stupid death penalty certainly IS NOT administered swiftly, and with certainty. 

Life in prison is good enough.....and at least still gives the wrongly convicted a chance....... 

Most punishments, even swift and certain ones, are not deterrents.

Deterrence assumes that criminals act rationally, with full consideration of the consequences, when that is not the case in the vast majority of crimes.

What is a deterrent is when something goes from being legal to illegal.  Even irrational actors consider that most of the time.

Certainty of apprehension is a deterrent.

Increasing punishment is one of the least deterrent factors.  A criminal decides to do something illegal, he's not considering whether it's a 1-10 or 2-20.  Possibly very hardened criminals consider that a bit, but it still isn't a deterrent.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainty of apprehension is a deterrent.

And it's in this context that the DP will never be a deterrent, nor could it. Murder cases are a bitch to solve. That's not to say that it's easy to get away with murder, but it does suggest that a fair number of people can think that it is, and that's all that matters: if the perpetrator can convince himself/herself that they can get away with what they intend to do, they're going to do it. A death penalty cannot stop that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

There’s no benefit to your proposal at all from a societal standpoint. What do we gain from putting people to death other than vengeance? Society gains nothing that can’t be achieved through life in prison.

I don't know, man. This guy we/the state killed the other day gained 14 years of tormenting his victim's family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I don't know, man. This guy we/the state killed the other day gained 14 years of tormenting his victim's family.

And he gained 14 years of torment in jail. Just lock him up. Treat him humanely. Let him rot or find his god and have a chance at salvation.

If the guy turns out to eventually be found innocent, he has a chance at...something at least.

Those who deride "big government" but who also support the ultimate government solution creates a gigantic chasm in my understanding of a consistent comprehensive belief system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I don't know, man. This guy we/the state killed the other day gained 14 years of tormenting his victim's family.

You'll have to fill me in.  How?  By being alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

I don't know, man. This guy we/the state killed the other day gained 14 years of tormenting his victim's family.

Again, you're appealing to a lust for blood. That's not good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

There’s no benefit to your proposal at all from a societal standpoint. What do we gain from putting people to death other than vengeance? Society gains nothing that can’t be achieved through life in prison.

1. Cost, 2. Riddance, 3. Deterrence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Again, you're appealing to a lust for blood. That's not good enough.

Closure isn't about blood retribution. Give 'em a sentence that will stick and be done with it. Death, life, whatever.

18 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You'll have to fill me in.  How?  By being alive?

Family members of the deceased follow the legal proceedings long after the original conviction and sentencing. They will follow them until their grave. Every time there's a parole or release hearing they'll be there. Every time there's an appeal they'll be wanting to know the outcome.

I'm not making a judgment on the death penalty here, more a comment on the processes we allow to be abused within our legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dr. Beeper said:

1. Cost, 2. Riddance, 3. Deterrence

Life in prison does the "riddance" part. The other two are fallacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

You're saying that's what should happen in cases that don't exist.  You're also failing to explain why that should happen.  "It's common sense" is a bullshit, non-substantive, explanation.  "It has a greater deterrent effect" is a bullshit, disproved explanation.  "It's cheaper than life in prison" is a bullshit, disproved explanation if we're discussing real life and is a bullshit, unproven explanation if we're discussing your fantasy world where murder convictions are found within 45 days of the alleged murder and a defendant facing the death penalty chooses not to appeal.   

Sigh. It’s a fucking hypothetical. I know it’s not a real, viable option. If I were king, it’d be what would occur in, likely, a small amount of cases. I’d also limit appeals and death row stays. Then, the disproven cheaper than life in prison would be reversed, and the deterrent effect absolutely would be/become stronger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Closure isn't about blood retribution. Give 'em a sentence that will stick and be done with it. Death, life, whatever.

Family members of the deceased follow the legal proceedings long after the original conviction and sentencing. They will follow them until their grave. Every time there's a parole or release hearing they'll be there. Every time there's an appeal they'll be wanting to know the outcome.

I'm not making a judgment on the death penalty here, more a comment on the processes we allow to be abused within our legal system.

I'm not sure I would label appeals and parole as abuses of the legal system.  If we're going to take a person's liberty from them, we should want to get it right.  And life without the possibility of parole seems like a good alternative to the death penalty that will address your concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Closure isn't about blood retribution.

Closure isn't. Labelling the 14 years between the initial crime to the execution as a "tormenting" for the victim's family is most certainly about blood lust. What do you think the murderer was doing all 14 of those years? Walking the streets as a free man until one day he got a call from the state that said "pardon me, good sir, but would you kindly please report to Huntsville by midnight tonight? I realize this probably didn't fit your schedule today, but we need to carry out a death sentence against you by 12:00 AM. Charge it please, and thank you very much" like Eloise?

Quote

Give 'em a sentence that will stick and be done with it. Death, life, whatever.

But that's not what you said before. You said that the family was being tormented while this guy was rotting in a cell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

Life in prison does the "riddance" part. The other two are fallacies.

Not really. You think the Tates felt ridden I’m of Charles Manson?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

1. Cost, 2. Riddance, 3. Deterrence

1. Proven untrue

2. what?

3. Proven untrue 

Sp again your only argument is vengeance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

I'm not sure I would label appeals and parole as abuses of the legal system.  If we're going to take a person's liberty from them, we should want to get it right.  And life without the possibility of parole seems like a good alternative to the death penalty that will address your concern.

That and there's still an appeals process that's inevitable when it comes to life with no parole. It's not like murder cases in any of the 21 states without death as an option are quick, easy, and terminate after the initial verdict is announced. Appeals is part of the process and that should never be used as an excuse to justify the DP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

I'm not sure I would label appeals and parole as abuses of the legal system.  If we're going to take a person's liberty from them, we should want to get it right.  And life without the possibility of parole seems like a good alternative to the death penalty that will address your concern.

There are, no doubt, abuses of appeals and post-judgment proceedings.  Meaning frivolous ones that are without objective merit.

But there are also appeals and habeas proceedings that are quite meritorious.  None of the recent exonerations would be possible without them.

Every perhaps well-intentioned effort to curtail the frivolous proceedings winds up curtailing meritorious ones, or making them that much more difficult.  Frivolous litigation is a cost of doing business having open courts. and can only be dealt with on an individual basis.

Also, while I think consideration of victims' interests is appropriate, we have gone way too far in that regard.  The criminal justice system serves society, which has different interests than victims, including returning inmates to society in a semi-functional state, which is an inevitablity in most cases and one we virtually refuse to consider.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

There are, no doubt, abuses of appeals and post-judgment proceedings.  Meaning frivolous ones that are without objective merit.

But there are also appeals and habeas proceedings that are quite meritorious.  None of the recent exonerations would be possible without them.

Every perhaps well-intentioned effort to curtail the frivolous proceedings winds up curtailing meritorious ones, or making them that much more difficult.

Also, while I think consideration of victims' interests is appropriate, we have gone way too far in that regard.  The criminal justice system serves society, which has different interests than victims, including returning inmates to society, which is in inevitablity in most cases and one we virtually refuse to consider.

This is my biggest point. We should take their concerns seriously but the legal system doesn’t exist to satisfy victims, it exists to protect societal structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

1. Proven untrue

2. what?

3. Proven untrue 

Sp again your only argument is vengeance.

1. Clearly you’re not reading what I post. In all cases, convicted murders would be dead in months or a few years. In some cases they’d be dead in 45 days. Cost would plummet. 

2. Getting rid of members of society that have proven to have no use to society. That’s a great benefit. 

3. proven to be untrue in a world where high profile murderers can live forever and sometimes be media stars like Steve Avery and   Rodney Reed. That would change and change quickly with my hypothetical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

1. Cost, 2. Riddance, 3. Deterrence

If I recall correctly, you consider yourself a Christian; however, your desires seem more angry, vengeful, Old Testament God than New. Are you certain your religious beliefs are compatible with your secular ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

1. Clearly you’re not reading what I post. In all cases, convicted murders would be dead in months or a few years. In some cases they’d be dead in 45 days. Cost would plummet. 

2. Getting rid of members of society that have proven to have no use to society. That’s a great benefit. 

3. proven to be untrue in a world where high profile murderers can live forever and sometimes be media stars like Steve Avery and   Rodney Reed. That would change and change quickly with my hypothetical. 

They can make license plates and steel furniture.  And, without a death row, they may have some utility to other prisoners or to the prison system itself.

 

Also, while I realize that your proposal is completely hypothetical, guilt is not the only consideration in a death penalty trial.  The application of the death penalty is also a jury question that is subject to appeal.  To eliminate any need for appeal, you would have to eliminate the uncertainty in the penalty phase, as well as the guilt phase.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

1. Clearly you’re not reading what I post.

If anyone isn't reading what you post, it's you. You continue to insist on using arguments that not only are completely, indefensibly false, but you've been told that they're indefensibly false and you do absolutely nothing to defend yourself. You just keep repeating the same preposterous claims for which you've already been busted multiple times.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

In all cases, convicted murders would be dead in months or a few years. In some cases they’d be dead in 45 days. Cost would plummet. 

Yes, and I'd be fucking Kate Upton on a bed of satin sheets near a fountain being tended to by a bunch of flying angels every time one of them was executed. It's easy to argue when you assert ridiculous absurdities as fact.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

2. Getting rid of members of society that have proven to have no use to society. That’s a great benefit. 

Life in prison accomplishes that. Again, you won't even defend yourself on that reality. You just keep repeating these fraudulent claims.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

3. proven to be untrue in a world where high profile murderers can live forever and sometimes be media stars like Steve Avery and   Rodney Reed. That would change and change quickly with my hypothetical. 

Right because Steve Avery and Rodney Reed are the reasons that the system is the way that it is, and the system clearly contemplated those two during their formation. Again, you're living in a world of Make Believe and asserting it as a reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If I recall correctly, you consider yourself a Christian; however, your desires seem more angry, vengeful, Old Testament God than New. Are you certain your religious beliefs are compatible with your secular ones?

I am. I don’t really care if incompatible, though that is open for interpretation. Just like I don’t care that certain passages clearly state homosexuality is a sin. I take the love your neighbor approach. The entire document is fallible - just like the Constitution. It was written by different human beings over millennia, open to their own interpretations of God’s word. It is a contradictory document.

So, if you’re trying to make some claim of hypocrisy I would remind you that each and every one of is a hypocrite. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They can make license plates and steel furniture.

So can out-of-work prison guards and defense attorneys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Sigh. It’s a fucking hypothetical. I know it’s not a real, viable option. If I were king, it’d be what would occur in, likely, a small amount of cases. I’d also limit appeals and death row stays. Then, the disproven cheaper than life in prison would be reversed, and the deterrent effect absolutely would be/become stronger. 

So you agree that your proposed solution doesn't exist in the real world.  Then what is the purpose of your original post that history will look back on us as a nation of pansies?  That heavily implies that you foresee a world existing wherein the structures we have in place to protect life and liberty don't exist and that you believe that future is favorable to our current situation.  Do you not believe in using beyond a reasonable doubt as the burden of proof for criminal proceedings?  Do you not believe in due process for persons who may be deprived of their life or liberty?  Because it sounds like you view the Constitutional structures we have in place to protect life and liberty as burdens that need to be overcome.  Perhaps 'king' is the most important word your post.  You'd prefer the U.S. be an authoritarian system where a king can choose to execute citizens by executive fiat rather than a one that uses actual process to determine who should be held accountable and what form that accountability should take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

So can out-of-work prison guards and defense attorneys

Yep.  This confirms my previous post.  The issue here isn't whether logical arguments can be made in support of the death penalty.  The issue is that Beeper thinks that persons accused of crimes should not be provided rights or due process.  He just hates our Constitution.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

If anyone isn't reading what you post, it's you. You continue to insist on using arguments that not only are completely, indefensibly false, but you've been told that they're indefensibly false and you do absolutely nothing to defend yourself. You just keep repeating the same preposterous claims for which you've already been busted multiple times.

Yes, and I'd be fucking Kate Upton on a bed of satin sheets near a fountain being tended to by a bunch of flying angels every time one of them was executed. It's easy to argue when you assert ridiculous absurdities as fact.

Life in prison accomplishes that. Again, you won't even defend yourself on that reality. You just keep repeating these fraudulent claims.

Right because Steve Avery and Rodney Reed are the reasons that the system is the way that it is, and the system clearly contemplated those two during their formation. Again, you're living in a world of Make Believe and asserting it as a reality. 

You seem really worked up. I’m gonna have to tell Bond Beams about that.

First, nothing I’ve said is false. It is a fantastical “what would I do if I were king?”  It will never occur in our society. But, if they did miraculously, how can you, for example, say that “maintaining an inmate on death row for 45 days versus 45 years would be less costly” is indefensibly false?  Are you retarded?

Second, life in prison can accomplish that, but not always. Paroles, media attention, etc. 

On my examples I’m merely throwing out names of people discussed very recently. Reed is very, very clearly guilty, that has been clear for a very long time, and he has wasted a lot of people’s time and our money. He should have been shot in the head 20 years ago, unceremoniously, with nobody watching. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

Yep.  This confirms my previous post.  The issue here isn't whether logical arguments can be made in support of the death penalty.  The issue is that Beeper thinks that persons accused of crimes should not be provided rights or due process.  He just hates our Constitution.  

Oh, that’s the issue?  You could not be more wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

So you agree that your proposed solution doesn't exist in the real world.  Then what is the purpose of your original post that history will look back on us as a nation of pansies?  That heavily implies that you foresee a world existing wherein the structures we have in place to protect life and liberty don't exist and that you believe that future is favorable to our current situation.  Do you not believe in using beyond a reasonable doubt as the burden of proof for criminal proceedings?  Do you not believe in due process for persons who may be deprived of their life or liberty?  Because it sounds like you view the Constitutional structures we have in place to protect life and liberty as burdens that need to be overcome.  Perhaps 'king' is the most important word your post.  You'd prefer the U.S. be an authoritarian system where a king can choose to execute citizens by executive fiat rather than a one that uses actual process to determine who should be held accountable and what form that accountability should take.

Good point on the implication. I don’t know. I suppose it could and probably will happen to some degree in the future. And yes, structured the right way it is more favorable to what we have now, and life and liberty would very much be protected you hyperbolic fuck. 

And Jesus, now you’re taking my King and Constitution comments very literally. First, I do not think the Constitution is the end-all, be-all document. Second, yes, I do believe in proof burden beyond any reasonable doubt, and due process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I am. I don’t really care if incompatible, though that is open for interpretation. Just like I don’t care that certain passages clearly state homosexuality is a sin. I take the love your neighbor approach. The entire document is fallible - just like the Constitution. It was written by different human beings over millennia, open to their own interpretations of God’s word. It is a contradictory document.

So, if you’re trying to make some claim of hypocrisy I would remind you that each and every one of is a hypocrite. 

So you're an unabashed and unrepentant hypocrite who is fully aware that your sense of secular "justice" flies in the face of your religious doctrine. You just don't care and your religious beliefs don't count for much in real life.

Got it, Rex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

And Jesus, now you’re taking my King and Constitution comments very literally. First, I do not think the Constitution is the end-all, be-all document.

Oh, and not only do you ignore the teachings of your religion but you also don't ascribe to our secular doctrine of Americanism.

Whatever goes: might makes right. Good on you for being honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

So you're an unabashed and unrepentant hypocrite who is fully aware that your sense of secular "justice" flies in the face of your religious doctrine. You just don't care and your religious beliefs don't count for much in real life.

Got it, Rex.

I don’t think it flies in the face at all. I can see how one would make that argument. I’d argue against it. You can conclude my religious beliefs don’t count for much in real life and I’m totally indifferent on your conclusion. 

This Rex thing has taken off like a South Austin’s mom thing. I am not Rex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Oh, that’s the issue?  You could not be more wrong. 

 

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Good point on the implication. I don’t know. I suppose it could and probably will happen to some degree in the future. And yes, structured the right way it is more favorable to what we have now, and life and liberty would very much be protected you hyperbolic fuck. 

And Jesus, now you’re taking my King and Constitution comments very literally. First, I do not think the Constitution is the end-all, be-all document. Second, yes, I do believe in proof burden beyond any reasonable doubt, and due process. 

I could not be more wrong . . . except for all the evidence you've provided in this thread that I'm correct.  You can say that you value due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but when it comes to discussing their implementation you make clear that you disagree with them and would prefer a system without them.  You don't get to describe a system that lacks due process and other structures that are designed to protect life and liberty and then just tack on that "but they would be protected."  In short, your claims that you value due process, the burden of proof, and other Constitutional structures that are designed to protect life and liberty are bullshit.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Oh, and not only do you ignore the teachings of your religion but you also don't ascribe to our secular doctrine of Americanism.

Whatever goes: might makes right. Good on you for being honest.

If a subscription to our secular doctrine requires full belief in the Constitution then I would argue nobody - absolutely nobody - is “Americanist” as you say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

 

I could not be more wrong . . . except for all the evidence you've provided in this thread that I'm correct.  You can say that you value due process and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but when it comes to discussing their implementation you make clear that you disagree with them and would prefer a system without them.  You don't get to describe a system that lacks due process and other structures that are designed to protect life and liberty and then just tack on that "but they would be protected."  In short, your claims that you value due process, the burden of proof, and other Constitutional structures that are designed to protect life and liberty are bullshit.  

Describe to me how extraordinary lengths of time are requisite for each of due process and burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 

edit: I’ll qualify the above for clear cut murder cases (perhaps a small %) and evening consider allowing more time for counsel to prepare and appeal. Perhaps I came out of chute aggressively to make a point. But 40 years on Death Row?  Nope. 4 years on Death Row?  Nope. Not acceptable. 

Edited by Dr. Beeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

If a subscription to our secular doctrine requires full belief in the Constitution then I would argue nobody - absolutely nobody - is “Americanist” as you say. 

What parts of the Constitution do you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bolverk said:

What parts of the Constitution do you disagree with?

I’ll answer this by saying 27 times over our nation’s history have there been modifications to this sacred document. And a very large percentage of our citizens oppose the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps they don’t ascribe to our secular doctrine of Americanism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

First, nothing I’ve said is false. It is a fantastical “what would I do if I were king?”

If that were true, then you're admitting that it's an absolutely pointless discussion. As long as we're to entertain such inane and inarticulate hypotheticals, what's to stop a much more learned person outdoing you by going the very easy extra step of saying "if I were king, I'd direct every single scientist on Earth to come up with something with which to infuse our DNA to such an extent that committing crime in general would be both instinctively and reflectively viewed by the one contemplating such acts as repugnant, therefore there'd be no crime at all." What you're proposing is precisely as useless as that. And notice, I wouldn't oppose such a hypothetical (the DNA one, not your Game of Thrones nonsense). It's just that I'd waste not a microsecond of time contemplating it because it's so preposterous as to be comic.

21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Second, life in prison can accomplish that, but not always. Paroles, media attention, etc. 

Parole is denied to those convicted of First Degree Murder in 20 of the 21 states with no death penalty (red Alaska is the only one that doesn't, for some reason). As to media attention, that matters not. If media attention is what drives you to support the death penalty, you're just digging around a metaphorical dumpster to support it, whether it be in a real world or a Make Believe and Pretend one. Media attention is a superficial consideration.

21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

He should have been shot in the head 20 years ago, unceremoniously, with nobody watching. 

That's just you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

 

If that were true, then you're admitting that it's an absolutely pointless discussion. As long as we're to entertain such inane and inarticulate hypotheticals, what's to stop a much more learned person outdoing you by going the very easy extra step of saying "if I were king, I'd direct every single scientist on Earth to come up with something with which to infuse our DNA to such an extent that committing crime in general would be both instinctively and reflectively viewed by the one contemplating such acts as repugnant, therefore there'd be no crime at all." What you're proposing is precisely as useless as that. And notice, I wouldn't oppose such a hypothetical (the DNA one, not your Game of Thrones nonsense). It's just that I'd waste not a microsecond of time contemplating it because it's so preposterous as to be comic.

Parole is denied to those convicted of First Degree Murder in 20 of the 21 states with no death penalty (red Alaska is the only one that doesn't, for some reason). As to media attention, that matters not. If media attention is what drives you to support the death penalty, you're just digging around a metaphorical dumpster to support it, whether it be in a real world or a Make Believe and Pretend one. Media attention is a superficial consideration.

That's just you.

Ok. Wouldn’t waste a microsecond. Lulz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

I’ll answer this by saying 27 times over our nation’s history have there been modifications to this sacred document. And a very large percentage of our citizens oppose the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps they don’t ascribe to our secular doctrine of Americanism. 

Nice non-answer and deflection. I didn't ask what others believe - I asked you yours. If you're not sure, just say so.

Or, better yet, admit that you're conflicted. But, nope, you choose to live in a binary world where it's all eye-for-an-eye without thinking through the hard shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

Closure isn't. Labelling the 14 years between the initial crime to the execution as a "tormenting" for the victim's family is most certainly about blood lust. What do you think the murderer was doing all 14 of those years? Walking the streets as a free man until one day he got a call from the state that said "pardon me, good sir, but would you kindly please report to Huntsville by midnight tonight? I realize this probably didn't fit your schedule today, but we need to carry out a death sentence against you by 12:00 AM. Charge it please, and thank you very much" like Eloise?

But that's not what you said before. You said that the family was being tormented while this guy was rotting in a cell.

I stand by my comment that the system such as it is puts the survivors on edge for years and years and years. When we've convicted someone we need to do that with conviction. I'm not asking that their rights be trampled upon, I'm asking that they be respected expeditiously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Nice non-answer and deflection. I didn't ask what others believe - I asked you yours. If you're not sure, just say so.

Or, better yet, admit that you're conflicted. But, nope, you choose to live in a binary world where it's all eye-for-an-eye without thinking through the hard shit.

Why does mine matter?  You’re asserting I don’t subscribe to our secular doctrine. I’m merely illustrating that over time, everyone has disagreed with it. It is not the infallible document - neither is the Bible - that Americans or Christians purport them to be.  As it stands now, it’s a pretty good document.  I’d change a few things though. I think everyone would. 

And where do you glean that I’m an eye for eye guy?  I’m a death penalty advocate for heinous crimes that result in deaths.  And not in all cases. I just think our system now with respect to many murderers is totally backwards. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

I stand by my comment that the system such as it is puts the survivors on edge for years and years and years.

What does that even mean?

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

When we've convicted someone we need to do that with conviction.

Again, what does this even mean? This sounds grotesquely close to the insipid "we need to tackle the drug issue head on" rhetoric I've heard from so many pro-Drug War people. 

1 hour ago, El Diablo said:

I'm not asking that their rights be trampled upon, I'm asking that they be respected expeditiously.

How much faster do you seriously think the process can go? Do you have any idea what all goes into it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Survivors don't have to attend appeals or executions or parole hearings or pay any attention to them at all.  I might argue that it would be healthier for them if they didn't.  You know, those resentments are killers.  Doesn't matter if they're legitimate.

Trying to expedite death penalty appeals for the benefit of survivors is kind of a curious notion, to my mind.  And would be another instance of over-emphasizing victim's "rights."

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for a second, I thought I was on the football board. Phew!

Yeah, but seriously, the poors browns and blacks get it disproportionately.  Life in barren solitary 23 hours a day with no tv or radio is mental torture which is worse than death. So, that's the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Why does mine matter?  You’re asserting I don’t subscribe to our secular doctrine. I’m merely illustrating that over time, everyone has disagreed with it. It is not the infallible document - neither is the Bible - that Americans or Christians purport them to be.  As it stands now, it’s a pretty good document.  I’d change a few things though. I think everyone would. 

And where do you glean that I’m an eye for eye guy?  I’m a death penalty advocate for heinous crimes that result in deaths.  And not in all cases. I just think our system now with respect to many murderers is totally backwards. 

I mentioned eye-for-an-eye because that's all you've got left by way of argument. Every other rationale you have to support the death penalty has been thoroughly debunked at this point by others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, bolverk said:

Those who deride "big government" but who also support the ultimate government solution creates a gigantic chasm in my understanding of a consistent comprehensive belief system. 

Many of them also like to claim that they're "pro-life." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Survivors don't have to attend appeals or executions or parole hearings or pay any attention to them at all.  I might argue that it would be healthier for them if they didn't.  You know, those resentments are killers.  Doesn't matter if they're legitimate.

Trying to expedite death penalty appeals for the benefit of survivors is kind of a curious notion, to my mind.  And would be another instance of over-emphasizing victim's "rights."

Do you think that the criminal justice system should offer anything to the survivors at all? I'd hope that there would be some closure in knowing that the perp was given a clear punishment. But that's not the case. Closure to that particular aspect of their loss is part of the healing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...