Jump to content

Texas And The Death Penalty


El Diablo

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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 ‚ÄúAmericanist‚ÄĚ as you say.¬†

What parts of the Constitution do you disagree with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

21 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

First, nothing I‚Äôve said is false. It is a fantastical ‚Äúwhat would I do if I were king?‚ÄĚ

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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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." 

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

micahel morton spent a quarter of a century for the murder of his wife, a murder he did not commit. 

had he been executed 45 days after conviction, he would have died an innocent man, one who went to his death knowing that the real killer of his wife still walked free.

but at least dr. beeper's perverted sense of justice would be satiated.

the death penalty is terrible, as are most aspects of our criminal justice system.

i have great sympathy for victim families, but the system is not there to serve them. the system (ostensibly) is there to serve society. there is no real utility to society for execution. 

it's barbaric, and history will not look kindly back upon it.

Edited by hayden_horn
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Yeah you did not read what I wrote in my initial post. From the day this guy murders his wife, he‚Äôd be dead within 45 days. So, what you ‚Äúfixed for accuracy‚ÄĚ was wrong, with the exception of ‚Äúthan‚ÄĚ versus that, which I had already fixed.¬†

Reading comprehension.  You need it. 

Except....what if he didn't?  Asking for Michael Morton.

Every person on death row or in prison was found guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.  That's a really high burden.

But we also know that some of those folks DIDN'T [checks notes] murder his wife (again checking for Michael Morton).  That's it.  And no amount of "no, I only mean this for the cases where we're REALLY sure, like super-sure, that he's guilty" is meaningless.  Because we're already super-sure that someone found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is guilty.  Except we're wrong sometimes.

So, be super-sure, and rush to execute someone like Michael Morton.  And then, years later, when the evidence that proves him INNOCENT comes out, go apologize to his grave, I guess.

4 hours 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. 

No deterrent effect.  Even with instant execution.

There's no sound policy argument in favor of the death penalty other than bloodlust/vengeance.  Which I get.  Believe me, I fucking get it.  But I also get a LOT of other baser instincts and feelings we have.....many of which should not be indulged, as they are counterproductive to civilized society.

I've tried to defend the DP.  I tried to stick with my former position.  I even went through your sequence of thought -- "Well, maybe just for those cases where we're SUPER-sure."  But because there's no meaningful way to draw that line, I realized that my position was just to defend my bloodlust and past errors in judgment.  Which is not solid ground on which to stand.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

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. 

I think consideration of the victim and survivors is worthwhile, but I don't think they should dictate policy or law.

I would think that apprehension, trial, and conviction should perhaps contribute to "closure," but getting into the punishment kind of gets to be none of the victim's business anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, El Diablo said:

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. 

I think consideration of the victim and survivors is worthwhile, but I don't think they should dictate policy or law.

I would think that apprehension, trial, and conviction should perhaps contribute to "closure," but getting into the punishment kind of gets to be none of the victim's business anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any discussion really has to start as a discussion of Justice.  The core question is, Does the crime/criminal deserve this punishment?  Anything else is an afterthought.

The claim of it being wholly barbarous doesn't make sense when following the same logic forward.  All punishments are inhumane by their very nature.  The question cannot be looked at from one side only.  Such a declaration like "The State shouldn't imprison someone," doesn't make any sense unless weighed against the reasons why someone would deserve to be imprisoned.

Equally, making the foundation of your argument deterrence is a thousand times worse.  Let's kill the guy who takes the calculator off my desk.  That will guarantee me quick access to a calculator when necessary, but it still ignores the basic question and the balancing of crime and punishment.

That is why Lady Justice holds a scale - to balance out the crime with the punishment and exactly that.  No more and no less.

So if you ask yourself that bolded question above and reach the same conclusion, that's great.  But don't start the conversation with simple-minded declarations that execution is inhumane or effective as a deterrent.  You are completely missing the importance.

------

And if the system we use cannot be trusted enough to dole out correct punishments with such a finality.  That's a different point, but a far more reasonable one.

-------

And to give my own opinion.  I think the death penalty is warranted when the crime committed reveals such a low value for human life in general that your life should be judged equally.

Premeditated, revenge, and "passion" murders wouldn't meet that description for me.  Murder for hire does 100%.  "Reasonless" murders: i.e. killing the clerk after robbing their store when it was just as easy to walk out. Those meet my description as well, but that's something that warrants careful examination case by case.  I'm undecided for murder of children.  Surely, there's a standard to be found, but an 18yo killing a 15yo because of some relational breakdown is a lot different than a 40yo killing a 5yo for the same.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Any discussion really has to start as a discussion of Justice.  The core question is, Does the crime/criminal deserve this punishment?  Anything else is an afterthought.

The claim of it being wholly barbarous doesn't make sense when following the same logic forward.  All punishments are inhumane by their very nature.  The question cannot be looked at from one side only.  Such a declaration like "The State shouldn't imprison someone," doesn't make any sense unless weighed against the reasons why someone would deserve to be imprisoned.

Equally, making the foundation of your argument deterrence is a thousand times worse.  Let's kill the guy who takes the calculator off my desk.  That will guarantee me quick access to a calculator when necessary, but it still ignores the basic question and the balancing of crime and punishment.

That is why Lady Justice holds a scale - to balance out the crime with the punishment and exactly that.  No more and no less.

So if you ask yourself that bolded question above and reach the same conclusion, that's great.  But don't start the conversation with simple-minded declarations that execution is inhumane or effective as a deterrent.  You are completely missing the importance.

------

And if the system we use cannot be trusted enough to dole out correct punishments with such a finality.  That's a different point, but a far more reasonable one.

-------

And to give my own opinion.  I think the death penalty is warranted when the crime committed reveals such a low value for human life in general that your life should be judged equally.

Premeditated, revenge, and "passion" murders wouldn't meet that description for me.  Murder for hire does 100%.  "Reasonless" murders: i.e. killing the clerk after robbing their store when it was just as easy to walk out. Those meet my description as well, but that's something that warrants careful examination case by case.  I'm undecided for murder of children.  Surely, there's a standard to be found, but an 18yo killing a 15yo because of some relational breakdown is a lot different than a 40yo killing a 5yo for the same.

Certainly true from a criminal justice system standpoint broadly.

But, because we live in a real world where people's senses of justice are going to vary, I think we need to also temper it with reality and some goals other than achieving "perfect justice."

A wholesale reassessment of punishments and other aspects of the CJ system needs to be undertaken accounting for what we know of psychology and sociology.  Too much of it is/was guided by some intuition that is often shown to be dead wrong.  Some features of it, such as the jury trial, burdens of proof, etc. are probably sound and need to be retained.  Other features need to be redone and rethought.

A great example:  the M'Naghten rule governing insanity as a defense.  Although it makes some intuitive sense, it was formulated in the mid 19th century when we knew nothing of mental illness.

As I think I have said, I'm a patent lawyer.  The system is constantly under scrutiny and gets overhauled about every 50 years, with major changes several times in the interim.

As far as I can tell, other than adding new crimes and increasing punishments to satisfy pearl clutchers like MADD, no one in power has seriously reconsidered the CJ system since the founding.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are you to determine that someone should be killed for a crime? Are you that arrogant? Are you willing to place your confidence in the State to mete out that justice?

The only logical conclusion is to put some away (forever if need be) to ensure that the perpetrator can never hurt a blameless human again but also ensure that no irrevocable decision is made in case of innocence.

How fucking hard is it to understand that basic logic? Have you never been unjustly accused of a thing in your life? Are you absolutely sure you're emotionally/psychologically equipped to make that decision as a jury member, speaking for the greater good?

What if you found out later you sent an innocent man to his death? Would you still be able to sleep at night, knowing you participated in state-sanctioned murder?

The only conclusion otherwise is to say that none of that matters and you only wish for death as revenge and that you trust the State enough to kill people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Personally, I find that this is a simple test. If you are an authoritarian, you're in favor of the death penalty. If you're opposed to it, you are a libertarian (I'm not talking about parties - just general philosophies).

If you're a Christian then you think it was necessary for someone else to be executed in order to atone for your sins. How crazy is that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think we need to also temper it with reality and some goals other than achieving "perfect justice."

Perfect justice should not really be the goal as much as the ideal.  Something that we strive for but know we can't reach.  And don't get me wrong, the "other" arguments are factors - they just shouldn't be the starting point.  Although I wouldn't favor over-punishing for deterence.  The failure to reach perfect justice should err the other direction.  "Perfect justice as the upper limit" if you will (with the reality that even that isn't obtainable).

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

(a) The only conclusion otherwise is to say that none of that matters and

(b) you only wish for death as revenge 

(c) and that you trust the State enough to kill people.

(a) I'm not trying to mischartacterize your post, but I read it as "justice is hard, so we shouldn't do it." If justice is impossible to get correct, why trust yourself to imprison someone for life?  The moral dilemmas and burdens you mention don't go away.

(b) If an execution meets your definition of revenge, so does imprisonment.  Using a different descriptor doesn't change the substance of either.

(c) I'm not sure I do trust the State to execute people correctly every time. Even in the demand for "perfect justice as an upper limit," this doesn't carry forward.  I can't trust the State to imprison people correctly everytime either. It breaks all approaches.

Despite these (a/c) the added degree of finality is the best argument, imo, against the death penalty.  There's no turning back once someone is dead.

Edited by JBJ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot of good thoughts have been posted since I last had a chance to visit the thread. I've been thinking in the meantime though and it was precisely about what's been posted; Justice. Balancing the scales. It seems that all are in agreement that punishment is not morally objectionable, just the degree. Slippery slope to take high ground on when accusing others of blood lust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having worked as an assistant district attorney and a public defender, the notion that a defendant could be tried, convicted, and through even a cursory appellate process in 45 days is embarrassingly stupid. I seriously hope whoever suggested that notion did not graduate from UT. Further, the notion that a person would find that aspirational is morally repugnant. I hope they never have a family member accused of a serious criminal offense. Anyone who has worked within our criminal justice system knows how broken and unjust it actually is. The fact that some believe this broken system is equipped to fairly put citizens to death without any risk of murdering innocents system is truly frightening.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Morton vehemently denied killing his wife. Guy in OP, ostensibly (I don’t know), did not. What about crimes that were witnessed, on video, terroristic murders like the dude in the Fort Worth church or Vegas or Denver or Orlando?  Where there truly is no question, and generally accompanied by a manifesto?  Or serial killers like Dahmer with heads in freezers?  Yeah, those people need to die and as expediently as possible. Those I’d say 45 days is too long a time frame. 

They should reform the penal code to add in all the exceptions you just made up in your head. And then when you think of another just call the governor or whoever is in charge of that stuff and tell him to add it to the list. Like what if a guy kills someone and he's wearing a t-shirt that says "I DID IT" and holding a notarized affidavit admitting to the crime? That guy gets the electric chair immediately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Rather quick escalation. 

I understand your blood lust to kill terrible people who do truly terrible things. Really I do. But we don't make policy based on emotion because that never works out well. Policy is, or should be, based on what is practical and serves the greatest good. Would you say a system that allows due process to be curtailed and innocents to be incarcerated and executed serves the greatest good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morton vehemently denied killing his wife. Guy in OP, ostensibly (I don’t know), did not. What about crimes that were witnessed, on video, terroristic murders like the dude in the Fort Worth church or Vegas or Denver or Orlando?  Where there truly is no question, and generally accompanied by a manifesto?  Or serial killers like Dahmer with heads in freezers?  Yeah, those people need to die and as expediently as possible. Those I’d say 45 days is too long a time frame. 
It's because Morton denied it? Lol. It's because Morton is white. People of color are disproportionately more likely to get the death penalty than white people. Another reason why the death penalty should not be permitted.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

**I’m not talking about killing the Mortons or Averys of the world or really even Rodney Reed upon further reflection. In any instance where you have dispute, this would eliminate due process. I’m talking about limiting this to few instances after my charged up initial post. I don’t know how many but fewer than originally thought after further consideration. 

What about those instances where the video is actually mistaken identity?  Or those cases where it turns out that the crystal clear confession....was actually induced by violence or threats from the cops that isn't in evidence?  Or you know, we just have another guy, who's clearly REALLY bad, we all feel it, so we'll make an exception for HIS case as well....except it turns out afterwards, we find out we all were manipulated by incomplete evidence?

Any system that involves human beings is infallible.

To make a decision of irrevocable permanence should require an infallible decision.

Because such infallibility is impossible in a human criminal justice system, we should not include irrevocable punishments in the menu of options.

We can always find the "one case" that supports our idea that THIS guy should be killed right away.  But as soon as you create a new rule around that one case....there's a chance that it will be applied in error to a case where the accused is not guilty.  It's okay to acknowledge our limitations as human institutions.  I believe in the rule of law -- I literally have made practicing in that arena my life's work.  I am passionate about it, I think it's important.  But I also acknowledge its limitations.  We all should. It's okay, we're not perfect.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...