My apologies to you, Zombies. If I had read a little further, I might have noticed that already made the argument I just put forth. There’s so much being said here, it’s a bit difficult to keep on reading when you’ve just been so utterly astonished by one statement.
Mea culpa. :smack:
Society at large.
No, we have also reduced the number of wrongful deaths from eleven to one. It accomplished quite a bit, in other words. Overall, we are better off with one wrongful death than with twelve. Because we are not adding to the list of victims, we are reducing it. It also does not undermine confidence in the justice system, since the number of murders (all other things being equal) will go down, while the number of wrongful convictions remains the same.
Which is the same problem you have with life in prison with no parole, and therefore is not relevant to the discussion. This is a problem with wrongful conviction, not wrongful execution. And, supposing some new evidence came to light exonerating someone, we could resume the search for the real killer, just as we would do upon finding someone has been in prison wrongly for the last twenty years.
No, it is still there. The only difference is that we are coming closer to fulfilling that pledge. If we don’t execute, twelve wrongful deaths. If we do, one. Which is closer to “justice for all” - “justice for everybody except twelve”, or “justice for everybody except one”? Notice that “justice for everyone” is not achievable in either case. Our choice is merely how close can we get.
And, as I mentioned before, the only justice available to someone murdered by a repeat offender is - what? The knowledge that he has more company in being wrongfully killed than would be true if we executed murderers?
Seems like we have a better fulfillment of the government’s responsibility if we do a better job of preventing wrongful deaths. Which we get from execution, not from neglecting the death penalty.
Whatever number you like. As I mentioned earlier, wrongful conviction is not connected with the death penalty. Therefore, whatever number you want to assign would be added to both sides of the equation, and therefore not affect the proportions. You still get eleven more wrongful deaths on one side than the other.
Already included. A cite was provided earlier that about 1.2% of murderers commit it again, within three years of their release. Over their lifetime, it is probably higher. But those are some of the murders prevented by execution. So I have already included it in my figures.
I am guessing, about as much as they spend attempting to find the truth after sending someone to prison for life with no parole. Lock them up and forget about them, right?
Or, if you are going to say that the process of endless appeals will continue for life, then the argument you touched on earlier (that the DP costs more than life without parole) loses its force. Lifelong appeals, endlessly trying to square the circle of perfect certainty, is going to cost more even than the dozen years or so between sentence and final execution for death row inmates.
Well, yes, unless you have some new or more relevant arguments.
Regards,
Shodan
Only if you consider the two types of death comparable.
We can control them by forbidding them to access to the rest of free men… and unfree men, as need be.
No, we’re just as wrong because we are knowingly incorporating the possibility of innocent death into the justice system where it wasn’t before (in principle). Human interaction is not the invention of governments; the justice system is.
I don’t believe this is the case at all. All words don’t mean the same thing because they’re all made out of letters or found in the same dictionary. All rights aren’t the same because they’re spelled out in the same document. Policemen aren’t kidnappers even though both take people against their will. Where two things are similar, we may compare them; where there similarities end, we should pay strict attention. It makes all the difference in the world.
Obviously. We can reduce drunk driving by prohibition, or by outlawing cars, or we can prevent pregnancies by forced sterilization, or decrease sexual activity in youth by mandatory genital mutilation. These are, I think you’ll agree, less severe and directly more preventative than killing people. But there is a reason free societies tend to avoid this kind of behavior. I would like to hear your speculation as to why.
We’re not afraid of that because there is some measure of restitution we could give to those who may be wrongly convicted.
It is not the duty of a free society’s government to take whatever means necessary to secure any bit of peace. It never has been. Generally, free societies live with risks as mild as hearing speech we don’t like to as extreme as forcing the burden of all proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the state itself, meaning we already know guilty can go free. That is the side free societies err on; not because it is easier (indeed, it is more difficult and more resource intensive to place such a burden on the state), but because that is a cost we must bear to live in a free and fair society.
Not at all, no more than all the convictions in the world shift the burden of proof off the state and onto the defendent.
Do you not think that ‘life without parole’ is a just punishment? Do you really think that justice is only accomplished with ‘an eye for an eye’?
Also, your logic is faulty in your first statement - the eleven original murder victims are just as dead - even if society has had its revenge on their murderers - but one more innocent person is also dead. How does this reduce the number of victims??
The argument that the DP is a deterrent has also been shown to be faulty logic - if it was truly a deterrent the numbers of murders would drop in the USA every time there is an execution - and that is NOT the case.
I think justice is most nearly achieved under a system where the smallest number of innocent deaths is allowed. Therefore “life without parole” is less just than the death penalty, because (by my math) there are more innocent deaths without the DP than with it.
No, my logic is fine, but your arithmetic is wrong.
Twelve minus one equals eleven. If we use the death penalty, we prevent twelve murders by repeat offenders, and allow one wrongful execution. If we don’t use the death penalty, we prevent one wrongful execution, but allow twelve murders by repeat offenders. Net number of wrongful deaths is therefore eleven. That is to say, if we use the death penalty, the “eleven original murder victims” don’t die.
I don’t recall making this argument - could you cut and paste where you think I did?
At any rate, the difficulty with making this argument is that it assumes that all other things are equal, and they never are. The other factors affecting the murder rate vary widely, and it is almost never possible to isolate only use of the DP as a controlling variable.
The only hard figure we have to work with is the Department of Justice statistic that says that 1.2% of all released murderers kill again within three years of release. We also have anecdotal evidence of murderers who escape, are furloughed, or kill in prison. It is those murders that can be prevented (not necessarily deterred, prevented) by use of the death penalty. Executed criminals cannot commit violent crimes. Criminals sentenced to life in prison can, and do. And this is preventable.
I cannot see any reason for disregarding one or the other. Innocent people die in either case.
Unfortunately, as has been pointed out, this does not work as well as executions, and is therefore less just.
No, we are incorporating the possibility of innocent death no matter which way we decide. We know for a fact that some murderers repeat their crimes. We speculate that at some time in the future, we might execute an innocent person. As I mentioned, the only choice is whether to choose the greater number of innocent deaths, or the lesser.
I don’t understand this. What is it about wrongful execution that makes it worthwhile to accept a body count that is twelve times higher than it could be? Why is being executed (possibly) so much worse than murder that it is worthwhile to sacrifice eleven innocents to avoid it once?
Because it is disproportionate.
Aristotle defined justice as “treating like things alike, and unlike things unlike”. The death penalty embodies that principle in a way that prison does not.
You steal a car, you go to prison. You sell cocaine, you go to prison. You kill a person - you go to prison? Most people understand that offenses against life, such as murder, are qualitatively different from offenses against property. And therefore ought to punished differently.
Opponents of the death penalty do not agree with that distinction. By assigning the same sort of punishment to all crimes, they deny the incomparable value of innocent human life. Sentencing a murderer to prison says that there is no difference in principle between the robber and the murderer. This, in my view, is injustice. A just society recognizes the value of innocent life, and therefore punishes attacks on it in a way that it does not for crimes against mere property.
Which, of course, cannot be said either of the one innocent execution or the twelve innocent, preventable murders.
Legally, of course, you are mistaken. Morally, well, if you are simply going to reject all evidence of guilt, regardless of its weight, then I doubt it is possible that we could agree.
I believe there is a point at which guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Our whole criminal justice system is based on this principle. Criminal trials have a real outcome, appeals have a definite end. Sooner or later, you reach a point at which it is clear that guilt is real.
If you catch the guy with the knife in his pocket, and the blood on the knife matches the victim, and his DNA matches to the semen in her vagina, and her blood is found in his car, and his alibi at the time of the crime is shown to be a lie, and his cellmate testifies that he confessed to the crime, then I am comfortable saying that his guilt has been established. When a felon is convicted, the system has met its burden of proof. People who automatically react by saying, “no, that isn’t good enough” even after years and years of appeals are not generally (in my experience) basing their opposition to the DP on factual innocence. After a while, it becomes clear that they don’t oppose his execution because they believe him innocent, they assume him innocent because they oppose his execution. And therefore no amount of proof will ever be sufficient.
Certainly defense lawyers do this all the time. After all, it is their job. Opponents of the death penalty do it as well, which is why I posted my caveats as to the nature of proof that I consider important in deciding guilt. Anti-DP groups often shift their arguments away from questions of factual innocence and focus on other factors - and I consider many of those other factors irrelevant.
If you really did it, you deserve to die even if you are black and the jury was all white. If you really did it, you deserve to die even if the judge made some minor flaw in his instructions to the jury.
Legal protections of the rights of the accused are important, in other words. But to acquit a guilty person is also a miscarriage of justice, just as would be sending an innocent man to prison.
Or allowing a dozen to die when it could be prevented.
Regards,
Shodan
I would agree, if that were meant as an alternate phrasing of “reducing crime”. Except you don’t mean it that way, which is unfortunate. I admit, as far as human sacrifice goes, you have on your side the idea that dead people certainly cannot commit more crimes. Virgins and volcanoes didn’t quite work the same.
I am not disregarding them. For god’s sake, even the laws in states with death penalties distinguish different types of innocent deaths, by letting the defendent go, by manslaughter, by murder one or murder two… It is so completely clear that noting that two deaths happened to be innocents is not the end of the analysis to everyone in the world. Differentiation of crime recognizes it. Detectives investigating crimes recognize that not every innocent victim is the same (or they’d always arrest the same guy, eh?). They are all innocent, and they all died. Sometimes it even makes a big difference who the innocent is!
If your measure is simple arithmetic, no, it does not “work” as well. If your measure is a fair justice system in terms of implimentation, not consequences, then it works as good as it can. When I go shopping, I am strongly motivated by practical considerations and consequentialism. When I am considering abstract entities meant to serve as a baseline for fairness and justice, I am far more focused on idealism and as much a priori reasoning as possible.
Absolutely not. One is an intentional act to bring innocent deaths into the justice system. The opposite choice is to make an intentional act which keeps that particular possibility out of the justice system. You wish us to chose the former on the basis of the extra-judicial (i.e. outside the view of the courts) consequences of either choice. I suggest that such a methodology is not based on sound reasoning, and the decision to incorporate such punishments in the justice system should be made before any particular consequences are investigated. I have already mentioned one reason why this is so: because “an innocent death is an innocent death” is only trivially true, and is otherwise completely false and leads us to questionable conclusions. There is another reason, which I have hinted at but not made explicit. The justice system we devise is the manifestation of justice and fairness. As such, we are hard pressed to say that something would be more just when the justice system itself is that standard. When we make suggestions about altering the justice system, if we wish to keep our judgments sound, we must start at the beginning again, and say, “I have this idea of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ which the current justice system does not embody. We would impliment it like so.” By your reasoning, this would incorporate the “an innocent death is an innocent death” standard into the justice system from the very beginning… and then officers of the court are just as criminally liable for “murder” as anyone else. That is, I should say, a nonsensical result.
Hopefully my statements have helped clarify why it is not an arbitrary choice, like deciding whether to purchase green peppers or banana peppers, or the generic bag of rice over the brand name. The justice system is not one of many standards of fairness. It is the standard of fairness. We cannot approach it like Saturn competing with Chevy.
Because those two kinds of innocent deaths are not comparable in the context we’re discussing.
Right. This is why we have different kinds of charges, as I’ve mentioned before. Manslaughter is a qualitatively different kind of crime than premeditated homicide. We try them differently because they are different, even though, in both cases, an innocent life was lost.
Perhaps they should be punished differently. We’ve already decided, however, that a free and fair society should not inflict cruel and unusual punishment on those subject to the rules of the state. This prior requirement has ruled out a great number of punishments. It doesn’t surprise me that other prior requirements would also eliminate certain punishments, including punishments we might otherwise find desirable.
THEY deny the incomparable value? This, from someone who walked in this thread to present a trivial mathematical method of simple comparison? Shodan, the mind boggles that you could level this charge.
Again you find one point of similarity, and declare the entire process of evaluation as equivalent. You’ve done it with innocents, and now you’re doing it to convicts. Our limitations on what punishments we may offer have nothing to do with how much we dislike various crimes. The prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishments” in the US Constitution is there as a limitation on what punishments we may inflict on citizens. Its purpose is not to make all crimes somehow equivalent.
Not at all. I wasn’t talking about appeals. I mean that all the successful prosecutions in the history of the United States doesn’t mean that the next defendent suddenly has the burden of the proof of his own innocence. It is still the state’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That burden intrinsically rests on the state, it was part of its creation.
By denying the soundness of the death penalty, I am not suggesting that no guilty people exist. Is that really unclear?
We agree that this is one of the many principles that goes into our justice system.
I would quibble with the phrasing, but roughly, yes there is quite probably a point at which a convict has no more recourse to open a new trial on appeal. Such standards are outlined in the justice system itself, of course.
Me too! I hope any jury would come to the same conclusion.
The state cannot create facts. It can present a factual analysis from which a conclusion can be derived which withstands reasonable doubt. But this is not the creation of a fact. It isn’t even up to par with scientific theories, which are initially refereed, and constantly reevaluated and peer reviewed. This should not stop us from punishing people, of course, and I would never suggest otherwise. But it should stop us from treating convictions like metaphysical or intrinsic truths.
I don’t assume anyone is innocent after they’ve been convicted. Of course I cannot speak for anti-DP people everywhere, I can only present my own concerns. Frankly, I have not spent a great deal of time investigating why other people feel the DP is wrong. If it has anything to do with the position you’ve presented, then I agree that it is somewhat shoddy reasoning, possibly a not-so-subtle attempt at emotional appeal.
I absolutely agree. I also feel it is fairly self-evident that “really doing it” is not a standard which human beings are capable of meeting with respect to proof. We must settle for something short of this ideal, not out of laziness, but because there is no other possibility.
Again: acquittal and guilt are the determination of the same system of judgment. It is therefore impossible to acquit a guilty person, or to convict an innocent one. But this is not some metaphysical truth, it is a tautological consequence of the fact that the justice system is what defines these properties. I appreciate the position that it is a fact that someone did/did not kill another person. What I think you fail to appreciate is that no court system can ever find that fact. But they can prove their hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt.
IMHO I believe we should allow and vigorously pursue the death penalty for serial rapists & pedophiles, two activities in my book about as heinous as murder, regardless of any potential for rehabilitation. =D
BA
Actually, I do mean it that way. Executions reduce murder. Murder is a subset of crime.
I don’t know what you are talking about here. No one mentioned human sacrifice.
Sure you are. You are saying that only one sort of innocent death can be considered in our determination of whether or not our justice system works, and therefore disregarding other sorts of innocent death.
Of course, but this does not strengthen your argument in the least.
Differentiation of crime depends mostly on intent. Intentional killing is worse than unintentional. If you meant to kill someone, that is murder. If it happened by reckless disregard, the crime is considered less. If it was an accident, guilt may not even accrue.
So, apply that standard to wrongful execution. Was it deliberately done, knowing that it was wrong? Nope, executions are only done on people proven to be guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Was it by reckless disregard? Nope, executions only happen after years of appeals on every possible legal point. Therefore, it can only be considered an accident.
Now apply the same standard to repeat murders. Deliberate? Yes, that is the definition of murder. Done on innocent people? Check. Known to be wrong? If there is anyone who should know that murder is wrong, it would be someone who has done it before and served time for it.
So the moral guilt incurred in both instances is radically different.
No, I don’t think so. If you judge by intentions, then either system works as well as it can. The practical consequences are where we diverge. I choose the system that works better. You want one that does not work as well.
Sorry, wrong. If you know the consequence of two systems, and choose one over the other, you are consciously determining that one set of outcomes is better than the other.
You don’t mean this. Otherwise, we should decide to execute everyone without regard for whether any of them are innocent or not. Since you suggest we can decide first, and worry about consequences later.
OK, suppose we do. We execute everyone. On what basis do you suggest that we should only consider the consequence on one set of deaths (the wrongly executed) and not on any others?
No. I do not consider “whatever the justice system does now” to be the standard. The justice system fails, occasionally. We are all in agreement about that. It can be improved, either by eliminating the death penalty (in your view) or by applying it (in mine). My argument is that my way is more just, since it brings about something that we all agree is desirable (fewer wrongful deaths). Your argument is no, a larger number of wrongful deaths is desirable, because otherwise we would need to consider things we would rather ignore, or give weight to injustices that are currently being downplayed.
Which I have done from my first post in the thread. “Fairness” and “Justice” mean reducing the number of innocent deaths. We implement this by executing murderers, and thus prevent the at least 1.2% of repeat murderers from committing their crimes. QED.
Nope, same standard could apply. State officials who executed someone, knowing they were innocent, would be culpable. If they did not know, it would be no different from any other accident.
Yes, THEY. And they do it in part by arguing that the fact that hundreds of people are suffering and dying unjustly is a “trivial mathematical” consideration.
One wrongful execution is so horrible as to invalidate the entire system of capital punishment. Dozens of wrongful repeat murders you try to exclude from consideration.
Then we agree. The only difference is that I would hope they go on to take reasonable steps to prevent it from happening again.
Of course not, and neither would I. But that goes towards my insistence on discussing acquital only in cases of factual innocence.
Facts are real. The truth is out there. The justice system is there as a way of approaching those facts. No doubt it can be improved, not least by including things like DNA analysis.
But once you have established a fact, it is legitimate - almost compulsory - to draw conclusions based on those facts. And you do no good and some harm if you reject facts because they lead to a conclusion you don’t like. You stated, for instance:
I disagree. We can determine guilt well enough to condemn a person to a life in prison (I assume you would admit). We can also determine well enough that some murderers will continue to harm others if they are allowed to live. Ergo - we can determine guilt well enough to execute those who are clearly guilty, and thereby spare lives.
That’s close enough for me. Especially if we use that data to save lives.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again about that “cite” of yours:
I remain open to discuss, intelligently, whether a single innocent person has been executed in the United States under the modern capital punishment system. But please don’t just point out a cite where the author is so factually incorrect on even the most basic of issues.
Good response, Shodan, but the Red Sox take priority tonight. I’ll be back. 
Where do you get these ‘twelve murders by repeat offenders’? Do you have some powers of clairvoyance, that you absolutely know for a fact that a person, once convicted of murder, will definitely murder again, even if he is locked up in prison and sentenced to ‘life without parole’? Do you not believe that people can repent their crimes, and change for the better?
Also, you seem to have zero compassion for the one innocent person in your equation who gets executed. A lot of innocent people on death row were set free due to the perfecting of DNA science. Does that, in itself, not raise some doubts about some of the other convictions where there is no DNA evidence available?
With ‘life without parole’ at least some restitution can be made to the innocent person who’s been convicted of something they didn’t do - not so with the DP!
I got it from this Department of Justice statistic linked to earlier in the thread.
**
Ergo, if we execute a thousand murderers, we prevent (on average) twelve murders.
There has been no evidence that any factually innocent people have been executed since 1976, but I assumed arbitrarily that one in a thousand executions were of innocent people. To be absolutely accurate, the proven ratio of wrongful deaths is twelve to zero for death penalty vs. no death penalty, but it doesn’t exactly strengthen your argument.
Already dealt with. I have compassion for the theoretical one who is executed. I have the same amount of compassion for the twelve who are murdered. Since the second group is twelve times larger than the first, I have a total of twelve times as much compassion as those who are concerned only with wrongful executions.
Already deal with both these objections. Rather than repeat myself, perhaps you could read the thread.
I am still waiting for your cut and paste of where I claimed that the death penalty deters crime.
Regards,
Shodan
Where did I accuse you of making the above argument? WHERE are you even referred to in this paragraph??!! It is, however, an argument that I have seen put forward by other pro-DP campaigners in other groups - and I tacked it on at the end of my post to see what SDMB members thought. While unrelated to your post, it was still on-topic - and I am unaware of any rule that prevents me from addressing one poster at the start of a post, and then going on to address the group as a whole.
Certainly not, and I regret the misunderstanding. However, if you address me directly three times in the first two paragraphs, and then go on to make a general statement in the third without any transition, perhaps you will see how the confusion could arise.
Did you have any response to my other points?
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry about the delay, Shodan. But I am definitely enjoying this and I’d like to take a moment to thank you for being polite… quite possibly even moreso than me. I get a little worked up sometimes on issues I have strong feelings about. Anyway, that said, let’s get on with the show.
Yes… but the innocent deaths you intend to possibly include are not. I remain quite befuddled by your insistence on not seeing that as significant.
I was being somewhat facetious, indicating that you are “sacrificing” innocents “to the gods” in order to minimize other innocent deaths. My fault for not sticking to straight talk.
Ahhh, well, in that way, yes, I am disregarding things that happen outside the reach of the justice system in determining whether the justice system works. Quite right. But of course, as I’ve indicated, the crucial distinction is that I do not accept “an innocent death is an innocent death” since one kind is able to be directly addressed, while the other kind is only able to be indirectly approximated. Since they are different kinds, I do not feel I can compare them, any more than I can compare color and coulombs, even though both are quantifiable.
I am. You’re concerned with preventing the loss of innocent life, and so am I. If we could, we should prevent the loss of all innocent life. I hold that true a priori. Also, as a consequence: where we can prevent the loss of innocent life, we should. We can certainly prevent the loss of all innocent life in the justice system. Therefore, we should prevent the loss of innocent life in the justice system. The clearest way to do this is tp remove the death penalty. Notice that at no point do I bring up any numbers, at no point do I assume murderers exist in any quantity, etc. It is strictly an a priori argument. I find this far more persuasive than estimations and guesses about the impact of the death penalty combined with the equivocation I suggest you’re making WRT innocent lives lost at the hands of murderers and innocent lives lost at the hands of the justice system. I ask you, then, to look at the small number of assumptions I made for this argument and tell me which you disagree with, why you disagree with it, and what you offer as an alternative. To restate them more clearly:
Absolutely not on the last sentence. If there was anyone who should know that murder is wrong, it is that group of people that punish people for murder.
I firmly believe that we should judge by intentions, and I also firmly believe that intentions are not private, subjective things, which is probably the topic for another debate anyway so it is good that we seem to agree here. But, anyway, yes, that is how we should judge. That is not the whole story with resect to how we set up a system of judgment such as a justice system. In such a case, more than intention is necessary. Prior considerations will be brought into play, such as differentiating victims (Policeman? President? Child? Jewish?), standards of fairness, and so on.
Or you don’t base morality on consequences, as I’ve already mentioned. A typical argument against consequentialism might be the argument suggesting that morals are a priori. (See, for example, this page, section 3, subsection 3, “Ethics is a priori” for a nice outline of the idea). Another argument might refer to the insistence on intention that you mention. Say, for instance, a person has several choices to act, and further suggest that this person wants to act morally. If the consequences of action is what we use to determine morality, then how can a person decide what course of action to take? Obviously, unless the person already knows the consequences, he cannot. Just as obviously, his intent is irrelevant, because consequences of actions are not caused to intent. We then end up in the situation where we condemn actions as immoral 1) only after they are done, 2) and only based on what happened. So much for manslaughter!
We only know the justice system fails if the justice system finds out its own mistake… which we trust, because the justice system is the standard. Why else would you (and now Hamlet) ask, disingenuously IMO, for proof of innocent people killed on death row? There is no psychic or oracle to appeal to that tells us whether anything objectively happened. Innocence is assumed, and guilt is a verdict handed down. If you have anything else in mind, some measure of “guilt” or “innocence” that can be established outside of the justice system that still has meaning in the justice system, I’d appreciate it if you’d start your own country because that kind of knowledge sure will make things easier.
It is, because the position I’m arguing from is valid even before a single murderer exists. Bringing murderers into the equation doesn’t invalidate it in the slightest. Where people can defend themselves, they should be able to use lethal force as necessary. Where that is not sufficient, or where that fails, we should use the justice system. But justice is blind. I do not give blind giants the power to kill if I can help it, especially when my cry, “But that’s not fair!” falls on deaf ears because fairness is not my opinion, it is the justice system.
well, that’s half right. The second sentence should be amended, “We can also determine well enough that some murderers will probably continue to harm others if they are put in situations where it is possible.” The simple solution, of course, not putting them in those situations. Like supermax prisons, solitary confinement, etc, etc, as is allowed by previous limitations on punishment considered prior (cruel and unusual punishment, etc).
Disingenuosuly? My consistent willingness to debate the issue of whether or not an innocent person has been subjected to the modern death penalty in America is disingenuous? While I admire the obvious passion with which you argue, that passion oftentimes takes you beyond the realm of honest debate and into the realm of idiotic attacks. I would suggest you try to reign in your enthusiasm a tad and deal with the issues rather than simply calling someone who has had the audicity to disagree on one issue with you “disingenous”.
No. That you wish people to provide a standard, innocence, which would hold up in court, and yet which hasn’t held up in court. In what way is this a fair request? That’s like me asking you to find a “guilty” person who wasn’t convicted. Since the determination of guilt is handed down by the courts, unless our justice system were especially capricious, it is an impossible standard to meet.
erislover -
I have read your post with interest. However -
It is late where I am, and I have had a killer week and a couple beers, and I am not coherent enough to give your post the response it deserves. For you, it was the Red Sox. For me, it is that I am beat.
I will try to check back in tomorrow morning and put together a more thoughtful response. But thanks for your post.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - hi, Hamlet, and thanks also to you for your input.
Hey, take your time. The discussion isn’t going anywhere.
[rimshot]
No $*@# that it would be idiotic to require you to show me or Shodan one case where the courts had said they executed an innocent man. Fortunately, that is not what I’ve said. Here, and in other threads, I’ve debated the “innocence” of people who were put to death with people who were interested in the debate and not in simple dismissal by insult. Mumia, Tafero, Coleman, and Stewart come to mind as people who are touted as “innocent” by multiple anti-death penalty, but, when the facts are debated and shown, there is little credence to be given to their arguments. Granted it may come down to “well, they MAY be innocent,” or “well, I think he did it, but I don’t think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt”, but at least it is an honest debate, with facts and discussion. If you have a case, supported by credible cites, of an innocent person being put to death in the modern death penalty era, I remain open to debate it. However, if all you wish to do is be dismissive, then you are absolutely correct, this discussion is going nowhere.