My sincerest apologies. For some reason I thought I was in your thread asking Bricker for a response. Clearly I became confused in my head. I reported my post in hopes that it could be expunged but no such luck. Again, please accept my apology. It bugs the heck out of me when folks ask questions that have already been answered.
It’s actually 0.1%.
Sorry - I missed this in the mix.
So far I’m with you, and I agree. The focus of the discussion was post-Gregg v. Georgia - that is, post 1976 and the “current era” of the death penalty. If I implied otherwise by failing to make that context clear, I certainly apologize.
Yes, and I appreciate that. However, in that same post, you assert:
You’re clearly offering that distinction in support of the death penalty.
Now, what does it mean? Does “factually innocent” mean that some sort of judicial proceeding declares that the executed person was innocent? That’s a well-nigh impossible standard to reach, since there is no vehicle for legal proceedings following death; the death of the accused moots further judicial proceedings.
Since I know you to be a reasonable man, I assume you do not advance “factual innocence” as a standard impossible to reach.
I therefore assume you mean it in its everyday sense: that a person has never been executed for a crime that he did not, in fact, commit.
And I disagree with that statement. Even if it were true before, the case that inspired this OP has stringly suggested that it’s not true now.
This does not, of course, prove that we must end the death penalty. As you argue, it may be that we can accept a certain small number of botched cases as the “cost of doing business”. That’s a perfectly rational argument to make, especially for a country that is willing to kill unborn children as easily as we are. But it’s an argument I reject.
What I still maintain is that you cannot, in fair mindedness, continue to assert confidently that no factually innocent person has been put to death post 1976. Because one has. If you now wish to argue that a vanishingly small percentage of the people executed have been factually innocent, and that this small percentage does not compel us to abandon this effective penal tool, then you’ll hear no complaints from me about your predicate assumptions.
Obviously, your conclusions are still a target.
Then you will point to where I denied saying the above?
The death penalty could, in theory, be an okay choice. (I don’t know that I would say it would ever be a “moral” choice aside aside from the exceptions the Catholic Church has to the ban.) In practice, it can’t.
I will never be on your side because you can’t meet my standard.
I don’t know why you think it helps your cause if I am capable of believing the dp can be moral under certain impossible circumstances. But if you want to believe that my belief bolsters your argument, have at it.
I will never support a dp that risks executing an innocent person. Not to save one life. Not to save thousands of lives. I won’t do it. And since you are explicitly okay with killing innocent people, then we are on different planets.
Let me frame this in the simplest way possible.
To me, it is better to live in a world where you have a greater risk of being murdered and zero risk of being executed for a crime you didn’t commit.
To you, it is better to live in a world where you have a lesser chance of being murdered and a greater than zero risk of being executed for a crime you didn’t commit.
My world might end up with more innocent people dying, maybe lots more. Who knows? You don’t. I don’t. What’s the old line about those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither? Congratulations. Ben Franklin would kick you in the shins.
Decimal places? I don’t need no steenking decimal places!
Update: As of 10:20 this morning, it’s 999.
I’ll dumb it down for you DrDeth, maybe that will help.
- First of all, I was not the first nor the only one to use that argument in this thread. In fact, Shodan beat me to the punch when he opened himself up by posting this:
“Sure, I’m willing to take the chance. Just as I am sure that you are willing to take the (much greater) chance of your wife or daughter or self being murdered by someone who should have been executed. Right?”
In case you missed it the first time, I WAS THROWING HIS OWN LOGIC BACK AT HIM. Comprende’? If you want to point fingers with your magical stupid argument finger, then maybe you should point Shodan’s way for opening himself up to it.
-
Shodan’s argument is far from “well done”. All it shows is a gross misunderstanding of statistics and facts. Color me less than impressed. He continues to makes himself look embarrassingly stupid with each additional flawed post.
-
Ya know, don’t break out that “Fighting ignorance” bullshit. This is a message board filled with a few people intelligent on a lot of subjects, a lot of people intelligent on a few subjects, a handful of morons, jackasses, idiots, blowhards, and trolls (with Shodan as their teamleader). But all in all, it really isn’t that much different than any other mixed group of people. Don’t fool yourself into thinking we are an elite group of geniuses, we ain’t. Yourself included.
Shodan – I’ve made the mistake of debating the WM3 with you in the past and found more satisfaction talking to a brick wall. The appeal is still continuing thanks to the ruling to allow testing for DNA, otherwise, Damien would have been executed long before now. The legal system isn’t a fast process. If you are truly interested in knowing about the status of the DNA testing, I suggest you read up on it here – www.wm3.org. I personally don’t have the time nor patience to debate your grasping, ass-pulling, flawed, moronic logic.
Gus – Ever hear of the Hi-Fi Shop torture killings in the early 70’s in Ogden Utah? Two men brutally raped and tortured three teenagers, two were working in an electronics store (Stanley and Michelle) and the third Courtney, had stopped by the Hi-Fi Shop to tell his friends the details of his first solo flight he had taken earlier in the day. During the torture, Courtney’s mother and Stanley’s father came to the shop to see what was taking their children so long to get home. They too were bound and tortured for hours. All were forced to drink liquid Drano before having their mouths taped shut. All were shot. Stanley’s father had a pen kicked into his ear.
Only Orin (Stanley’s father) and Courtney survived. Courtney lived until just last year when he finally died of complications of his injuries 30 plus years before. Orin had to retire early to attend to his catatonic wife. She never recovered from the shock of losing her son and almost her husband.
Orin and Courtney’s families are good friends of my families, before and after the murders. My aunt and cousin were working right next door at a camera store during the tortures, in fact, they were called as witnesses during the trial because they actually saw the white van backed up to the back door of the Hi-Fi Shop (they thought it was a delivery). There was a hit list in the possession of one of the murderers, the camera shop was second on the list underneath the Hi-Fi Shop.
The killers were both eventually executed. You can read the story of Courtney’s ordeal in the book called “Victim”.
There was no doubt that the right people were charged with the crime. Are the families any better off with the killers dead? They have said repeatedly that it has changed nothing. Their mother, daughter, son, did not come back to life after the executions. They oppose the death penalty.
You my dear, are just seeking revenge.
What about the fact that they may have never been danger to the public in the first place? You’ve overlooked that.
He’s not overlooked it, he’s just conveniently forgotten to answer it the many times it has been asked in this thread.
Appreciated. The part that rankled more was where it was implied that I had said that no one innocent would ever be executed. I did not say that. And I linked to posts in which I said pretty much the opposite.
That bothered the most.
Because ths:
is pretty much what I have been doing in this thread. And it does not constitute a backing off from a position that “no one ever has or ever will be innnocently executed”, neither clause of which I have ever stated.
Even in a wrongful death case? And I have heard of several cases where the family of some accused person tries to “clear their name”. Didn’t Sam Shepherd’s family do something of the sort, and he’s dead. Not to mention the Warren Commission and other non-judicial examinations of crimes.
Maybe you are thinking that I have a higher standard than I do. I was imagining something less like 100% certainty, and more like “innocent beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “a preponderance of the evidence” or something similar.
What I was reacting against was largely an unfortunate habit among DP-ers and anti-DPers alike to begin with a position, and then assume facts in support of it.
I mentioned a couple of things about the newspaper articles about the OP that seemed surprising to me, and (possibly) a basis to see if the facts of the case might not be as clear cut as has been asserted. The most basic being, of course, how do we know that the main witness is right now, and wrong 13 years ago, and that we should believe him only when he is not under oath? (Another is that one of the articles seemed to be implying that at the penalty phase of the trial, testimony was allowed that Cantu had shot and attempted to kill a police officer. IANAL, but I found it surprising that this would be allowed if Cantu had never been convicted of it, or the moral equivalent of convicted at least. Prior bad acts, I would have thought, would not be admissible unless it could be shown that he really did it.)
But some higher standard than simply assertion on a messageboard or in a newspaper would be better, IMO. Especially, as I mentioned, I find it difficult to believe anti-DPs who are known, at least hereabouts, to exaggerate the strength of a defense case, and dismiss everything the prosecution presents out of hand.
Which is, perhaps,why I was bothered by your assertions about my position. Assuming that it is true now, this does not invalidate a position that I never held. Because I never said “it will never be true”.
Anyway, thanks for your response.
Regards,
Shodan
That figure would indicate that in the last few decades we *have * executed an innocent man. So far, that hasn’t been proven- this present case hasn’t changed my mind at all. Thus, so far- the “error rate” has been 0.
Like I said Diane- then, his name gets added to the Trophy. 
A wrongful death claim against who? The state, or the state actors such as a judge or prosecutor who participated in the trial that resulted in the death sentence?
No - they are covered by immunity for their official acts. A wrongful death suit against them would be dismissed on those grounds without ever reaching the merits of the claim.
When a family tries to “clear the name” of some falsely accused relative, it’s not a judicial proceeding. It would typically be a request for a posthumous pardon. While this certainly COULD be done, it’s entirely within the discretion of the governor. There’s no compulsory process to make it happen; a governor could choose to ignore the petition without even considering its merits. It’s true that occasionally a commission will be appointed, but again, this is discretionary and not a matter of right.
Insisting that some official act along those lines is necessary before you’d accept “factual innocence” is an unreasonable standard, because none of the avenues you mention require the case to be considered on its merits, and are so rare as to be impossible.
Yes, that was certainly true during discussions of the West Memphis slayings, and even though I am an opponent of the death penalty, I believe I argued against such tactics and for the prosecution’s evidence to be given weight — as well as for the jury’s determination to be given weight.
Here, in contrast, it’s fair to say that if the jury heard the testimony we’re now hearing, they would have been unable to ind guilt. That is, the only testimony that permitted a finding of guilty has now been recanted.
What would change your mind?
The Northwestern U. study found 11 innocent men on death row in Illinois alone. How improbable is it that none of them would have actually been executed without the study? Or that other states would have had equally good luck?
What constitutes “reasonable doubt” for you, DD?
You know that cases get closed when the prisoner is executed, and the states won’t allow DNA testing to check for the innocence of anybody already executed, right?
Know it? He’s positively *counting * on it!
Well, no, I am not insisting on an official finding. Just some standard higher than has been shown to date. That’s why I mentioned testimony under oath (and far more nearly contemporary) a couple of times. in contrast to unsworn testimony many years after the fact. And some things about the newspaper article that lead me to wonder how accurate their descripton might be of the facts of case as they now stand.
Indeed, and much to your credit for being willing to disavow tactics even in support of your position.
Well - as far as we know. And this is equivalent to a lot of other discussions about the DP, where essentially only one side of the case - the defense side - is being presented. As you mentioned about the WM3 case, anti-DPers there were known to post dogmatically that there was no evidence, at all, of guilt - none, nada, zip - NO EVIDENCE, DAMMIT! Which turned out not to be the case.
I am wondering if perhaps that might not be the case here. But I would bet that the SDMB is not going to be the place to turn to for a fair-minded discussion of both sides of the case, if another side indeed exists. I would not characterize the Pit as chock-a-block with folks who are willing to withhold judgement on the facts of a case, if it might provide fodder for their positions. Especially since the facts aren’t really what they based their positions on in the first place.
I’m repeating myself, even to you. So AFAICT the thread is played out.
I appreciate your response.
Regards,
Shodan
We’re all guilty of that, aren’t we? Sometimes, knowledge just leads to harder moral choices, so we choose to keep ignorant and keep believing.
There are certain things I want to believe. I want to believe that no innocent person has ever been executed. I don’t believe it, but I’d rather.
DNA evidence is one thing. Solid physical evidence. And, yes, I know that in general- a State won’t allow it’s evidence to be checked after an execution. But there is other evidence other than what the State has, there are Court orders, there are civil cases, and there could be a Governor ordering it. So, yes, although it would take a determined group of Dudes to get it done- it can be done. Note the Shepherd case where the son didn’t give up.
And although I agree “Here, in contrast, it’s fair to say that if the jury heard the testimony we’re now hearing, they would have been unable to ind guilt. That is, the only testimony that permitted a finding of guilty has now been recanted.” we really don’t know what the REAL truth was- did he lie then- or now? The witness lied- that’s all we know. Maybe his memory has changed, maybe he was coerced- then or now. Who knows? It’s also important to note that this convicted killer was only caught after he also shot a police officer, so there is no doubt he is a murderous sort of felon.
ElvisL1ves those kind of things are used as evidence that the System works- as after all, they weren’t executed, right? I’m a little dubious both ways here. :dubious:
:smack: My apologies: I went through and read all her posts BEFORE the point where you claimed she was justifying executing murderers to see where she’d made such a claim. I foolishly didn’t check your precognitive powers.
Daniel
WHAT??
That’s an incoherent paragraph.
Let’s see…
And, yes, I know that in general- a State won’t allow it’s evidence to be checked after an execution.
Correct.
- But there is other evidence other than what the State has, *
Like what, exactly?
there are Court orders
Which you just acknowledged are not issued after an execution.
there are civil cases
No, there are not. Who would the parties in such a civil case be?
*and there could be a Governor ordering it. *
But there isn’t. Not one governor has ever ordered such a thing. So, NO, there couldn’t be. If you want to claim that such a method could be used to determine factual innocence, then it seems to me you need to show where it’s actually happened.
His was the only evidence agaiinst the accused. If he did make it up, as he’s now saying, what would it take to convince you that he had? He’s admitted that he did. What else? There was no physical evidence against the accucsed. Just this guy’s word. That’s it. So what would it take to convince you?
Of what relevance is that? We didn’t execute him for being a murderous sort. We executed him for being the killer of a specific person, a crime he didn’t commit. Are you saying that it’s OK, because the guy was guilty of something else? And you’re OK with killing him for that something else, when that something else is a shooting that did not result in death?