Fuck Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin and Fuck the Death Penalty

[RickJay]

@Smapti

I said “proportional”. I didn’t say “an eye for an eye”.

Then you’re still wrong. Punishments are NOT proportional to the severity of the crime, and never have been. Even leaving aside the fact thatyou and I might disagree over what crime is worse than another (what’s worse, drunk driving or common theft?) punishments are also proportional to the likelihood of being caught - a crime for which you are very likely to be caught is generally less severely punished than one that is harder to catch. That’s why embezzlement is often punished more severely than, say, common assault, even though one might reasonably say hurting a person is worse than stealing money. Punishments are also different based on the likelihood of redicivism, behaviour while imprisoned, and the political atmosphere of the time.

I fail to see the difference.

“Uphold the power of the state” and “promote the general welfare” are so obviously different that only the most insane fascist would not know the difference.

North Korea’s justice system, for instance, does as good a job at upholding the power of the state as any in the world. It does not do a very good job of promoting the general welfare.

Because all of those rights, except the right to self-defense, are reserved by the state.

So the right to kill as punishment is reserved by the state… yes, I know that. You have failed to explain, however, why it “logically follows” that the state being allowed to kill people in self-defense or in defending the innocent should also be allowed to kill people in cold blood as a form of punishment. There’s no obvious logical connection there. If there’s a logical argument to be made, make it.

[QUOTE=Locrian]
Question: If you are arrested, factually innocent, sentenced to death, live on death row behind bars for 18 years, THEN you get proven innocent before you’re executed, will the first words out of your mouth be, “The system works”?
[/QUOTE]

Someone who is successfully exonerated before being executed might well say exactly that the day they’re released, since of course they’d be rather happy with the system at that point.

My concern is more people like Cameron Willingham, whose conviction for murder was based on what turned out to be total bullshit, and who will never be asked for his opinion on whether the system works because they actually did execute him.

[Smapti]

@RickJay

Then you’re still wrong. Punishments are NOT proportional to the severity of the crime, and never have been.

Do you disagree that they should be?

Even leaving aside the fact thatyou and I might disagree over what crime is worse than another (what’s worse, drunk driving or common theft?)

Drunk driving.

“Uphold the power of the state” and “promote the general welfare” are so obviously different that only the most insane fascist would not know the difference.

It is impossible to do the latter without first doing the former.

So the right to kill as punishment is reserved by the state… yes, I know that. You have failed to explain, however, why it “logically follows” that the state being allowed to kill people in self-defense or in defending the innocent should also be allowed to kill people in cold blood as a form of punishment. There’s no obvious logical connection there.

If those who commit murder deserve to die, then it is irrelevant whether they are killed in self-defense or “in cold blood”. They’re just as dead either way.

My concern is more people like Cameron Willingham, whose conviction for murder was based on what turned out to be total bullshit

False.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

@Rickjay

Punishments are NOT proportional to the severity of the crime, and never have been.

Do you disagree that they should be?

Any sane person would. Proportional punishment is another way of saying ‘An eye for an eye’. Taking that to its logical conclusion, one would be forced to conclude that the “proportional” punishment for a rapist wouldn’t be prison, but to have him raped and sent on his way. If such punishments were proposed for rapists, would you endorse them? If your answer is ‘no’, then you are not in favour of proportional punishment either. And what would be the “proportional” punishment for drunk driving? If I drive drunk and break someone’s legs, should I go to prison? Or should the Judge just get smashed and run me over?

@Smapti

@Rickjay

“Uphold the power of the state” and “promote the general welfare” are so obviously different that only the most insane fascist would not know the difference.

It is impossible to do the latter without first doing the former.

Tell that to six million jews.

@Smapti

@Rickjay

My concern is more people like Cameron Willingham, whose conviction for murder was based on what turned out to be total bullshit

False

Actually, true.

[Smapti]

@Tithonus

Proportional punishment is another way of saying ‘An eye for an eye’.

No, it is not. If that’s what I meant, I would say equivalent punishment.

Tell that to six million jews.

And Godwin’d in 3 pages.

Actually, true.

As much as I trust an organization called “The Innocence Project” to be completely objective and unbiased about the truth of the people it’s shilling, they seem to have gone to great lengths not to mention the abundance of evidence besides the forensic report that proves Willingham was a cold-blooded triple murderer.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

@Me

Proportional punishment is another way of saying ‘An eye for an eye’.

No, it is not. If that’s what I meant, I would say equivalent punishment.

What does “proportionate” mean in this context, if not equivalent? The only way a punishment can objectively be proportionate is if the guilty party is subjected to the exact same crime he committed. Besides, you’re clearly in favour of equivalent punishments for murder. Why not rape as well?

@Smapti

@Me

Tell that to six million Jews.

And Godwin’d in 3 pages.

That’s not a rebuttal.

@Smapti

As much as I trust an organization called “The Innocence Project” to be completely objective and unbiased about the truth of the people it’s shilling, they seem to have gone to great lengths not to mention the abundance of evidence besides the forensic report that proves Willingham was a cold-blooded triple murderer.

You should trust them. They’ve exonerated no fewer than 18 death row inmates. According to you, they’re proof that “the system works”. Since you’re clearly happy to trust them when they’re successful, why are you so dismissive of them when they’re not successful? It’s inconsistent to refuse to entertain the possibility that they’re right.

As for this alleged “abundance” of forensic evidence against Willingham, all the evidence I’ve seen has been soundly rebutted by respected arson investigators. What do you know that they don’t?

[Smapti]

@Tithonus

What does “proportionate” mean in this context, if not equivalent?

It means “proportional”.

You should trust them. They’ve exonerated no fewer than 18 death row inmates. According to you, they’re proof that “the system works”. Since you’re clearly happy to trust them when they’re successful, why are you so dismissive of them when they’re not successful?

Sometimes people are right. That doesn’t mean they’re always right. If they were right about Willingham, he’d be a free man today.

As for this alleged “abundance” of forensic evidence against Willingham, all the evidence I’ve seen has been soundly rebutted by respected arson investigators. What do you know that they don’t?

The same evidence that the multiple juries and courts of appeals involved in the case saw, to wit; that Willingham was unemployed and couldn’t support his family, that he had beaten his wife while she was pregnant, that the back door of the residence had been blocked with a refrigerator box making it impossible for firefighters to potentially save the childrens’ lives, that he made no effort to rescue the children until after police and firemen arrived, that he was seen breaking a window and thereby allowing the spread of the fire to accelerate, that he admitted to pouring flammable cologne on the floor outside the bedroom where the fire started, that he was witnessed by multiple people celebrating and making lavish purchases in the days after the fire while proclaiming that money would no longer be a problem, that he was witnessed at his daughters’ funeral saying “You’re not the one who was supposed to die” over one of the girls’ caskets, and that he confessed to his wife and to a cellmate that he had committed the murder.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

Sometimes people are right. That doesn’t mean they’re always right. If they were right about Willingham, he’d be a free man today.

Why do you think that? Is the government infallible?

[Smapti]

@Tithonus

Why do you think that? Is the government infallible?

If he were not guilty, it would be possible to prove it in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury. If his counsel was not sufficiently competent to do so, or there had been a mistake, it would be possible to prove that to a court of appeals. The entire reason it takes so long and costs so much to put someone to death in this country is because we pull out all the stops to make sure that nobody is executed who is not guilty.

It’s worked perfectly for at least half a century or more.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

If he were not guilty, it would be possible to prove it in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury.

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the point of a trial is to prove guilt, not innocence, the fact that it may be possible to prove innocence in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury is no guarantee that it’s actually likely. It depends on the competency of the defendant’s counsel, the integrity of the police (such as it is), the intelligence of the jury and the prejudices of the judge. And those are just the variables I can name off the top of my head.

@Smapti

If his counsel was not sufficiently competent to do so, or there had been a mistake, it would be possible to prove that to a court of appeals.

Correction: It might be possible to prove that to a court of appeals. If, in fact, a prosecutor had tampered with or withheld evidence in Willingham’s trial, the fact that the defence counsel can’t prove malfeasance doesn’t mean that the malfeasance didn’t happen.

Similarly, such nebulous factors as Judge or jury bias are notoriously difficult to prove. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Indeed, we know they exist because blacks convicted of murder are much more likely to get the death penalty than whites, especially in the South.

@Smapti

The entire reason it takes so long and costs so much to put someone to death in this country is because we pull out all the stops to make sure that nobody is executed who is not guilty.

Well, evidently you don’t, because the Innocence Project, an independent organisation, has successfully exonerated 18 people. They didn’t do that because of the system. They did that in spite of it.

@Smapti

It’s worked perfectly for at least half a century or more.

This is a statement of faith, not fact.

[Smapti]

@Tithonus

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the point of a trial is to prove guilt, not innocence, the fact that it may be possible to prove innocence in a court of law to the satisfaction of a jury is no guarantee that it’s actually likely.

And since it is even harder to prove guilt than to prove innocence, you set for yourself an even more difficult standard when it comes to claiming people have been wrongly sentenced to death.

It depends on the competency of the defendant’s counsel, the integrity of the police (such as it is), the intelligence of the jury and the prejudices of the judge.

Any of which are grounds for appeal.

Correction: It might be possible to prove that to a court of appeals. If, in fact, a prosecutor had tampered with or withheld evidence in Willingham’s trial

For which there is no evidence.

Indeed, we know they exist because blacks convicted of murder are much more likely to get the death penalty than whites, especially in the South.

Irrelevant.

Well, evidently you don’t, because the Innocence Project, an independent organisation, has successfully exonerated 18 people. They didn’t do that because of the system. They did that in spite of it.

The Innocence Project is acting as a part of the system here. They’re a useful component in the process; if someone is factually innocent, then groups such as them ought to be working to prove their innocence. The thing is, they don’t know when to admit that they’re wrong and one of the people they’re going to bat for actually wasguilty.

This is a statement of faith, not fact.

It is a statement which conforms to all the available evidence.

[RickJay]

@Smapti

Do you disagree that they should be?

I can’t disagree with something that isn’t even coherent or based on some sort of underlying fact. “Punishments should be proportional to the crime” is, I suppose, generally true but practically useless. The truth is about fifty times more complex; punishments should be enough to deter crime as much as can practically be accomplished (which is not the same as proportionality) but should also not be cruel or barbaric, must serve the purpose of rehabilitation wherever possible, an have to meet a honest examination of cost/befit analysis, among other things.

It is impossible to do the latter without first doing the former.

First you said you “fail(ed) to see the difference” but now you appear to be admitting that they (upholding the power of the state and ameliorating the general welfare) are in fact different things, otherwise you wouldn’t be saying that one must precede the other. Well, gosh, we’re getting somewhere!

Fine; let’s assume the state being a coherent entity and having authority is a necessary precursor to improving general welfare. I’d agree that is true. But it also does not defend your claim that the purpose of criminal law and punishment is to support the power of the state. It is not - or else, as I noted, you’d think North Korea was a great place. It is to promote the general welfare. That’s why we have governments and is why they do everything they do. As it happens their monopoly on the use of power is awfully helpful in having them do that, but so are other things; competence, the use of technology, legitimacy, an orderly social compact, wise fiscal policy, and on and on.

If those who commit murder deserve to die, then it is irrelevant whether they are killed in self-defense or “in cold blood”. They’re just as dead either way.

1. Why does a convicted killer axiomatically deserve to die? Who says that? You? Why should I care what you think?

2. Logically, explain to me why a person deserving to die means the state must kill them.

3. Of course there is a HUGE different between self defense and execution. In the former case the person exercising the right to self defense is choosing between her/his life and the life of the attacker, a choice presumably foisted upon them by the attacker. The law recognized that in such a position, it is reasonable and moral that, if the choice is between one life or another, the victim may take action to make that choice in their own self preservation.

In the case of execution no choice is being made between lives. The victim is already dead. Executing the killer will not bring them back to life.

False.

It is simply a matter of absolute fact that the evidence used to convict Cameron Willingham was almost preposterously wrong and has been very effectively refuted by experts in the field of arson investigation. Many of the claims you present are, frankly, absurd or exaggerated - what lavish purchases? - or really prove nothing at all. The forensic evidence used at his trial was essentially the only objective evidence against him and has been entirely demolished. The psychiatrist who testified that Willingham was a sociopath was expelled from the APA for diagnosing subjects without bothering to interview them or review evidence (including Randall Dale Adams, another person sentenced to death in part because of Grigson’s testimony; luckily, evidence surfaced proving his innocence before they could execute him.) Those are facts. I’m sorry that they make it hard for your worldview, but facts are what they are. Willingham saying something like “you’re not the one that was supposed to die” sure sounds to me like something a father would say if a child died under any circumstances. It proves nothing, really, to an intelligent and objective observer. Without evidence of arson there is simply no case against Willingham.

[Smapti]

@RickJay

1. Why does a convicted killer axiomatically deserve to die?

Because, as established above, punishment should be proportional to the offense, and the only proportionate punishment for murder is death.

2. Logically, explain to me why a person deserving to die means the state must kill them.

The state reserves the right to kill because it is not in the public interest to allow private citizens or organizations to decide whether a person should live or die; as such, it assumes the responsibility of killing those people who by their actions are deserving of death.

In the case of execution no choice is being made between lives. The victim is already dead. Executing the killer will not bring them back to life.

Nothing that the state or anyone else is capable of doing to a murderer will bring their victim back to life. Does that fact render all judicial punishment futile?

It is simply a matter of absolute fact that the evidence used to convict Cameron Willingham was almost preposterously wrong

If that were true, he would be a free man today.

[Memnon]

@Smapti

And since it is even harder to prove guilt than to prove innocence, you set for yourself an even more difficult standard when it comes to claiming people have been wrongly sentenced to death.

No it isn’t. It’s impossible to prove innocence. If you doubt this, kindly prove that you were not involved in 9/11. I eagerly await your defence.

@Smapti

For which there is no evidence.

Actually, there’s quite a bit of evidence. It all comes a bit too late for Willingham, though.

@Smapti

@Me

Indeed, we know they exist because blacks convicted of murder are much more likely to get the death penalty than whites, especially in the South.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant?! Hardly. Racial bias in both jury selection and jury verdicts is a well known and quantifiable phenomenon. Who knows what kind of biases Willingham’s jury had against him. At least one juror now believes she may have been wrong about him. Maybe she was biased against men? Maybe Willingham just struck her as a “bad guy” for no good reason? Or maybe she’s just thick?

The point, ultimately, is that we know jury bias exists. We also know it’s notoriously hard to prove. Thus, if a defendant is wrongly convicted because of jury bias, the odds of him getting his verdict overturned on appeal is small. You seem to think the appeals process is perfect. It isn’t.

@Smapti

The Innocence Project is acting as a part of the system here. They’re a useful component in the process;

Actually, they’re acting against the system. They have freed 18 men, all of whom were wrongly convicted by the system and then subsequently failed by the standard appeals process. It took the special attentions of the Innocence Project to see them freed. If everything had just been left up to “the system”, these men would have died.

Also, it’s worth pointing out that if everyone in America thought like you did, the Innocence Project wouldn’t even exist.

[RickJay]

@Smapti

Because, as established above, punishment should be proportional to the offense, and the only proportionate punishment for murder is death.

That hasn’t been “established.” You just keep writing it, without defining “proportional” except, curiously, to say it DOESN’T mean an eye for an eye.

The state reserves the right to kill because it is not in the public interest to allow private citizens or organizations to decide whether a person should live or die; as such, it assumes the responsibility of killing those people who by their actions are deserving of death.

This doesn’t logucally explain why the state should execute people; you just keep saying, over and over, that only the state should have that power, without explaining why anyone should have it.

Are you dropping your claim that the purpose of criminal punishment is to uphold the power of the state?

[Smapti]

The Court of Appeals has ruled that Glossip’s execution, now scheduled for tomorrow, may proceed.

[Locrian]

Well, I’m still disagreeing with the DP on this case. All this circumstantial evidence could still be examined if he was in for life. Plea bargaining is really a shitty game to play, I suppose. I’m still not against the DP in cases like James Holmes, I just don’t think Glossip’s role in this constitutes death.

[carnivorousplant]

@magellan01

While I have no problem with the death penalty, per se, I do have a big problem with its application, like in this instance. I think it should only be used where there no doubt of guilt. And then, extremely swiftly.

Anyone who votes guilty on a jury should have no doubt.

[bup]

@carnivorousplant

Anyone who votes guilty on a jury should have no doubt.

Lots of people on juries ‘trust in the system’ to fix an error if they’ve made one. My cite for this is (Republican, pro-death penalty, former Attorney General for Ohio) Jim Petro’s False Justice.

And in this case, we know that the jury was never made aware of Sneed’s first few versions of events, before the investigators told him that Glossip ordered him.

So even a ‘sure’ jury is still trusting on the competence and good intentions of the cops, prosecutor, and defense attorneys.

[iiandyiiii]

Halted.

[PastTense]

And almost 8 years later:

Clemency denied for death row inmate after unprecedented move by Oklahoma AG...