If the official state policy in another country is that there are no homosexuals in that country, would you say that there are no homosexuals in that country?
More like, in most cases jail wasn’t used as punishment at all–it was simply a way of making sure they had you around to subject you to the actual punishment.
Using jail as a primary means of punishment reflects uniquely modern sensibilities about the inviolability of the individual self.
wow what has that to do with this issue?:eek::rolleyes::dubious:
It has come to my attention that Sergeant Zale lost $300.
Yeah. So?
So that means that there’s a thief around here. Maybe more than one.
Frank, Zale lost it gambling.
I beg your pardon?
Gambling, Frank.
He was playing poker with us.
Impossible. Gambling’s prohibited. There is no gambling in this unit. Therefore the money was stolen.
I think the idea is that what the president of Iran says is just as reliable as the verdict of twelve jurors and thirty years worth of appellate judges.
Regards,
Shodan
They’re gonna try to execute Ledell Lee tonight. A few details about his legal proceedings:
I’m glad to see that you’re conceding the argument. What changed your mind?
And even if we’re going to go the arithmetic route, three is still less than eight. If the eight convicts under discussion are executed, then that’s eight people who I know for sure are wrongfully killed, because any volitional killing is wrongful.
This made me think of another factor that could be considered (though it’d be nigh-impossible to measure): some murderers can be rehabilitated. Some of these rehabilitated murderers might possibly save someone’s life some day, or (more likely, perhaps) be a decent father to their children and greatly reduce the chance they grow up and kill someone. By executing all murderers, we’d be increasing the likelihood that some of their children would grow up to be murderers.
That is not an intractable problem…
But seriously, allowing the state the power to execute should be very carefully considered. It’s not as if the ruling classes and their enforcement arms always act morally. Civil forfeiture is an example of how easy it is for police to behave unjustly.
When it comes to executions I think we don’t have sufficient safe guards in place to ensure they are appropriate.
I’m assuming you’re having a bit of fun here, because it looks like a typo to me; the intention was probably to write “lost”, or a suitable synonym, in place of “saved”.
Still waiting on a reply to my most recent post to address the issue of “the three” and its irrelevance to the argument presented in the OP.
Imagine where we can go with this chain of thought: Lots of fetuses are aborted. Some of these fetuses would be highly intelligent and a few might have gone to make groundbreaking discoveries in their selected field had they not been aborted. By aborting fetuses, we decrease the likelihood of genius.
Also, how are these murderers supposed to be fathers to their children when they (convicted first degree murderers) are in prison with no chance of parole?
What if Charles Manson has stumbled across a cure for all cancers, yet he’d rather take it to his grave rather than share it with a society that keeps him locked up?
They executed Ledell Lee last night. Wonder if they’ll ever do the DNA testing that might’ve exonerated him?
The ACLU and the Innocence Project both filed motions for post-conviction DNA testing. I suppose they could continue to push now that he is dead - it would good for their cause if they could find out the blood on Lee’s shoe wasn’t from the victim. If it turns out like Roger Coleman, then not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
The question is really, how many roadblocks can/will the state of Arkansas throw in their way? IANAL, but my understanding is that with Lee already executed, the lawyers don’t have a client, so they lack standing.
Yeah, I’m sure the state will go out of its way to prove that they screwed up.
The Coleman case was in Virginia, and the governor of that state had to order the DNA testing. Maybe that won’t work in Arkansas. In Texas they didn’t wait until after he was dead, and it didn’t work there either. Nor is that the only time.
One of the Arkansas murderers has also had DNA testing - IIRC they found his DNA on a cigarette butt (his brand) that also had blood from the victim.
Regards,
Shodan
Not sure I get your point here. Sure, some Death Row prisoners will claim innocence and fight for that DNA test just to stay alive a little longer. OK, just give them the DNA test while they’re still alive to potentially benefit from it, and get it over with, then. If the test is positive, then the state was right.
Small problem-the incredibly long turnaround time on DNA tests. There is no way you are going to change the laws to give cons priority in this matter.
Lee’s appeal for DNA testing was turned down because he never raised the issue before. One of the drugs used to execute him was supposed to expire at the end of the month, so Lee’s attorneys wanted more DNA tests so they could stall until they expired, and thus delay some more.
The advanced DNA tests Lee’s attorneys wanted have been available for years, but they never asked for them until now. And the appeals court ruled that even without the shoe, there was sufficient evidence to convict. It was a pretty evident stall - just the last in 24 years of stalling.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - Cite.