Bush Waffles On Executions.

[NOIRTRASH]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../jeb-bush-conflicted-about-the-death-penalty/

He says he's conflicted about killing murderers.

Okay.

In Vietnam I was conflicted about killing nice Gook boys who never did shit to me. But we were gladiators in the arena and I wanted to live. Things coulda gone the other way. It is what it is.

Yes, innocent people die. But there's a cure for it. 80% of the time there aint no doubt about it. The killer was caught fair and square by damning evidence. In the other 20% there are legitimate disputes about the facts, and there's no need to rush things until after the facts are sorted out or competent lawyers replace the original morons, and put all the right ducks in the correct order.

During my career I almost never took anyone to trial who wasn't toast for real. A few times the state leaned on me to go after innocent people but I then scuttled the cases to the benefit of the innocent. But if we don't like our lawful penalties change the laws. I mean, if your bionic hand chokes your ma to death, okay, shit happens. But when you know a malfunction is likely, that's criminal and manslaughter. And that's where the innocence doubt usually exists. Did he run over her on purpose?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

mmm....Belgian waffles.

 

[about_average]

Considering that DNA evidence can be faked, certainty of a perpetrator in some cases could be less than it was before 1986.

 

[Aella_]

There've been several threads on this already, but I never get tired of this like of debates; interesting to watch.
If I understood the OP correctly,
- In theory, I would personally be against Jeb Bush's views (I'm not that christian or forgiving when it comes to murder, and I think that the fear of death penalty would be a v. strong deterrant for future crimes).
- Nevertheless, given the false positives, I wouldn't take the risk. Better spare several murderers than kill one wrongfully convicted innocent person.

 

[Sean]

There've been several threads on this already, but I never get tired of this like of debates; interesting to watch.
If I understood the OP correctly,
- In theory, I would personally be against Jeb Bush's views (I'm not that christian or forgiving when it comes to murder, and I think that the fear of death penalty would be a v. strong deterrant for future crimes).

Countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than countries without. Fact.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Countries that are islands are surrounded by water.

 

[Aella_]

Countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than countries without. Fact.

Interesting, and I heard that too.
Can't figure out why that would be, though, from a psychological pov. I would have thought the opposite.
EDIT.
Sounds counterintuitive to me, so I'm wondering if that's most likely due to other factors, something specific that those countries are doing, at the same time?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../jeb-bush-conflicted-about-the-death-penalty/

He says he's conflicted about killing murderers.

Okay.

In Vietnam I was conflicted about killing nice Gook boys who never did shit to me. But we were gladiators in the arena and I wanted to live. Things coulda gone the other way. It is what it is.

Yes, innocent people die. But there's a cure for it. 80% of the time there aint no doubt about it. The killer was caught fair and square by damning evidence. In the other 20% there are legitimate disputes about the facts, and there's no need to rush things until after the facts are sorted out or competent lawyers replace the original morons, and put all the right ducks in the correct order.

During my career I almost never took anyone to trial who wasn't toast for real. A few times the state leaned on me to go after innocent people but I then scuttled the cases to the benefit of the innocent. But if we don't like our lawful penalties change the laws. I mean, if your bionic hand chokes your ma to death, okay, shit happens. But when you know a malfunction is likely, that's criminal and manslaughter. And that's where the innocence doubt usually exists. Did he run over her on purpose?

If you were a criminal prosecutor who prosecuted death penalty cases, I would be very interested in hearing your philosophy on the most appropriate invocation of the penalty. I happen to favor the death penalty, but you are in a better position of expertise.

We know it is of minimal worth as a deterrent. It seems an obvious penalty to me in the case of serial killers. But how often is it appropriate for a single, first offense homicide? What seems to be the most persuasive element calling for its application: the savageness of the crime or the malevolence of the criminal's character?

De you feel it is invoked too much or not enough?

How does the death penalty look from your perspective?

 

[HighSchoolJock]

Bush is an idiot no one should get waffles when they get executed they did something wrong and shouldn't get waffles

Scotty

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Interesting, and I heard that too.
Can't figure out why that would be, though, from a psychological pov. I would have thought the opposite.

Folks like Sean love to imply that the death penalty has an element of causation with respect to higher murder rates. It never occurs to them that the higher rates may have been the motivation for the penalty or, the real truth, that the death penalty has been a fact of civilized societies from the very dawn of recorded history.

Psychological research shows that the existence of the death penalty has little deterrence of the crime of murder because the majority of murders are "crimes of passion." It therefore follows that if the penalty does not serve as a deterrent that it also plays no role in motivation. The "passion" is virtually always about issues in the relationship between victim and assailant. The criminal penalty is irrelevant.

But someone is almost certain to spout this meaningless factoid every time the subject comes up.

 

[Sean]

Folks like Sean love to imply that the death penalty has an element of causation with respect to higher murder rates. It never occurs to them that the higher rates may have been the motivation for the penalty or, the real truth, that the death penalty has been a fact of civilized societies from the very dawn of recorded history.

Psychological research shows that the existence of the death penalty has little deterrence of the crime of murder because the majority of murders are "crimes of passion." It therefore follows that if the penalty does not serve as a deterrent that it also plays no role in motivation. The "passion" is virtually always about issues in the relationship between victim and assailant. The criminal penalty is irrelevant.

But someone is almost certain to spout this meaningless factoid every time the subject comes up.

Where did I imply causation? I was merely pointing out that Dishrag's deterrence argument was bullshit. If you're a fan of state murder, that's your problem.

 

[Aella_]

Where did I imply causation? I was merely pointing out that Dishrag's deterrence argument was bullshit. If you're a fan of state murder, that's your problem.

Hey, no need to cover up the fact that you're paying me special attention,
by calling me 'Dishrag'.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

If you were a criminal prosecutor who prosecuted death penalty cases, I would be very interested in hearing your philosophy on the most appropriate invocation of the penalty. I happen to favor the death penalty, but you are in a better position of expertise.

We know it is of minimal worth as a deterrent. It seems an obvious penalty to me in the case of serial killers. But how often is it appropriate for a single, first offense homicide? What seems to be the most persuasive element calling for its application: the savageness of the crime or the malevolence of the criminal's character?

De you feel it is invoked too much or not enough?

How does the death penalty look from your perspective?

We had a murder here a while back. And old asshole raped a child and was acquitted by the jury. The old asshole then confessed the rape to the childs mother and laughed at her. Mom then blew his ass away and went to prison for 2nd degree murder. I thought life was excessive. She wont serve life, she'll stay in long enough to fuck up her social security and medicare benefits. I'd sentence her to a year in jail then 20 years of probation. Witnesses heard him confess.

If I ruled the world most crimes would be limited to fines unless they involved egregious violence against anyone under 100 pounds. And I wanna see blood or impairment like a broken bone or black eye. I've had clients go to jail for inflicting fingernail scratches on big men. C'mon.

Three people I knew well are on death row following excessively violent murders. One started out as robbery on old people and ended with the old folks cut up into morsels. The other was a grisly throat cutting that happened when ma caught Sis fucking an adult male on the kitchen floor. Ma told the guy to leave and he and Sis cut the moms throat. Sis did 15 years and converted to born again lesbian.

I think some murders are over the top. I knew Adam as a teen and warned him where he was headed. He went there and now he's toast. The girls ma didn't try to kill him. She told him to get his ass on the road.

 

[about_average]

I think that the fear of death penalty would be a v. strong deterrant for future crimes

You might think that, but it isn't. For one, criminals, especially murderers, don't think they will get caught. Except for one that I know of. He randomly killed two people specifically because Georgia had the death penalty and he was too much of a coward to commit suicide.
If GA hadn't had capital punishment those two people wouldn't have been murdered.
And people who kill in a rage or from mental instability certainly aren't thinking about the ramifications. Deterrent doesn't enter the picture.

I doubt you could ever show causation (the above case notwithstanding) between capital punishment, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, but if the state puts little value on the life of its citizens, where's the positive example for citizens?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Folks like Sean love to imply that the death penalty has an element of causation with respect to higher murder rates. It never occurs to them that the higher rates may have been the motivation for the penalty or, the real truth, that the death penalty has been a fact of civilized societies from the very dawn of recorded history.

Psychological research shows that the existence of the death penalty has little deterrence of the crime of murder because the majority of murders are "crimes of passion." It therefore follows that if the penalty does not serve as a deterrent that it also plays no role in motivation. The "passion" is virtually always about issues in the relationship between victim and assailant. The criminal penalty is irrelevant.

But someone is almost certain to spout this meaningless factoid every time the subject comes up.

Many of us know execution deters no one. Group hugs do the work. Stop or youll get a big hug!

 

[DSpeeGal]

Countries with the death penalty have higher murder rates than countries without. Fact.

BS

Link, if you dare

 

[DSpeeGal]

BS

Link, if you dare

Still waiting on the non existent link

 

[about_average]

Still waiting on the non existent link

You're describing your link to Planned Parenthood saying they never took money for fetal tissue.

 

[magicalmoments]

BS

Link, if you dare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Doesn't identify which countries have the death penalty but I know my country (no death penalty) has a homocide rate of 0.9 as opposed to USA which has a homocide rate of 4.7

Other countires that I know do not have a death penalty, e.g. UK, Australia, Japan, denmark and most of the EEC countries have a lower homocide rate than the USA.

 

[MrRandyWatson]

Take a gander at how Norway treats their criminals and tell me if what America does is still a good idea.

Also, if you must have the death penalty, there needs to be a provision in there that those who move for death must be willing to execute the criminal in 24 hours. With the following caveat - if the executed person is proven innocent after a mandatory investigation, everyone who pushed for the death penalty dies. The prosecutor, the sentencing judge, the jurors who vote to condemn - off with their heads. See how many people sign up to execute people with that rule in place.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Take a gander at how Norway treats their criminals and tell me if what America does is still a good idea.

Also, if you must have the death penalty, there needs to be a provision in there that those who move for death must be willing to execute the criminal in 24 hours. With the following caveat - if the executed person is proven innocent after a mandatory investigation, everyone who pushed for the death penalty dies. The prosecutor, the sentencing judge, the jurors who vote to condemn - off with their heads. See how many people sign up to execute people with that rule in place.

Gee, if you're going to come up with stupid ideas like this, why stop with the death penalty? If ANY felon who does a 10 or 20-year prison stretch is later found to have been wrongly convicted, why not round up everyone remotely connected with that conviction and demand they serve an equal amount of prison time?

Answer: because our judicial system cannot possibly guarantee perfection in determining an "accurate" decision of guilt or innocence, despite the fact that it is overwhelmingly accurate in the vast majority of cases. In fact, our adversary system is set up so that it is far more likely that a "guilty" criminal will "beat the rap" through a "presumption of innocence" and his right of due process including legal representation and jurors subject to persuasion by skilled defense counsel.

I assume you're fine with that particular flaw in the system?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Every penalty comes with problems. Kill them and maybe theyre innocent. Put them in jail and a liberal girl judge lets them out.

I say give criminals group hugs and fat government chex and apologize.

 

[about_average]

Gee, if you're going to come up with stupid ideas like this, why stop with the death penalty?

While the suggested "remedy" is a bit extreme, there is big difference between that scenario and a prison sentence.
If wrongly convicted, the people in your scenario can be released from prison. In wrongfully convicted capital cases, digging up a body really doesn't accomplish much.

 

[Aella_]

You might think that, but it isn't. For one, criminals, especially murderers, don't think they will get caught. Except for one that I know of. He randomly killed two people specifically because Georgia had the death penalty and he was too much of a coward to commit suicide.
If GA hadn't had capital punishment those two people wouldn't have been murdered.
And people who kill in a rage or from mental instability certainly aren't thinking about the ramifications. Deterrent doesn't enter the picture.

I doubt you could ever show causation (the above case notwithstanding) between capital punishment, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, but if the state puts little value on the life of its citizens, where's the positive example for citizens?

You might think that, but it isn't. For one, criminals, especially murderers, don't think they will get caught. Except for one that I know of. He randomly killed two people specifically because Georgia had the death penalty and he was too much of a coward to commit suicide.
If GA hadn't had capital punishment those two people wouldn't have been murdered.
And people who kill in a rage or from mental instability certainly aren't thinking about the ramifications. Deterrent doesn't enter the picture.

I doubt you could ever show causation (the above case notwithstanding) between capital punishment, or the lack thereof, and murder rates, but if the state puts little value on the life of its citizens, where's the positive example for citizens?

My mistake probably lay in the fact that I was considering things from My perspective. Tbh, if I were to engage in some dubious act (within certain limits, of course), my strongest deterrent would be "what if someone found out?". Probably a bit more than any conscience or guilt.

But I guess with some violent offenders - the impulsive-type- , forethought is out of the question.

On the other hand, when it comes to the the the criminals of the predatory-type:
- indeed, a serial killer's brain might not work like mine.
- but when it comes to those who are slightly less psychopathic than serial killers (ie husband who is considering killing his spouse in order to get her money,// or gangster who does a break-in and thinks of killing the house owners 'just in case' etc.) I still think that it might act as a deterrent.

 

[DSpeeGal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Doesn't identify which countries have the death penalty but I know my country (no death penalty) has a homocide rate of 0.9 as opposed to USA which has a homocide rate of 4.7

Other countires that I know do not have a death penalty, e.g. UK, Australia, Japan, denmark and most of the EEC countries have a lower homocide rate than the USA.

so link is meaningless