Reversing my position on death penalty.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Absolutely. But, given the lack of such paladins, the review board I suggested would do the job. Members would have no fear of judges or prosecutors and could examine evidence presented. And maybe even spot erors commited by incompetent defense counsel. They would not look for Constitutional violations, but there would be nothing to prevent somebody from pointing out one that is present.

And have zero competence to understand what theyre reviewing.

 

[Weird Harold]

You have a couple of points, there-- not all accused, but many. Wonder why so many people get turned into political soccer balls?

Because "political soccer balls" sell newspapers.

That's why I'm in favor of suppressing news coverage until after the trial and appeals are over. The "news" media doesn't seem to be able to cover a trial of any felony without sensationalizing it or inflaming public opinion prior to a trial.

 

[TexasWife25]

Criminal Justice convictions aren't, or at least shouldn't be, "due process of the people." They are, or should be, due process of the court.

Allowing "the people" to pass judgement is how lynchings happen.

My contention is that there are indisputable cases where the death penalty is appropriate. "Doubt" would encompass all other cases.



Would you say there is any possibility of error in Charles Manson's conviction? Would you say his defiant assertion to the parole board that he would kill again if released had any possibility of coercion behind it?

Simply banning the death penalty does nothing to correct the problem of wrongful convictions. Refusal to work for changes in the criminal justice system to make it fail-safe simply because "no human designed system is perfect" is just taking the easy option.

Every wrongful conviction that could be averted by reform means one less person at risk of death because of that conviction -- whether formal execution or "just another victim of prison violence."

Every execution that can be prevented by changing the rules to make it tougher to get a death penalty conviction and forcing governors and judges to do a real review before signing a death warrant means one less possible innocent dies.

If executions are limited to the indisputably guilty then by definition no innocents will be executed.

Very VERY few cases are Charles Manson, and Ive heard people argue that he belongs in a mental care facility not prison.

People are the ones passing judgement, a jury of 12 people, who on average know little about how the law should work and can easily be swayed by sentiment over evidence.

I'm not suggesting we not continue to work at bettering our justice system. Only that as it stands now, it's not a process that anyone should trust with life And death decisions. And I'm not sure it can ever be.

What would be the point of maintaining the death penalty if it's used say, every 30 years?

Again I don't take issue with bad people dying, but with the obvious problem that innocent people die with them. You can be for the death penalty, however if you are I think you have to acknowledge, as it stands rigt now, that you accept the loss of innocent life in persuit of the death of others.

 

[TE999]

Wonder why so many people get turned into political soccer balls?

For many reasons ... unfortunately.

Personal aggrandizement on the part of the prosecution or the defense, ginning up votes, attempting to incite or prevent uprisings, bias, prejudices, a 'hot' media piece ... the list goes on.

Our legal system is not perfect by any means, but compared to others in the world it's infinitely superior.

"The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."

 

[Boxlicker101]

Very VERY few cases are Charles Manson, and Ive heard people argue that he belongs in a mental care facility not prison.

People are the ones passing judgement, a jury of 12 people, who on average know little about how the law should work and can easily be swayed by sentiment over evidence.

I'm not suggesting we not continue to work at bettering our justice system. Only that as it stands now, it's not a process that anyone should trust with life And death decisions. And I'm not sure it can ever be.

What would be the point of maintaining the death penalty if it's used say, every 30 years?

Again I don't take issue with bad people dying, but with the obvious problem that innocent people die with them. You can be for the death penalty, however if you are I think you have to acknowledge, as it stands rigt now, that you accept the loss of innocent life in persuit of the death of others.

I believe in most cases the evidence is quite clear - semen in the vagina of a rape/murder victim, videotapes of the crime in progress, DNA under the victim's fingernails, the victim's valuables in the possession of the accused, etc. I am mainly concerned with cases where the evidence is not as clear or does not exist.

The case of Scott Peterson comes to mind especially. I believe he was convicted because of jury animosity toward him and because they believed he was not mourning enough. There was no actual evidence pointing to him, and the prosecution never proved their theory, even though it would have been possible to do so, if they were right. The kind of board I have been writing about would probably examine his case and move to overturn the guilty verdict.

 

[Boxlicker101]

For many reasons ... unfortunately.

Personal aggrandizement on the part of the prosecution or the defense, ginning up votes, attempting to incite or prevent uprisings, bias, prejudices, a 'hot' media piece ... the list goes on.

Our legal system is not perfect by any means, but compared to others in the world it's infinitely superior.

"The wheels of Justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine."

This is done by others who have no official connection to a case. In the death of Trayvon Martin, people such as Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers see it as a chance to do their rabble rousing.

Of course, there are cases where the KKK or other groups see a chance to do their own kind of rabble rousing. And, as somebody else said, newspapers see it as a chance to sell more papers and people like Nancy Grace see it as a chance to increase their ratings.

The news media will claim their rights under the First Amendment and they will also claim they are preventing the railroading of innocent persons. That is probably so sometimes, but the media probably contributes to the railroading more often than they prevent it. It's not as bad as it used to be. The conviction of Sam Shepard is a good example of a man being convicted by the news media.

 

[TexasWife25]

I believe in most cases the evidence is quite clear - semen in the vagina of a rape/murder victim, videotapes of the crime in progress, DNA under the victim's fingernails, the victim's valuables in the possession of the accused, etc. I am mainly concerned with cases where the evidence is not as clear or does not exist.

The case of Scott Peterson comes to mind especially. I believe he was convicted because of jury animosity toward him and because they believed he was not mourning enough. There was no actual evidence pointing to him, and the prosecution never proved their theory, even though it would have been possible to do so, if they were right. The kind of board I have been writing about would probably examine his case and move to overturn the guilty verdict.

You ask any practicing trial lawyer and one of the 1st things they'll tell you is tv shows like CSI and law and order have skewed people perception of how most cases really are. Most cases dont have smoking guns like tapes of the perp committing the crime or viable DNA. That's tv not real life. Yes those happen, but in your average crime it's simply not the case.

Also you make a good point, what one person may view as an open and shut case of guilt( Scott Peterson) someone else may feel the jury got it wrong.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

You ask any practicing trial lawyer and one of the 1st things they'll tell you is tv shows like CSI and law and order have skewed people perception of how most cases really are. Most cases dont have smoking guns like tapes of the perp committing the crime or viable DNA. That's tv not real life. Yes those happen, but in your average crime it's simply not the case.

Also you make a good point, what one person may view as an open and shut case of guilt( Scott Peterson) someone else may feel the jury got it wrong.

You make a good point in an earlier post about how the American criminal justice system isn't remotely perfect enough to be handing out death sentences (As we are seeing with all of the innocent people recently and continuingly being released from prisons and death rows). Someone else mentioned that, well, the American justice system is better than anything else out there. It's something that people get programmed into thinking. But the fact is that it's not the case at all. I suppose the American system is likely better than many third-world nation systems, but when compared to those in other countries like ours the American criminal justice system stacks up as one of the worst. Other developed countries go to far greater lengths to insure fair trials, and they don't have death sentences, so mistakes can be righted.

There are so many factors that make the death penalty something that any thinking person is going to oppose. You mention the difference between television cop shows and real life, and those observations are entirely valid.

In those cop shows you're never (or seldom) going to see the police or prosecutors withholding exculpatory from the defense (and in some cases destroying such evidence). On the rare cases it's discovered and they're held accountable, the punishments are no more than a slap on the wrist.

As a Texas wife, you should be aware that in the state of Texas it's perfectly OK for someone on trial for a capital crime to be represented in court by a sleeping or drunk laywer (a standard established by the Texas parole and pardons board).

 

[BONNIEBREA]

You ask any practicing trial lawyer and one of the 1st things they'll tell you is tv shows like CSI and law and order have skewed people perception of how most cases really are. Most cases dont have smoking guns like tapes of the perp committing the crime or viable DNA. That's tv not real life. Yes those happen, but in your average crime it's simply not the case.

Also you make a good point, what one person may view as an open and shut case of guilt( Scott Peterson) someone else may feel the jury got it wrong.

You make a good point in an earlier post about how the American criminal justice system isn't remotely perfect enough to be handing out death sentences (As we are seeing with all of the innocent people recently and continuingly being released from prisons and death rows). Someone else mentioned that, well, the American justice system is better than anything else out there. It's something that people get programmed into thinking and saying (or writing). But the fact is that it's not the case at all. I suppose the American system is likely better than many third-world nation systems, but when compared to those in other countries like ours the American criminal justice system stacks up as one of the worst. Other developed countries go to far greater lengths to insure fair trials, and they don't have death sentences, so mistakes can be righted.

You mention the difference between television cop shows and real life, and those observations are entirely valid, as are your observations about media influence and personal stereotypes affecting jury members

In those cop shows you're never (or seldom) going to see the police or prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense (and in some cases destroying such evidence), but the practice is common. On the rare cases it's discovered they never receive more than a slap on the wrist.

As a Texas wife, you are likely aware that in the state of Texas it's perfectly OK for someone on trial for a capital crime to be represented in court by a sleeping or drunk laywer (a standard established by the Texas parole and pardons board).

Eyewitness testimony is another weak point. Eyewitness testimony is about the most unreliable evidence available. The popular fantasy is that if a woman is the victim of a sexual assault then the face of her attacker will be indelibly seared on her frontal lobe. The fact is (and many studies have confirmed this) that the victim is MOST likely to mis-identify the person who attacked them.

(The studies discovered that the closer to an incident a witness is the more likely they are to give faulty descriptions or mis-identify the perpetrator. As witnesses move farther from the actual incident their identifications and descriptions become somewhat more reliable, to the point where someone who is a casual witness seeing the incident from a safe distance gives the closest descriptions - but even then the witness is more likely than not to mis-identify. The studies find that witnesses mis-identify perpetrators a minumim of half the time, and up to 90% of the time. And - here's the kicker - in many states the defense is prohibited from presenting this information about the unreliability of eyewitness identification to a jury)

With the utter deluge of factual information available on the unreliabilty of death penalties, and American courts' propensity for getting it wrong, it's difficult to imagine any person capable of rational or reasoned thinking to favor death penalties.

 

[ottohauser1977]

Gee, aren't you two cute!

Isn't it a coincidence, too, that after a 2+ year hiatus, not only does good 'ol Otto show up suddenly posting like gang busters, but so does his "saucy" ex-wife, who just happens to sound like a "bi-sexual MILF".

Seems almost too coincidental. Seems almost like the sequel to that story you wrote, dude.

'Course now, I KNOW you wouldn't be blowing smoke up our collective asses with some poorly done, one dimensional, alt, now would ya dude?

(P.S. How odd that she not only had to mention in damn near evey one of her posts that she is your "friendly ex wife" and that she starts also posting in the GLBT forum, but you yourself post there for the first time in your life yesterday.

It's almost as if your "sequel" would be featuring a bisexual MILF ex-wife and you are doing some "research" by playing people with your alt. Odd. Very odd. )

That has to be the dumbest motherfucking post ever. FYI, my story is going a completely different direction than what it was, to the point of starting it over from scratch. And she is only recently helping me with it, editing such and such, which got her interested in this site. If it was research for a story, it would have had to blow up in my face, because it led to my break-up with my girlfriend. That makes no sense to me. And I think that Stella could tell you that I asked her about what people would think about a non-writer like Denise being on the AH. She assured me that it would be okay.

As for the GLBT thing, I have reasons for posting on it, just as I did on the Stacy TG thread in Fetish. I can't speak to just what Denise's plans are for herself. You'd have to ask her. It's not a freaking joke. It's her life, up to and including her struggle with booze and her nervous confession of past infidelity to me. Something that I've forgiven, though it wasn't easy. It helped that we're not an item. I don't know how to spell that out for you. She's a friend who happens to be my ex-wife. She's not my current partner. We flirt a little, but that's all it is. Exes do that at times. It's the old chemistry, that's all.

You might think that everyone is on the make or some crap like that. That's your choice, but I've read so many of your posts and they all seem very jaded. Worse than me, in fact. Quite frankly, I think that you need a shrink. It's that bad. Get help, but stop picking fights with people who never did a thing to you. You did that to Sev and Box, and they rightly called you to the carpet on it. Pierre did as well, and you continued your viciousness. Now you've gone after my ex and me. Bad enough that you insulted me, but worse that you attacked her. She didn't deserve that. She's not perfect, but she deserves better treatment than that.

You want something visibly real? How about anger? What does that do for you? I certainly feel quite a bit of it right now, mainly over your cruelty to Denise. You need to get a grip and stop what Sev rightly called "false assumptions". It's time to grow up, lady.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

That has to be the dumbest motherfucking post ever. FYI, my story is going a completely different direction than what it was, to the point of starting it over from scratch. And she is only recently helping me with it, editing such and such, which got her interested in this site. If it was research for a story, it would have had to blow up in my face, because it led to my break-up with my girlfriend. That makes no sense to me. And I think that Stella could tell you that I asked her about what people would think about a non-writer like Denise being on the AH. She assured me that it would be okay.

As for the GLBT thing, I have reasons for posting on it, just as I did on the Stacy TG thread in Fetish. I can't speak to just what Denise's plans are for herself. You'd have to ask her. It's not a freaking joke. It's her life, up to and including her struggle with booze and her nervous confession of past infidelity to me. Something that I've forgiven, though it wasn't easy. It helped that we're not an item. I don't know how to spell that out for you. She's a friend who happens to be my ex-wife. She's not my current partner. We flirt a little, but that's all it is. Exes do that at times. It's the old chemistry, that's all.

You might think that everyone is on the make or some crap like that. That's your choice, but I've read so many of your posts and they all seem very jaded. Worse than me, in fact. Quite frankly, I think that you need a shrink. It's that bad. Get help, but stop picking fights with people who never did a thing to you. You did that to Sev and Box, and they rightly called you to the carpet on it. Pierre did as well, and you continued your viciousness. Now you've gone after my ex and me. Bad enough that you insulted me, but worse that you attacked her. She didn't deserve that. She's not perfect, but she deserves better treatment than that.

You want something visibly real? How about anger? What does that do for you? I certainly feel quite a bit of it right now, mainly over your cruelty to Denise. You need to get a grip and stop what Sev rightly called "false assumptions". It's time to grow up, lady.

Otto, just ignore SB. She's a self-loathing hypocrite. She's not even worth hating. But a nickel's worth of advice. Get that damn story out soon. Then everyone can see for themselves that it bears little or no resemblance to SB's BS. Give my love to Denise. She sounds like a real Southern belle. Certainly not a damn alt. Who does SB think that you are, scouries? (I have long thought that Sarahhh was scouries' alt. They're too tight with each other.)

I second your advice to her, incidentally. She really does need professional help.

 

[Weird Harold]

Very VERY few cases are Charles Manson, and Ive heard people argue that he belongs in a mental care facility not prison.

Very VERY few cases should qualify for the death penalty. So where's the problem; SOME cases do qualify where the is no doubt -- just arguments about trying to cure the incurable.

Box mentioned the Scott Peterson case; that is a case that should never even have been considered for a death sentence because all of the evidence was circumstantial -- there is some doubt as to his guilt, even, but even if there wasn't nobody should be executed on circumstantial evidence. That single change would commute most death sentences.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, naturally, as an anarchist, I oppose execution on principle. The State shouldn't even exist, let alone have the power of life and death over anyone.

Reminds me of that line from The Defection of Simas Kudirka....

"An execution is always political."

 

[ottohauser1977]

Otto, just ignore SB. She's a self-loathing hypocrite. She's not even worth hating. But a nickel's worth of advice. Get that damn story out soon. Then everyone can see for themselves that it bears little or no resemblance to SB's BS. Give my love to Denise. She sounds like a real Southern belle. Certainly not a damn alt. Who does SB think that you are, scouries? (I have long thought that Sarahhh was scouries' alt. They're too tight with each other.)

I second your advice to her, incidentally. She really does need professional help.

Note if you will, Sev, that none of us (you, me, Box, Pierre, or anyone else here) attacks SB for her stories or sexual preference (or anything else but her viciousness toward others). She's becoming the KRC of the AH. And that's hardly a good thing.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Note if you will, Sev, that none of us (you, me, Box, Pierre, or anyone else here) attacks SB for her stories or sexual preference (or anything else but her viciousness toward others). She's becoming the KRC of the AH. And that's hardly a good thing.

Hey Otto, glad you got all your buddies agreeing with you, but that more of a birds of a feather, or assholes in y'alls case, than anything else.

BTW, I STILL think you are playing people and that your "wife" is your alt. There are just too damn many similarities to that suck ass story you wrote, dude.

 

[pierrelarue161]

Gee, aren't you two cute!

Isn't it a coincidence, too, that after a 2+ year hiatus, not only does good 'ol Otto show up suddenly posting like gang busters, but so does his "saucy" ex-wife, who just happens to sound like a "bi-sexual MILF".

Seems almost too coincidental. Seems almost like the sequel to that story you wrote, dude.

'Course now, I KNOW you wouldn't be blowing smoke up our collective asses with some poorly done, one dimensional, alt, now would ya dude?

(P.S. How odd that she not only had to mention in damn near evey one of her posts that she is your "friendly ex wife" and that she starts also posting in the GLBT forum, but you yourself post there for the first time in your life yesterday.

It's almost as if your "sequel" would be featuring a bisexual MILF ex-wife and you are doing some "research" by playing people with your alt. Odd. Very odd. )

Damn, hasty and judgmental much? Not to mention that your assumptions are based upon what, "circumstances"? What a handy demonstration of what is wrong with circumstances as evidence! If the jurors were all like you, no defendant would ever stand a chance, innocent or guilty!

As Julian tells Delphidius in Gore Vidal's novel by that name, "How can any man ever be found innocent, if all you must do is accuse him?"

 

[pierrelarue161]

Hey Otto, glad you got all your buddies agreeing with you, but that more of a birds of a feather, or assholes in y'alls case, than anything else.

BTW, I STILL think you are playing people and that your "wife" is your alt. There are just too damn many similarities to that suck ass story you wrote, dude.

See what I mean? A rush to judgment at all times, instead of calm, deliberate thought. But that has never been her strength, has it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Very VERY few cases should qualify for the death penalty. So where's the problem; SOME cases do qualify where the is no doubt -- just arguments about trying to cure the incurable.

Box mentioned the Scott Peterson case; that is a case that should never even have been considered for a death sentence because all of the evidence was circumstantial -- there is some doubt as to his guilt, even, but even if there wasn't nobody should be executed on circumstantial evidence. That single change would commute most death sentences.

And the primary circumstance held against him was that he was the husband of the victim.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Very VERY few cases should qualify for the death penalty. So where's the problem; SOME cases do qualify where the is no doubt -- just arguments about trying to cure the incurable.

Box mentioned the Scott Peterson case; that is a case that should never even have been considered for a death sentence because all of the evidence was circumstantial -- there is some doubt as to his guilt, even, but even if there wasn't nobody should be executed on circumstantial evidence. That single change would commute most death sentences.

Uh, unless the killer confesses all other evidence is circumstantial.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Uh, unless the killer confesses all other evidence is circumstantial.

A lot of confessions are bogus too. Sometimes nut cases confess on prominent cases; sometimes the police coerce confessions and sometimes what are called "confessions" are no more than speculation by the accused.