Man Put To Death For 1989 Murder

[Belsnickel]

(04-24-2018, 04:48 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: What do you mean?

Do you mean do I feel the same way because stem cells can come from aborted babies?

If so, and I think that's what you mean, I'll explain to you, like I had to with Fred:  the stem cells that would be used for my treatment don't come  from aborted babies.  In fact, very few stem cells used do come from aborted babies, but that's what everyone associates with stem cells because that's the controversial one.  Most stem cells, including the ones that would be used for my treatment, come from things like bone marrow, blood plasma, skin, etc.  

People are either uneducated on the topic or have other agendas when they assume that all stem cells come from aborted babies when it's actually a very small amount.

I was actually thinking of embryonic stem cells, which won't be used in your therapy, but were most assuredly used inthe research that led up to it. So you will be benefiting from that. Even the lab grown ones were human embryos.

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2018, 06:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Who cares if they can't get the years back.  They are capable of getting their freedom back.

Have you ever heard of a guy getting his conviction overturned after 20 years in prison say "Never mind.  If I can't get those years back I'll just stay in prison."

That one dude "Birdy" in Shawshank redemption, but your question answered aside.

When we start eliminating practices because we get one in a 1,000,000 wrong we better be prepared to accept that as our standard. If one person is murdered by someone in this country illegally we should...... 

[BmorePat87]

(04-24-2018, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd imagine most are; however, the time cannot be reversed. I also sure there are many innocent men that have spent a life wrongly imprisoned, life everyday knowing they are innocent, and die in that very state. To me to abolish capital punishment is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. The focus should be and has been on improved methods of investigation. But unfortunately, once all the evidence is presented, a suspect has been found guilty by a jury of his or her peers, and the sentence is death; then the sentence should be carried out. People die everyday for unjustified reasons. But we are allowed to pick and choose what we apply zero tolerance to.

I have said in the past the CP should be reserved for extreme cases in which there is no ambiguity. Can anyone against the death penalty tell me why Dylan Roof should not die for his crimes?

The time cannot be reversed, but the sentence can be overturned. A death sentence is final. Sure, some innocent people never get exonerated, but that doesn't support an argument in favor of the death penalty. The fact that we even recognize that innocent people are in prison acts as a counter argument to the death penalty. The very fact that one innocent life can be saved far outweighs the need for an overpriced vengeance. 

Abolishing the death penalty doesn't prevent concurrent criminal justice reform in other areas. We're capable of addressing multiple issues at the same time. Maryland overturned the death penalty and continues to work to reform our criminal justice system.

To answer your question: it's far more expensive and we cannot selectively apply the law. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2018, 08:22 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The time cannot be reversed, but the sentence can be overturned. A death sentence is final. Sure, some innocent people never get exonerated, but that doesn't support an argument in favor of the death penalty. The fact that we even recognize that innocent people are in prison acts as a counter argument to the death penalty. The very fact that one innocent life can be saved far outweighs the need for an overpriced vengeance. 

Abolishing the death penalty doesn't prevent concurrent criminal justice reform in other areas. We're capable of addressing multiple issues at the same time. Maryland overturned the death penalty and continues to work to reform our criminal justice system.

To answer your question: it's far more expensive and we cannot selectively apply the law. 

Sentence can be overturned after the accused is executed as well. Dying in prison is final as well. The support for the Death Penalty is the same as the the support for life in prison. The vast majority of the time our judicial system gets it right.

But why do both? Are you saying you would support the death penalty if criminal justice is reformed or would you never support the deth penalty in any case?

Of course we can selectively apply the law and It's only far more expensive because we allow it to be. What further investigation/appeals is required on a case such as Roof's? 

[Belsnickel]

Personally, beyond my stated reasons without bringing religion into it, I have my own personal beliefs which stand against the death penalty. Christian teachings are against the idea of it. The death penalty is a vengeful act, and vengeance is God's action to take. But that's a more personal opinion of mine rather than one rooted in quantitative information showing its ineffectiveness, inefficiencies, and inequitable application which violate the goals of how a government should function.

[BmorePat87]

(04-24-2018, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sentence can be overturned after the accused is executed as well. Dying in prison is final as well. The support for the Death Penalty is the same as the the support for life in prison. The vast majority of the time our judicial system gets it right.

And when they don't, a system with no death penalty ensures that someone falsely accused has a chance to go free.

Quote:But why do both? Are you saying you would support the death penalty if criminal justice is reformed or would you never support the deth penalty in any case?

Why both abolish the death penalty and reform the system to ensure less innocent people are incarcerated? Because they accomplish separate goals and are both necessary to have a better system. I have zero reason to support the death penalty. 

Quote:Of course we can selectively apply the law and It's only far more expensive because we allow it to be. What further investigation/appeals is required on a case such as Roof's? 

No, it's far more expensive because we have to ensure more protections to make sure innocent people are not executed. Even with your proposal, it will be far more expensive because due process matters. We can't deny due process cause we're really sure.

[BmorePat87]

What is one argument in favor of the death penalty?

[*bfine32*]

(04-24-2018, 10:20 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What is one argument in favor of the death penalty?

Severity of crime equals severity of punishment.

Take for instance "can never recover from death" argument. Should the punishment for forceable rape/imprisonment be the same as murder? The rape/imprisoned victim can recover from the crimes committed against him/her; the deceased cannot. So why shouldn't the punishment be proportional to the crime? 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(04-24-2018, 09:07 AM)GMDino Wrote: Actually that would be wrong also.

"pro-choice" means the woman can decide what to do (choose) with her own body.  Many pro-choice are anti-abortion.  I am one of them.  For your example to work they would have to be  rpo criminal deciding if he want to die or not.  

I am against the death penalty in principle, but I can understand it's use in cut and dry cases.  I don't know how many of them there are, but if there is truly no doubt, and no chance of rehabilitation, then I can see it as an acceptable end in particular heinous cases.  In other words, in EXTREMELY rare occasions...not the assembly line time killings we have seen in the past in some states.

You can not be for and against something at the same time. You can tell yourself whatever you want to justify your position but to allow someone else to murder a child because they choose to and say its ok because I'm against it just does not work. It don't matter if you believe that the child isn't a child either because it is a child.

I don't care what your argument is either, you are wrong on this and I am right.

[GMDino]

(04-24-2018, 11:02 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You can not be for and against something at the same time. You can tell yourself whatever you want to justify your position but to allow someone else to murder a child because they choose to and say its ok because I'm against it just does not work. It don't matter if you believe that the child isn't a child either because it is a child.

I don't care what your argument is either, you are wrong on this and I am right.

We should get that on a shirt and sell it around here.

[Dill]

(04-24-2018, 10:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Severity of crime equals severity of punishment.

Take for instance "can never recover from death" argument. Should the punishment for forceable rape/imprisonment be the same as murder? The rape/imprisoned victim can recover from the crimes committed against him/her; the deceased cannot. So why shouldn't the punishment be proportional to the crime? 

I'd imagine most are; however, the time cannot be reversed. I also sure there are many innocent men that have spent a life wrongly imprisoned, life everyday knowing they are innocent, and die in that very state. To me to abolish capital punishment is simply throwing the baby out with the bath water. The focus should be and has been on improved methods of investigation. But unfortunately, once all the evidence is presented, a suspect has been found guilty by a jury of his or her peers, and the sentence is death; then the sentence should be carried out. People die everyday for unjustified reasons. But we are allowed to pick and choose what we apply zero tolerance to.

LOL I have never seen the death penalty compared to a baby before. Who wouldn't want to save a baby?

In the majority of the hundreds of cases of wrongful conviction, the problem has not been faulty "methods" but official misconduct and perjury. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/causes-wrongful-convictions

"Proportional" gets really fuzzy when understood in some pre modern sense, like an eye for an eye.

If one person shoots another in the leg illegally, we don't shoot the shooter in the leg because that is "proportional."

Since the 19th century, a proportional punishment means the punishment is calibrated to deterrence as well as recognition of degree of violation. In fact, one can track the progress of civilization through the history of the definition of proportional punishment, all the way to the present in which all 1st world countries except the US have abolished capital punishment.  In authoritarian states from Saudi Arabia to China, it still "makes sense" to carry the death penalty once the verdict has been pronounced.

This poor woman was hauled straight from the courtroom. People die every day for unjustified reasons. Saving money is one. The Chinese save a lot.  The deceased's family is charged for the cost of the bullet.

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2018, 07:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When we start eliminating practices because we get one in a 1,000,000 wrong we better be prepared to accept that as our standard. If one person is murdered by someone in this country illegally we should...... 

If a person is murdered than we should prosucute the murderer.

What is your point?

And how many innocent people is it okay to execute before you would consider abolishing the death penalty?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2018, 11:02 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You can not be for and against something at the same time. You can tell yourself whatever you want to justify your position but to allow someone else to murder a child because they choose to and say its ok because I'm against it just does not work. It don't matter if you believe that the child isn't a child either because it is a child.

I don't care what your argument is either, you are wrong on this and I am right.

In order for an individual to have "individual rights" it must be an individual.  Until the fetus can survive outside the womb it can not be granted individual rights greater than the mothers.

Someday when technology improves to the point that we can take a fetus out of the womb and have it survive then you may have an argument, but right now you do not.  As long as the fetus can not survive seperate from the mother then it is not an individual and it can not have rights greater than the mother's

[BmorePat87]

(04-24-2018, 10:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So why shouldn't the punishment be proportional to the crime? 

-it costs significantly more but only 16% of those on death row between 1973-2013 were actually executed. 


-38% of those on death row had their conviction or sentence overturned between 1973-2013.

Fortunately for those 38%, due process exists. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-25-2018, 09:03 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: -it costs significantly more but only 16% of those on death row between 1973-2013 were actually executed. 


-38% of those on death row had their conviction or sentence overturned between 1973-2013.

Fortunately for those 38%, due process exists. 

I believe the vast majority of that 38% was having their sentences commuted (if that's the right word) to life in prison.  Nobody said they didn't do it.

[BFritz21]

(04-25-2018, 08:56 AM)fredtoast Wrote: In order for an individual to have "individual rights" it must be an individual.  Until the fetus can survive outside the womb it can not be granted individual rights greater than the mothers.

Someday when technology improves to the point that we can take a fetus out of the womb and have it survive then you may have an argument, but right now you do not.  As long as the fetus can not survive seperate from the mother then it is not an individual and it can not have rights greater than the mother's

I couldn't breathe on my own for a while, so I couldn't survive without a machine, so did I have no individual rights?

[fredtoast]

(04-24-2018, 10:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So why shouldn't the punishment be proportional to the crime? 

Didn't someone you supposedly respect tell you to get over the whole "eye for an eye" thing?

If we claim it is unhuman to rape and beat a person to death then we can't rape and beat a person to death.

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2018, 09:53 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I couldn't breathe on my own for a while, so I couldn't survive without a machine, so did I have no individual rights?

No, because you were able to live without subjugating the rights of another human.

No one has tried to claim that a respirator has individual rights greater than yours.

[BFritz21]

(04-25-2018, 10:03 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No, because you were able to live without subjugating the rights of another human.

No one has tried to claim that a respirator has individual rights greater than yours.

But that would be a valid argument, according to you.

[BmorePat87]

(04-25-2018, 09:06 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I believe the vast majority of that 38% was having their sentences commuted (if that's the right word) to life in prison.  Nobody said they didn't do it.

I didn't include that number. Sentences commuted account for a separate 5%.