NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, you have two choices. Either the death penalty is abolished forever, or an innocent man (say, Kenneth Foster) is put to death tomorrow. There is no in between. What would you choose?

I would choose to save the man, but I already oppose the death penalty.

Alright, you have two choices. Either the death penalty is abolished forever, or an innocent man (say, Kenneth Foster) is put to death tomorrow. There is no in between. What would you choose?

I would choose to save the man, but I already oppose the death penalty.

Wow, that's not a horrendously biased question at all.

You see, bad policies such as the death penalty are becoming increasingly rare throughout the world. They are at risk of disappearing entirely if we do not act. Would you want your children to never be able to see a bad policy in its natural habitat, frolicking amidst the fields of legality and the forests of judiciary?

I dare say not. So we all must take a stand, and let a useless policy live on for the sake of our children. Please, protect the death penalty from those who would slaughter it callously.

Wow, that's not a horrendously biased question at all.Indeed. It is not. It's just the alternatives out of real life that should immediately slap anyone who thinks about it in the face.

I'd abolish the death penalty (if my country were barbaric enough to still have it) whether an innocent man was to be executed or not.

having a death penalty means that innocent people will sometimes be executed. it also means that sometimes a guilty person who completely qualfies for the death penalty will escape it.

there is no way around that. anything run by human beings will be imperfect.

i am against the death penalty.

I'm more Kantian than utilitarian here, but the death penalty brings a better social utility. Getting rid of the death penalty, which serves to protect society, is not worth it. I'm sorry.

And the idiotic "Law of Parties" law needs to be overturned, not the death penalty, in Foster's case.

Wow, that's not a horrendously biased question at all.

Want me to give you a half plausible scenario? ok then: You're on the Texas legislature, and the controversy over the Kenneth Foster case has prompted a discussion of the death penalty. After a heated discussion, the legislature was moved to a vote: the abolition of the death penalty, effective immediately. You know if you do not abolish the death penalty, an innocent man, Kenneth Foster, will be put to death in less than 24 hours. The vote is tied, and yours is the tiebreaker vote. There is no other way to save him. It's all or nothing. What would you choose?

I'm more Kantian than utilitarian here, but the death penalty brings a better social utility. Getting rid of the death penalty, which serves to protect society, is not worth it. I'm sorry.

And the idiotic "Law of Parties" law needs to be overturned, not the death penalty, in Foster's case.

how does the death penalty protect society? (and if it fits your explanation, how does it protect better than life in prison without possibility of parole?)

and how many innocent lives is this "better social utility" worth? is it worth your life or the life of someone in your family?

I'd vote to abolish the death penalty even if Dubya was on death row instead of Kenneth Foster.

I'd vote to abolish the death penalty even if Dubya was on death row instead of Kenneth Foster.

Damn, now wouldn't that be poetic justice.

I've always been anti-death penalty, so I would abolish the death penalty in the blink of an eye. ;) Of course, if we're talking about Guild Wars, I'll keep the DP.

An interesting death penalty statistic; you are more likely to die on the streets of Chicago as a crack dealer in a year than if you were on death row in Texas (from Freakonomics).
What's this mean? Well, first of all, even the most syringe trigger-happy state is better than most countries in the 19th century, so kudos to Texas (it needs all the kudos it can get). Secondly, if it is safer to get convicted than to continuing being a criminal, it is not a deterrent.
Maybe if we hanged people for shoplifting, it would actually work. As it is, we have pretty lenient punishments, and then occasionally kill someone. It's the worst of both worlds.

Another interesting fact: England had more capital crimes in the 1700s than the Bible (that's including Leviticus).

Hmm, how many people have been executed and later proved innocent since 1976 (when the death penalty was re-introduced)?
Answer: 0
Pretty good rate don't you think?
As for Foster, like all people he can file an appeal up to he's killed. If he's really innocent, and people know it, he's in the clear.
And, yes, it is a biased question.

I'm more Kantian than utilitarian here, but the death penalty brings a better social utility.

It does?

why the hell would I want to save something like the death penalty. The sooner it's completely done away with the better.

But England didn't have 2 million+ murders.

And if you want deterrance, remember that the death penalty is the coward's way out.

Finally, Geolana, there were at least two: Jesse Tafero (1990) and Wayne Felker (1996). Need I point out that 67% of capital convictions are overturned?

Hmm, how many people have been executed and later proved innocent since 1976 (when the death penalty was re-introduced)?
Answer: 0
Pretty good rate don't you think?
As for Foster, like all people he can file an appeal up to he's killed. If he's really innocent, and people know it, he's in the clear.
And, yes, it is a biased question.

How is it a biased question?

I am a natural rights Libertarian (in particular, a Rothbardian, though I am also heavily influenced by Hoppe), so therefore I am opposed to all initiations of force. I believe that the death penalty is justified for murderers (which, for me, includes warmongers such as President Bush or Tony Blair), but I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty for non-murderers or for innocents. It is immoral to kill one innocent person and therefore it is better to insufficiently punish the guilty murderers to save the lives of innocents.

Of course, the main problem critics of Libertarianism have is that they are utilitarians who think in terms of "positive freedom" instead of "negative freedom" as Libertarians do. That is why they corrupt the idea of liberty by claiming that there is a supposed right to steal or kill that must be balanced against other rights. They also corrupt coercion by defining voluntary activities as coercive (for example, F.A. Hayek's major flaw was that he defined both refusal to trade and violence as coercion, when in fact those are mutually exclusive and people either have no right to refuse a trade or no right to engage in violence). Most Libertarian critics deliberately fail to understand Libertarianism or distort what it stands for, which confuses non-Libertarians.

If he's really innocent, and people know it, he's in the clear.Not according to laws in Texas.

And in a couple of hours the Texas governor will be what Foster is not: a killer.

Texas is shit.

The death penalty is a necessary punishment in our judicial system and needs to be retained.

Texas is the s-it.

Corrected.

I would save the death penalty. Perhaps not in the case being referenced, but, overall, I would.

1) Scripture commands it. The Law will not pass away until it is fulfilled. The political end of the Law has not been fulfilled. We actually don't really know how it will be fulfilled (We have some vague notions in Revelations, but that's not much. People didn't expect Jesus to abrogate ceremonial Law the way He did.), but until it is, we are still bound to it.

2) When capital punishment is used correctly, it is a good thing. No one should sit in prison for 30 years waiting. It should be a month after conviction, tops. The swiftness (and steep penalties for those who get the charges wrong) will make sure that the police, lawyers, and the rest of the criminal justice system will make sure they get it right.

3) It will be a deterent. How many rapes do you think would happen if capital punishment were the only punishment for such a crime? How many murders? The number would drop significantly.

4) Capital punishment is not hypocrisy. It is saying that life is precious, and because you obviously do not respect life, it would be better for one very precious person to die (or two, if the convicted is guilty of murder) than to risk allowing you futher disregard life.

Corrected.

Texas is the sit?

Corrected.

Oooh, do bad words make little F&G cry? :upyours:

Want me to give you a half plausible scenario? ok then: You're on the Texas legislature, and the controversy over the Kenneth Foster case has prompted a discussion of the death penalty. After a heated discussion, the legislature was moved to a vote: the abolition of the death penalty, effective immediately. You know if you do not abolish the death penalty, an innocent man, Kenneth Foster, will be put to death in less than 24 hours. The vote is tied, and yours is the tiebreaker vote. There is no other way to save him. It's all or nothing. What would you choose?

And WHY I ask, is "Let an innocent man go free but still keep the penalty there for serial killers and those like them" not an option? Why is this an all or nothing choice? Why is this question set up so that agreeing with the penalty makes me sound callous, uncaring, and evil, while disagreeing with the penalty refuses to acknowledge all of the extra burden placed on a government when it is forced to house and care for criminals who will never again be productive members of society? Damned (literally) if I do, damned (in the long run when these people eventually pile up and require so much money in upkeep and cause even more chaos in the 'correctional institutions' they're housed in) if I don't.

Way to present an unbiased question that really addresses realistic options there, buddy.

Unfortunately, my choice cannot be determined at this time as my philosophical and practical sides cannot come to terms.

And WHY I ask, is "Let an innocent man go free but still keep the penalty there for serial killers and those like them" not an option? Why is this an all or nothing choice? Why is this question set up so that agreeing with the penalty makes me sound callous, uncaring, and evil, while disagreeing with the penalty refuses to acknowledge all of the extra burden placed on a government when it is forced to house and care for criminals who will never again be productive members of society? Damned (literally) if I do, damned (in the long run when these people eventually pile up and require so much money in upkeep and cause even more chaos in the 'correctional institutions' they're housed in) if I don't.

Way to present an unbiased question that really addresses realistic options there, buddy.

The point of an all or nothing choice is to force a person to evaluate their priorities. If, to you, it is worth a few innocent lives to keep the death penalty, then that's something you should admit to yourself.

And also, the death penalty costs more than incarceration, because there are more appeals, and people on death row almost always use all of their appeals.

Not according to laws in Texas.

And in a couple of hours the Texas governor will be what Foster is not: a killer.

Texas is shit.

I think you need to do something new with your borderline trolling statements. Maybe instead of bold and large, you could do red and large. Or italics, for a more elegant feel.

Abolish the death penalty. In a heartbeat.

I think you need to do something new with your borderline trolling statements. Maybe instead of bold and large, you could do red and large. Or italics, for a more elegant feel.It's as elegant as Texas deserves, with its backward mentality and idiotic laws, lawmakers, and folks who vote these lawmakers into office. Elegance is not for cave-dweller minds.

It's as elegant as Texas deserves, with its backward mentality and idiotic laws, lawmakers, and folks who vote these lawmakers into office. Elegance is not for cave-dweller minds.

Borderline baiting a mod. Elegant.

It's as elegant as Texas deserves, with its backward mentality and idiotic laws, lawmakers, and folks who vote these lawmakers into office.

You may want to check the quality of your own mentality, since you can't seem to pick up on a hint from a Moderator that you're heading for trouble with your statements.

Enjoy the second hint, a free one-day vacation from the forums.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

I say trash it. It has no significant effect on offenses it is practiced with, so I see no reason for keeping it. Also, saving the innocent is a big plus.

I don't think being really, really pissed off is a good reason to kill someone either. If it has a material effect, hey, I'm willing to discuss it. But as it stands, the Death Penalty is about revenge, and I have never been able to rationally justify revenge.

Indeed. It is not. It's just the alternatives out of real life that should immediately slap anyone who thinks about it in the face.

Except for those of us who actually support the death penalty when all evidence points to the murderer. So tell me how this is not a biased poll.

Except for those of us who actually support the death penalty when all evidence points to the murderer. So tell me how this is not a biased poll.

I'm asking you to choose between two extremes. That's not a biased thing to do. The point is to assess your priorities. Several people have come forward and said that they support the death penalty even if it means killing an innocent man. If you hold that to be true, you should be able to admit it, to both yourself and the forum.

Texas is shit.

I think you're taking this a bit too far, really. Sure, a lot of texans are religious fundies who vote republican unconditionally, but there actually are some sane people there.

The biased nature of the question notwithstanding, I would bear the risk of erroneous conviction so as to maintain capital punishment. Proper judicial processes, common sense and appeals should ensure that the innocent are protected.

I'm asking you to choose between two extremes. That's not a biased thing to do. The point is to assess your priorities.

I said what my priority was. My priority does not fit your poll options.

I'm asking you to choose between two extremes. That's not a biased thing to do. The point is to assess your priorities. Several people have come forward and said that they support the death penalty even if it means killing an innocent man. If you hold that to be true, you should be able to admit it, to both yourself and the forum.

That's moronic. A better question would be whether one supports the principle of capital punishment, given the risk it may entail, as opposed to your wholly biased proposition.

Texas is the sit?

no, he said it's the s-it. not like any-one knows what that means though.

I'd abolish the death penalty (if my country were barbaric enough to still have it) whether an innocent man was to be executed or not.

Yeah, you Brits have such a spotless history. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you Brits have such a spotless history. :rolleyes:

I think he was saying that any nation with the death penalty is a barbaric nation.

I said what my priority was. My priority does not fit your poll options.

So if you were in the situation I described earlier, without your own third choice as an option, what would you do? abstain?

I would've voted to abolish the death penalty anyway, but the way you worded the question was self-righteous and condescending.

So if you were in the situation I described earlier, without your own third choice as an option, what would you do? abstain?

I have not cast a vote in your poll yet. Figure it out.

I would've voted to abolish the death penalty anyway, but the way you worded the question was self-righteous and condescending.

I didn't intend it to be. Please point out the parts that were self-righteous and condescending that I might correct such flaws in my future posts.

Yeah, you Brits have such a spotless history. :rolleyes:

Oops, my fault for not realising that history actually had any bearing on the matter.

I oppose the death penalty.

Okay, new poll
How many of you would support keeping to detah penalty or
abolish it even if it means allowing someone who has forfieted their right to live by brutally taking the life of another to contine to live?
I'm just asking for two extremes (mock sarcasm)

There fact remains that for all the faults of capital punishment, wrongful executions are not a valid critique. It just hasn't happened. It sickens me when people try and claim the moral high ground when they argue against it citing "innocent people killed"
Do some research.

Okay, new poll
How many of you would support keeping to detah penalty or
abolish it even if it means allowing someone who has forfieted their right to live by brutally taking the life of another to contine to live?
I'm just asking for two extremes (mock sarcasm)

There fact remains that for all the faults of capital punishment, wrongful executions are not a valid critique. It just hasn't happened. It sickens me when people try and claim the moral high ground when they argue against it citing "innocent people killed"
Do some research.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrit, are you telling me that no innocent people have been put to death? Boy are you an idiot.

I think he was saying that any nation with the death penalty is a barbaric nation.

Yeah, them Japs are such barbarians. :rolleyes:

Okay, new poll
How many of you would support keeping to detah penalty or
abolish it even if it means allowing someone who has forfieted their right to live by brutally taking the life of another to contine to live?
I'm just asking for two extremes (mock sarcasm)

There fact remains that for all the faults of capital punishment, wrongful executions are not a valid critique. It just hasn't happened. It sickens me when people try and claim the moral high ground when they argue against it citing "innocent people killed"
Do some research.

:rolleyes:

Please, there are innocent people executed.

People act like it's an epidemic, which isn't true, but it does happen.

I don't think that that's a valid argument for eliminating capital punishment, rather it is an argument to be more thorough and careful.

Okay, new poll
How many of you would support keeping to detah penalty or
abolish it even if it means allowing someone who has forfieted their right to live by brutally taking the life of another to contine to live?
I'm just asking for two extremes (mock sarcasm)

There fact remains that for all the faults of capital punishment, wrongful executions are not a valid critique. It just hasn't happened. It sickens me when people try and claim the moral high ground when they argue against it citing "innocent people killed"
Do some research.

Do some research? Have you paid any attention to the fucking news?! in less then eight hours, an innocent man will be executed in Texas unless someone does something about it, and that's seeming more and more unlikely.

And your sarcasm skills are crap.


I don't think that that's a valid argument for eliminating capital punishment, rather it is an argument to be more thorough and careful.

The fact that landmines are often stepped on by children has been used in arguments to eliminate the use of landmines. (nearly everywhere but America, of course.) I see it as a similer issue.

In fact, how is "This practice causes harm, so we should stop doing it" not a valid argument?

Do some research? Have you paid any attention to the fucking news?! in less then eight hours, an innocent man will be executed in Texas unless someone does something about it, and that's seeming more and more unlikely.

And your sarcasm skills are crap.

4 hours and 18 minutes if my clock is accurate

The govenor can pardon him, the president can pardon him, he can file an appeal. IF he is as widely acknowledged (even by the state) that he is innocent, i see no problem for him getting out of this. The system does not lock people in.
And i did do mean no innocent people have been executed. I had to research this for a paper on a controversial topic. I was surprised, but since 1976 (when the death penalty was re-instated) not one person executed has later been found to be not-guilty. So says my research.
If you think i am wrong, instead of simply stating that can't be correct because you don't believe it, prove me wrong. Right now you are using what is known as an "argument from personal incredulity," which is a logical fallacy. Find and tell me someone who has actually been executed innocently and i'll admit my research was wrong.
As for the current guy, i don't believe you assertion that he is forced by the system to be executed for a crime he didn't commit. There are too manu ways to resolve such a situation that doesn't involve "abolishing the death penalty."

The govenor can pardon him, the president can pardon him, he can file an appeal. IF he is as widely acknowledged (even by the state) that he is innocent, i see no problem for him getting out of this. The system does not lock people in.
And i did do mean no innocent people have been executed. I had to research this for a paper on a controversial topic. I was surprised, but since 1976 (when the death penalty was re-instated) not one person executed has later been found to be not-guilty. So says my research.
If you think i am wrong, instead of simply stating that can't be correct because you don't believe it, prove me wrong. Right now you are using what is known as an "argument from personal incredulity," which is a logical fallacy. Find and tell me someone who has actually been executed innocently and i'll admit my research was wrong.
In about four hours, your numbers will change. Even the prosecutors now believe that Foster is innocent.

The fact that landmines are often stepped on by children has been used in arguments to eliminate the use of landmines. (nearly everywhere but America, of course.) I see it as a similer issue.

In fact, how is "This practice causes harm, so we should stop doing it" not a valid argument?

I don't see it as a valid argument for elimination, but I do see it as a valid argument for being "thorough and careful."

The US should clean up it's landmines after it's done with them. Is that dangerous? Yes, but it's the right thing to do. If someone goes to where they know there are landmines and dies or is maimed, well that's very sad, but they ought not to have been there to begin with.

Land mines serve a very useful and legitimate purpose in territorial wars and should be kept, but they must be used responsibly and civilians need to be smarter.

Same with capital punishment. We need to be responsible with our use of it. Just because people get caught in the cross-fire does not mean that we can do anything about it. Make absolutely sure that the person is guilty. Will there still be innocents executed? Yes, sadly, but the benfits (being a terror to the evil-doer: murderers and the like) far outweighs that.

Plus, ultimately for me, Scripture commands it's use.

Plus, ultimately for me, Scripture commands it's use.

And you immediately render the preceeding bulk of your post meaningless...

And you immediately render the preceeding bulk of your post meaningless...

Whatever the outcome, I must be truthful.

the president can pardon him


Sorry, but the president most definitely can NOT pardon this man. The President can only grant pardons and commutes for federal crimes. As this is a state crime, only persons granted pardon power by that's state law can grant a pardon.

If he's so innocent, and even the prosecution believes so, why don't they ask for a pardon?
The system has plenty of safeguards; its up to people to enact them.

And you immediately render the preceeding bulk of your post meaningless...

Nice:)

Incidentally, I got my history reading list for uni today. Given that you're a history student, I just thought I'd ask whether its worth chewing through.

I think you're taking this a bit too far, really. Sure, a lot of texans are religious fundies who vote republican unconditionally, but there actually are some sane people there.

In a first-past the post non-proportional democracy, it doesn't matter how many good people there are. If they aren't the vast majority, it means exactly dick and the state is evil.

And i did do mean no innocent people have been executed. I had to research this for a paper on a controversial topic. I was surprised, but since 1976 (when the death penalty was re-instated) not one person executed has later been found to be not-guilty.

Are we talking about the state of Texas or the Federal Death Penalty?

If you think i am wrong, instead of simply stating that can't be correct because you don't believe it, prove me wrong. Right now you are using what is known as an "argument from personal incredulity," which is a logical fallacy. Find and tell me someone who has actually been executed innocently and i'll admit my research was wrong.

And you have not shown us proof that you are right. Now prove that no innocent people have been put to death.

I'm asking you to choose between two extremes. That's not a biased thing to do. The point is to assess your priorities. Several people have come forward and said that they support the death penalty even if it means killing an innocent man. If you hold that to be true, you should be able to admit it, to both yourself and the forum.

Here's another scenario, just as improbable (and biased!!!) as the one this poll poses.

By some twist of fate, you have the ability to forsee the future. You know that Criminal A, in line to be exectuted tomorrow, will somehow escape from jail and go on a string of murders that will ultimately lead to the death of your entire family. Tonight you have the option of abolishing the death penalty or allowing it to proceed. What do you do?

Who would generally have pardon power in the state legal system?

Governor?

I'm not going to make an absolute statement b/c I don't know Texas law, but in most (probably all) states it is either the governor or a group in the governor's cabinet.

Sorry, but the president most definitely can NOT pardon this man. The President can only grant pardons and commutes for federal crimes. As this is a state crime, only persons granted pardon power by that's state law can grant a pardon.

Who would generally have pardon power in the state legal system?

Governor?

If he's so innocent, and even the prosecution believes so, why don't they ask for a pardon?
The system has plenty of safeguards; its up to people to enact them.

because they are morally bereft.

yes the system has safeguards what do you do when people cant be bothered to use them?

because they are morally bereft.

yes the system has safeguards what do you do when people cant be bothered to use them?

There in lies the question.

Who would generally have pardon power in the state legal system?

Governor?

when george bush was governor of texas he would get a (usually one page) summary of each case on the day of the execution. it was prepared by alberto gonzales and seldom included any exculpatory discussion.

maybe the current governor is better, maybe he isnt.

Nice:)

Incidentally, I got my history reading list for uni today. Given that you're a history student, I just thought I'd ask whether its worth chewing through.

You may as well pick a few books and have a go. Whatever seems to have an interesting title is probably good for now, until you get a better idea of what you're likely to need to know for each class.

As a further aside, having now (barely) successfully navigated my way through a history degree, I'm starting a law degree towards the end of next month. Should be fun.

And you have not shown us proof that you are right. Now prove that no innocent people have been put to death.

I haven't done any research on it so I really don't know (besides the obvious, that it is impossible to 'prove' a negative). I think that the burden of proof should be on the side trying to prove the positive occurrence rather than the negative.

But since it would be impossible to prove, I will tell you what we do know... EVERY execution that has occurred in the US since 1976 has been doled out after a jury found that the prosecution met the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden or proof as to guilt. Then, state appelate courts and/or federal appellate courts (and if there was a habeas petition, or if it was a federal prosecution to begin with) made further inquiry as to rules of evidence and procedure. Finally, somebody with pardon power received another petition on behalf of the executed person.

My research from 3 years (so i don't have the book on hand) ago is says nearly word for word, Since 1976, when the federal death penalty was reintroduced after a hiatus, not one person executed has been later proved innocent of the crime they were convicted of."
Incidentally, the burden of proof is not on me; it is on you. Some people need to check on how to pose an argument. Furthermore, it is much simpler for you to find a single counterexample proving my statement wrong than for me to systamatically go through every execution and show you that they all check out.
FYI The Govenor has the power, subject to board approval, to pardon. I'm sure if his innocence were unquestionable this would be a relatively quick process. If not, he at least has the power to delay.

I haven't done any research on it so I really don't know (besides the obvious, that it is impossible to 'prove' a negative). I think that the burden of proof should be on the side trying to prove the positive occurrence rather than the negative.

But since it would be impossible to prove, I will tell you what we do know... EVERY execution that has occurred in the US since 1976 has been doled out after a jury found that the prosecution met the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' burden or proof as to guilt. Then, state appelate courts and/or federal appellate courts (and if there was a habeas petition, or if it was a federal prosecution to begin with) made further inquiry as to rules of evidence and procedure. Finally, somebody with pardon power received another petition on behalf of the executed person.

You are indeed correct in what you just said. How do we know that they were truly innocent or truly guilty when all the Prosecution has to do is prove beyond doubt.

It is a game of misfortunate and unfornunately no one knows one way or the other if innocent people were put to death or not.

My research from 3 years (so i don't have the book on hand) ago is says nearly word for word, Since 1976, when the federal death penalty was reintroduced after a hiatus, not one person executed has been later proved innocent of the crime they were convicted of."

Ahh Federal. I knew there was a catch. We are talking state here and not federal.

Here's another scenario, just as improbable (and biased!!!) as the one this poll poses.

By some twist of fate, you have the ability to forsee the future. You know that Criminal A, in line to be exectuted tomorrow, will somehow escape from jail and go on a string of murders that will ultimately lead to the death of your entire family. Tonight you have the option of abolishing the death penalty or allowing it to proceed. What do you do?

Ok, that makes it personal. If it were my own family, I don't know what I would do, or whether I honestly have the integrity to stand by my principles in such a scenario. But if I wasn't personally involved (it not being my family) I would still abolish the death penalty.

In about four hours, your numbers will change. Even the prosecutors now believe that Foster is innocent.

At the risk of sounding like a jackass (or a lawyer, which I am)...

Do the prosecutors actually believe he is innocent? I thought it was pretty obvious that he is guilty of the 'law of parties'.

But having said that, I think that the law of parties is an absolutely stupid law. And I am baffled that no court has decided that the death penalty is appropriate for a law of parties conviction. I mean, you can't execute somebody with too low an IQ. And you can't execute an already convicted murderer who escapes from jail and rapes a minor if the raped minor survives. And you can't execute somebody who planned to murder an old lady, wrapped her in duct tape, and dropped her off of a bridge for the mere fact that he was a month shy of 18 when he did it (even though he bragged the next day that he was a juvenile and therefore wouldn't get as harsh a punishment as an adult, which to me refutes the idea that he didn't know the nature or consequences of his actions b/c of his youth). But you can execute somebody for just being present when somebody is murdered? :confused:

By the way, for a little light reading, try Justice Scalia's dissent in "Roper v. Simmons" (the third scenario I referred to above). Although Scalia says some absolutely zany things from time to time, he is a hell of a writer and damned hard to win an argument against. He really tears apart the reasoning of the majority in this case, and goes so far as to make fun of the other justices in the dignified manner that only a Supreme Court Justice can.

Yes, federal, however, you have yet to provide an example of a single person that has been executed innocently, federal or statewise. The burden of proof is still upon you.
It is rather hard to find a supporting statement online for my claim, since the only pages that crop up are against the death penalty. It is counter to their cause to say, "Um, yeah, it hasn't happened yet." It may be a logical fallacy, but the absence of cases where innocents have been executed add credence to the claim that none have. Any liberties group would instantly make any person the front page martyr for their cause.

AHA!

"There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s"
AND
"If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible."

The link is below. Yes, it is biased, but what did you expect?
http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument3b.htm

At the risk of sounding like a jackass (or a lawyer, which I am)...

Do the prosecutors actually believe he is innocent? I thought it was pretty obvious that he is guilty of the 'law of parties'.

But having said that, I think that the law of parties is an absolutely stupid law. And I am baffled that no court has decided that the death penalty is appropriate for a law of parties conviction. I mean, you can't execute somebody with too low an IQ. And you can't execute an already convicted murderer who escapes from jail and rapes a minor if the raped minor survives. And you can't execute somebody who planned to murder an old lady, wrapped her in duct tape, and dropped her off of a bridge for the mere fact that he was a month shy of 18 when he did it (even though he bragged the next day that he was a juvenile and therefore wouldn't get as harsh a punishment as an adult, which to me refutes the idea that he didn't know the nature or consequences of his actions b/c of his youth). But you can execute somebody for just being present when somebody is murdered? :confused:


The problem is that the law of parties only applies if Foster was a party to the robbery that Brown committed, which he was not. He did not know that Brown was planning a robbery, and had no intent to commit a robbery himself. The biggest problem was that Foster was tried with the shooter, rather than separately.

Yes, federal, however, you have yet to provide an example of a single person that has been executed innocently, federal or statewise. The burden of proof is still upon you.
It is rather hard to find a supporting statement online for my claim, since the only pages that crop up are against the death penalty. It is counter to their cause to say, "Um, yeah, it hasn't happened yet." It may be a logical fallacy, but the absence of cases where innocents have been executed add credence to the claim that none have. Any liberties group would instantly make any person the front page martyr for their cause.

Actually the proof is still on you but as one poster stated, one can not know for sure if one was truly innocent or not.

AHA!

"There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s"
AND
"If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible."

AHA!

"There is no proof that any innocent person has actually been executed since increased safeguards and appeals were added to our death penalty system in the 1970s"
AND
"If it can be shown that someone is innocent, surely a governor would grant clemency and spare the person. Hypothetical claims of innocence are usually just delaying tactics to put off the execution as long as possible."


What the hell are you quoting?

So we have before trial "innocent until proven guilty" and after conviction
"guilty until proven innocent"
Sounds like the uncertainty reduces to "the executed were guilty"

A website with a paper from MSU on death penalty arguments, but it wouldn't let me post the link, was what i was quoting.

A website with a paper from MSU on death penalty arguments, but it wouldn't let me post the link, was what i was quoting.

What's the name of the paper? The purpose of providing a quote is to add authority to a subject, but if we don't know who you're quoting, it doesn't work.

"The Death Penalty: In Support of the Death Penalty" Innocence

http://deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/arguments/argument3b.htm

"The Death Penalty: In Support of the Death Penalty" Innocence is the topic

Still waiting for the counter-example to shatter my case btw

"The Death Penalty: In Support of the Death Penalty" Innocence is the topic

whose it by? I am sure you can find a link to it if you use google.

Still waiting for the counter-example to shatter my case btw

Still waiting for the link to prove your case.

In any case, none of that disproves what is currently happening. In about three hours an innocent man will be put to death. A man who is guilty of no more than being in a car with someone before they committed a murder. Neither of the other two people in the car were convicted.

YOU maintain that he is innocent. That doesn't mean he is. As i said before, there are plenty of ways for him to avoid being put to death, if, as you say, his innocence is accepted by everyone and undeniable.
I refer to the definition of "burden of proof" and simplicity for why you need to find a counter-example.

YOU maintain that he is innocent. That doesn't mean he is. As i said before, there are plenty of ways for him to avoid being put to death, if, as you say, his innocence is accepted by everyone and undeniable.
I refer to the definition of "burden of proof" and simplicity for why you need to find a counter-example.

And upon further review, the burden of proof is no longer there as even the prosecution is admitting that the dude is innocent. Do you understand that?

I do, and then i ask, "why isn;t he getting pardoned then?"

I do, and then i ask, "why isn;t he getting pardoned then?"

For that, you have to go to the Governor.

I do, and then i ask, "why isn;t he getting pardoned then?"

Because the texas legal system is broken, and the governor is so obsessed with being hard on crime that he's willing to commit murder.

Sounds like a problem with the govenor and not the system. You have your accusation displaced.
Still, why would executing an innocent man demonstrate being hard on crime? Especially someone that everyone knows is innocent, as you say.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason that he got the death penalty and it hasn;t been revoked yet.
PS How does one quote? This s getting annoying

Sounds like a problem with the govenor and not the system. You have your accusation displaced.
Still, why would executing an innocent man demonstrate being hard on crime? Especially someone that everyone knows is innocent, as you say.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason that he got the death penalty and it hasn;t been revoked yet.
PS How does one quote? This s getting annoying

Either click on the little quote button on the bottom right or you place them in quote boxes like this:

[quote] with /quote] +[on the other side of the /

Sounds like a problem with the govenor and not the system. You have your accusation displaced.The governor is a part of the system.
Still, why would executing an innocent man demonstrate being hard on crime? Especially someone that everyone knows is innocent, as you say.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason that he got the death penalty and it hasn;t been revoked yet.
PS How does one quote? This s getting annoying There's a button to the bottom right of every post. Also, there's a little text bubble button above where you write a new post.