|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 24, 2006 23:43:16 GMT -5
I don't presume to know your views I haven't met you or dicussed them, which is why I'm making reference to only that which you have stated in here, whether it's your opinion or not, it's all I have to go on.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 25, 2006 0:50:47 GMT -5
No need to apologize. I put up this thread because I thought it is an important issue and that it would generate some stimulating conversation. I tried to act as a moderator for the purpose of keeping the debate even.
My own views are quite conficted, and I haven't sorted those out yet. The "moral" part of me leans one way; the "pragmatist" part of me leans the other way. Much of my problem in dealing with this issue stems from the fact that a member of my own family was a murder victim.
Even without any personal experience, it is an extremely difficult question. The one thing that I am sure of though is that I would not be able to endure the situation where I had the responsibility of deciding this question in a real life situation. If I were a judge or jury member in such a position I don't think that I could do it without serious disruption to my soul.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 25, 2006 1:22:20 GMT -5
I'm afraid my moral leanings outweight my pragamtic leanings, but then I haven't lost a family member to murder so I have no idea how I would feel in that situation. I made the point earlier that someone affected by a crime like that is no position to judge others so your conflict is understandable.
This is one issue that I do see as being pretty black and white. I'm definitely anti death penalty, but then I live in a country that doesn't have one of the highest murder rates in the 1st world. I think as dusty pointed out(far more clearly than I did) the death penalty does not deter crime, also it does not save the country money and does not have a moral high ground; but then that is just my opinion. I am not one to say that without doubt it should be abolished, but I think there is enough doubt to warrant reforms and that's precisely the sort of thing I see happening, which I hope means I'm right about it.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 26, 2006 15:13:45 GMT -5
DNA has exonerated many, but there has never been a proven example of someone innocent being put to death. Many opponents of capital punishment believe that a vial of evidence held in the lab of forensic scientist Ed Blake in California might be the first real proof that one man was killed in the face of scientific proof of his innocence. Roger Coleman was convicted of raping and murdering his sister-in-law. His inexperienced lawyers failed to present all the evidence, and a clerical error kept him from winning an appeal. He was electrocuted in 1992. Now, modern DNA techniques can prove his guilt or innocence, but the state of Virginia argues the "doctrine of finality," and wants no further inquiries in the case. The decision to test or not is now in the hands of the Virginia Supreme Court. Scientist Ed Blake says he will not test it without the court's permission, but he also says that he will not send it back to Virginia, whatever the court decides. "Nobody can force me to send it back," Blake says defiantly. "At issue here is the public's right to know." UPDATE: Authorities say results from a DNA test released Thursday support the guilty verdict delivered against Roger Keith Coleman, who was executed in Virginia in 1992. Coleman claimed he did not rape and murder his sister-in-law. Gov. Mark Warner ordered the first-ever post-execution DNA review.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 0:24:22 GMT -5
So why all the cloak and dagger? Interesting but doesn't change the fact that I'd wager that a fair few innocent men have gone unjustly to their deaths in Americas short history and will do so in the future, of that I have no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 27, 2006 8:33:01 GMT -5
I guess the cloak and dagger stuff was people standing on principle. Interesting that the Governor had to intervene.
So he wasn't sitting on a pandora's box. Did you have "no doubt" about this case too, Sedhi?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 9:30:56 GMT -5
I wasn't positive but the way he was acting did imply something a bit shady was going on. I didn't categoricaly state that it was, just that that's the way it looked.
Anyway the point still stands. Sooner or later inevitably someone will publicly be executed because of faulty evidence and or incompetence. People do need to get away from the idea that things like fingerprinting and DNA testing are not subject to error, they are and this is well known. Witness testimony can be entirely false also, because people do lie or misremember things. So pandora's box wasn't opened this time. But it will be, of that I have no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 27, 2006 10:02:50 GMT -5
in Canada today a man was released he spent 15 years in jail accused of brutal rape and attempted homicide. Turn out he didnt do it. Now this woman did not die but if she did and he was living in Texas......
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 27, 2006 10:28:33 GMT -5
In Wisconsin we just had a case where a man was released from prison after serving 18 years for rape because new DNA evidence exonerated him.
Six months after his release investigators found a burned corpse in a trash barrel on his property. The corpse was that of a young women who had been missing for about a month. This guy has been arrested and charged with murder.
My point in this is that people who are unjustly or accidentally convicted are not likely to be model citizens who have led a life of innocence. The police know who the scumbags are and those are the first ones they investigate. This guy was known to be a scumbag and the police investigated him for the rape. His reputation and the evidence collected led to him being convicted of the rape. Yes, it was a mistake; but for 18 years society was protected from him.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 10:44:32 GMT -5
Actually it's not always the case that the first person police turn to is a scum bag. There have been several cases over here where model citizens have been sent to prison because they were close to the victim and false DNA evidence was later exposed exhonerating the offender. Whatever situation you can pull up it doesn't chage the fact that sooner or later an entirely innocent man will die.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 27, 2006 10:52:05 GMT -5
Here's another case:
Burlington, Vermont -- January 4, 2005 [sic] There was outrage Wednesday when a Vermont judge handed out a 60-day jail sentence to a man who raped a little girl many,many times over a four-year span starting when she was seven.
The judge said he no longer believes in punishment and is more concerned about rehabilitation.
Prosecutors argued that confessed child-rapist Mark Hulett, 34, of Williston deserved at least eight years behind bars for repeatedly raping a littler girl countless times starting when she was seven.
But Judge Edward Cashman disagreed explaining that he no longer believes that punishment works.
"The one message I want to get through is that anger doesn't solve anything. It just corrodes your soul," said Judge Edward Cashman speaking to a packed Burlington courtroom. Most of the on-lookers were related to a young girl who was repeatedly raped by Mark Hulett who was in court to be sentenced.
The sex abuse started when the girl was seven and ended when she was ten. Prosecutors were seeking a sentence of eight to twenty years in prison, in part, as punishment...
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 27, 2006 10:59:24 GMT -5
Whilst I agree with his ideas, I can't agree with that sentence at all, the death sentence is never warranted IMO, but to give out such a short sentence for what is a pretty serious crime sends the wrong message entirely, and would do more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 28, 2006 0:08:10 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is arguing that a convicted killer is more then likely the one who did it. Society's concerns on morality should be placed on the once in a million times it may happen. ie-Doctors are great! They save many lives. This fact does not make it easier for the parents of a child who let's say died from the wrong prescription dose. I think same goes for capital punishment, best not to do it for the few times when it may not be warranted then to accidently take a life. Remember once you take that life, you cannot give it back, that person is no more.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 28, 2006 8:33:21 GMT -5
Hehe try telling that to the defence lawyer. I think we've kinda hammered that point home now on several occasions. The fact is the US has to decide whether the system they have now works. The fact that aome states are turning away from the death penalty is not liberal or even conservative or communist or whatever. It is moral, there is no party only peoples sense of what is just and right and what is not. if it was liberal under a democracy it probably wouldn't get passed in conservative states, I don't doubt this creeping morality will infect most if not all of the country at some point in the future.
|
|
|
Post by umbra on Feb 14, 2006 10:12:18 GMT -5
i think we should look to iraq for getting pepole like that
lets strap him down, and start to cut him up with a hole doctor team doing it, to make sure he has pain, sees whats going on, and feel it all to his death.
cut of his toes his legs his di** rip out his guts show him it and let him see his parts be put in acid.
and then lock his brain in a container with pumps blood around to keep it alive, while making sure his nerves in the brain are at a constant pain level, and let him live in his brain with the last memory that his hole body was wasted in acid.
now that would be a fair thing to do with pepole like that,
and same with child killers and rapist
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Feb 19, 2006 7:18:54 GMT -5
That will kill him quite quickly actually long before any of the other stuf does, the brain/body tends to shut down when stimulated by constant overwhelming pain levels, which is why the chinese used water torture or death of a thousand cuts because the stimuli is non constant. I like the japanese method of boiling in oil, A good torturer could keep a man alive for three days by taking them out of the oil and reheating carefully. Or how about sensory deprivation to send them nuts and then brainwashing them into being normal members of society.
|
|
|
Post by Atomation on Feb 22, 2006 0:29:11 GMT -5
It says that he performed these acts for sexual gratification, but it seems more likely to me that he finds extreme pleasure in persuading others to make fools of themselves (clear sign of lack of self esteem - perhaps as a child he was labeled as stupid for attempting to drink a cleaning agent from the cupboard, an occurance pretty common in young children). If he went into therapy there could be some progress.
|
|
|
Post by nealcain on Feb 22, 2006 0:41:57 GMT -5
must have followed 1st reports on the 70 virgins waiting for you in heaven A bit late on this, but was it the manson thing? dont know when that hapened but it might have been close to that time frame Nealcain
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 3, 2006 9:37:30 GMT -5
In Wisconsin we just had a case where a man was released from prison after serving 18 years for rape because new DNA evidence exonerated him. Six months after his release investigators found a burned corpse in a trash barrel on his property. The corpse was that of a young women who had been missing for about a month. This guy has been arrested and charged with murder. My point in this is that people who are unjustly or accidentally convicted are not likely to be model citizens who have led a life of innocence. The police know who the scumbags are and those are the first ones they investigate. This guy was known to be a scumbag and the police investigated him for the rape. His reputation and the evidence collected led to him being convicted of the rape. Yes, it was a mistake; but for 18 years society was protected from him. UPDATE: www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=405302
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Mar 3, 2006 14:04:12 GMT -5
So, what does society do with Mr. Avery? Try to rehabilitate him? And what kind of sicko gets his nephew to engage in torturing, raping and killing an innocent young woman?
The kid will be tried as an adult. He's gotta be a whack job too, maybe it's in the genes. What does society do with him. His mother's voice is all over the radio saying she hopes he burns in hell. Some family, huh.
|
|