Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,108
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Jul 28, 2014 13:14:25 GMT -5
 I favour a brazen bull You light a fire underneath it...put the perp inside....then as he screams the acoustics in the head make the bull moo.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 14:04:00 GMT -5
Sorry, it takes so long and it's so hard to even get deserving criminals the death penalty. If they suffer, I truly don't care. that is precisely why their rights need to be protected. everyone is for giving rights to people they like, to the point that they probably don't even need them. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 14:06:24 GMT -5
Virgil: i am opposed to the DP under all circumstances. sorry to ruin the celebration.  |
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914 
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 28, 2014 14:51:45 GMT -5
Love it , Spell!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:20:59 GMT -5
You were using "asked for" incorrectly then. Not my problem. setting my usage aside, we both agree that people don't ask to be raped, right? rape is, by definition, NOT consensual. agreed? edit: i still think that "asked for" is synonymous with "consent to", for the record. but i already apologized for being unclear.
People that are raped as a crime don't ask for it. If the punishment for rape was for the rapist themselves to be raped, then by them committing the rape that they committed, they are, in effect, asking for it. ETA: I don't know how I can make this any clearer... "if you do the crime, you are asking for the punishment." |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:24:16 GMT -5
And I do believe harsher penalties would be a deterrent... at least to a percentage of the criminal element. To me, SOME less is better than NO less. that is because you don't think like a criminal. not my problem.  the so-called "deterrent effect" is not really a measurable phenomena, from what i can tell. particularly for capital crimes. That's because the "deterrent" is either rarely actually carried out (case on point, Charles Manson has been on Death Row how long now?)... or it's not a severe enough "deterrent", across the entire width and breadth of the Country to actually deter people. Maybe if we stopped coddling prisoners... less people would be willing to risk prison. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:27:31 GMT -5
If I was in charge, no innocent people would be dead... remember, one of my criteria for a death penalty is "unimpeachable guilt". how would you determine this? edit: some people think guilty beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient. you apparently don't. what would meet your "unimpeachable" standard? Caught actually in the act. Video recordings. Personal (non-coerced) confession. "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is sufficient for imprisonment. Death is kind of hard to revoke if "reasonable doubt" ends due to new evidence. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 22:05:05 GMT -5
setting my usage aside, we both agree that people don't ask to be raped, right? rape is, by definition, NOT consensual. agreed? edit: i still think that "asked for" is synonymous with "consent to", for the record. but i already apologized for being unclear.
People that are raped as a crime don't ask for it. thanks. i was not asking you about punishment, so i deleted the rest of your response. no further questions. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 22:07:10 GMT -5
how would you determine this? edit: some people think guilty beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient. you apparently don't. what would meet your "unimpeachable" standard? Caught actually in the act. Video recordings. Personal (non-coerced) confession. a personal non-coerced confession is not proof positive of guilt. people who are either closely attached or highly paid often become the "fall guy" for those they love, or are committed to in some way. other than that, i get your point. thanks, again. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 22:10:54 GMT -5
that is because you don't think like a criminal. not my problem. the so-called "deterrent effect" is not really a measurable phenomena, from what i can tell. particularly for capital crimes. That's because the "deterrent" is either rarely actually carried out (case on point, Charles Manson has been on Death Row how long now?) i believe Charles Manson's death sentence was commuted to LWOPP in the early 70's. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 22:52:27 GMT -5
Caught actually in the act. Video recordings. Personal (non-coerced) confession. a personal non-coerced confession is not proof positive of guilt. people who are either closely attached or highly paid often become the "fall guy" for those they love, or are committed to in some way. other than that, i get your point. thanks, again. It's admission of guilt (or acceptance of blame, if you prefer), ergo, proof is no longer required. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 22:53:50 GMT -5
That's because the "deterrent" is either rarely actually carried out (case on point, Charles Manson has been on Death Row how long now?) i believe Charles Manson's death sentence was commuted to LWOPP in the early 70's. Irrelevant. That wasn't his sentence. His sentence was altered. Wasn't someone here suggesting to not worry, things like that (alteration of sentences) don't happen? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 23:02:51 GMT -5
i believe Charles Manson's death sentence was commuted to LWOPP in the early 70's. Irrelevant. That wasn't his sentence. His sentence was altered. so, you are claiming that Manson knew he would get his sentence altered (due to a SCOTUS decision) when he was busy killing people and brainwashing others 10 years prior? interesting theory. do you think that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, as well? Wasn't someone here suggesting to not worry, things like that (alteration of sentences) don't happen? it happens regulary- generally for very good reason. however Manson's was overturned because ALL DP's WERE. that is sort of a once in a generation occurrence. we are about due for it, again. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2014 23:04:37 GMT -5
a personal non-coerced confession is not proof positive of guilt. people who are either closely attached or highly paid often become the "fall guy" for those they love, or are committed to in some way. other than that, i get your point. thanks, again. It's admission of guilt (or acceptance of blame, if you prefer), ergo, proof is no longer required. an admission of guilt is not the same as guilt at all. if evidence can be brought which unequivocally exonerates the "admitted", they should go free. ergo, another case for LWOPP. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 2:17:16 GMT -5
Irrelevant. That wasn't his sentence. His sentence was altered. so, you are claiming that Manson knew he would get his sentence altered (due to a SCOTUS decision) when he was busy killing people and brainwashing others 10 years prior? interesting theory. do you think that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, as well? Wasn't someone here suggesting to not worry, things like that (alteration of sentences) don't happen? it happens regulary- generally for very good reason. however Manson's was overturned because ALL DP's WERE. that is sort of a once in a generation occurrence. we are about due for it, again. No. I am claiming what I actually wrote: He was sentenced to death. His death sentence was altered. Period. People previously in this thread (maybe even you) said variations of "life without parole means he's gone for good"... Well... Death Sentence means Death Sentence... until a Judge changes it. That's my point. It is what it is... until... it isn't. |
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 29, 2014 6:54:21 GMT -5
Time to let these criminals into the general population and let the prisoners handle it. Since we are too chicken livered to do the dirty work ourselves.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jul 29, 2014 8:05:08 GMT -5
Time to let these criminals into the general population and let the prisoners handle it. Since we are too chicken livered to do the dirty work ourselves. No. We put people to death CLEANLY or not at all. We, as a society, shouldn't be expecting people already serving time to commit murder for Society. |
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,914
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 29, 2014 8:11:31 GMT -5
But we already do. Think no one knew what would happen to Dahmer? No one cried any tears over it either.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jul 29, 2014 8:52:30 GMT -5
But we already do. Think no one knew what would happen to Dahmer? No one cried any tears over it either. True enough. I remember when that happened. Doesn't mean it's right though. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2014 10:34:14 GMT -5
it happens regulary- generally for very good reason. however Manson's was overturned because ALL DP's WERE. that is sort of a once in a generation occurrence. we are about due for it, again. No. I am claiming what I actually wrote: He was sentenced to death. then shouldn't that have worked as a "deterrent"? |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 18:35:26 GMT -5
It's admission of guilt (or acceptance of blame, if you prefer), ergo, proof is no longer required. an admission of guilt is not the same as guilt at all. if evidence can be brought which unequivocally exonerates the "admitted", they should go free. ergo, another case for LWOPP. Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 18:39:13 GMT -5
No. I am claiming what I actually wrote: He was sentenced to death. then shouldn't that have worked as a "deterrent"? Nothing will deter EVERYONE. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2014 20:45:50 GMT -5
an admission of guilt is not the same as guilt at all. if evidence can be brought which unequivocally exonerates the "admitted", they should go free. ergo, another case for LWOPP. Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. that doesn't fit with your earlier notion: that they should pay for the crime they committed. the ever shifting sands of Richard Justice. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,712
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2014 20:46:21 GMT -5
then shouldn't that have worked as a "deterrent"? Nothing will deter EVERYONE. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool. well, on that we can agree. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 20:58:18 GMT -5
Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. that doesn't fit with your earlier notion: that they should pay for the crime they committed. the ever shifting sands of Richard Justice. It actually does fit. In the case of someone lying in a confession, their sentence of Death for MURDER (or whatever sentence for whatever crime) should be rescinded and replaced with Death (or whatever sentence) for PERJURY in a Murder (or whatever crime) Case. So... as I said, they should pay for the crime they committed... it's now Perjury instead though. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 29, 2014 21:00:40 GMT -5
an admission of guilt is not the same as guilt at all. if evidence can be brought which unequivocally exonerates the "admitted", they should go free. ergo, another case for LWOPP. Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. Only perjury if admitted in a court of law- a confession is nothing of the sort.
False confessions happen- it is a fact. But are you saying some beaten down individual that would say anything and sign anything just to make it stop should also be held to answer for a false confession if evidence proves they didn't do it? The same sentence? Are you fucking kidding me (#3)?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 29, 2014 21:03:48 GMT -5
Maybe the better option is to sentence police that extract false confessions to the same fate their victims faced. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,919
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 29, 2014 21:05:02 GMT -5
Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. Only perjury if admitted in a court of law- a confession is nothing of the sort.
False confessions happen- it is a fact. But are you saying some beaten down individual that would say anything and sign anything just to make it stop should also be held to answer for a false confession if evidence proves they didn't do it? The same sentence? Are you fucking kidding me (#3)?
That ìs how I read ìt. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 29, 2024 0:33:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 21:10:50 GMT -5
Actually no, they shouldn't go free. They are then guilty of perjury... and in my opinion anyone guilty of perjury should serve the sentence they perjured themselves in relation to. Only perjury if admitted in a court of law- a confession is nothing of the sort.
False confessions happen- it is a fact. But are you saying some beaten down individual that would say anything and sign anything just to make it stop should also be held to answer for a false confession if evidence proves they didn't do it? The same sentence? Are you fucking kidding me (#3)? Confessions are admitted as evidence IN the Court of Law and the accused is always asked some variation of "is this your confession?" as well as some variation of "is this true?" or "do you agree with it?" As to the bolded: If you would care to actually READ what I have written you would have notice my stress on "uncoerced confession". So, no. I never said that. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 29, 2014 21:46:53 GMT -5
Only perjury if admitted in a court of law- a confession is nothing of the sort.
False confessions happen- it is a fact. But are you saying some beaten down individual that would say anything and sign anything just to make it stop should also be held to answer for a false confession if evidence proves they didn't do it? The same sentence? Are you fucking kidding me (#3)? Confessions are admitted as evidence IN the Court of Law and the accused is always asked some variation of "is this your confession?" as well as some variation of "is this true?" or "do you agree with it?" As to the bolded: If you would care to actually READ what I have written you would have notice my stress on "uncoerced confession". So, no. I never said that. Not sworn testimony and not subject to perjury. Not to mention the 14th amendment violation.
And if you want to go that route- how do we determine what is a forced confession vs. one of free will? History shows quite plainly people do not confess to crimes they did not commit as a general rule.
|
|
