Usind Schince To Support The Death Penalty
Richard J
Science key in building case for death law
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 9/30/2003
Nearly two decades since Massachusetts last had capital punishment,
Governor Mitt Romney has triggered a debate that echoed through the
State House, to the state's parishes, and on to the offices of criminal
defense lawyers:
ADVERTISEMENT
With cutting-edge science, is it possible to draft a fail-safe death
penalty?
Despite skepticism from top lawmakers, Romney and his aides insist that
it is, and he has formed a council of forensic and legal specialists to
devise a statute that will guard against wrongful executions by putting
"science ahead of all other considerations."
Under one approach being discussed, if the defendant in a murder case is
convicted, jurors would be asked explicitly if there was scientific
evidence, such as DNA, that provides "incontrovertible proof" of guilt,
said Joseph L. Hoffmann, one of the council's cochairmen.
Romney is hoping that the use of science will help produce a death
penalty measure that can win wide public support and change enough
lawmakers' votes to win passage.
For the full article, go to:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/30/science_key_in_building_case_for_death_law/
JIGSAW1695
>From: Richard J ric...@hotmail.com
>Date: 10/20/2003 7:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3F946F50...@hotmail.com>
Very nice....very nice indeed....but let us never forget that in the end it
will still be up to a jury to determine guilt.
Jigsaw
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <3F946F50...@hotmail.com>, Richard J
<ric...@hotmail.com> a écrit :
> Science key in building case for death law
>
> By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 9/30/2003
>
> Nearly two decades since Massachusetts last had capital punishment,
> Governor Mitt Romney has triggered a debate that echoed through the
> State House, to the state's parishes, and on to the offices of criminal
> defense lawyers:
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> With cutting-edge science, is it possible to draft a fail-safe death
> penalty?
>
> Despite skepticism from top lawmakers, Romney and his aides insist that
> it is, and he has formed a council of forensic and legal specialists to
> devise a statute that will guard against wrongful executions by putting
> "science ahead of all other considerations."
>
> Under one approach being discussed, if the defendant in a murder case is
> convicted, jurors would be asked explicitly if there was scientific
> evidence, such as DNA, that provides "incontrovertible proof" of guilt,
> said Joseph L. Hoffmann, one of the council's cochairmen.
>
> Romney is hoping that the use of science will help produce a death
> penalty measure that can win wide public support and change enough
> lawmakers' votes to win passage.
I don't believe that science is the whole answer. DNA has made a great
difference in a number of cases, but DNA evidence is not involved in every
case. Nor does science do anything about the problems of false confessions
or mistaken eyewitnesses.
Donna Evleth
Euro
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> ??????:3F946F50...@hotmail.com...
Where one can also read the following:
"But civil liberties activists and legislators, Senate president Robert
Travaglini among them, doubt that the goal can be achieved, if only because
of the inherent imperfection in humans. At its best, these critics say, DNA
usually can only prove that a defendant was in the location of a crime. At
its worst, DNA, like any evidence, can be planted, tampered with, or
mishandled, leading to wrongful convictions."
The conclusion is that using science to support the death penalty would
result in reducing its use, quite a curious way to support it actually.
Experience in the US shows that DNA has mainly helped exonerate wrongly
convicted persons. This, by contrast, highlights many flaws the system
besides has.
Euro
Richard J
DNA has also been used to convict previously perpetrators. I believe
the point you've missed here is that the law will put in clauses like
'incontrovertible proof' of guilt as a future requirement for the death
penalty. This increases the burden of proof for a prosecution seeking
the death penalty during the penalty phase of the trial. DNA is only
one thing which might be used in so establishing guilt. Other
scientific advancements in forensic technology have improved evidence
dramatically over the years.
In any event, murderers will still have years of reviews following
convictions as well as the aid of abolitionists before facing prosecution.
Teflon
Richard J
You guys are not going to get the answer you want anytime soon, Donna,
so you best be happy with what you can get.
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 10/21/2003 8:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f95049a$0$25895$79c1...@nan-newsreader-01.noos.net>
Well said Donna, well said indeed. What do the other two thirds of the
household think on the subject?
Jigsaw
Jigsaw
JIGSAW1695
>From: "Euro" vs...@hotmail.com
>Date: 10/21/2003 6:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <2382d524365f4f5b...@news.meganetnews.com>
There are no stats on the subject that I know of Euro.
But I would say that DNA has probably helped convict more suspects than it
freed.
Jigsaw
j.rennie1
"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F953407...@hotmail.com...
It's this schince I'm worried about.
Richard J
Isn't it though? I should read the headers I type, eh?
Teflon
EndlsRayne
>> It's this schince I'm worried about.
>>
>>
>
>Isn't it though? I should read the headers I type, eh?
>
>Teflon
I figured you had just drank a few beers before posting this thread 8)
Richard J
A FEW??? You think just a FEW would do that to me? It took a good half
liter of single malt to get me that screwed!
Teflon
Clown
> Subject: Usind Schince To Support The Death Penalty
> From: Richard J <ric...@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
Firstly, a look at the practice of the US-DP in almost all DP-states
sheds rather peculiar a light on the discussion whether a flawless DP
were thinkable on the mere plane of theory.
Secondly: No, it is not possible to instate a 'fail-safe death penalty'.
It should be noted that a collection of guilties beyond *any* doubt on
death row is by far not sufficient to make a consistent justice system.
There are then on the not death-sentenced side people who actually
committed crimes which would warrant the DP under States' law regarding
the crimes' gravity, but who have been sentenced to prison, because the
evidence was not stringent enough for a death sentence. But instantly the
status of this people, who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is
becoming inconsistent, because they are under the most restrictive
standard 'beyond any doubt' *not* *guilty*. Thus the mere fact that they
escaped from the DP will devaluate the entire standard 'beyond a
reasonable doubt', because there is inherently made the admission that
there is a remainder in doubt which prevented the ultimate sentence.
A double standard; i.e. 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for all sentences
except the DP and 'beyond any doubt' for any death sentence is not
practicable without generating severe incoherencies in theory, and later
on if practized on the case-by-case-level, if then crimes and correlated
sentences are compared.
Klaun
Richard J
Not at all, Juergen. That's like saying all discussion and all
hypothesis is worthless. If that's the case, why be here?
> Secondly: No, it is not possible to instate a 'fail-safe death penalty'.
As I understand it the requirement would be for incontrovertible proof
of guilt. No human system can ever be completely foolproof, but as
Clint Eastwood said in the movie 'Dirty Harry' when asked about shooting
a man for suspected rape, "When I see a naked man with a hard on and a
knife in his hand chasing a woman down the street.........." In short,
there are cases where guilt is not only established beyond a reasonable
doubt, but beyond all doubt.
> It should be noted that a collection of guilties beyond *any* doubt on
> death row is by far not sufficient to make a consistent justice system.
> There are then on the not death-sentenced side people who actually
> committed crimes which would warrant the DP under States' law regarding
> the crimes' gravity, but who have been sentenced to prison, because the
> evidence was not stringent enough for a death sentence. But instantly the
> status of this people, who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, is
> becoming inconsistent, because they are under the most restrictive
> standard 'beyond any doubt' *not* *guilty*. Thus the mere fact that they
> escaped from the DP will devaluate the entire standard 'beyond a
> reasonable doubt', because there is inherently made the admission that
> there is a remainder in doubt which prevented the ultimate sentence.
> A double standard; i.e. 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for all sentences
> except the DP and 'beyond any doubt' for any death sentence is not
> practicable without generating severe incoherencies in theory, and later
> on if practized on the case-by-case-level, if then crimes and correlated
> sentences are compared.
>
> Klaun
The situation would then be to go back and review other sentences,
commuting those to life where there was no incontrovertible evidence.
I've no problem with that. For that matter, I have no real problem with
putting ALL murderers in a cage buried underground for the remainder of
their miserable lives. As long as there is a chance they will ever see
the light of day as a free man, however, I would retain the death
penalty. I do not believe someone who has murdered should walk free
again, period. If we cannot make that happen with the law (as we have
not in Texas) then we need the death penalty to remove as many of them
as a risk as possible.
Teflon
Clown
> >>
> >>Romney is hoping that the use of science will help produce a death
> >>penalty measure that can win wide public support and change enough
> >>lawmakers' votes to win passage.
> >>
> >>For the full article, go to:
> >>
> >>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/30/science_key_in_building_case_for_death_law/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Firstly, a look at the practice of the US-DP in almost all DP-states
> > sheds rather peculiar a light on the discussion whether a flawless DP
> > were thinkable on the mere plane of theory.
>
> Not at all, Juergen. That's like saying all discussion and all
> hypothesis is worthless. If that's the case, why be here?
It is a matter of sequence. At first there is a theory which constitutes
the basis for a practice to follow. Then follows the verification of the
theoretical predictions by the practice. If now manifold observations
raise doubts in the practicability of the theory then the most urgent
thing to do is to check whether the theory does consider and analyze the
issue sufficiently deeply and widely, or whether essential aspects have
been neglected or misestimated.
Since there are douzains of DP-States around who started the DP with the
claim being able to handle it with sufficient accuratesse, and since this
States brought more than 100 innocent people on death row I'd suggest
Mister Romney to conclude from the malpractice of the current DP-States
to the detailled problems, rather than to simply refresh the myth-loaded
theory of the flawless DP.
>
>
> > Secondly: No, it is not possible to instate a 'fail-safe death penalty'.
>
> As I understand it the requirement would be for incontrovertible proof
> of guilt.
The requirement is IMHO that the DP is integrable in the current and the
single practicable standard, and this is more than to point out a
selection of guilties beyond any doubt.
Klaun
j.rennie1
Obviously you don't want to either execute or put away for life all
16000 citizens and others who murdered fellow citizens and others
in the US last year otherwise you would be overtaking China
when it came to per capita executions. But equally obviously
you want more executed or LWOP'd (sic)? I'm sure you and
I would agree that those that commit 2nd and 3rd murders (what
we call manslughters in the UK) don't deserve such extreme
punishment so where do you think the system allows those
guilty of killing to 'get away with murder'?
Richard J
No one has ever attempted to draft a law which did what this one
proposes to do, use the death penalty only for cases in which the guilt
of the defendant cannot be questioned because of incontrovertible
evidence. One thing example given was in cases such that surveillance
cameras recorded the act of murder. Of course, I expect you to argue
that the police, in their zeal to convict someone, would 'doctor' those
videos.
>
>>
>>>Secondly: No, it is not possible to instate a 'fail-safe death penalty'.
>>
>>As I understand it the requirement would be for incontrovertible proof
>>of guilt.
>
>
> The requirement is IMHO that the DP is integrable in the current and the
> single practicable standard, and this is more than to point out a
> selection of guilties beyond any doubt.
>
> Klaun
>
Such is not my understanding of the proposed law.
Teflon
Richard J
Manslaughter is not capital or first degree murder under the law in
Texas, John. It often happens that a capital murderer receives a life
sentence and is then paroled down the road. In the case of a young
murderer, it is entirely possible of the murderer to be released while
still a danger to society. Were Texas to go to a true LWOP for all
those found guilty of capital murder and as an option for those found
guilty of first degree murder, I would gladly support the move. The
only requirement I would give is for the state to build a new super
maximum prison just for this class of murderer in a place so remote even
the vultures don't like it.
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
>From: Clown K.J.H...@t-online.de
>Date: 10/23/2003 3:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <MPG.1a0247a8d...@news.t-online.de>
Alas Klaun... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I see nothing wrong with that standard.
Jigsaw
Clown
jigsa...@aol.com says...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Secondly: No, it is not possible to instate a 'fail-safe death penalty'.
> >>
> >> As I understand it the requirement would be for incontrovertible proof
> >> of guilt.
> >
> >The requirement is IMHO that the DP is integrable in the current and the
> >single practicable standard, and this is more than to point out a
> >selection of guilties beyond any doubt.
> >
> >Klaun
> ===============================
>
> Alas Klaun... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
> I see nothing wrong with that standard.
>
>
Who reads the discussion will understand.
K.
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <MPG.1a02c8d11...@news.t-online.de>
I read the discussion and I understand what you are saying. You want to set one
standard for one type of criminal that would be a different standard than
applied to others.
Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Klaun.
Jigsaw
j.rennie1
snip
> >
> > Obviously you don't want to either execute or put away for life all
> > 16000 citizens and others who murdered fellow citizens and others
> > in the US last year otherwise you would be overtaking China
> > when it came to per capita executions. But equally obviously
> > you want more executed or LWOP'd (sic)? I'm sure you and
> > I would agree that those that commit 2nd and 3rd murders (what
> > we call manslughters in the UK) don't deserve such extreme
> > punishment so where do you think the system allows those
> > guilty of killing to 'get away with murder'?
> >
> >
>
> Manslaughter is not capital or first degree murder under the law in
> Texas, John. It often happens that a capital murderer receives a life
> sentence and is then paroled down the road. In the case of a young
> murderer, it is entirely possible of the murderer to be released while
> still a danger to society. Were Texas to go to a true LWOP for all
> those found guilty of capital murder and as an option for those found
> guilty of first degree murder, I would gladly support the move. The
> only requirement I would give is for the state to build a new super
> maximum prison just for this class of murderer in a place so remote even
> the vultures don't like it.
>
> Teflon
>
Sounds as if you are not a 'principled' retentionist just pragmatic
which is no doubt why most abolitionists in the group find you
to be the retentionist most open to argument.
Richard J
Like most people I do not like murderers. As I stated, I am willing to
discontinue the death penalty as long as there are what I consider
adequate alternatives. I'd just as soon kill the murdering bastards,
but can live with LWOP. That isn't out of the kindness of my heart. I
consider locking someone up in a cage for decades until he dies just
about the worst thing that can be done to someone short of slowly
skinning him alive. Is that pragmatic?
Teflon
Clown
jigsa...@aol.com says...
> >> ===============================
> >>
> >> Alas Klaun... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
> >>
> >> I see nothing wrong with that standard.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Who reads the discussion will understand.
> >
> >K.
> ===============================
>
> I read the discussion and I understand what you are saying. You want to set one
> standard for one type of criminal that would be a different standard than
> applied to others.
>
> Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Klaun.
>
Nope - the contrary is true. It is Mister Romney who wants to set for the
death sentence another standard than for all other sentences. I am who is
saying time and again that this does not work.
K.
Clown
Yes. No one has done so because - again - a dependence of the sentence's
gravity from the evidence's conclusivity leads straightly into
calamities. It equates an argument like: 'Running the stop-light costs $
100 a fee, I believe that I saw you running a stop-light yesterday, but I
am a bit unsure about this. So you have to pay a reduced fee of $ 75.'
Nonsense, simply.
> One thing example given was in cases such that surveillance
> cameras recorded the act of murder. Of course, I expect you to argue
> that the police, in their zeal to convict someone, would 'doctor' those
> videos.
>
This is another cup of tea. The theoretical argument is that a selection
of guilties beyond any doubt for the DP is not enough to instate the DP
in a justice system without causing fundamental inconsistencies. It is
thoroughly an insane state if any convicted is convicted enough for a
prison term, but not convicted enough for the DP. The calamities are
obvious.
Klaun
j.rennie1
Certainly is, whatever your personal motive. It is pragmatic because
it helps your country lose its largely unmerited reputation for
uncivilised behaviour, it prevents innocents from being extinguished,
it saves money, it focuses the attention of the media and the public
on the real victim of a crime, it will avoid issuing the death sentence
on terrorists which will only cause martyrs, (There would never have
been a cease fire in Ireland if the British had executed IRA assassins),
and it will avoid the blood curdling sensationalism of your media
whenever a prominent killer is executed.
Richard J
Not at all. It is sort of like, "I have a photo of you running the
stoplight yesterday and today. Yesterday the fine was 75 Marks, but the
fine went up today to 100. You owe the county clerk 175 marks.
>
>
>>One thing example given was in cases such that surveillance
>>cameras recorded the act of murder. Of course, I expect you to argue
>>that the police, in their zeal to convict someone, would 'doctor' those
>>videos.
>>
>
>
> This is another cup of tea. The theoretical argument is that a selection
> of guilties beyond any doubt for the DP is not enough to instate the DP
> in a justice system without causing fundamental inconsistencies. It is
> thoroughly an insane state if any convicted is convicted enough for a
> prison term, but not convicted enough for the DP. The calamities are
> obvious.
>
> Klaun
Sort of like your circumboreal use of the English language, it is
obvious only to you Juergen.
Teflon
Teflon
Richard J
In most instances there is little sensationalism here, John. Only the
cases which abolitionists make cause celeb get a lot of attention.
Teflon
JIGSAW1695
>Message-id: <MPG.1a037aaa1...@news.t-online.de>
Reread your own comments and you will see how absurd they are.
You have done much better that this in the past, Klaun. At least there was some
logic in what you had said.
I dont know what has happened in your life, but it certainly has altered your
ability to communicate objectively.
Jigsaw
j.rennie1
I didn't see them doing that for Timothy McVeigh.
Clown
Of course. This is EXACTLY what Romney proposes.
K.
Richard J
<snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. No one has done so because - again - a dependence of the sentence's
>>>gravity from the evidence's conclusivity leads straightly into
>>>calamities. It equates an argument like: 'Running the stop-light costs $
>>>100 a fee, I believe that I saw you running a stop-light yesterday, but I
>>>am a bit unsure about this. So you have to pay a reduced fee of $ 75.'
>>>Nonsense, simply.
>>
>>Not at all.
>
>
> Of course. This is EXACTLY what Romney proposes.
>
> K.
I see you have taken to snipping and posting only to those things you
have a reply, however weak, for. Naughty, naught, Juergen. Now I will
post the rest of my answer and you can reply to it.
What I said (more or less) was that it was rather like a raising of the
fines. For instance "Yesterday the cameras caught you running a red
light as well as today." the judge says. "Yesterday the fine for
running the red light was $75$, which you paid. Today the fine is $100
which you now owe."
Teflon
Richard J
There was some of that, but the McVeigh case was already very high
profile when it occurred. There really was no need for added publicity
now was there? Look at other cases. Abolitionist often focus on cases
where there is some emotional appeal. Betty Beets is a prime example.
That bitch was about as guilty as she could be, but because she was a
woman and older, she became a cause celeb. There are others.
Teflon
Clown
out what it means to introduce a dependence of the sentence (->fee) from
the quality of evidence. If you don't like to see the consequences then
discussion is terminated. I lack the time to play Kindergarten in the
Web.
Klaun
Richard J
What I see is a future limitation of the circumstances the death penalty
could be used. Since that doesn't appear of interest to you, I guess
our discussion is at end.
Teflon
A Planet Visitor
Perhaps that's true... since it's very difficult to dispute the inherent
morality of the concept of the DP, abolitionists usually avoid that
particular argument.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Perhaps you can provide an example of that 'time and time' again, that
you say it doesn't work, since it seems rather innovative to me. Could
it be that you simply don't wish to see anything proposed that might
make the DP more palatable to the public, and raise the standard of
sentencing to the DP. Would you oppose this plan if it became a
policy in all states now using the DP? Or do you only oppose it
because it is a plan which would increase the possibility of the
passage of a DP law in a state now not using the DP?
Are you simply prepared to sacrifice those now sentenced to the DP,
who might otherwise receive sentences other than the DP, if the approach
were actually used in all states using the DP, on the altar of abolition, just
to satisfy your personal efforts to abolish the DP completely?
PV
>K.
A Planet Visitor
Some would argue that the calamities are obvious because of prison terms
given to some, and not the DP given to all. Your argument is just as crazy
as their argument, except you believe the DP should be given to none. Simply
put... it's always been your OPINION, and you insist on proclaiming it
as some FACT... which it is absolutely not. There are no more inconsistencies
in the DP, because some murderers are not given that penalty, than there are in
some having committed the same crime being sentenced to different penalties.
Your opinion, resolves to the argument of either abolishing the entire penalty for
the crime of murder... TOTALLY... all penalties... or establishing a specific
and EXACT penalty for every crime... which in effect, eliminates any
consideration of different penalties applying for the SAME crime. Bottom
line... if all crimes can have varying penalties within a minimum-maximum
range, there is absolutely no reason that capital murder cannot also have
such a range, with the DP being that maximum sentence for capital murder.
Considering the entire thrust of this thread, and your comments, I am appalled
that you seem to oppose an idea which would raise the standard necessary to
sentence a murderer to the DP. All because you are afraid that it might be
seen as reasonable to those who are abolitionists only because they see the
possibilities of the execution of an innocent as too strong. You are afraid that
they would now support that penalty if more positive guarantees were provided
as to the certain guilt of the convicted murderer. You are simply proving that
guilt has nothing to do with your opposition to the DP, and even if every
murderer were CERTAIN of being guilty, you would still oppose the DP.
Isn't that true?
PV
>Klaun
A Planet Visitor
Timothy Who??? I remember the hue and cry about how he would become
a martyr to the 'cause' of terrorism, if he were executed. Geee... no one
hardly remembers him... except some abolitionists.
PV
A Planet Visitor
Of course NOT. The proposal is 'it has been demonstrated BARD through
the testimony of two police officers that you were guilty of running a stop-light
yesterday... you will pay a fine of $75.' As opposed to 'In addition to the
testimony of two police officers, we have hard and fast scientific video
evidence that you were guilty of running a stop-light yesterday.. you will pay a
fine of $100.'
In the first case, there is sufficient evidence to justify a finding of guilty BARD.
In the second case, there is MORE THAN sufficient evidence to justify a finding
of guilty requiring a higher penalty. BARD is a standard of finding guilt or
innocence. Once that has been established, than the sentence can well depend,
if the law so provides, on a determination of JUST HOW FAR BEYOND
BARD exists. BARD can exist in the proof of guilt without certain scientific
evidence... but with the existence of such evidence the CERTAINTY of such
guilt is only further proven beyond BARD. Further, four eye-witnesses is
certainly more certain of confirming guilt than three eye-witnesses, yet three
might be sufficient for BARD.
PV
>K.
A Planet Visitor
>
>"Richard J" <ric...@hotmail.com> ??????:3F946F50...@hotmail.com...
>> From the Boston Globe:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Science key in building case for death law
>>
>> By Rick Klein, Globe Staff, 9/30/2003
>>
>> Nearly two decades since Massachusetts last had capital punishment,
>> Governor Mitt Romney has triggered a debate that echoed through the
>> State House, to the state's parishes, and on to the offices of criminal
>> defense lawyers:
>> ADVERTISEMENT
>>
>> With cutting-edge science, is it possible to draft a fail-safe death
>> penalty?
>>
>> Despite skepticism from top lawmakers, Romney and his aides insist that
>> it is, and he has formed a council of forensic and legal specialists to
>> devise a statute that will guard against wrongful executions by putting
>> "science ahead of all other considerations."
>>
>> Under one approach being discussed, if the defendant in a murder case is
>> convicted, jurors would be asked explicitly if there was scientific
>> evidence, such as DNA, that provides "incontrovertible proof" of guilt,
>> said Joseph L. Hoffmann, one of the council's cochairmen.
>>
>> Romney is hoping that the use of science will help produce a death
>> penalty measure that can win wide public support and change enough
>> lawmakers' votes to win passage.
>>
>> For the full article, go to:
>>
>>
>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/09/30/science_key_in_building
>_case_for_death_law/
>
>Where one can also read the following:
>
>"But civil liberties activists and legislators, Senate president Robert
>Travaglini among them, doubt that the goal can be achieved, if only because
>of the inherent imperfection in humans. At its best, these critics say, DNA
>usually can only prove that a defendant was in the location of a crime. At
>its worst, DNA, like any evidence, can be planted, tampered with, or
>mishandled, leading to wrongful convictions."
>
>The conclusion is that using science to support the death penalty would
>result in reducing its use, quite a curious way to support it actually.
>Experience in the US shows that DNA has mainly helped exonerate wrongly
>convicted persons. This, by contrast, highlights many flaws the system
>besides has.
>
Another one who opposes a plan that he ADMITS would reduce the number
of murderers sentenced to the DP, if it were applied in all cases of the possibility
of the DP. Quite clearly, I would like to see this plan be instituted in all those
U.S. States that now have the DP statute in effect.
What is demonstrated by euro's comment is that even if an ABSOLUTELY
CERTAIN method to determine guilt could be found (we know that can
never happen), he would still oppose the DP. Thus, it's not really a case
of him having ANYTHING to say regarding the certainty of guilt, and
he is only blowing smoke again.
PV
>Euro
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:58:07 +0200, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >In article <20031024025056...@mb-m05.aol.com>,
> >jigsa...@aol.com says...
> >
> >> >> ===============================
> >> >>
> >> >> Alas Klaun... the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
> >> >>
> >> >> I see nothing wrong with that standard.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Who reads the discussion will understand.
> >> >
> >> >K.
> >> ===============================
> >>
> >> I read the discussion and I understand what you are saying. You want to set one
> >> standard for one type of criminal that would be a different standard than
> >> applied to others.
> >>
> >> Some pigs are more equal than others, eh Klaun.
> >>
> >
> >Nope - the contrary is true. It is Mister Romney who wants to set for the
> >death sentence another standard than for all other sentences. I am who is
> >saying time and again that this does not work.
> >
>
> Perhaps you can provide an example of that 'time and time' again, that
> you say it doesn't work, since it seems rather innovative to me.
Well, since you are 100% of your time busy declaring your moral
superiority 0% of your time are left to consider any facts or any
arguments. Thus, nothing of a surprise that you do not recall anything
but your intentionally escalated flame-wars.
Could
> it be that you simply don't wish to see anything proposed that might
> make the DP more palatable to the public, and raise the standard of
> sentencing to the DP. Would you oppose this plan if it became a
> policy in all states now using the DP? Or do you only oppose it
> because it is a plan which would increase the possibility of the
> passage of a DP law in a state now not using the DP?
I see that the experiment 'post-Furman DP' failed totally, in douzains of
states: You are putting lots of innocents on death row, and you are quite
systematically executing guilty people despite obvious and strong
mitigating circumstances. Furthermore it became obvious that the standard
BARD has been premediatedly undermined. Any proposal to introduce an even
stronger standard BAD to coexist with BARD does merely show how far your
CJS's have already abandoned an accurate interpretation of BARD.
>
> Are you simply prepared to sacrifice those now sentenced to the DP,
> who might otherwise receive sentences other than the DP, if the approach
> were actually used in all states using the DP, on the altar of abolition, just
> to satisfy your personal efforts to abolish the DP completely?
(1) In terms of innocents: I rather think that you, Richard and Mister
Romney are sacrificing anything at this point. A special death penalty
standard BAD - nomen est omen - will automatically weaken the standard
BARD, and thus you will agree with a not neglectable portion of innocents
sentenced to bleeding-heart-liberal-sub-DP-penalties as for instant 50
years imprisonment.
(2) In terms of guilties: A system which does not execute reluctantly a
selection of the most dangerous criminals, but which executes with
obvious lust people like Christina Riggs, such a system needs more help
than a bit "usind schince".
K.
j.rennie1
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:n5impvk70fo9g7p5a...@4ax.com...
Oh I think quite a few members of the extensive back up
he must have had remember him too. No doubt
that have an annual toast to him - 'Sucker' they all
shout. What's happened to the another fellow?
dirtdog
wrote:
<entire article cluelessly included snipped>
> Geee... no one
>hardly remembers him...
Slipping back to the grammar of a Russian Peasant, PV?
w00f
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:b6impvoi1a2s2k0ks...@4ax.com...
Let's rather say that the problem of certainty of guilt is a problem of
conscience for retentionists. They haven't found a way to solve it and they
try desperately to grasp any hope to find a solution.
I have the solution: abolish the death penalty. The queston of executing an
innocent will never be raised again.
Euro
A Planet Visitor
Translation -- I can't provide a single example... but I'll rant a bit. And
provide a few 'rote' insults. Let me put this clearly... I believe it is 'moral'
to support the right of Israel to exist. I believe it is 'moral' to equate
Israel with the right of the Jews to exist as a people. I'm pretty sure,
you don't find any of that 'moral.' Thus... it's all a matter of opinion.
>>Could
>> it be that you simply don't wish to see anything proposed that might
>> make the DP more palatable to the public, and raise the standard of
>> sentencing to the DP. Would you oppose this plan if it became a
>> policy in all states now using the DP? Or do you only oppose it
>> because it is a plan which would increase the possibility of the
>> passage of a DP law in a state now not using the DP?
>
>I see that the experiment 'post-Furman DP' failed totally, in douzains of
>states: You are putting lots of innocents on death row, and you are quite
>systematically executing guilty people despite obvious and strong
>mitigating circumstances. Furthermore it became obvious that the standard
>BARD has been premediatedly undermined. Any proposal to introduce an even
>stronger standard BAD to coexist with BARD does merely show how far your
>CJS's have already abandoned an accurate interpretation of BARD.
>
BARD is certainly not an 'absolute' term... nor is it meant to be. It is
a term which considers how every human frames 'doubt' within his
own mind, and twelve humans come together to try and agree on
the evidence being 'beyond' that doubt in any of the minds of those
twelve humans. If it is not 'beyond reasonable doubt;' in every one
of those 12, then there is a hung jury or an acquittal. There is no
reason whatsoever, that the meaning of BARD, since it is NOT
an 'absolute' term, could not be changed to demand a bit more
proof of guilt... even though the standard of BARD is met. Forensic
evidence, not necessarily DEMANDED to meet BARD, could well
be demanded to meet a higher standard necessary for a sentence
to the DP. You are arguing that the plan is 'unworkable,' but it
clearly is. Thus, your opposition has another source.
>> Are you simply prepared to sacrifice those now sentenced to the DP,
>> who might otherwise receive sentences other than the DP, if the approach
>> were actually used in all states using the DP, on the altar of abolition, just
>> to satisfy your personal efforts to abolish the DP completely?
>
>(1) In terms of innocents: I rather think that you, Richard and Mister
>Romney are sacrificing anything at this point. A special death penalty
>standard BAD - nomen est omen - will automatically weaken the standard
>BARD, and thus you will agree with a not neglectable portion of innocents
>sentenced to bleeding-heart-liberal-sub-DP-penalties as for instant 50
>years imprisonment.
Why is it... that you always get so personal, and so hysterically accusatory,
when faced with a reasonable argument? Why would you oppose a
plan which would RAISE the standard needed to execute a proven
murderer? I can only see that you oppose that plan, NOT because of
concern for any possibility of the execution of an innocent, since it is
absolute certain that the plan would REDUCE such a possibility. You
obviously oppose the plan since you oppose the DP, and nothing else
actually can be factored in. It is an irrational, concrete-headed,
conformist view, for which NO argument can be offered which would
be acceptable to you. What you are afraid of... is that this plan will
make the DP more PALATABLE to more people, and thus the possibility
of abolition will diminish. So, in actuality, you don't CARE if this plan
would help prevent the possibility of the execution of an innocent.
You simply offer that innocent on the altar of your total opposition to
the DP, because you FEAR that the plan might WORK, and thus
abolition itself might be damaged, because retention would become
more workable.
>
>(2) In terms of guilties: A system which does not execute reluctantly a
>selection of the most dangerous criminals, but which executes with
>obvious lust people like Christina Riggs, such a system needs more help
>than a bit "usind schince".
>
Nice talking to you, Jürgen... come back when you make some sense.
PV
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says.........
> >
> >I see that the experiment 'post-Furman DP' failed totally, in douzains of
> >states: You are putting lots of innocents on death row, and you are quite
> >systematically executing guilty people despite obvious and strong
> >mitigating circumstances. Furthermore it became obvious that the standard
> >BARD has been premediatedly undermined. Any proposal to introduce an even
> >stronger standard BAD to coexist with BARD does merely show how far your
> >CJS's have already abandoned an accurate interpretation of BARD.
> >
> BARD is certainly not an 'absolute' term... nor is it meant to be. It is
> a term which considers how every human frames 'doubt' within his
> own mind, and twelve humans come together to try and agree on
> the evidence being 'beyond' that doubt in any of the minds of those
> twelve humans. If it is not 'beyond reasonable doubt;' in every one
> of those 12, then there is a hung jury or an acquittal. There is no
> reason whatsoever, that the meaning of BARD, since it is NOT
> an 'absolute' term, could not be changed to demand a bit more
> proof of guilt... even though the standard of BARD is met. Forensic
> evidence, not necessarily DEMANDED to meet BARD, could well
> be demanded to meet a higher standard necessary for a sentence
> to the DP. You are arguing that the plan is 'unworkable,' but it
> clearly is. Thus, your opposition has another source.
Sorry, but your construction does not work. You say that BARD without
forensic evidence should qualify for imprisonment, while BARD plus
forensic evidence should constitute a qualifyer for the DP. Now the
consequence is an inconsistent status of anyone sentenced to a prison
term for the plain reason that forensic evidence is lacking, whilst the
severity of the crime would warrant the DP. This one can and will
instantly make the claim to be sentenced under an insufficient standard
of evidence; and the claim is a serious one since an admission of
controvertibility is inherent in any sentence which is lowered due to a
lack of evidence.
>
> >> Are you simply prepared to sacrifice those now sentenced to the DP,
> >> who might otherwise receive sentences other than the DP, if the approach
> >> were actually used in all states using the DP, on the altar of abolition, just
> >> to satisfy your personal efforts to abolish the DP completely?
> >
> >(1) In terms of innocents: I rather think that you, Richard and Mister
> >Romney are sacrificing anything at this point. A special death penalty
> >standard BAD - nomen est omen - will automatically weaken the standard
> >BARD, and thus you will agree with a not neglectable portion of innocents
> >sentenced to bleeding-heart-liberal-sub-DP-penalties as for instant 50
> >years imprisonment.
>
> Why is it... that you always get so personal, and so hysterically accusatory,
> when faced with a reasonable argument? Why would you oppose a
> plan which would RAISE the standard needed to execute a proven
> murderer?
I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system. BARD can be
topped only by a standard 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt', and this
is what you'd like to introduce for the DP. But if unreasonable doubts
are enough to drop the DP then there is no sound reason why unreasonable
doubts shouldn't suffice to question any other sentence and penalty.
K.
A Planet Visitor
Ummm... read my words again, my little escapee from the 'funny farm.'
The only solution is to improve the methods we use to determine both
guilt/not guilt, and the appropriate sentence to apply if found guilty.
The plan offered is a clearly one such improvement. But, you are not looking
for 'improvements,' you are looking for abolition... which cannot be defined
as an 'improvement,' since it also clearly holds many disadvantages, simply
with the realization that many murderers not executed have murdered again.. See
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
So... what is demonstrated here.. by you and Jurgen (in a different post), is
that you are willing to SACRIFICE those who might actually be innocent,
but who would possibly be spared from execution because of an elevated
standard of proof for those murderers executed, for the 'sake of total abolition.'
How very 'moral.' NOT!
You are NOT looking for IMPROVEMENTS in that selection process. You
actually shun such efforts, since they MIGHT make the DP seem more
palatable to more people if people were more certain of the guilt of those
executed. Do not for one moment believe I cannot see through the reason
a few abolitionists would OPPOSE a plan that would make the guilt of those
we execute MORE CERTAIN. You are NOT hoping for an 'error free'
process in those we select for execution. You are looking for an 'error
PRONE' process in those we select for execution... so you might more easily
crow about the possible execution of an innocent...a possible innocent that
you don't really give a shit about... if he can be SACRIFICED for the sake
of your abolition agenda. What you ARE looking for... and HOPING FOR...
is some 'proof' that an innocent has been executed. And this 'plan,' works
against such a hope. THAT is MORE IMPORTANT to you, than the
execution of that innocent, since it would fit your agenda better. Improvements
in insuring the absolute guilt (never attainable obviously within ANY part of the
Justice system - not just the DP) of those we execute is not in your agenda. You
would more prefer LESS certainty, than more certainty... HOPING
that an innocent can be proven to have been executed. How very moral!!
NOT.
>I have the solution: abolish the death penalty. The queston of executing an
>innocent will never be raised again.
>
Again...that is not a solution to these --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/doublemurderers.htm
Absolute incapacitation would have prevented EVERY ONE of them. I do
not propose 'absolute incapacitation' for every murderer... but do not imply
that abolition is a 'solution,' to ANY of them. The 'question' of executing
an innocent will never be raised again with abolition... but who speaks to
the question of those in the URL I offer? Given that no executed murderer
can ever commit another murder.
PV
>Euro (alias Buridan's ass)
A Planet Visitor
Terry Nichols. The last I heard, he was sentenced to life,
plus six years each on 8 separate counts. He was also ordered
to make immediate restitution of $14,500,000 (don't hold
your breath).
I don't know if that was the final result after all due process, but I
suspect he will never leave prison.
PV
Euro
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq>
??????:asp8qvon62u7k3rrq...@4ax.com...
You can certainly say that... I actually don't believe in improvements, and,
so far, in spite of all the "improvement" proposals, I have not seen
anything that exclude the possbility for innocents to be executed.
The only "improvement" to death penalty that would exclude the possibility
that innocents be executed is its abolition. Live with it.
Euro
> PV (alias Pinocchio)
A Planet Visitor
Sorry... but it certainly does. IMO. Do not presume that your opinion
represents any factual proof. Like mine.. it simply represents your
opinion.
>You say that BARD without
>forensic evidence should qualify for imprisonment, while BARD plus
>forensic evidence should constitute a qualifyer for the DP.
No.. I said that forensic evidence can raise the perception of true
guilt, more than what BARD would demand to find guilt. I am only
using that as an example, and not claiming that ONLY forensic
evidence such as DNA could justify the DP. I am saying that the
normal criteria to meet the satisfaction of GUILT, does not DEMAND
forensic evidence. But such might well be found to elevate the
belief of TRUE guilt in sentencing to the DP.
> Now the
>consequence is an inconsistent status of anyone sentenced to a prison
>term for the plain reason that forensic evidence is lacking, whilst the
>severity of the crime would warrant the DP.
Umm... the 'severity' of the crime is quite separate from the perception
of GUILT--BARD. The 'severity' is an entirely separate issue, based
on aggravating circumstances. We are speaking only of a more CERTAIN
belief in GUILT, above that of BARD.
> This one can and will
>instantly make the claim to be sentenced under an insufficient standard
>of evidence; and the claim is a serious one since an admission of
>controvertibility is inherent in any sentence which is lowered due to a
>lack of evidence.
>
My... oh...my... You can certainly drift about in your arguments. Look..
the 'circumstances' and 'prior behavior' of the murderer are already the
issues that are raised in sentencing to the DP. Once those measures
are met... the issue of a more certain belief in guilt -- a more demanded
attempt to insure 'absolute guilt' (which can NEVER be ascertained),
is simply another criteria to be used to ensure the murderer is guilty.
You should not try to confuse those three issues -- 1) circumstances
which might justify the DP.. 2) prior behavior which might justify
the DP... 3) A heightened CERTAINTY of guilty which might justify
the DP.
>>
>> >> Are you simply prepared to sacrifice those now sentenced to the DP,
>> >> who might otherwise receive sentences other than the DP, if the approach
>> >> were actually used in all states using the DP, on the altar of abolition, just
>> >> to satisfy your personal efforts to abolish the DP completely?
>> >
>> >(1) In terms of innocents: I rather think that you, Richard and Mister
>> >Romney are sacrificing anything at this point. A special death penalty
>> >standard BAD - nomen est omen - will automatically weaken the standard
>> >BARD, and thus you will agree with a not neglectable portion of innocents
>> >sentenced to bleeding-heart-liberal-sub-DP-penalties as for instant 50
>> >years imprisonment.
>>
>> Why is it... that you always get so personal, and so hysterically accusatory,
>> when faced with a reasonable argument? Why would you oppose a
>> plan which would RAISE the standard needed to execute a proven
>> murderer?
>
>I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system.
Well then. If you are 'satisfied' with the present standard... why do you
oppose the DP for murderers?
>BARD can be
>topped only by a standard 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt', and this
>is what you'd like to introduce for the DP.
Wrong!! I am not saying 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt.' Do not twist
my meaning, since I do not presume that a defense of 'abduction by aliens'
can be seen as ANY form of defense. I am simply saying that BARD in
determining guilt, may require only one 'eye-witness,' and 'no forensic DNA
evidence' for example. Just AS ANY CRIME. While the existence of such
evidence, even after guilt has been judged in respect to BARD, might well
be a factor in determining a sentence to the DP.
> But if unreasonable doubts
>are enough to drop the DP then there is no sound reason why unreasonable
>doubts shouldn't suffice to question any other sentence and penalty.
>
Given that I never speak of 'unreasonable doubt,' your comment means
nothing.
PV
>
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says........
>
> > Now the
> >consequence is an inconsistent status of anyone sentenced to a prison
> >term for the plain reason that forensic evidence is lacking, whilst the
> >severity of the crime would warrant the DP.
>
> Umm... the 'severity' of the crime is quite separate from the perception
> of GUILT--BARD. The 'severity' is an entirely separate issue, based
> on aggravating circumstances. We are speaking only of a more CERTAIN
> belief in GUILT, above that of BARD.
The severity of the crime is what has to determine the severity of the
sentence - and absolutely nothing else. If a crime bears aggravating
circumstances then a lowered sentence can constitute nothing but a
confession of uncertainty concerning the proof of guilt.
<....>
> >I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system.
>
> Well then. If you are 'satisfied' with the present standard... why do you
> oppose the DP for murderers?
>
(1) I think I elaborated a good deal of reasoning against the DP which
does exceed the issue of the double standard by and large.
(2) A bad state does not get better by pointing at any possibility to do
even worse. The absurdity of a hypothetic double standard in any justice
system does not improve the common corruption of the standard BARD in
respect to the term's practical interpretation. Thus, no, I am not
satisfied neither by the quality of evidence in many DP-cases nor by the
ignorance shown in terms of mitigating circumstances (-> Christina
Riggs).
> >BARD can be
> >topped only by a standard 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt', and this
> >is what you'd like to introduce for the DP.
>
> Wrong!! I am not saying 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt.' Do not twist
> my meaning, since I do not presume that a defense of 'abduction by aliens'
> can be seen as ANY form of defense. I am simply saying that BARD in
> determining guilt, may require only one 'eye-witness,' and 'no forensic DNA
> evidence' for example. Just AS ANY CRIME. While the existence of such
> evidence, even after guilt has been judged in respect to BARD, might well
> be a factor in determining a sentence to the DP.
>
> > But if unreasonable doubts
> >are enough to drop the DP then there is no sound reason why unreasonable
> >doubts shouldn't suffice to question any other sentence and penalty.
> >
> Given that I never speak of 'unreasonable doubt,' your comment means
> nothing.
>
Any sentence is spoken after having established a 'guilty BARD'-verdict.
Hence any standard beyond BARD can mean only to move on the array of
unreasonability - this is what semantic dictates.
K.
A Planet Visitor
>In article <0vp2sv87cld06tom5...@4ax.com>,
>abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 12:28:59 +0100, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>.....
>>
>> > Now the
>> >consequence is an inconsistent status of anyone sentenced to a prison
>> >term for the plain reason that forensic evidence is lacking, whilst the
>> >severity of the crime would warrant the DP.
>>
>> Umm... the 'severity' of the crime is quite separate from the perception
>> of GUILT--BARD. The 'severity' is an entirely separate issue, based
>> on aggravating circumstances. We are speaking only of a more CERTAIN
>> belief in GUILT, above that of BARD.
>
>The severity of the crime is what has to determine the severity of the
>sentence - and absolutely nothing else.
Totally untrue... the sentence is dependent upon the idea of public safety,
in respect to a person now found to be a proven criminal. And in that
respect almost everything is 'up for grabs.' The facts of previous
crimes committed, and the demeanor of the convicted, if the convicted
does testify, all bear on the sentence. The fact that the victim was
unusually vulnerable (such as a child or an infant), even if the severity
of the murder was no different than that which is inflicted upon an
adult, bears on the sentence. In fact, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances can be quite distinct from the severity of the crime and
bear on the sentence. Mitigating circumstances such as developmental
disabilities of the murderer obviously impact the sentence, regardless of
similar severity of murders committed by others. The age of the murderer
bears on the sentence in some cases. The character and background,
and the presumption of the possibility of rehabilitation are certainly
factors aside from 'the severity of the crime.' There are a complex
set of parameters in sentencing once guilt is determined. If that were
not the case, each guilty verdict would need no examination of the
crime... since 'severity' is presumably the watershed of conviction
for the particular crime. For example, if there is no malice... capital
murder is often found unsustainable as a matter of GUILT, and a
lower crime, such as manslaughter, which does not carry the same
sentencing maximum and minimums must be charged instead.
> If a crime bears aggravating
>circumstances then a lowered sentence can constitute nothing but a
>confession of uncertainty concerning the proof of guilt.
>
I have no idea what you are saying here. 'Confession'??? Of course,
if the crime itself does not meet the standard of the Statute... it cannot
be sustained. Thus, that has nothing to do with 'sentencing' but with
the crime for which charged.
><....>
>
>> >I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system.
>>
>> Well then. If you are 'satisfied' with the present standard... why do you
>> oppose the DP for murderers?
>>
>
>(1) I think I elaborated a good deal of reasoning against the DP which
>does exceed the issue of the double standard by and large.
I still do not understand why you would oppose a 'double-standard,'
which would certainly go toward many DP sentences no longer being
given. It seems to me, that your 'agenda' is more important to you than the
fact that a 'double-standard,' would indeed ensure that a greater
certainty of guilt would be necessary to sentence to the DP. Conversely,
I support the DP... yet I would also support a higher standard of
proof of guilt, being necessary to sentence someone to the DP. I
cannot help but believe you somewhat HOPE that an innocent would
be proven as executed, using that lower standard of 'proof of guilt,'
simply so you can 'proclaim' that the DP DOES execute innocents.
(Of course, we KNOW it CAN execute innocents... just as we KNOW
it CAN release the guilty). And thus, I think you do not wish to see a
'better' certainty of guilt than now exists in sentencing to the DP.
>(2) A bad state does not get better by pointing at any possibility to do
>even worse.
However, this seems to be contrary to the 'double-standard' as presented.
It would be pointing at the possibility of making the DP BETTER, not
worse. Thus, I again feel you are not in pursuit of 'improving' the DP,
but simply in pursuit of abolishing it, without the slightest concern if
it IS improved, which might protect an innocent person from that sentence
better than at present.
Also... once again, I cannot help but observe, that I find it hypocritical of
you to present a comment in the form I have become so accustomed to
seeing from you --- the 'when did you stop beating your wife,' form of
argument --- PRESUMING that the initial premise is that 'the state is bad to
execute.' That is NOT a given, Jürgen, it is your opinion... and you should
not present it as some sort of 'initial fact,' from which all else follows.
Because if your original premise is only an opinion... all else that follows
means nothing in terms of fact.
> The absurdity of a hypothetic double standard in any justice
>system does not improve the common corruption of the standard BARD in
>respect to the term's practical interpretation. Thus, no, I am not
>satisfied neither by the quality of evidence in many DP-cases nor by the
>ignorance shown in terms of mitigating circumstances (-> Christina
>Riggs).
>
Actually, Christina Riggs is totally immaterial to the argument we are
holding. Since there was no question of her GUILT. I agree that
IMO, it was totally unnecessary to execute Christina Riggs... but PLEASE...
do not use HER... as an argument in respect to the concept of a
'double-standard' of GUILT. Since she was certainly guilty of the
crime... under the criminal statutes which define the crime. Nor attempt
to use Karla Faye Tucker. Using Roger Coleman would be quite
appropriate in this dialog... but NOT Christina Riggs. Roger Coleman,
Odell Barnes, and Jesse Tafero make a much more compelling
argument. But they make an argument in defense of MY position,
rather than yours. They might be guilty under the standard of BARD,
but questions remain to this day as to their guilt. The 'double-standard'
might well have kept them from execution. Despite my 'personal
opinion' that each of them were guilty in respect to BARD, that higher
standard might well have provided relief from the DP... and that is
why I also would have opposed their sentence to the DP.
And once again... I need to remark on the form your arguments take.
As you again argue that BARD has something you 'define' as 'the
common corruption of the standard BARD.' You must realize how
little sense those words mean. Since if we do not set such a standard
as a MINIMUM... then we have no Justice System whatsoever.
Anything less, presumes that everyone is guilty... if not necessary to meet
a 'standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.' While anything more, such
as 'beyond absolute doubt,' presumes that everyone is innocent. It is
quite reasonable to find guilt in the sense of BARD, because the
presumption under such a concept is that ten true guilty will be found 'not
guilty,' before one true innocent is found 'guilty.' But it is also acceptable
TO ME, to contend that a higher level should be necessary to sentence
to the DP.
>> >BARD can be
>> >topped only by a standard 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt', and this
>> >is what you'd like to introduce for the DP.
>>
>> Wrong!! I am not saying 'beyond even any unreasonable doubt.' Do not twist
>> my meaning, since I do not presume that a defense of 'abduction by aliens'
>> can be seen as ANY form of defense. I am simply saying that BARD in
>> determining guilt, may require only one 'eye-witness,' and 'no forensic DNA
>> evidence' for example. Just AS ANY CRIME. While the existence of such
>> evidence, even after guilt has been judged in respect to BARD, might well
>> be a factor in determining a sentence to the DP.
>>
>> > But if unreasonable doubts
>> >are enough to drop the DP then there is no sound reason why unreasonable
>> >doubts shouldn't suffice to question any other sentence and penalty.
>> >
>> Given that I never speak of 'unreasonable doubt,' your comment means
>> nothing.
>>
>
>Any sentence is spoken after having established a 'guilty BARD'-verdict.
>Hence any standard beyond BARD can mean only to move on the array of
>unreasonability - this is what semantic dictates.
Not at all... Quite clearly, even after BARD... there can certainly exist a
greater certainty of guilt. You know it... I know it... you just simply refuse
to agree to this concept, for reasons quite divorced from any expectation
of improving the certainty of guilt of those sentenced to the DP. You are
afraid that it will make the DP more palatable to a greater body of citizens
who are now ambivalent about the use of the DP, given the examples of
those where it was unsure of guilt to a degree which would satisfy even
the most critical examiner of such guilt.
People EXPECT that IF we use the DP, we ONLY execute the guilty.
People also understand that the expectation of perfection can NEVER
be achieved. But many people are unwilling to abandon the concept
of the DP for a select group of 'the worst of the worst,' murderers. While
they also fear we execute the innocent. Such a plan of this 'double-standard'
would cause SOME who oppose the DP ONLY because of this 'risk to
the innocent,' to move from opposition to the DP to support of it, in
recognition that steps were being taken to ensure to a greater degree that
no innocent was being executed. You do not wish to see this possible
movement, thus you oppose the plan. IMO.
PV
>
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
Well, I tried my very best to discuss the ingredients of guilt mentioned
above, which lead always to the question how guilt would depend upon
culpability. You refused to enter this discussions, and I lack the time
to go for a second attempt.
The essence of my phrase ５he severity of the crime....' is that any more
lenient a sentence as a consequence of weaker evidence is dangerously
inconsistent.
>
> > If a crime bears aggravating
> >circumstances then a lowered sentence can constitute nothing but a
> >confession of uncertainty concerning the proof of guilt.
> >
> I have no idea what you are saying here. 'Confession'??? Of course,
> if the crime itself does not meet the standard of the Statute... it cannot
> be sustained. Thus, that has nothing to do with 'sentencing' but with
> the crime for which charged.
>
Oh, quite easy. If any crime does bear aggravating circumstances and you
refuse to return a death sentence for the mere reason that the evidence
against the charged is considered too weak, and if you on the other hand
do not refuse to sentence alternatively to a harsh prison term then this
equates a confession of you to be unsure about whether you got the right
man. Not more, not less.
> >
> >> >I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system.
> >>
> >> Well then. If you are 'satisfied' with the present standard... why do you
> >> oppose the DP for murderers?
> >>
> >
> >(1) I think I elaborated a good deal of reasoning against the DP which
> >does exceed the issue of the double standard by and large.
>
> I still do not understand why you would oppose a 'double-standard,'
> which would certainly go toward many DP sentences no longer being
> given. It seems to me, .....
Why speculate?? The problems which arise by an extra DP-proof-standard
are firstly obvious and secondly of logical consistence.
> >(2) A bad state does not get better by pointing at any possibility to do
> >even worse.
>
> However, this seems to be contrary to the 'double-standard' as presented.
> It would be pointing at the possibility of making the DP BETTER, not
> worse.
See - it was you who tried to describe the DP as not any worse than LWOP.
So I want to know why you would like to introduce an extra-DP-standard,
whilst the alternative, which is prison up to LWOP, would require lower a
standard of proof in your opinion.
> > The absurdity of a hypothetic double standard in any justice
> >system does not improve the common corruption of the standard BARD in
> >respect to the term's practical interpretation. Thus, no, I am not
> >satisfied neither by the quality of evidence in many DP-cases nor by the
> >ignorance shown in terms of mitigating circumstances (-> Christina
> >Riggs).
> >
> Actually, Christina Riggs is totally immaterial to the argument we are
> holding. Since there was no question of her GUILT. I agree that
> IMO, it was totally unnecessary to execute Christina Riggs... but PLEASE...
> do not use HER... as an argument in respect to the concept of a
> 'double-standard' of GUILT. Since she was certainly guilty of the
> crime... under the criminal statutes which define the crime. Nor attempt
> to use Karla Faye Tucker. Using Roger Coleman would be quite
> appropriate in this dialog... but NOT Christina Riggs. Roger Coleman,
> Odell Barnes, and Jesse Tafero make a much more compelling
> argument. But they make an argument in defense of MY position,
> rather than yours. They might be guilty under the standard of BARD,
> but questions remain to this day as to their guilt. The 'double-standard'
> might well have kept them from execution. Despite my 'personal
> opinion' that each of them were guilty in respect to BARD, that higher
> standard might well have provided relief from the DP... and that is
> why I also would have opposed their sentence to the DP.
...and we are on point again. If you oppose the DP, how can you speak an
LWOP-sentence founding on just the same proof which you distrust in in
the first case?
....
> >
> >Any sentence is spoken after having established a 'guilty BARD'-verdict.
> >Hence any standard beyond BARD can mean only to move on the array of
> >unreasonability - this is what semantic dictates.
>
> Not at all... Quite clearly, even after BARD... there can certainly exist a
> greater certainty of guilt. You know it... I know it...
This greater certainty of guilt, which may exist on a case by case-level,
is simply not admissible in a consistent legal system. A trial is
divided in guilt- and sentencing phase, and it is not possible to return
a conditional guilty verdict as "Guilty enough for LWOP, but not guilty
enough for the DP".
K.
A Planet Visitor
No.. you certainly didn't. You said -- "The severity of the crime is what
has to determine the severity of the sentence - and absolutely nothing else."
And the word 'guilt' is not mentioned there, nor is your statement
accurate by any means.
>The essence of my phrase ‚The severity of the crime....' is that any more
>lenient a sentence as a consequence of weaker evidence is dangerously
>inconsistent.
>
Your argument is the only thing that is inconsistent here. The "severity
of the crime," certainly DOES affect the sentence, although it is NOT
"absolutely nothing else." It is simply a different aspect than the 'belief
in absolute guilt.' The closer one approaches to that 'absolute guilt,'
the more certain one perceives that guilt to be, totally independent from
any argument of the "severity of the crime." I certainly did not imply
that the "severity of the crime," doesn't affect the sentence. I only show
that there are other factors that do, and thus it is quite reasonable,
IMO, to presume that a greater certainty of guilt could easily be one
of those other factors.
>
>>
>> > If a crime bears aggravating
>> >circumstances then a lowered sentence can constitute nothing but a
>> >confession of uncertainty concerning the proof of guilt.
>> >
>> I have no idea what you are saying here. 'Confession'??? Of course,
>> if the crime itself does not meet the standard of the Statute... it cannot
>> be sustained. Thus, that has nothing to do with 'sentencing' but with
>> the crime for which charged.
>>
>
>Oh, quite easy. If any crime does bear aggravating circumstances and you
>refuse to return a death sentence for the mere reason that the evidence
>against the charged is considered too weak, and if you on the other hand
>do not refuse to sentence alternatively to a harsh prison term then this
>equates a confession of you to be unsure about whether you got the right
>man. Not more, not less.
>
No... the idea of whether it was the 'right man,' is embodied in BARD. But
that does not absolutely GUARANTEE that fact. It only meets the standard
of the law, because the law recognized that 'absolute' is not possible. It is
reasonable to me, that a 'greater guarantee' could be demanded before we
take another life.
>
>> >
>> >> >I am opposing any *DOUBLE STANDARD* in any justice system.
>> >>
>> >> Well then. If you are 'satisfied' with the present standard... why do you
>> >> oppose the DP for murderers?
>> >>
>> >
>> >(1) I think I elaborated a good deal of reasoning against the DP which
>> >does exceed the issue of the double standard by and large.
>>
>> I still do not understand why you would oppose a 'double-standard,'
>> which would certainly go toward many DP sentences no longer being
>> given. It seems to me, .....
>
>Why speculate?? The problems which arise by an extra DP-proof-standard
>are firstly obvious and secondly of logical consistence.
>
Please, Jürgen... why do you always offer these 'pronouncements' as if they
represent some FACT... when they are simply your opinion? There is nothing
that represents a 'problem' about having a higher standard of guilt to execute
a person, simply because BARD itself recognizes it is not infallible. Nor
is it logically inconsistent to attempt to reach a higher degree of the certainty
of guilt to execute a person. The standard of BARD itself. in respect to finding
guilt for any crime could be raised to a higher level... which would only presume
that 100 guilty go free, or 1000 guilty go free, before we could convict one
innocent. If we raise that standard to 'beyond absolute doubt' we can
convict NO ONE... which means ALL guilty go free, because we cannot
convict one innocent, and consequently cannot convict one guilty as well. We
do not do so, simply because the Justice System itself would then vanish. We
establish a standard which 'proves guilt' to our satisfaction, but that does not
demand that we must use that same standard when we expect to execute a
person.
>> >(2) A bad state does not get better by pointing at any possibility to do
>> >even worse.
>>
>> However, this seems to be contrary to the 'double-standard' as presented.
>> It would be pointing at the possibility of making the DP BETTER, not
>> worse.
>
>See - it was you who tried to describe the DP as not any worse than LWOP.
So what? I am not speaking of the 'morality' of the DP as opposed to L wop,
in which I subjectively find L wop to be worse for the person found guilty than
to be executed. I have limited this argument to the sentence to the DP, having
nothing to do with L wop compared to the DP. Once again, you try to
introduce an argument that has no relevance to the argument in progress.
By speaking of making the DP "better," I am speaking of the clear idea
expressed in this dialog, that a heightened certainty of guilt, would certainly
seem to me to make the DP "better." Since the contrary view of a reduced
certainty of guilt when we execute a person is absolutely unacceptable to me.
I am NOT speaking of 'better' or 'worse' than L wop. I am speaking of
'better' than what the DP is to itself, as it is now...compared to how it would
be under the concept argued.
>So I want to know why you would like to introduce an extra-DP-standard,
>whilst the alternative, which is prison up to LWOP, would require lower a
>standard of proof in your opinion.
>
Once again... your question does not bear on the argument, since I have
not concerned myself with ANY 'alternate penalty.' I have never suggested
that those who might not be sentenced to the DP, using that higher standard
of guilt, would automatically be presumed by me to be sentenced to L wop,
and I would find that acceptable. I do not find the concept of L wop to be
acceptable. Thus, I would certainly not be saying that those now not
sentenced to the DP would receive L wop. Please try to stay focused.
I am speaking of the DP... I am saying that it is not unreasonable (IMO),
to hold those we execute to a higher standard of proof of guilt, simply
because we recognize that we are executing a human. What should be
done with those now not executed using this higher standard of guilt,
is not relevant to this argument, any more than those now not sentenced
to the DP under the existing standard would be relevant to this argument.
Where have I mentioned L wop? If that higher standard of guilt would
serve to preclude a sentence of the DP, that DOES NOT imply that I
support L wop as an 'alternate penalty.' YOU DO.
>....
>
>> >
>> >Any sentence is spoken after having established a 'guilty BARD'-verdict.
>> >Hence any standard beyond BARD can mean only to move on the array of
>> >unreasonability - this is what semantic dictates.
>>
>> Not at all... Quite clearly, even after BARD... there can certainly exist a
>> greater certainty of guilt. You know it... I know it...
>
>This greater certainty of guilt, which may exist on a case by case-level,
>is simply not admissible in a consistent legal system.
Once again... try to separate opinion from FACT.
>A trial is
>divided in guilt- and sentencing phase, and it is not possible to return
>a conditional guilty verdict as "Guilty enough for LWOP, but not guilty
>enough for the DP".
>
Of course it is. It is just as possible to do that, as it is to examine
ANY circumstance. And 'proof of guilt' is simply a circumstance,
which in determining guilt of a crime to be BARD, but that certainly
not DEMANDING that the same LEVEL of certainty be used in
sentencing to the DP. You certainly cannot claim it is IMPOSSIBLE,
Jürgen. You may find it 'unreasonable,' as you have argued, but
do not claim it is IMPOSSIBLE to do so. There is always the
POSSIBILITY of incorporating such a standard into criminal
statutes, just as it was POSSIBLE to remove the possibility of
the DP for ANY murderer from the criminal statutes of some societies.
PV
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> >
> >See - it was you who tried to describe the DP as not any worse than LWOP.
>
> So what? I am not speaking of the 'morality' of the DP as opposed to L wop,
> in which I subjectively find L wop to be worse for the person found guilty than
> to be executed. I have limited this argument to the sentence to the DP, having
> nothing to do with L wop compared to the DP. Once again, you try to
> introduce an argument that has no relevance to the argument in progress.
Of course other penalties and the correlated standards of proof do have
tremendous relevance in this argument. See below.
> By speaking of making the DP "better," I am speaking of the clear idea
> expressed in this dialog, that a heightened certainty of guilt, would certainly
> seem to me to make the DP "better." Since the contrary view of a reduced
> certainty of guilt when we execute a person is absolutely unacceptable to me.
> I am NOT speaking of 'better' or 'worse' than L wop. I am speaking of
> 'better' than what the DP is to itself, as it is now...compared to how it would
> be under the concept argued.
>
> >So I want to know why you would like to introduce an extra-DP-standard,
> >whilst the alternative, which is prison up to LWOP, would require lower a
> >standard of proof in your opinion.
> >
> Once again... your question does not bear on the argument, since I have
> not concerned myself with ANY 'alternate penalty.' I have never suggested
> that those who might not be sentenced to the DP, using that higher standard
> of guilt, would automatically be presumed by me to be sentenced to L wop,
> and I would find that acceptable.
If hypothetically a special standard of proof for a death sentence
exists, and a not so strict standard for any sub-death-penalty, be it
life, LWOP or a 50 years-term, then follows that an advocate for an extra
DP standard has to clear up what he is going to do if any case can be
proven to satisfaction of the standard BARD, but not to satisfaction of
super-BARD. My question does bear exactly on the argument. Answer if you
can: What will be your sentence for an extremely dangerous murderer under
the condition of "only" BARD-proof available? Will you sentence him, who
most likely constitutes a continuing threat, to LWOP or will you sentence
him to a limited prison term? If LWOP is your choice, because the guy is
dangerous, then why would you be satisfied by the weaker standard for
LWOP, and why would you speak out for more restrictive a standard for the
DP?
What is your alternate penalty, then, if BARD is met, super-BARD not?
K.
A Planet Visitor
>In article <862lsv8mb28ls2hif...@4ax.com>,
>abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
>
>> >
>> >See - it was you who tried to describe the DP as not any worse than LWOP.
>>
>> So what? I am not speaking of the 'morality' of the DP as opposed to L wop,
>> in which I subjectively find L wop to be worse for the person found guilty than
>> to be executed. I have limited this argument to the sentence to the DP, having
>> nothing to do with L wop compared to the DP. Once again, you try to
>> introduce an argument that has no relevance to the argument in progress.
>
>Of course other penalties and the correlated standards of proof do have
>tremendous relevance in this argument. See below.
>
No.. they don't, Jürgen. Not in this particular dialog... since we should try to
stay focused on what we are speaking of. And that is -- A plan that would
raise the certainty of GUILT, if sentencing someone to the DP, who has
already been found guilty of the crime using the recognized level of determining
such guilt of BARD.
>
>> By speaking of making the DP "better," I am speaking of the clear idea
>> expressed in this dialog, that a heightened certainty of guilt, would certainly
>> seem to me to make the DP "better." Since the contrary view of a reduced
>> certainty of guilt when we execute a person is absolutely unacceptable to me.
>> I am NOT speaking of 'better' or 'worse' than L wop. I am speaking of
>> 'better' than what the DP is to itself, as it is now...compared to how it would
>> be under the concept argued.
>>
>> >So I want to know why you would like to introduce an extra-DP-standard,
>> >whilst the alternative, which is prison up to LWOP, would require lower a
>> >standard of proof in your opinion.
>> >
>> Once again... your question does not bear on the argument, since I have
>> not concerned myself with ANY 'alternate penalty.' I have never suggested
>> that those who might not be sentenced to the DP, using that higher standard
>> of guilt, would automatically be presumed by me to be sentenced to L wop,
>> and I would find that acceptable.
>
>If hypothetically a special standard of proof for a death sentence
>exists, and a not so strict standard for any sub-death-penalty, be it
>life, LWOP or a 50 years-term, then follows that an advocate for an extra
>DP standard has to clear up what he is going to do if any case can be
>proven to satisfaction of the standard BARD, but not to satisfaction of
>super-BARD.
You are still not following the argument. We fully recognize that a
degree of uncertainty exists in EVERY finding of guilty/not guilty.
This is a given. We KNOW this... We ACCEPT this. We do so
because if we do not, we have no Justice System whatsoever,
if we expect to NEVER convict an innocent man.
We decide that BARD is the measure we use in the finding of
guilt, understanding that this concept means (we hope in philosophical
terms it means) that 10 guilty will go free before we convict an
innocent man. We accept that we CAN POSSIBLY convict an
innocent man, at a ratio of 10 guilty going free before we do so.
However, that standard does not imply that 1000 guilty will go free,
before we convict an innocent man. But there is no reason we
cannot establish some form of argument that in philosophical terms
claims that we will ALSO allow a great number of those who would
have been sentenced to the DP, to instead be sentenced to alternate
penalties, using a higher standard of proof of guilt... say that 1000
to 1 proof. Using various strategies which DEMAND 'more witnesses,'
'more forensic evidence,' and anything else we believe would elevate
that CERTAINTY of guilt... beyond BART.
> My question does bear exactly on the argument. Answer if you
>can: What will be your sentence for an extremely dangerous murderer under
>the condition of "only" BARD-proof available? Will you sentence him, who
>most likely constitutes a continuing threat, to LWOP or will you sentence
>him to a limited prison term?
Whatever are you talking about? You ask the most stupid questions.
Whether I would sentence someone to the DP requires a specific set
of parameters dependent on a great number of factors. Your question
has no answer... since you are attempting to ask what the SCOTUS
has forbidden. A sentence to the DP as a condition of BARD having
proven guilt. We do not AUTOMATICALLY sentence ANYONE
to the DP. You cannot even formulate the various parameters (neither
could I), which would find that I would sentence a murderer convicted
under BARD to the DP. They are too complex, and depend on too
many INDIVIDUAL factors, after being found guilty BARD.
> If LWOP is your choice, because the guy is
>dangerous, then why would you be satisfied by the weaker standard for
>LWOP, and why would you speak out for more restrictive a standard for the
>DP?
>
Ummm... because we are executing a human being??? Could that be the
answer? However, please do not bring L wop into this dialog. I believe
you do so purposely because you know that I oppose L wop, even in
the absence of the DP.
Again, that depends on the circumstances. It is a question that cannot be
posed or answered since each murder and murderers have different
mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Given the 'plan' in question,
if super-BARD was not met, in my view, I would not vote for L wop.
If I am not absolutely convinced, even beyond BARD, that this murderer
is GUILTY, then how could I ever presume that rehabilitation was
impossible?
PV
>
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:19:54 +0100, Clown <K.J.H...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> >In article <862lsv8mb28ls2hif...@4ax.com>,
> >abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
> >
> >> >
> >> >See - it was you who tried to describe the DP as not any worse than LWOP.
> >>
> >> So what? I am not speaking of the 'morality' of the DP as opposed to L wop,
> >> in which I subjectively find L wop to be worse for the person found guilty than
> >> to be executed. I have limited this argument to the sentence to the DP, having
> >> nothing to do with L wop compared to the DP. Once again, you try to
> >> introduce an argument that has no relevance to the argument in progress.
> >
> >Of course other penalties and the correlated standards of proof do have
> >tremendous relevance in this argument. See below.
> >
> No.. they don't, Jürgen. Not in this particular dialog... since we should try to
> stay focused on what we are speaking of. And that is -- A plan that would
Oh well they do. The statement: 'I am sure enough about one's guilt to
send him for 50 years behind the bars, but I refuse to sentence him to
death, because I have kind of doubts whether he is guilty' is plainly
absurd.
K.
A Planet Visitor
It isn't about 'kind of doubts.' It is about a heightened perception of
CERTAINTY... above that of BARD. And what is absurd is for YOU...
especially YOU... to argue that there is not a difference in the certainty
of guilt (although BOTH met the level of BARD), between Roger
Coleman, and Karla Faye Tucker. There was enough evidence to
convict Coleman, using BARD, but clearly one can argue, that there
was not enough to sentence him to the DP. While Karla Faye Tucker
was certainly guilty (even though other considerations cause me to
not have supported her execution).
PV
>
>K.
Clown
abc...@zbqytr.ykq says...
What for god's sake are you dreaming up, Meister? I made in this thread a
notion that a system which executes anyone who is as culpable as
Christina Riggs has problems running deeper than the point of executing
anyone who has not committed the crime. You then introduced Karla Faye
Tucker in this thread, not me - and since Karla confessed from the first
day of her trial on and maintained her confession over 15 years I do not
see what your aim is at all.
> There was enough evidence to
> convict Coleman, using BARD, but clearly one can argue, that there
> was not enough to sentence him to the DP.
Utter Nonsense. Either a watertight case could be made against Roger
Coleman, then a guilty verdict was appropriate, or considerable doubts
remained, then the guilty verdict was upmost grave a mistake. There is no
way shrinking back from a death sentence for sketchy evidence while
agreeing simultaneously with sending Mr Coleman for decades in prison for
just the same evidence.
> While Karla Faye Tucker
> was certainly guilty (even though other considerations cause me to
> not have supported her execution).
>
If you want to talk about Karla Tucker then we should open another
thread. Aside from any consideration of proof's standards: A justice
system and society allowing their officials to ignore any remorse and
rehabilitation is deeply inhumane and fundamentalist.
Klaun
A Planet Visitor
I introduced Karla Faye Tucker to demonstrate the point that is contained
in the plan. That of determining a higher level of guilt beyond that of BARD.
There is no question that Tucker met that 'higher level of guilt.' I don't believe
the most fanatic defender of her would argue that she was 'innocent.' Thus,
I used her to compare with Roger Coleman, for which many would suggest
that there is a great deal of argument regarding his 'true guilt,' even though
it met the standard of the jury, in respect to BARD. Karla Faye Tucker,
for whatever reasons one might argue she should not have received the DP,
could not possibly have 'benefited' from the 'plane.' But Roger Coleman
might well have. Thus, it appears you are willing to 'sacrifice' Roger Coleman
to the DP, because of your opposition to the 'plan.' IMO, you obviously have
another reason for doing so.. lying within your recognition that the 'plan'
might possibly make the DP more palatable to a greater number of people,
now opposed to the DP because they feel that not enough 'proof' of
TRUE guilt is provided to some of those we execute. You would RATHER
see the DP experience no improvement in the methods of choosing those
who are executed... because it might become more acceptable.
>
>> There was enough evidence to
>> convict Coleman, using BARD, but clearly one can argue, that there
>> was not enough to sentence him to the DP.
>
>Utter Nonsense. Either a watertight case could be made against Roger
>Coleman, then a guilty verdict was appropriate, or considerable doubts
>remained, then the guilty verdict was upmost grave a mistake.
Not at all... there is only the condition of BARD to find guilty. That
does not in the slightest DEMAND that this same standard MUST be
used in determining a sentence which will execute someone. It could
well be considered UNIQUE among all penalties. Certainly most
abolitionists rave on and on about the DP BEING UNIQUE. So, why
not a unique determination of the use of that penalty, above that of
a finding of guilty BARD? If you find that unacceptable, then it
seems you have no problem with BARD whatsoever. Since that
same standard is used in EVERY crime, and EVERY penalty.
>There is no
>way shrinking back from a death sentence for sketchy evidence while
>agreeing simultaneously with sending Mr Coleman for decades in prison for
>just the same evidence.
>
You keep twisting the argument. It is NOT the idea of 'sketchy evidence,'
since THAT presumes 'reasonable doubt.' It is the idea of OVERWHELMING
EVIDENCE... above that which would eliminate 'reasonable doubt,' but would
more closely approach 'absolute certainty.'
>> While Karla Faye Tucker
>> was certainly guilty (even though other considerations cause me to
>> not have supported her execution).
>>
>
>If you want to talk about Karla Tucker then we should open another
>thread.
Since when do YOU presume to make demands on ME? The issue
of Tucker was quite appropriate, since I was offering an example in
which the 'plan' would NOT apply... juxtaposed against another in which
the 'plan' could very well have applied. It is common practice in arguing
certain points to use two examples... one which does not concern the
point argued... mirrored against what does concern the point argued,
yet both ending in the same result... in this case the DP. I used Tucker
and Coleman in expressing the point of the 'plan.'
>Aside from any consideration of proof's standards: A justice
>system and society allowing their officials to ignore any remorse and
>rehabilitation is deeply inhumane and fundamentalist.
>
I have recognized long ago that I cannot stop your hysterical raving...
when you enter 'the Twilight Zone.' It was understood that it would
eventually happen in this thread.
PV
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/desmond_gimmick_index.html
>Klaun
A Planet Visitor
WOW!!! euro ADMITS that he does not CARE if innocents are executed.
Improvements which might save even one innocent from the DP are OF NO
CONCERN TO HIM. He does not believe it NECESSARY to save those
who are possibly innocent. He would offer them as sacrificial lambs. To
then argue that an innocent has been executed. HE HOPES that an innocent
is executed. You realize you are evil... don't you, euro?
>The only "improvement" to death penalty that would exclude the possibility
>that innocents be executed is its abolition. Live with it.
>
The only 'improvement' to the conviction of an innocent that would exclude the
possibility that innocents are not convicted is abolition of the entire Justice
System. Live with it.
>Euro (the clone of Goebbels)
>
>> PV
>
>