Connecticut abolishes death penalty...17th state

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

--------------------------------------------
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy has signed into law a state measure
abolishing the death penalty. Connecticut becomes the 17th state
overall and the fifth in five years to end capital punishment, but
the change would only apply to future cases. The 11 prisoners
currently on death row in Connecticut will still face death.

http://www.democracynow.org
--------------------------------------------

enjoy, my friends!
;-)

[dott.Piergiorgio]

Il 27/04/2012 16:53, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. ha scritto:
>
> --------------------------------------------
> Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy has signed into law a state measure
> abolishing the death penalty. Connecticut becomes the 17th state
> overall and the fifth in five years to end capital punishment, but
> the change would only apply to future cases. The 11 prisoners
> currently on death row in Connecticut will still face death.

good news !

Viva Beccaria !

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

[!Jones]

Of course, Connecticut has only executed one person since the '50s...
and it took eight serial murders of young women for that to happen, so
they may as well abolish.

Now, Vinney, old chum... when Texas abolishes its death penalty, I'll
admit you've scored.

I'm on your side of the debate; however, Connecticut ain't shit.
California, averaging something like one execution every two years,
isn't likely to abolish. Texas isn't even considering it.

Now, fuck off, please.

Jones

[NickyK]

On Apr 27, 10:53 am, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@jameford.edu>
wrote:

YAWNzzzzzzzzzzz

[Bill Clarke]

In article <abqlp7163iivgi0fo...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

In Texas we have the death penalty and we use it.

Bill Clarke

[Daryl]

In Texas, you have an express line.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Bill]

In article <jnhrh...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com
says...

Guilty or not...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Daryl <dh...@nospami70west3.com> wrote in news:jnhuh2$1s1$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 4/28/2012 4:38 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article<abqlp7163iivgi0fo...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>>>
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:53:07 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam "Dr. Vincent
>>> Quin, Ph.D."<dr...@jameford.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>> Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy has signed into law a state measure
>>>> abolishing the death penalty. Connecticut becomes the 17th state
>>>> overall and the fifth in five years to end capital punishment, but
>>>> the change would only apply to future cases. The 11 prisoners
>>>> currently on death row in Connecticut will still face death.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.democracynow.org
>>>> --------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> enjoy, my friends!
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Of course, Connecticut has only executed one person since the '50s...
>>> and it took eight serial murders of young women for that to happen,
so
>>> they may as well abolish.
>>>
>>> Now, Vinney, old chum... when Texas abolishes its death penalty, I'll
>>> admit you've scored.
>>>
>>> I'm on your side of the debate; however, Connecticut ain't shit.
>>> California, averaging something like one execution every two years,
>>> isn't likely to abolish. Texas isn't even considering it.
>>>
>>> Now, fuck off, please.
>>

>> In Texas we have the death penalty and we use it.
>

> In Texas, you have an express line.

Channeling Ron White?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Daryl]

Yuppers, just couldn't remember his name. One of the funniest
Humorists ever lived.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <jnhuh2$1s1$1...@dont-email.me>, Daryl says...

Not really. It takes from 20 to 30 years to kill one of the sorry
motherfuckers. Hardly an express line, do you think?

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <XnsA043EA6A6E...@88.198.244.100>, Andrew Chaplin says...

Yes, that is where I got the line. I apologize for not giving credit to ole Ron
who is a very funny fellow.

"I didn't know how many of those bouncers it would take to kick my ass but I
knew how many they were going to use". Ron White

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <MPG.2a0689336...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...

Actually it has more to do if you have money or not.

Bill Clarke

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Clarke, who elsewhere refers to them as "sorry motherfuckers" was
raised in the South and has said he thought nothing of calling
a black person a "nigger", also probably didn't think anything about
segregation or lynchings either...so now the sniveling little shit
proudly gloats about the death penalty...guilty or not.

go figure
;-)

[Bill]

In article <jnif9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com

Same difference.

But I appreciate the point.

[Daryl]

On 4/28/2012 10:09 PM, Bill Clarke wrote:
> In article<jnhuh2$1s1$1...@dont-email.me>, Daryl says...

In Colorado, we have a Death Penalty and really don't use it.
The total of people put to death even before statehood stands a
101.The last one was in 1977.

I have mixed feelings on it.

[harry k]

On Apr 28, 3:38 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <abqlp7163iivgi0fo27bkgj919siij2...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

Yep, the only state in the union that does. Teh rest might as well do
away with it as thiy don't use it in a timely fashion if at all.

Harry K

[Richard Casady]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT), harry k
<turnk...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> In Texas we have the death penalty and we use it.

>Yep, the only state in the union that does. Teh rest might as well do
>away with it as thiy don't use it in a timely fashion if at all.

Two drunks had a truck and a tow chain. They thought it would be fun
to grab a black guy and drag him to death. They then left the chain in
the truck, with flesh and blood adhering to it, and went in a bar and
got the cops called. One of them has been on death row for more than
ten years.

Timely?

Casady

[Bill Clarke]

In article <jnjl92$mg9$1...@dont-email.me>, Daryl says...

I do too and with DNA evidence proving some in prison were indeed innocent has
made me change my views on the subject. To kill an innocent man is unacceptable
and I was shocked at the number of prisoners that were proven innocent by DNA.
Plus I've always known the poor were most often sentenced to death. That is
unacceptable also.

Texas finally got the life without parole option and I support this now days.
We didn't have this "without parole" option for ages.

But don't get me wrong. For these creeps that like to rape and torture little
girls before they kill them I wouldn't object to shooting them down like the mad
dog they are. We just need to be sure they are guilty.

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <LY-dnW2Ye5bqTgHS...@supernews.com>, Dr. Vincent Quin,
Ph.D. says...

Vinny, you've kept notes on me. I didn't know you cared so much, you old dog
you!

Phuc Vin Ph.D.

[Bill]

In article <jnjq7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com
says...

> But don't get me wrong. For these creeps that like to rape and torture little
> girls before they kill them I wouldn't object to shooting them down like the mad
> dog they are. We just need to be sure they are guilty.

For that you need an incorruptible police force and an infallible
judiciary.

Let us know when they turn up.

[Eugene Griessel]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <jnjq7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com
>says...
>
>> But don't get me wrong. For these creeps that like to rape and torture little
>> girls before they kill them I wouldn't object to shooting them down like the mad
>> dog they are. We just need to be sure they are guilty.
>
>For that you need an incorruptible police force and an infallible
>judiciary.
>
>Let us know when they turn up.

A rather specious argument. In other words paralysis until
perfection? While we have our wishlist out why not hope for a
perfectly law-abiding citizenry? We live in an imperfect world, with
imperfect people - and we have to deal with it, to some extent
imperfectly. Only an incurable idealist would strive to change that.
If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.

[Bill]

In article <4f9d8518...@news.telkomsa.net>, eug...@dynagen.co.za
says...

>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <jnjq7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com
> >says...
> >
> >> But don't get me wrong. For these creeps that like to rape and torture little
> >> girls before they kill them I wouldn't object to shooting them down like the mad
> >> dog they are. We just need to be sure they are guilty.
> >
> >For that you need an incorruptible police force and an infallible
> >judiciary.
> >
> >Let us know when they turn up.
>
> A rather specious argument. In other words paralysis until
> perfection?

No, you can always release someone you've locked up by mistake.

You can't reverse a hanging...

> If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
> for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.

That is not an acceptable argument.

What's interesting is that in England a lot of the pressure for
abolition came from the judges and lawyers because they'd hung people
who patently obviously didn't deserve to hang.

I think it was the Derek Bentley case that finally turned the judges
stomachs when it became apparent that the policemen involved had
colluded and lied as, because a policeman had been shot and killed,
someone had to hang.

[Eugene Griessel]

Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>No, you can always release someone you've locked up by mistake.
>
>You can't reverse a hanging...

You can't reverse a murder either.

>> If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
>> for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.
>
>That is not an acceptable argument.

Maybe not - but it's a practical one. And one civilisation has
operated under for most of it's existence.

>What's interesting is that in England a lot of the pressure for
>abolition came from the judges and lawyers because they'd hung people
>who patently obviously didn't deserve to hang.
>
>I think it was the Derek Bentley case that finally turned the judges
>stomachs when it became apparent that the policemen involved had
>colluded and lied as, because a policeman had been shot and killed,
>someone had to hang.

I rather thought it was the Tim Evans case - and wasn't Ludovic
Kennedy heavily instrumental in getting the death penalty abolished?
Didn't he get his knighthood for that?

Policemen of course do not have the ability to sentence a man to
death. It's the judiciary who - look for some perfection here - who
have to weigh the evidence and decide. Whether every copper is lying
his head off or not I do not think the legal machine can absolve
itself from blame. One thing that could probably use an overhaul
everywhere is just how the legal system works - and what constitutes a
reasonable doubt as to guilt or not. I you are going to send a man to
the gallows or to life in prison and there was any doubt then neither
sentence is valid. It's rather lame to say "oh we can always let him
go if we were wrong". Paralyse the law too much and the citizens tend
to take matters into their own hands eventually. A nice clean hanging
or injection is infinitely preferable to mob justice - as we see
around these parts increasingly. I think something like 6 cases this
year already. It's a rather grim way to depart this mortal coil with
a Goodyear doused in petrol around your waist and a quick flic of the
bic to get the judicial process started.

[Dan]

On 4/29/2012 1:19 PM, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
> for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.

Would you find it acceptable if you or someone close to you are
executed for that reason?

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favour of the death penalty, I
want the people to whom it would apply to be proved guilty and the
ability to appeal. The question arises as to minimum crimes to which
the death penalty would apply. Himmler should have hanged, but would the
death penalty apply if he only murdered one adult and that not in the
performance of his duties?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bill]

In article <4f9d8ce3...@news.telkomsa.net>, eug...@dynagen.co.za
says...

>
> Bill <black...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >No, you can always release someone you've locked up by mistake.
> >
> >You can't reverse a hanging...
>
> You can't reverse a murder either.
>
> >> If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
> >> for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.
> >
> >That is not an acceptable argument.
>
> Maybe not - but it's a practical one. And one civilisation has
> operated under for most of it's existence.
>
> >What's interesting is that in England a lot of the pressure for
> >abolition came from the judges and lawyers because they'd hung people
> >who patently obviously didn't deserve to hang.
> >
> >I think it was the Derek Bentley case that finally turned the judges
> >stomachs when it became apparent that the policemen involved had
> >colluded and lied as, because a policeman had been shot and killed,
> >someone had to hang.
>
> I rather thought it was the Tim Evans case - and wasn't Ludovic
> Kennedy heavily instrumental in getting the death penalty abolished?
> Didn't he get his knighthood for that?

I honestly don't remember, but it was certainly the judiciary that
decided they no longer wanted to ever again send an innocent man to be
hung.

> Policemen of course do not have the ability to sentence a man to
> death. It's the judiciary who - look for some perfection here - who
> have to weigh the evidence and decide.

Well no, we have jury system here.

I you are going to send a man to
> the gallows or to life in prison and there was any doubt then neither
> sentence is valid. It's rather lame to say "oh we can always let him
> go if we were wrong".

No it isn't.

We have released a number of Irish terrorists in recent years who would
have otherwise been hung.

That they're out and not busy rotting in quick lime in a prison yard as
they could well have been has eliminated a legacy of bitterness. A
legacy that lingers yet over the 1916 Irish Uprising.

[Eugene Griessel]

If they were found guilty on both the trial and the appeal I would
accept it. In many cases where the not-guilty have hanged it was a
case of a person with a criminal record, sometimes a long one, The
balance of doubt usually swung away from them because of that.
Ideally it should not happen - but then ideally a court and a jury
should arrive at the truth.

Yes - the death penalty should perhaps carry more stringent criteria
as to certainty beyond all reasonable (possible?) doubt. Certainly
people have hanged (or gone to the chair) because of prejudice before.


But I think a fairly certain line can be drawn bewteen those criminals
who may have some redeeming features and those who need to be removed
permanently from society - as one would a rabid dog.

.

[Paul F Austin]

Incorruptible and perfect? No. Lots better than the current lot? Oh, yeah.

Eugene, I'm in the space business. We would _never_ ship space hardware
with the defect rate that the US criminal justice system exhibits. In
the early 1990s, the US Department of Justice did a study of DNA samples
submitted for analysis. Each sample (from rape and murder cases) was
submitted to match or not with those of a defendant. The study served as
an after the fact quality analysis of the chain from policing to
analysis to indictment and the defect rate was 25%, one in five chances
that the defendant was the wrong guy. Since the conviction rate
(including plea bargains) in the US is 90%, that says that one in five
convictions (all convictions, there's no reason to believe that cases
_without_ DNA evidence are any better) were of innocent (of that crime) men.

In addition, there have been many cases of prosecutorial malfeasance
here in the US, from false, paid testimony by informants to suppression
of exculpatory evidence to coerced confessions from persons later proven
by DNA analysis not to have been the criminal. The conviction of Senator
Ted Stevens (who I did not like) based on the suppression of clear
exculpatory evidence in the hands of the prosecution was a prime
example. The Judge was scathing in his criticism of DoJ prosecutors
after the suppressed evidence came to light. Too late then. Stevens was
dead. Oh, and the prosecutors got away clean.

In theory, I believe in the death penalty. There are crimes so heinous
that justice requires it. On the other hand, the thirst for vengeance
(and pressure on prosecutors to clear notorious cases) leads of more,
not less errors. The Washington Post recently published a series of
articles about problems with the FBI Crime Lab's hair analysis section.
As part of the DoJ investigation, the Feds sought cases where errant FBI
testimony might have railroad <err> resulted in judicial error against a
plaintiff. Prosecutors were asked to provide case records for review. In
several cases <ooopsie> the files got shredded _after_ DoJ asked for them.

All of these things lead me to the conviction that the US criminal
justice system has 'way too high a defect rate to give the state a
warrant to kill. Is the need to kill malefactors important enough to do
so with an error rate as high and unremedied sources of error as the
record _shows_ (this isn't speculation). I don't think so.

Paul

[Daryl]

You don't cure an innocent man after he is executed. It's pretty
final.

[Dan]

The problems can arise from a jury or judge setting death as a
sentence with incomplete evidence, evidence that couldn't be properly
analyzed at time of trial (pre DNA or early DNA, for example) or "he got
away last time, let's get him this time."

I'm all in favour of reasonable appeals, denial of DNA tests if the
state just doesn't want to pay for it isn't reasonable. I am not a legal
scholar so I don't know what the answer is.

I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
near 100%.

The silliest argument against the death penalty is "it won't bring
the victims back." A natural extension of that argument is no penalty
will. I suppose a counter argument would be "don't bother chasing and
placing the perpetrator on trial since it won't bring the victim back."

[Richard Casady]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:55 -0500, Dan <B24...@aol.com> wrote:

> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
>didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
>would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
>near 100%.

Get real. The one thing alll the prisoners on death row have in common
is that _nothing_ deterred them.

Casady

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:8uKdncddq__sPgDS...@supernews.com:

Has any executed US criminal been found to be "innocent" post-execution?

surely if we have actually executed innocent people,a case would have
turned up by now. the anti-DP people would be waving them around to prove
their case.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Bill]

In article <XnsA044CE35489C6...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>

>
> Has any executed US criminal been found to be "innocent" post-execution?
>

In recent years a couple have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Specific_examples

[Jim Yanik]

eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in
news:4f9d8ce3...@news.telkomsa.net:

In the US,the JURY is who finds the plaintiff guilty or not,and now IIRC,a
jury has to decide if the death penalty is warranted,as a separate process.
A judge cannot move a life sentence up to the DP,only can reduce the DP to
a life sentence,if they judge the situation warrants it.

One thing is CERTAIN, the executed never harm another person,guard,other
inmate,or any civilians on the outside.

[George152]

Yes.
And others on Death Row have been found to be innocent of the crimes the
'justice' system hit them with

[Bill]

In article <XnsA044CF26F42CE...@216.168.3.44>,
jya...@abuse.gov says...

>

> One thing is CERTAIN, the executed never harm another person,guard,other
> inmate,or any civilians on the outside.

That's very true.

I have no objection to the execution of the guilty.

However...

The problem is that they may well not be guilty...

[Daryl]

One was just found and he was cleared. Of course, the alleged
crime happened in 1929 and the sentence was carried out in an
expedient manner as it was done during that time. The Evidence
was so week that it would never have been introduced into todays
court. And the evidence was found to be largely fabricated. It
just took them all these years to clear the mans name.

>
> surely if we have actually executed innocent people,a case would have
> turned up by now. the anti-DP people would be waving them around to prove
> their case.
>

Early convictions and executions didn't have those people around.
We need them as much as we need law enforcement and the courts.

[Paul F Austin]

Proving innocence is not required. What _can_ be proven is that the
evidence used to convict and execute Claude Jones in Texas was
defective. The only _forensic_ evidence that placed Jones at the scene
of a murder was a single hair. DNA test after Jones' execution
demonstrated that the hair did not belong to Jones. Here's the link
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dna-test-suggests-texas-may-have-executed-an-innocent-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB%29

One reason why there are so few is that prosecutors do everything (which
is considerable) to prevent review of evidence for things like DNA match
after execution occurs. They know that innocent dead men are a powerful
argument against executions.

The fact remains, leaving smoking guns aside, that the US criminal
justice system if rife with error. Let me put it to you directly: what
error rate are _you_ willing to tolerate in convicting and condemning
people?

Paul

[Eugene Griessel]

George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

>> Has any executed US criminal been found to be "innocent" post-execution?
>>
> Yes.
>And others on Death Row have been found to be innocent of the crimes the
>'justice' system hit them with

How many guilty have walked free due to that same criminal justice
system?

[Daryl]

Our system is designed and intended to allow a few guilty to go
unpunished rather than convict one single innocent.
Unfortunately, innocents are convicted to a small degree. When
you are talking about a prison sentence, it can be undone. When
you are talking Post Mortem it can't be undone.

[La N.]

"Eugene Griessel" <eug...@dynagen.co.za> wrote in message
news:4f9df6d...@news.telkomsa.net...

The point is, Genie, that I think you would appreciate the support for
anti-death sentencing if you were found guilty and sentenced to death for a
crime you did not commit.

- nilita

[Kerryn Offord]

No.. Some of them were/are innocent of the crime for which they were
convicted.

DNA evidence has shown this several times. A few after the execution of
the "innocent" person.

[George152]

Not, I suspect, many

[Kerryn Offord]

On 4/30/2012 5:07 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Kerryn Offord<ka...@uclive.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>> On 4/30/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:55 -0500, Dan<B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
>>>> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
>>>> would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
>>>> near 100%.
>>>
>>> Get real. The one thing alll the prisoners on death row have in common
>>> is that _nothing_ deterred them.
>>>
>>

>> No.. Some of them were/are innocent of the crime for which they were
>> convicted.
>>
>> DNA evidence has shown this several times. A few after the execution of
>> the "innocent" person.
>>
>

> Cite for this 'innocent after execution' claim?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#Specific_examples

[Alex Potter]

On 29/04/12 20:55, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> Yes - the death penalty should perhaps carry more stringent criteria
> as to certainty beyond all reasonable (possible?) doubt. Certainly
> people have hanged (or gone to the chair) because of prejudice before.

If we'd still had the death penalty in the UK, these guys would've been
hanged...primarily because they were Irish.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven>

--
Alex

[Paul F Austin]

> The only one I see on that page that fits the bill is, interestingly
> enough, a case in the UK. All the others seem to be 'some say' and
> 'might have'...
>
> Given that, perhaps it's good that the UK system of 'justice' is no
> longer allowed to kill people.
>

Fred, you're being willfully obtuse. As you know, trials don't find
defendants "guilty" or "innocent", they find them "guilty" or "not
guilty" based on law and evidence presented at trial.

I gave a cite upthread regarding the case of Claude Jones, whose
conviction for murder depended on the identification of a single hair
found at the crime scene as belonging to Jones. Without that
identification, no evidence placed him at the scene. DNA analysis after
his execution proved that the identification was in error. This doesn't
mean that Jones was "innocent" but rather that the jury's finding of
fact depended on erroneous testimony on the part of the State's hair
analyst. There have been others and thirty seconds with Google can turn
them up for you. Only a little more time will turn up _many_ men plucked
from death row, years after conviction, after the findings of fact that
convicted them were found to be bogus.

I have also given my reasons for believing that the court system
produces erroneous convictions at a substantial rate, based on DoJ's
analysis found here: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf

I repeat a question I asked earlier: how much error is tolerable to you?
In this case, how many innocent men are you willing to put on death row
at a minimum, sitting for years with a death sentence hanging over them
and at worst, killing some of them, in order to make sure that every
guilty defendant gets what's coming to him? I've got news for you.
According to the Uniform Crime Statistics, only 65% of murders are
cleared by arrest at all. Combined with low accuracy in identifying
defendants, it's likely that less than half of murders end with the
conviction of the murderer.

Kill 'em all, God will know his own is no justice at all.

Paul

[Andrew Swallow]

I suspect that nowadays that Muslims would be added to that list.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
news:uelrp79eii1bgh6mr...@4ax.com...

Idiocy! Somewhere between a quarter and a third of them did not commit the
crime they are there for. What were they undeterred from?

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news:0mjsp75qo8vmnmifa...@4ax.com...

>The only one I see on that page that fits the bill is, interestingly
enough, a case in the UK. All the others seem to be 'some say' and
'might have'...

>Given that, perhaps it's good that the UK system of 'justice' is no
longer allowed to kill people.

SO it's OK with you to execute accused people who might or might not have
done the crime. That's what you;re saying.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:it8tp79u96aku1ui8...@4ax.com...

>Cite?

It is not possible to give a cite for what they would have done had they not
been deterred. You should know that.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:ru8tp7t3vf23h3sdd...@4ax.com...

>No, what I'm saying is that if you claim the execution of an innocent
person has happened in the United States in anything even close to
modern times, SHOW A CASE WHERE IT HAS HAPPENED.

It is statistically preposterous to claim that nobody innocent has been
executed in the US.
It would require a system error-free at the three sigma level to deliver
that. (and the probability that an error had happened would still be
non-zero)
You claim to have some vague pretensions to mathematical competence. Cut the
idiot bullshit Fred and grow up.

[Paul F Austin]

On 4/30/2012 10:34 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Paul F Austin<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>

>> Fred, you're being willfully obtuse. As you know, trials don't find
>> defendants "guilty" or "innocent", they find them "guilty" or "not
>> guilty" based on law and evidence presented at trial.
>>
>

> Nice blather, but calling the other guy 'obtuse' is not normally
> accepted as an argument that proves anything.
>
> Bottom line, the fellow was either guilty or he was not. To prove the
> conjecture that someone who was innocent was executed, you need to
> PROVE THEY WERE INNOCENT. You can't just fixate on this or that error
> at trial and insist it shows the execution of an innocent man.

Bottom line is a good notion for finance. Not for justice. As I said, I
am in principle in favor of capital punishment. Some crimes are so
heinous that nothing else will answer. _If_ we convict the right man.
I'd be perfectly willing to pull the lever on the trap for a Jeffrey
Dahmer or Ted Bundy. In fact, I think the foreman of a capital jury
should be _required_ to pull the lever. Guilty or not? Maybe. Condemned?
Too little reliable information, too much history of willful malfeasance.

>
>>
>> I gave a cite upthread regarding the case of Claude Jones, whose
>> conviction for murder depended on the identification of a single hair
>> found at the crime scene as belonging to Jones. Without that
>> identification, no evidence placed him at the scene. DNA analysis after
>> his execution proved that the identification was in error. This doesn't
>> mean that Jones was "innocent" but rather that the jury's finding of
>> fact depended on erroneous testimony on the part of the State's hair
>> analyst. There have been others and thirty seconds with Google can turn
>> them up for you. Only a little more time will turn up _many_ men plucked
>>from death row, years after conviction, after the findings of fact that
>> convicted them were found to be bogus.
>>
>

> Opponents of the death penalty like to act as if this conviction
> rested entirely (or largely) upon this hair. It didn't. To arrive at
> the conclusion that Jones wasn't the killer, one has to ignore the
> witnesses who placed him in the liquor store, the witness who saw him
> walk out of the liquor store right after the shots were fired, the
> testimony of one of his accomplices, and his apology just before he
> was executed to the family of the man he killed.
>
> And just who was this 'innocent' man? He had eleven prior convictions
> in Texas for crimes including murder, armed robbery, assault, and
> burglary. He was also convicted of murder, robbery, and assault in
> Kansas. While incarcerated there he killed one of his fellow inmates.
> This all occurred BEFORE the crime spree that landed him on death row.
> That little jaunt included the robbery of the liquor store and murder
> of the owner and a bank robbery.

Claude Jones, bad man. There's no doubt. Prosecutors don't ordinarily
put choir directors on trial. Suspects come from the "usual suspect"
pool of local bad hats. The police know them better than they would
like. When a crime of property like a liquor store robbery occurs,
police immediately scrutinize the pool of known robbers. Prior
convictions for murder should in my mind have socked Jones away forever
and ever.

Here's the deal: there are too many instances of prosecutors paying for
testimony (dismissed charges, early release), suppressing evidence and
experts shading their testimony for me to take the final step of voting
to condemn someone. Prosecutors often do everything in their power to
avoid review of evidence after an execution.

There are too many people who have gone through the whole pipeline of
police, prosecutors and trial whose innocence was demonstrate by
unforeseen technological developments for me to be sanguine about the
pipeline getting it right when evidence isn't available to make those
tests. Finding so many rotten apples in the barrel convinces me that the
barrel-filling process sucks.

>
>
>>
>> Kill 'em all, God will know his own is no justice at all.
>>
>

> Let 'em all run free because we might make a mistake is certainly
> worse justice. Letting Claude Jones, who had a long criminal history,
> run free cost an innocent man his life.
>
> How come you're answering for Kerryn Offord, Paul? HE posted the
> link, not you.
>

Because, as you've probably figured out, criminal justice is a bee in my
bonnet. We all have them. In an ideal world, I would have the public
defenders office with precisely the same budget and staff as the
prosecutor. I would make prosecutors liable for professional misconduct.

The reason I take the position I do on capital punishment is
professional. As I said up-thread, I would never ship a piece of space
hardware with the uncertainties hanging over it that a death sentence
does. In an earlier life, ObSMN, I wouldn't have signed off on
maintenance on a sea water system on my boat with that kind of cavalier
attitude. _You_ would not certify (or ride in) an aircraft with the
"what the hell, win a few, lose a few" attitude we accept as justice.

Paul

[Paul F Austin]

Actually, based on the clearance rates, quite a few. The FBI Uniform
Crime Statistics are depressing.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl25.xls


Clearance of murders is highest with about two thirds of cases cleared
by arrest or other means. Burglaries are only cleared in 12% of the
cases. The only thing that makes the law an effective deterrent is that
criminals are both stupid and repeat offenders. Eventually, the odds
catch up with them. John Lott's analysis of crime rates showed that
prompt arrest was the strongest deterrent for crime and of course
incarceration effectively disables criminals. Effective and efficient
policing is the best way to suppress crime.

Paul

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in

news:Xq2dnQBg0dBeaADS...@supernews.com:

Doesn't matter;
you or anyone else have not shown that any innocent person HAS been wrongly
executed. Therefore,the system works.

> What _can_ be proven is that the
> evidence used to convict and execute Claude Jones in Texas was
> defective. The only _forensic_ evidence that placed Jones at the scene
> of a murder was a single hair. DNA test after Jones' execution
> demonstrated that the hair did not belong to Jones. Here's the link
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dna-test-suggests-texas-may-have-execu
> ted-an-innocent-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
> =Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB%29

>
> One reason why there are so few is that prosecutors do everything
> (which is considerable) to prevent review of evidence for things like
> DNA match after execution occurs. They know that innocent dead men are
> a powerful argument against executions.
>
> The fact remains, leaving smoking guns aside, that the US criminal
> justice system if rife with error. Let me put it to you directly: what
> error rate are _you_ willing to tolerate in convicting and condemning
> people?
>
> Paul
>

I'm willing to accept that errors may be made.
NO system is perfect,and there's plenty of jutification FOR the death
penalty. I see no point in warehousing violent criminals. I really do not
believe in life sentences either;if a person is so bad or so dangerous they
can never be allowed back into society,then there's no reason to keep them
alive at all.

BTW,most of these DP cases are overturned on ridiculous technicalities,not
by any actual proof of innocence. The standard is beyond a REASONABLE
doubt,not beyond any doubt. We have been slowly removing reason from our
court system and society itself.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

[Jim Yanik]

eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) wrote in
news:4f9df6d...@news.telkomsa.net:

> George152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
>>> Has any executed US criminal been found to be "innocent"
>>> post-execution?
>>>
>> Yes.

I note George152 never cited a single case.
SURELY such a case would be well-known and oft-cited.
the anti-DP folks would be shouting the case from the rooftops,but they are
strangely silent.
Thus,I suspect such a case does NOT exist.

>>And others on Death Row have been found to be innocent of the crimes
>>the 'justice' system hit them with

Not "found innocent",but merely evidence showing guilt NOT ACCEPTED,ie
"thrown out" for various technicalities.

>
> How many guilty have walked free due to that same criminal justice
> system?
>
>

[Jim Yanik]

Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
news:DL6dnaJs-MqRMgPS...@supernews.com:

I support a "points system" for violent crimes;
like a driver's license where it's revoked if you accumulate too many
points for various violations. Commit(and be convicted of) too many violent
offenses,and you automatically have your life revoked. No need to have a
jury decide if one gets the DP.
No killing of innocent men. No "career criminals".

Actually,we DO do that all the time;aircraft maintainers sometimes use
bogus parts or sign off on repairs never done.We've flown with pilots
"under the influence" or suffering hangovers,etc.,but probably never knew
it.
Then look at GenAviation.
the Space Shuttle was flown knowing there were certain critical parts that
if they failed,the result was catastrophe. Plenty of people still lined up
for missions.

>
> Paul
>
>

one major problem is that there is no "downside" for police found to have
coerced confessions or falsified evidence.
another is that evidence found under "tainted" conditions is excluded
instead of being used and the offending LEO severely punished.

[Daryl]

In a Civil Court, it's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. But in a
criminal court it's beyond the Shadow of a doubt.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Bill]

In article <jnmdfo$4bt$2...@dont-email.me>, dh...@nospami70west3.com
says...

>

> In a Civil Court, it's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. But in a
> criminal court it's beyond the Shadow of a doubt.

Nope.

In a civil court it's 'On the balance of probabilities'.

In a criminal court it's 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:hpctp7192cc6nsjvj...@4ax.com...

>Your inability to point to a single one is noted. As is your usual
descent into insult whenever you are unable to conjure of anything
cogent to the argument (which is most of the time).

>It is statistically preposterous that if, as some folks claim,
execution of innocent people is common, that they are unable to point
to a single case where that happened in the US in, say, the last 50
years.

Your complete mathematical ignorance is noted.

So long Fred.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:tmctp7hq5v9s7ijmg...@4ax.com...

>That isn't what I was asking for a cite for. You claimed that
"somewhere between a quarter and a third of them did not commit the

crime they are there for."

>Cite?

Thank you for clearing that up. It's always nice to know what the morally
and intellectually bankrupt are blathering about.

(I posted those numbers when I was filing some CSC documents in the
basement, Fred was part of that discussion more than a decade ago now. I'm
no more of an archaeologist than Fred is a statistician.)

[George152]

On 5/1/2012 3:43 AM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> I note George152 never cited a single case. SURELY such a case would
> be well-known and oft-cited. the anti-DP folks would be shouting the
> case from the rooftops,but they are strangely silent. Thus,I suspect
> such a case does NOT exist.

So according to you every person executed in the United States of
America committed the crime that he was put to death for..
Generally when some-one is dead the rest of the world goes on and
whatever he was or did is history and not worth digging up..
Others have quoted people who were executed and later found to be
innocent of the crimes they were accused of..
No doubt some of the racist based trials where blacks were executed on
little more evidence than a suspicion...

[Kerryn Offord]

On 4/30/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Casady wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:55 -0500, Dan<B24...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
>> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
>> would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
>> near 100%.
>
> Get real. The one thing alll the prisoners on death row have in common
> is that _nothing_ deterred them.
>

> Casady


But how many people were deterred by the "threat" of prison/ death
sentence, and thus did not commit a crime (the crime)?

There are always people who can not be deterred (Just look at drunk
drivers, especially repeat offenders)..

OTOH, there are a lot of people who don't drink and drive because of the
potential penalties.

[Bill]

In article <jnmura$d08$3...@dont-email.me>, ka...@uclive.ac.nz says...

>
> On 4/30/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:55 -0500, Dan<B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
> >> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
> >> would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
> >> near 100%.
> >
> > Get real. The one thing alll the prisoners on death row have in common
> > is that _nothing_ deterred them.
> >
> > Casady
>
>
> But how many people were deterred by the "threat" of prison/ death
> sentence, and thus did not commit a crime (the crime)?

Research seems to indicate that it's not the level of punishment that
deters, it's the risk of capture.

No thief or person who murders in pursuit of crime ever thinks they'll
be caught.

[La N.]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a0925da...@news.eternal-september.org...

> >
> No thief or person who murders in pursuit of crime ever thinks they'll
> be caught.
>

'zactly.

- nilita

[peter skelton]

"Bill" wrote in message
news:MPG.2a0925da...@news.eternal-september.org...

In article <jnmura$d08$3...@dont-email.me>, ka...@uclive.ac.nz says...
>
> On 4/30/2012 12:01 PM, Richard Casady wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:55 -0500, Dan<B24...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
> >> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
> >> would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
> >> near 100%.
> >
> > Get real. The one thing alll the prisoners on death row have in common
> > is that _nothing_ deterred them.
> >
> > Casady
>
>
> But how many people were deterred by the "threat" of prison/ death
> sentence, and thus did not commit a crime (the crime)?

>Research seems to indicate that it's not the level of punishment that
deters, it's the risk of capture.

That's not quite correct. The thought of a likely, unpleasant consequence
deters. No matter how unpleasant the consequence, it won't deter unless
there's a likely-hood of suffering it. No pleasant consequence deters, no
matter how likely. What the research seems to indicate is that the
consequences are often severe enough to deter if they were seen as likely.
The main exception is some forms of white-collar crime.

>No thief or person who murders in pursuit of crime ever thinks they'll
be caught.

Agreed

Peter Skelton

[!Jones]

On 29 Apr 2012 09:32:42 -0700, in alt.war.vietnam Bill Clarke
<Bill_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>Vinny, you've kept notes on me. I didn't know you cared so much, you old dog
>you!

At least he didn't kill-file you, huh?

Jones

[!Jones]

On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:19:12 GMT, in alt.war.vietnam
eug...@dynagen.co.za (Eugene Griessel) wrote:

>A rather specious argument. In other words paralysis until
>perfection? While we have our wishlist out why not hope for a
>perfectly law-abiding citizenry? We live in an imperfect world, with
>imperfect people - and we have to deal with it, to some extent
>imperfectly. Only an incurable idealist would strive to change that.
>If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price we pay
>for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.

I object to the death penalty; however, the basis of my objection has
nothing to do with compassion for the criminals. As usual, DP
advocates raise the false dilemma of executing them or "allowing the
very guilty to walk free"... nobody, besides you, has suggested that.

We can deal with the behavior more effectively by warehousing violent
people. You still have the problem that it's simply a fact that
innocent people are sometimes wrongly convicted; however, I tend to
agree with your logic until you conclude that we must execute people.

Jones

[!Jones]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:12 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Alex Potter
<spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:

>If we'd still had the death penalty in the UK, these guys would've been
>hanged...primarily because they were Irish.

Well, hell's belles, man! ... do you think Irishmen ought to be
allowed to walk around scot free? What's the world coming to?

Jones

[Kerryn Offord]

Sort of risk management..

The more severe the likely consequences, the higher the threshold of
"likely to get caught" is raised.

For example.. reasonably well off person speeding through a known speed
camera site... High probability of consequences, but "no problem" (small
fine relative to income. No loss of licence risk -- usually (in NZ))

[Bill Clarke]

In article <77jup7tt51d6of6gi...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

I'm reminded of that fine old movie, "Blazing Saddles". "We'll take the niggers
and chinks but we won't take the Irish".

Bill Clarke

[Bill Clarke]

In article <8eiup79adj4q79ras...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

Yeah, and I always thought Pinkie was the nicer guy of the two assholes. Until
he kill-filed me. Goes to show you I guess.

Bill Clarke

[Daryl]

Only if we are buying. You find a lot of Scots that want it free.

[dino]

In article <jnnjp...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

Which was what Wyatt Earp was. Back in the early 1970s I dug in an old dump
looking for antique bottles and came across a belt buckle that said AOH. I
didn't have a clue what that meant so tossed it aside for many years. I came
across it again a few years back and looked it up on the internet. It was the
Ancient Order of Hibernians, probably the same Catholic order that Wyatt
belonged to. I put the buckle up for sale on Ebay and sold it for $100 to an
AOH historian who told me that he had never seen that buckle before.

[Bill]

In article <jnnlo...@drn.newsguy.com>, dino_...@newsguy.com
says...

>
> In article <jnnjp...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
> >
> >In article <77jup7tt51d6of6gi...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
> >>
> >>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:12 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Alex Potter
> >><spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>If we'd still had the death penalty in the UK, these guys would've been
> >>>hanged...primarily because they were Irish.
> >>
> >>Well, hell's belles, man! ... do you think Irishmen ought to be
> >>allowed to walk around scot free? What's the world coming to?
> >>
> >>Jones
> >>
> >
> >I'm reminded of that fine old movie, "Blazing Saddles".
> >"We'll take the niggers
> >and chinks but we won't take the Irish".
>
> Which was what Wyatt Earp was.

So why is he buried in a Jewish cemetery?

(I have to add that I do know why)

[Uncle Steve]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:39:12AM -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:
> Paul F Austin <pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> news:Xq2dnQBg0dBeaADS...@supernews.com:
>
> > On 4/29/2012 8:15 PM, Jim Yanik wrote:
> >> Paul F Austin<pfau...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
> >> news:8uKdncddq__sPgDS...@supernews.com:
> >>
> >>> On 4/29/2012 2:19 PM, Eugene Griessel wrote:
> >>>> Bill<black...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article<jnjq7...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill_...@newsguy.com
> >>>>> says...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But don't get me wrong. For these creeps that like to rape and
> >>>>>> torture little girls before they kill them I wouldn't object to
> >>>>>> shooting them down like the mad dog they are. We just need to be
> >>>>>> sure they are guilty.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For that you need an incorruptible police force and an infallible
> >>>>> judiciary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Let us know when they turn up.
> >>>>

> >>>> A rather specious argument. In other words paralysis until
> >>>> perfection? While we have our wishlist out why not hope for a
> >>>> perfectly law-abiding citizenry? We live in an imperfect world,
> >>>> with imperfect people - and we have to deal with it, to some extent
> >>>> imperfectly. Only an incurable idealist would strive to change
> >>>> that. If occasionally a somewhat innocent suffers, that's the price
> >>>> we pay for not allowing the very guilty to walk free.
> >>>>
> >>>

You have a point. Wrongful death as a result of state execution
probably happens occasionally, but even if the judicial error rate is
in the double-digit percentages, it still doesn't approach the
frequency of deaths from vehicular accidents. Since we are content
with the cost of vehicular injuries on the roads, a pragmatic approach
to the death penalty is consistent with those values.

Well, that's a different issue. I am somewhat nonplussed at the
adversarial nature of judicial proceedings. It seems that the focus
of such actions is not on ascertaining the truth of alleged facts and
circumstances but rather on preserving the ceremony associated with
the judicial process as if it were something holy, and not a tool of
civilized dispute resolution.

The error rate of judicial actions ought to be subjected to some
scrutiny, as you would any corporate process that impacts the
profitability of corporate enterprise. The goal of achieving several
nines of reliability would improve confidence in the operations of
state, but it is probably easier and cheaper to use fear of conviction
to conceal the structural inequities and defects of the system.


Regards,

Uncle Steve

--
"Giving money and power to the government is like giving whiskey and
car keys to teenaged boys" - P. J. O'Rourke

[dino]

In article <MPG.2a09d76db...@news.eternal-september.org>, Bill says...

>
>In article <jnnlo...@drn.newsguy.com>, dino_...@newsguy.com
>says...
>>
>> In article <jnnjp...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>> >
>> >In article <77jup7tt51d6of6gi...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...
>> >>
>> >>On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:43:12 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Alex Potter
>> >><spa...@ap-consulting.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>If we'd still had the death penalty in the UK, these guys would've been
>> >>>hanged...primarily because they were Irish.
>> >>
>> >>Well, hell's belles, man! ... do you think Irishmen ought to be
>> >>allowed to walk around scot free? What's the world coming to?
>> >>
>> >>Jones
>> >>
>> >
>> >I'm reminded of that fine old movie, "Blazing Saddles".
>> >"We'll take the niggers
>> >and chinks but we won't take the Irish".
>>
>> Which was what Wyatt Earp was.
>
>So why is he buried in a Jewish cemetery?
>
>(I have to add that I do know why)

I didn't know why but I looked it up. His wife was Jewish so she had him buried
in her family plot in a Jewish cemetary. Right?

[Bill]

In article <jnok4...@drn.newsguy.com>, dino_...@newsguy.com says...

Yes.

Essentially he married a nice Jewish girl, made some money and settled
down.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:m0kup71kq1cndl86n...@4ax.com...

>Lack of cite (and your apparent inability to read simple English
sentences without an explanation) is noted.

>
>(I posted those numbers when I was filing some CSC documents in the
>basement, Fred was part of that discussion more than a decade ago now. I'm
>no more of an archaeologist than Fred is a statistician.)
>

>No cite. Your preposterous claim is exploded.

>Oh, and I actually am a statistician (among other things) and your
opinions in the field are the silliest things I've ever heard.

You have been chastised for claiming qualifications to support absurd
opinions before. These have covered a variety of subjects, now you have
added statistics to them.

Some innocents have been executed in the US within our lifetimes. There have
been 1294 executions in the US since 1976
(http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/views-executions). The three sigma standard
I gave would expect 1.35 'bad' executions per thousand or 1.75 total. Do you
think that, in the thirty years I lived before 1977, there were enough to
raise the expectation to 2? 0.135% error is an absurdly low estimate for an
error rate even in an unbiased human-judgement system. The justice system is
not unbiased - much more is expended on prosecution than defense. No
competent statistician would ever respond to such a situation with a demand
for a single specific example. You are not a statistician's asshole.

[peter skelton]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message

news:1uqvp7dr77h0067gl...@4ax.com...

"peter skelton" <skel...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<s>.

>
>>Oh, and I actually am a statistician (among other things) and your
>opinions in the field are the silliest things I've ever heard.
>
>You have been chastised for claiming qualifications to support absurd
>opinions before. These have covered a variety of subjects, now you have
>added statistics to them.

<s>

>No, I'm not. I'm a statistician. YOU are a statistician's asshole,
since only such an asshole would attempt to obfuscation you engage in,
above.


Congratulations on proving yourself a liar so clearly and concisely.

>For a start, why do you even think the distribution of probability in
this case is Gaussian?

It's called the central limit theorem? Heard of it O great statistician, or
non-statistician, if you prefer?

<Further evidence of Fred's incompetence snipped>

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

> Proving innocence is not required. What _can_ be proven is that the

> evidence used to convict and execute Claude Jones in Texas was
> defective. The only _forensic_ evidence that placed Jones at the scene
> of a murder was a single hair. DNA test after Jones' execution
> demonstrated that the hair did not belong to Jones. Here's the link

> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/dna-test-suggests-texas-may-have-executed-an-innocent-man/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB%29

>
> One reason why there are so few is that prosecutors do everything
> (which is considerable) to prevent review of evidence for things like
> DNA match after execution occurs. They know that innocent dead men
> are a powerful argument against executions.
>
> The fact remains, leaving smoking guns aside, that the US criminal
> justice system if rife with error. Let me put it to you directly: what
> error rate are _you_ willing to tolerate in convicting and condemning
> people?
>
> Paul

The Cameron Todd Williamingham case is a pretty interesting one, I read that
one a few years ago when over on scs there was a similar discussion with of
course Fredfreaka in the middle of it and just like hear asking for a *cite*
and then when he gets one it's not good enough. I usually find it easier to
just let him stew in his own juices and stay stupid, he's happier that way.

cheers....Jeff

[Andrew Swallow]

An example is the rise in robberies in England a few months ago when
people thought that they would not be caught.

Andrew Swallow

[smharding]

Dan wrote:

> The problems can arise from a jury or judge setting death as a
> sentence with incomplete evidence, evidence that couldn't be properly
> analyzed at time of trial (pre DNA or early DNA, for example) or "he got
> away last time, let's get him this time."

Imperfections in the system don't necessarily mean one should do away with it.
Cops or Judges are sometimes corrupt, but we'd surely be worse off if we did away
with them.

You do the best you can with an imperfect human at the controls. Sometimes
that means someone innocent goes to jail, or gets executed. You just need
to do the best you can at maintaining the integrity of the system, not ditch
it altogether.

In cases where a DA or police department witholds exculpatory evidence,
especially in a capital murder case, individuals involved should be severely
punished.

> I'm all in favour of reasonable appeals, denial of DNA tests if the
> state just doesn't want to pay for it isn't reasonable. I am not a legal
> scholar so I don't know what the answer is.

It should always be worth the time and effort to get someone off death row,
without descending to trivialities (where an inmate's lawyer brings up
technicalities to postpone an execution for years). For a while, the average
death row inmate would wait 17 years before the sentence was actually carried
out. Not sure what it is currently. It's a while though.

I think for an effective death sentence, it has to be carried out fairly
promptly, otherwise, its meaning gets diluted.

> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if caught
> would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't anywhere
> near 100%.

I don't see how it could, given the way in which death sentences are given
out. You murder someone, you get 10 years, or maybe 25, or maybe life or
maybe death. Murder 10 people and it's pretty much the same.

A death sentence has to be very clearly defined for it to have any hope of
being effective. I've read of people being sentenced to death for being a
driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery that claimed a life. That isn't
right.

> The silliest argument against the death penalty is "it won't bring the
> victims back." A natural extension of that argument is no penalty will.
> I suppose a counter argument would be "don't bother chasing and placing
> the perpetrator on trial since it won't bring the victim back."

The same can be said for persons wrongly convicted of some crime where they
serve 20 years. They're certainly not dead, but you've taken away 20 years
of their life that can not be returned to them. Doesn't mean you don't
convict anyone of anything just in case the system makes an error.

Capital punishments should be very clearly, and narrowly, defined. In most
cases, you'd get life imprisonment, but for some set of narrowly defined
crimes, death is guaranteed.

I'd say kidnapping resulting in the murder of the victim, death of a law
enforcement officer while on duty (not someone murdering a cop for messing
around with his wife, etc), some cases of national security, especially
where loss of life can be shown to have been the result of the action, and
probably almost any serial killer unless it can be shown they were not sane
(I suppose one can argue any serial killer is a nut, but I'm not entirely
sure that is always the case).

The death penalty also provides some bargaining opportunities in leaning on
people to get more cooperation. Don't cooperate and your crime qualifies
you for a lethal injection. Think about it.


SMH

[Kerryn Offord]

It's one reason mob violence often turns into looting. People see the
opportunity ad take it... thinking they can't be tracked/ caught..

Although in the latest (major) case in the UK, a lot of people learned
that they could get caught... all those cameras are good for something..

[Dan]

On 5/1/2012 4:05 PM, smharding wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
>> The problems can arise from a jury or judge setting death as a
>> sentence with incomplete evidence, evidence that couldn't be properly
>> analyzed at time of trial (pre DNA or early DNA, for example) or "he
>> got away last time, let's get him this time."
>
> Imperfections in the system don't necessarily mean one should do away
> with it.
> Cops or Judges are sometimes corrupt, but we'd surely be worse off if we
> did away with them.
>
> You do the best you can with an imperfect human at the controls. Sometimes
> that means someone innocent goes to jail, or gets executed. You just need
> to do the best you can at maintaining the integrity of the system, not
> ditch
> it altogether.
>
> In cases where a DA or police department witholds exculpatory evidence,
> especially in a capital murder case, individuals involved should be
> severely
> punished.

I agree, with the few cases I have seen come to light the individual
is merely fired or allowed to retire. I would think the penalty for
anyone who withholds or provides false evidence would be extremely
severe. I would also think any law enforcement officer who commits a
crime, especially on duty, should face enhanced penalties.

>
>> I'm all in favour of reasonable appeals, denial of DNA tests if the
>> state just doesn't want to pay for it isn't reasonable. I am not a
>> legal scholar so I don't know what the answer is.
>
> It should always be worth the time and effort to get someone off death row,
> without descending to trivialities (where an inmate's lawyer brings up
> technicalities to postpone an execution for years). For a while, the
> average
> death row inmate would wait 17 years before the sentence was actually
> carried
> out. Not sure what it is currently. It's a while though.

I don't fault the defense attorney for bringing up "technicalities"
since that is his job and those same technicalities can keep an innocent
person out of prison.

>
> I think for an effective death sentence, it has to be carried out fairly
> promptly, otherwise, its meaning gets diluted.

The problem there is it doesn't always work there either. In 17th
century England there were a few hundred capital offenses. One was
picking pockets. Pickpockets did good business at public hangings.

>
>> I know people on death row have said the threat of the death penalty
>> didn't deter them. I doubt any punishment not 100% guaranteed if
>> caught would deter anyone since the the odds of getting caught aren't
>> anywhere near 100%.
>
> I don't see how it could, given the way in which death sentences are given
> out. You murder someone, you get 10 years, or maybe 25, or maybe life or
> maybe death. Murder 10 people and it's pretty much the same.
>
> A death sentence has to be very clearly defined for it to have any hope of
> being effective. I've read of people being sentenced to death for being a
> driver of the getaway car in a bank robbery that claimed a life. That isn't
> right.

It's perfectly proper. The driver was part of the crime just as much
as the trigger man. In some states the driver only faces the death
penalty if the shooter is deceased.

>
>> The silliest argument against the death penalty is "it won't bring the
>> victims back." A natural extension of that argument is no penalty
>> will. I suppose a counter argument would be "don't bother chasing and
>> placing the perpetrator on trial since it won't bring the victim back."
>
> The same can be said for persons wrongly convicted of some crime where they
> serve 20 years. They're certainly not dead, but you've taken away 20 years
> of their life that can not be returned to them. Doesn't mean you don't
> convict anyone of anything just in case the system makes an error.
>
> Capital punishments should be very clearly, and narrowly, defined. In most
> cases, you'd get life imprisonment, but for some set of narrowly defined
> crimes, death is guaranteed.
>
> I'd say kidnapping resulting in the murder of the victim, death of a law
> enforcement officer while on duty (not someone murdering a cop for messing
> around with his wife, etc), some cases of national security, especially
> where loss of life can be shown to have been the result of the action, and
> probably almost any serial killer unless it can be shown they were not sane
> (I suppose one can argue any serial killer is a nut, but I'm not entirely
> sure that is always the case).

The situations you cite already exist. Sanity is a legal term. There
are situations where the perpetrator was clearly mentally impaired at
the time of the crime. That is not the definition of sanity in most
states. If you think about it the state is out for blood if only to
avenge the wrong which is why insanity pleas are so difficult. Some
states have gotten rid of insanity please due to public outcry.

>
> The death penalty also provides some bargaining opportunities in leaning on
> people to get more cooperation. Don't cooperate and your crime qualifies
> you for a lethal injection. Think about it.
>
>
> SMH
>

In all fairness one must realize the death penalty costs the taxpayers a
lot more than keeping the person alive. It seems legal fees are the
primary reason.

If we must execute someone it should be done with solemnity and
dignity. It offends me to see people sing and dance when someone is
executed. The execution should be humane with a minimum of suffering to
the condemned.

On a lighter note I am amused by reporters who say something like "if
he doesn't get the death penalty he will spend the rest of his life in
prison." It seems to me an executed man has spent the rest of his life
in prison.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bill]

In article <7c2dnZKSLuME-z3S...@giganews.com>,
B24...@aol.com says...

>
> On 5/1/2012 4:05 PM, smharding wrote:

> > I think for an effective death sentence, it has to be carried out fairly
> > promptly, otherwise, its meaning gets diluted.
>
> The problem there is it doesn't always work there either. In 17th
> century England there were a few hundred capital offenses. One was
> picking pockets. Pickpockets did good business at public hangings.
>

Later in Victorian England some very draconian acts were passed. For
example you could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread.

Nobody ever was.

A jury won't hang a man for feeding his children...

[!Jones]

On Tue, 1 May 2012 12:20:47 +0100, in alt.war.vietnam Bill
<black...@gmail.com> wrote:

>So why is he buried in a Jewish cemetery?
>
>(I have to add that I do know why)

Because he was dead. What difference did it make?

Jones

[dino]

In article <4v51q7d28sd96fsbi...@4ax.com>, !Jones says...

So, it would be OK to bury Dr. Vincent Quin,Ph.D. in the Arlington National
Cemetery?