Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Diemen]

A system that would allow ANY percentage of innocent people to be not only convicted but executed is deeply, deeply flawed.

Frankly I don't know how anyone can be pro death penalty in the United States given the undeniable truth that people have been and continue to be imprisoned and executed for crimes they didn't commit.

[LuckyNumber7]

It shouldn't be something as common as it is, that's for sure. Forgot who just mentioned it but... huge difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof."

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by bono_212

To be fair, it's not really a 50 percent rate. You have to take into account ALL of the people on death row, vs the three innocent people. You're skewing the data at the moment.

Sure it is, and I thought I made that pretty clear in the way I worded it. But the death penalty is nothing if not a discussion of finality, which is why I wanted to point it in that direction.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

What the fuck am I supposed to do with that?

Reasonable doubt is the minimum requirement but there are cases, including confessions, that are indisputable. The more doubt the more likely a death sentence will be overturned or reduced by the way. This is one of those cases where there is no doubt to his guilt.

Or are you telling us there is some doubt?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Diemen

Oh, so now executing criminals is a moral imperative?

Criminals, no. Mass murders, terrorists, serial or sadistic rapists; absolutely. Call it... social justice.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

Sure it is, and I thought I made that pretty clear in the way I worded it. But the death penalty is nothing if not a discussion of finality, which is why I wanted to point it in that direction.

Right, but I'm saying you took some data and then said there's a 50% chance of someone on death row being innocent, which is incorrect.

[LemonMelon]

The idea of a Christian calling execution a moral imperative, ultimately entrusting the fate of anyone to the judgment of another fallible human being is pretty funny to me, yet that group seems to be predominately in favor of capital punishment.

Then again, Romans 13 basically gives free rein to the government with no accountability necessary. You can use scripture to justify anything really.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Reasonable doubt is the minimum requirement but there are cases, including confessions, that are indisputable. The more doubt the more likely a death sentence will be overturned or reduced by the way. This is one of those cases where there is no doubt to his guilt.



Or are you telling us there is some doubt?

It is not the minimum requirement, it is the only requirement. There is no "no doubt" in our legal system. We don't ask our jury members how sure they are beyond the reasonable doubt question.

Confessions are not indisputable. Look it up. False confessions have happened.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

It is not the minimum requirement, it is the only requirement. There is no "no doubt" in our legal system. We don't ask our jury members how sure they are beyond the reasonable doubt question.

Confessions are not indisputable. Look it up. False confessions have happened.

Is there "no doubt" in this case? Yes or no.

[anitram]

To me whether there is 100% no doubt or 99% really doesn't make a difference as the concept of the death penalty is a philosophical and a policy question.

[anitram]

Today, in Washington state:

OLYMPIA, Wash. - Gov. Jay Inslee said Tuesday he was suspending the use of the death penalty in Washington state, announcing a move that he hopes will enable officials to "join a growing national conversation about capital punishment."

The Democrat said he came to the decision after months of review, meetings with family members of victims, prosecutors and law enforcement.

According to a draft statement obtained by The Associated Press, Inslee said that the use of the death penalty is inconsistent and unequal.

"Equal justice under the law is the state's primary responsibility," he said in the written statement. "And in death penalty cases, I'm not convinced equal justice is being served. The use of the death penalty in this state is unequally applied, sometimes dependent on the budget of the county where the crime occurred."

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Is there "no doubt" in this case? Yes or no.

No, and there never has been.

[bono_212]

Double negatives

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

To me whether there is 100% no doubt or 99% really doesn't make a difference as the concept of the death penalty is a philosophical and a policy question.

It matters a great deal. I will explain later when I have more time to explain.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by anitram

Today, in Washington state:

Huzzah!

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

No, and there never has been.

Sounds absolute.

I relish in the notion that you can be 100% certain that the rest of us can never be 100% certain.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

Today, in Washington state:

Yes, let's trust their judgement.

[corianderstem]

Yes, it's just a truly terrible state to live in.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Sounds absolute.

I relish in the notion that you can be 100% certain that the rest of us can never be 100% certain.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to be smarmy.

There is no mechanism in our system for there being 100 percent certainty. On that we can agree, correct? Juries find people guilty if they believe the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." They are not legally asked anything further than that. So, my question to you is: who is it that is deciding a person is 100 percent certainly guilty? It's certainly not the judge or the jury, since we've just established the threshold they meet. The truth is that we have no mechanism for determining such a thing, and it's intentional. The people who designed the system recognized its inherent flaws and gave the system options to correct its own mistakes. No one is 100 percent guilty, otherwise not everyone would be entitled to an appeals process.

Now, if you want to make the argument that there should be such a mechanism, that's a separate conversation. If you believe there are certain people who are so obviously guilty that the death penalty should be in play, make that argument. I'll vehemently disagree with you, but at least you're making a case that is logical. Right now, you're arguing that there's such a thing as 100 percent guilt and it simply isn't true.

[PhilsFan]

Beyond that point, I think anyone arguing for the death penalty in a country that so frequently imprisons innocent people is out of his or her mind.