Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Razgovory]

That would be an exercise in pointlessness.  If anyone can define a legal term any way they want it loses all meaning.  Laws are nifty in that we have an agreed upon definition of stuff.  Otherwise we have all sorts of silly stuff such as Murder including the killing of My WoW character.

I give up. There is no other way for me to explain it.



As for the discussion on the death penalty, I suppose everything has been said so many times and there is very little to be done about the fact that America as the only civilized country in the world resorts to practices elsewhere only found in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. But I suppose that's what you get from irrationality and bronze-age morals. The same american right who on one hand say that the government can not be trusted with their money is suddenly just fine with giving the government power over life and death. So much for limited government.

You guys give up to easy.  I fail to see what this has to do with irrationality or Bronze age morals.

[Pat]

 

[Razgovory]

I know you people aren't know for their intellectual brilliance but think really hard Pole.

[Pat]

I can't even understand what you're saying.

[Agelastus]

This is why if I edit a post it is only for textual reasons, not to introduce a major change.

Raz, assuming you did not see the original post, Miglia originally posted the second paragraph as his own contribution to the death penalty issue, rather than as a continuation of your discussion of my position. Then he saw your last post, and added the quote and the first line. Thus, I think this is the confusion, as the first part of the post as it appears now is unrelated to the second part...even though you can no longer tell this without having seen the original post.

[Pat]

Oh right, yes maybe I should have made the transition more clear when I edited or simply just made another post (though etiquette differs and many forums do not even allow you to post again if your post is the last post, you can only edit it)

[DontSayBanana]

Police and soldiers opening fire to protect others are still covered in a rather broad sense by "self defence". After all, a credible threat to another in most cases can also be a credible threat to you (snipers, admittedly, skirt this definition somewhat.) The key word, of course is "defence".

Understood.  However, execution is also "defense" from the psychological threat of allowing a given criminal to mingle in society.

I would also point out that the "government" is not normally directly involved with situations where officers have to choose whether to shoot or not. The government has given them a weapon to use in protection of themselves and others, as you have pointed out. It has not said, "In circumstance A, kill him. In circumstance B, let him live, in circumstance C you decide" to a police officer.

The government outlines clear rules on use of force and proper handling of escalation; it does administrate even lawful killings, as evidenced by the paperwork a cop has to go through in situations where deadly force is used.

Presumably like yourself, I also get frustrated when people quote the deterrent value of the death penalty asd a justification for it given the lack of evidence for this assumption, but I dispute your assertion that "societal protection" requires the killing of certain members of that society. It requires the punishing of certain members of society, and such punishments should include incarceration for life for the protection of society, if neccessary. The list of available punishments should not include the taking of an individual's life.

All I can add to that is my own view that Grumbler included in his ridicule - that punishment is a matter for this world; if I had faith in an afterlife, I might not be so vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I freely admit.

There's no dispute here; I'm playing devil's advocate.  I only mention the "deterrence" effect because it's the most common point of debate in death penalty arguments; advocates say it is common sense that it will deter crime, opponents point out a lack of statistics supporting that conclusion.  I feel that the government's primary, overarching responsibility is to protect the lives and welfare of its citizens, and that since executing a convict accomplishes nothing that holding the convict for the remainder of his or her lifetime would not, it can only be seen as a failure to protect the life of the convict.

As a secondary argument, our penal system is supposedly designed to rehabilitate as well as discipline; execution is, by nature, the only existing punishment that leaves no possibility for rehabilitation, and so it conflicts the major philosophies governing criminal justice in the United States today.

[dps]

It's a question of endings. The case of the guy tossed in prision for life is pretty well as horrible, when he dies in prision. Up to that time, there is always the chance that someone will get interested in his case, demonstrate his innocence, and get him released. Presumably if his imprisionment was the result of culpable negligence by the athourities, he could even be compensated (to the extent you can do that with money) for his damages.

When the guy is dead no such restitution is possible.

Exactly.

Meh, no such restitution is possible if in fact he is tossed in jail for life and nobody ever does get him out. And that is much more likely to happen absent a DP.

This is a very good point, which I think that most people have missed.  If you are wrongly convicted, you might actually be better off being sentenced to death.  Given the lengthy (and automatic) appeals process, you have a much better chance of being vindicated than if you were sentenced to life.

[dps]

The fact that injustice may occur does not mean that we should avoid injustice where it is possible.

WHAT?!?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong.  Is this your position, or is it your characterization of Berkut's position?  If the latter, I'll leave it to Berkut to say whether or not it's a mis-characterization;  if the former, I'll re-iterate:  WHAT?!?

[Razgovory]

Funny thing is I'm not even for the Death Penalty.  But it was nice being considered a rightists for once.

[Pat]

Funny thing is I'm not even for the Death Penalty.  But it was nice being considered a rightists for once.

Like I said, that part was separate from the part directed at you. Should've made that more clear.

[Malthus]

This is a very good point, which I think that most people have missed.  If you are wrongly convicted, you might actually be better off being sentenced to death.  Given the lengthy (and automatic) appeals process, you have a much better chance of being vindicated than if you were sentenced to life.

In theory. The reality appears otherwise. The problem is that the lengthy appeals process appears in many cases to be mostly automatic: it is not a retrial of the issues, but rather a review of the file for procedural errors.

The problem with this is: garbage in, garbage out. That is, where the original trial was held with overworked and lacklustre public defenders who assume their clients are guilty and based on the evidence of so-called "experts" who just make shit up (see the OP for example), there may be no "procedural errors" to review, as the fault is with the substance and not the procedure. An appeal may not catch that.

While this problem may be solvable, the greater problem is the simple passage of time. History has demonstrated forecfully that great strides have been taken in the analysis of evidence - take for example the development of DNA technology over the last 20 years or so. This has had the effect, on re-evaluating evidence, of proving beyond doubt that some who were judged guilty are in fact innocent. If a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed in 1985 (or more reasonably 1990 as it would take some time to work through the appeals), it is small comfort to them that with DNA analysis they were proved innocent in 1995; if they were imprisioned for life, on the other hand, they could in theory at least agitate for a reconsideration of their case - having lost a decade in prision it is true, but they would still be alive.

The other side of the coin - that leaving murderers alive provides the chance that they could escape and kill again - is of course also a concern; but if one added up all of the persons whose verdicts were changed by DNA analysis vs. all of the escaped convicts who killed again, my guess is that the former would far ountnumber the latter.

[DontSayBanana]

In theory. The reality appears otherwise. The problem is that the lengthy appeals process appears in many cases to be mostly automatic: it is not a retrial of the issues, but rather a review of the file for procedural errors.

The problem with this is: garbage in, garbage out. That is, where the original trial was held with overworked and lacklustre public defenders who assume their clients are guilty and based on the evidence of so-called "experts" who just make shit up (see the OP for example), there may be no "procedural errors" to review, as the fault is with the substance and not the procedure. An appeal may not catch that.

While this problem may be solvable, the greater problem is the simple passage of time. History has demonstrated forecfully that great strides have been taken in the analysis of evidence - take for example the development of DNA technology over the last 20 years or so. This has had the effect, on re-evaluating evidence, of proving beyond doubt that some who were judged guilty are in fact innocent. If a person was convicted of a capital crime and executed in 1985 (or more reasonably 1990 as it would take some time to work through the appeals), it is small comfort to them that with DNA analysis they were proved innocent in 1995; if they were imprisioned for life, on the other hand, they could in theory at least agitate for a reconsideration of their case - having lost a decade in prision it is true, but they would still be alive.

The other side of the coin - that leaving murderers alive provides the chance that they could escape and kill again - is of course also a concern; but if one added up all of the persons whose verdicts were changed by DNA analysis vs. all of the escaped convicts who killed again, my guess is that the former would far ountnumber the latter.

That's a common misconception about the appellate courts: they do not review any new evidence; they just either uphold the court's decision, or if there was a flaw in the trial, they can remand it back to the lower courts to retry those specific parts.  The only way new evidence would come into a trial is if the appellate court finds that significant admissible evidence was known at the time of the trial but was omitted for some reason.

[DGuller]

That's a common misconception about the appellate courts: they do not review any new evidence; they just either uphold the court's decision, or if there was a flaw in the trial, they can remand it back to the lower courts to retry those specific parts.  The only way new evidence would come into a trial is if the appellate court finds that significant admissible evidence was known at the time of the trial but was omitted for some reason.

So what's a guy on death row to do if later on there surfaces a video where another guy kills the victim?

[grumbler]

What is fucked up is your way of arguing. That in the Unites States a premeditated state-sanctioned killing is not considered murder is so for no other reason than that that is the way the law is written. He is clearly talking about how it should be, and not how it is. When you say his definition is contrary to the commonly accepted one you say "this is how it is". That is no more than simple appeal to authority. And that is a game anyone can play, whenever anyone say anything contrary to what is commonly accepted. Except, of course, those with any sense of intellectual honesty.

What is fucked up is that you haven't bothered to think through what is being said, and instead are just reacting emotionally.  Agelastus is arguing that murder is "defined as the taking of human life in any circumstances other than self-defence."  He claims it is murder to protect a family member by killing the person about to kill their kid, because it is not "self-defense." He claims it is murder for a soldier to kill an enemy who is not shooting at him because it isn't "self-defense."

That's not the way the law should be, that's pinheaded daftness.  The reason that the common definition does not uinclude protecting the family or country isn't because it is an "appeal to authority" (look up the definition of the phrase before you misuse it again, mkay?), it is because society has thought about this issue, unlike Agelastus and you.