Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Dubiously guilty man set to die Sept. 23!

Alright, I don't often strap on the mod hat here, but I am now.

this is a forum of friends. We don't always agree, but more than anything else WE RESPECT EACH OTHER! It is also an open forum, meaning that everyone is able to read what is said, and everyone gets to comment.

Keep it clean and respectful, on both sides. Ideas can be presented without getting personal at or on anyone.

this thread obviously strikes nerves on BOTH SIDES, so it behooves everyone to remember that others have their own ideas and opinions. You don't have to agree, just respect yourself, and the other posters.

and yeah, I get that there will be eyeball rolling over me of all people saying this, so, don't make me turn this car around.

I never claimed to believe that I know 'everything there is to know' about this subject and I really take offence at your presumption.
However, I still truely believe that the fault lies in the trial process and not the sentencing. And THAT is where we need to concentrate on improving the system to prevent injustice both in freeing the guilty AND in convicting/executing the innocent.
I was a witness in a case where I knew (personaly witnessed the crime) the 'defendant' was guilty. The trial process failed. He was released. He re-offended. I was excused from jury duty because I admitted to being biased in a case. The 'defendant' was found innocent. He was released. He re-offended. I was member of a jury on another occasion (where I didn't have a bias so was not excused). After much deliberation, despite the fact that we believed he had likely committed the crime, we found that the prosecuter had not proved 'beyond a reasnoanble doubt' that he was guilty. He was aquitted. He was released. He later murdered a clerk while robbing a store. And I really don't know how to improve the process.... other than through the use of a lot of chemicals that I have been told are 'inhumane' even if used to free some one already convicted. So, what is your solution? Because I don't have any other suggestions and I still say the benefits out-weigh the few mistakes... as tragic as they are (and YES, convicting and executing an innocet person is a tragedy of the highest order).

I never said that I called killing an innocent by mistake was 'Justice', so please stop putting untrue and inflamatory words in my mouth. Killing an innocet is a TRAGEDY whether by mistake OR intent. You may feel the same about disposing of the guilty. I do not. The simple and provable fact is: A DEAD OFFENDER CAN NOT RE-OFFEND. That is not flawed, hideous nor ugly. It is a pure and simple fact.
Your statement of: you can't bring that person back from the dead if you're subsequently proved wrong. IS ALSO TRUE. So, shouldn't the focus be to make sure guilt or innocence is firmly and unquestionablely proved?

A typo? If I had a dime for every typo I have made this week, I could afford to go to Law School, enter into polotics, hire a team of expert consultants and find a solution that would make everyone happy. Of course, if I did then our entire universe would be rebooted....

Well, I didn't feel the need to count them, I only needed one.

I have to agree with you there. I think the problem is context, this thread is ALL ABOUT a state refusing to pay attention to the questions about the proof, so frankly I read your logic incorrectly the first time too.

[snip]

There was doubt about the original subject of this thread, given the history of racism in the U.S. and the often shabby motives of DA's and prosecutors.

I don't think he should have been executed.

Furthermore, I think that irresponsible authorities who can't curb their own prejudices should never be trusted to make life-or-death decisions in the name of the law. At least a life imprisonment can at some point be rescinded, if innocence is proved down the road. There's no possibility of undoing an execution.

For the record, my post was not nasty, obnoxious, or uncalled for. I was following your comment that people should be executed before they repeat a crime. That's punishing people before they commit a crime, because they have the potential to commit a crime. As does everyone.

and, I edited my post immediately after i made it, and over ten minutes before you replied, because I don't want to get into some ludicrous debate about what you said or what you meant.

And in the 'grand' scheme of your many disrespectful comments, you are no one to talk.

threatening posters?

and here's another especially 'nice' one.

Which is pretty funny in itself, because Cleome45 can obviously read.


But... once again, this post shows you don't really think about what you're posting.

So why should i bother taking you seriously.

You must have had some idea your comment was nasty, obnoxious and uncalled for, or you wouldn't have bothered to edit it out.
And, I was not calling for people to be executed for crimes they haven't committed yet. I was calling for those THAT HAVE ALREADY COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES TO BE EXECUTED FOR THOSE CRIMES (yes, I am yelling because you still can't seem to hear.... or don't care to?) because it is a fact that they can not commit another violent crime if they are dead.

Guys, again, respect each other.

everyone has made "points" against each other. everyone has gotten in their digs. Enough is enough.

Lets dial it back, folks, shall we? Legionworld is a pretty cool place. Lets not be the ones that changes that.

Well, you are for Capital Punishment now, but what about when you are unjustly sentenced to death for a capital crime.

See it really doesn't matter if Troy Davis is guilty or innocent. There have been cases of people on death row who have been exonerated by DNA evidence. Per the Innocence Project http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php 273 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence, 17 of those were on death row.

Rick, you must still be on those nice pain meds.

(okay, okay, I'll hush. Don't turn the car around....)

As my dad once told me... "If ya gonna act pissy, use the empty bottle back there, I ain't stoppin!"

I'm normally against the death penalty... I'd rather see the guilty live out their sad lives behind bars and THEN face their ultimate punishment; On the flipside, somebody wrongly convicted and executed doesn't get a do-over.

BUT... I don't know how many of you are up on the Cheshire home invasion here in CT... Two men are accused of beating the father near-to-death, raping the mother and 'tweenaged daughter and setting fire to the home, burning burning the mother, daughter and an older daughter to death.

One man has already been tried, found guilty and sentenced to death; the second trial just started. There is no denial of guilt here, only fingerpointing as to who masterminded this brutal crime. Connecticut legislation was very close to abolishing our death penalty... but, God help me, a crime like this has me wishing for Ol' Sparky instead of the relatively humane lethal injection these bastards are going to get.

So I feel the ultimate crime deserves the ultimate sanction; But only when guilt is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

And that is the opinion I was trying to express (before I let personal annoyance take over and cloud my responses). To that end, fix the 'proving' part of the process because it is not just broken for capital offences, but in many other cases as well.

And it's a very difficult proposition. Those who tend to most strongly support capital punishment, also tend to have conservative philosophies regarding the size and scope of government. They would be the least likely to support increases in funding for public defenders so the accused could get adequate legal representation. They would also be more likely to support tort reform measures that would increase penalties for malpractice or financial compensation and damages for the wrongly accused.

This bothers me quite a bit:

I am pretty sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds, but just incase: YES it does matter!

And that is why WE THE PEOPLE have to work on changing and improving the system. It is Flawed, badly flawed, but still better than most other systems I can think of.

I meant that a particular person's guilt or innocence doesn't matter in the argument over capital punishment.

Unfortunately no matter what system is in place, it will be run by fallible imperfect biased human beings. And as such, mistakes will be made and at times bias against a person may come into play.

[snip]

I don't oppose the death penalty out of compassion for killers, actually. I oppose it because I can't see the sense in punishing murderers by becoming a proxy murderer myself. If it was wrong for them to attack and kill the family, it's wrong for me to start calling for another human being to die.

I think killing another human is defensible if my life is in immediate peril, but as horrible as these men are... once they're in jail for life the threat to other citizens is ended.

(One of the cases I sat on while on Grand Jury was a murder in self-defense case, BTW. I didn't feel particularly sorry for the dead guy, or the guy who hired him. The former died when the intended victim fought back and the latter is in jail for ten years-- which hardly seems sufficient considering that the intended victim was his wife-. I did feel terrible for the wife. She worked as a nurse and clearly didn't wish harm to anyone, but those two creeps forced her to choose between killing another person and dying herself.)

There's nothing I can do to bring back the family. The only good I can do is not let myself get dragged down to the level of the accused.

Believe me, I've had longings for revenge against people who've done way more trivial things than the killers in CN did. Outside of pop fiction, though, I can't really see either moral or practical sense in giving way to those feelings. There's enough violence in daily life already, all over the world. I'd just as soon not add to it unless, as I said above, my life or somebody else's really is in immediate peril.

Ok, not trying to be snotty here, just trying to understand a couple of points made and how people's minds are working (as well as how my own thought process flows).....
If you have a rabid dog, do you lock it in a cage and take care of it to the best of your ability until it dies? Or, do you do the merciful thing and put it down (in some fassion or other, hopefully as quickly, painlessly and practically as possible)?

Human beings are not rabid dogs. We're responsible for own actions, unless there's mental illness involved.