How justice used to work and how it works now.

[soulcougher73]

Because on numerous occasions it has turned out they weren't in fact guilty.

I don't agree with the death sentence out of principle, but if the death sentence is to exist a long appeals process has been proven to be a necessity.

He did say beyond doubt. Which basically means there was probably video evidence of him commiting the crime etc. Those people im all for offing as soon as possible.

If you are caught on camera, admit to it, or stopped by cops in the act im all for making it your death as quick as possible.

 

[actuarial]

He did say beyond doubt. Which basically means there was probably video evidence of him commiting the crime etc. Those people im all for offing as soon as possible.

If you are caught on camera, admit to it, or stopped by cops in the act im all for making it your death as quick as possible.

Every murderer is supposed to be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' so I thought that's the standard he was applying.

 

[soulcougher73]

Every murderer is supposed to be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' so I thought that's the standard he was applying.

That is why i dont put much thought into the few innocents that slip through the cracks. Obviously the evidence presented during trial was enough to get "beyond reasonable doubt' by the peers.

 

[actuarial]

That is why i dont put much thought into the few innocents that slip threw the cracks. Obviously the evidence presented during trial was enough to get "beyond reasonable doubt' by the peers.

I personally put tons of thought to those who slip through the cracks. What percentage of innocent people do you authorize your government to execute in the search for justice? While a life sentence is horrible, at least there's the potential to right a wrong. There is no going back from death.

 

[JKing106]

This idea is so supremely idiotic one wonders how it could appeal to anyone.

Not to people who aren't authoritarian robots who believe everyone in a uniform is automatically correct and to be trusted.

 

[JKing106]

He did say beyond doubt. Which basically means there was probably video evidence of him commiting the crime etc. Those people im all for offing as soon as possible.

If you are caught on camera, admit to it, or stopped by cops in the act im all for making it your death as quick as possible.

Like those two cops who beat Kelly Thomas to death in Fullerton, CA. Video evidence from at least 2 different sources, as well as eye witnesses.

 

[soulcougher73]

Like those two cops who beat Kelly Thomas to death in Fullerton, CA. Video evidence from at least 2 different sources, as well as eye witnesses.

Sure put them to death. Im fine with that.

 

[Jaskalas]

...
I find it strange that conservatives who are frequently so distrustful of government involvement want to give government such enormous police powers.

Really, you say that after the Patriot Act?

 

[ichy]

Every murderer is supposed to be convicted 'beyond reasonable doubt' so I thought that's the standard he was applying.

Not all cases are the same. Most murders don't have dozens of witnesses (yes, eyewitness IDs aren't the most reliable but when a theater full of people sees you doing it it's a different story) and a perp who is caught red handed by the cops. The Colorado shooting was part of the small minority of cases where that happens though, therefore it should go through the courts much faster than average.

 

[fskimospy]

Really, you say that after the Patriot Act?

I mean more that I find the cognitive dissonance strange, but yes I've gotten used to people doing it. There really isn't a civil liberties party in America anymore, it's just a question of whether or not you prefer people who torture you as opposed to people who blow you up with a drone.

 

[fskimospy]

Not all cases are the same. Most murders don't have dozens of witnesses (yes, eyewitness IDs aren't the most reliable but when a theater full of people sees you doing it it's a different story) and a perp who is caught red handed by the cops. The Colorado shooting was part of the small minority of cases where that happens though, therefore it should go through the courts much faster than average.

The real question with this is how you determine that standard. Plenty of people are caught 'red handed' by the cops, but unscrupulous cops can make a lot of people appear 'red handed'.

 

[kalrith]

IMO under our current system, the only way for justice to be doled out quickly is if the perp is killed at the scene of the crime. If that doesn't occur, then years of time and millions of dollars will be thrown at the perp in order to appropriately dole out "justice".

 

[fskimospy]

IMO under our current system, the only way for justice to be doled out quickly is if the perp is killed at the scene of the crime. If that doesn't occur, then years of time and millions of dollars will be thrown at the perp in order to appropriately dole out "justice".

I think you should look at how our current system works. Do you know what percentage of cases go to trial?

 

[kalrith]

I think you should look at how our current system works. Do you know what percentage of cases go to trial?

Well, the discussion at hand is largely for open-and-shut cases that should end in the death penalty. So, please enlighten me. What percentage of those cases go to trial?

 

[fskimospy]

Well, the discussion at hand is largely for open-and-shut cases that should end in the death penalty. So, please enlighten me. What percentage of those cases go to trial?

Well that's not what your post said. If you meant only for murder cases with the death penalty then 100% of them go to trial. There are many cases that people think are 'open and shut' that are not so.

Fast tracked death penalty cases is one of the worse ideas I've seen on here. Considering how bad ideas on here often are, that's saying something.

 

[kalrith]

Well that's not what your post said. If you meant only for murder cases with the death penalty then 100% of them go to trial. There are many cases that people think are 'open and shut' that are not so.

Fast tracked death penalty cases is one of the worse ideas I've seen on here. Considering how bad ideas on here often are, that's saying something.

I thought the context of the thread was enough so that it was clear I wasn't saying that a kid caught shop-lifting should be shot and killed at the scene of the crime

I'm not sure if I'm hugely supportive of quick death penalties. However, it's difficult to fathom why a death-penalty case with many witnesses of an obvious murder should cost millions in legal fees.

 

[CitizenKain]

That is why i dont put much thought into the few innocents that slip through the cracks. Obviously the evidence presented during trial was enough to get "beyond reasonable doubt' by the peers.

I think its really cute and naive that you think everyone gets a fair trial. Its laughably wrong, but its funny seeing someone post such a thing.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought the context of the thread was enough so that it was clear I wasn't saying that a kid caught shop-lifting should be shot and killed at the scene of the crime

Fair enough!

I'm not sure if I'm hugely supportive of quick death penalties. However, it's difficult to fathom why a death-penalty case with many witnesses of an obvious murder should cost millions in legal fees.

I agree that it seems kind of absurd to spend so much time establishing something that nobody really doubts. I think the biggest reason to do it isn't for this guy, it's for everyone else. Trying to draw the sort of distinction where suddenly you just take someone out and shoot them would be really hard and so I think it's better to err on the side of more justice.

 

[berzerker60]

There's also the issue that historically in America 'quick justice' has been used as a euphemism for systematically executing people the community didn't like (usually minorities, especially once we got into the Jim Crow era). The only reason Virginia has a history of much less lynching than any other Southern state is that they would have very speedy 'trials' and hang whichever black had been accused of committing some grave offense. That's a part of why today we have such a number of appeals available at state and federal levels before death sentences can be executed.

As for why the process is so slow, a good part of that has to do with the Senate's 'advise and consent' duties on appointments making it very very difficult for presidents to fill vacancies in the federal courts. During the Bush era Democrats obstructed appointments, now Republicans would oppose Ronald Reagan himself if Obama tried to appoint him to anything just out of spite. When you have a big percentage of the federal courts that are vastly understaffed, it's hard to speed along appeals.

 

[ichy]

The point that people are missing is that legal proceedings aren't this slow because they're arguing about guilt or innocence. In the case of the Fort Hood scumbag the latest legal argument was whether he should be forced to shave his beard! THAT is the sort of garbage that makes things drag on for years.

 

[corwin]

The point that people are missing is that legal proceedings aren't this slow because they're arguing about guilt or innocence. In the case of the Fort Hood scumbag the latest legal argument was whether he should be forced to shave his beard! THAT is the sort of garbage that makes things drag on for years.

I'm sick of seeing his ugly ass bearded mug every night on the news
:twisted:

 

[DominionSeraph]

Justice used to work as God commanding you to murder your son and you going ahead and doing it.
When did things get so complicated?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Yes we do know, are you versed in this case at all? I live 30 miles from Fort Hood and get every single update plus some...yes it was because of PC bullshit

No offense, but personal anecdotes don't quite cut it.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Even eyewitness testimony immediately following the event is notoriously unreliable. Under stress it gets even worse. There's a famous study where military members were interrogated for something like an hour. When asked to identify them later 2/3rds picked the wrong guy.

Eyewitness testimony is way way way too unreliable to be the basis for shipping someone off to jail immediately.

Skeptic has numerous excellent articles on various fallacies the OP and others espouse.


http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-09-02/

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-09-01/

 

[dank69]

That is why i dont put much thought into the few innocents that slip through the cracks. Obviously the evidence presented during trial was enough to get "beyond reasonable doubt' by the peers.

Of course you don't care, you aren't the innocent one 'slipping through the cracks.'