New evidenced released that Texas executed innocent man in death of 3 daughters

[dank69]

That makes no sense, the preferences of a sentenced person have no bearing on the morality of a punishment.

Good thing I wasn't talking about preferences then.

 

[Jhhnn]

It hasn't escaped me that Glenn has argued that life in prison is both "a mere inconvenience, maybe even a prize" when applied to guilty people and "no better than death" when applied to innocent people in this very thread. That's full pretzel for anyone paying attention.

Well, yeh, of course.

One one hand, we have protection of society, Justice & mercy. On the other hand we have vengeance. Proponents of the latter don't use that word, of course, they use "retribution" because it sounds better, particularly when talking about the death penalty. What they really seek is emotional satisfaction. It feels good to kill your enemies. Not that they'll actually say so in our modern world, of course.

 

[K1052]

We're talking about punishing people who HAVE NOT CAUSED HARM TO OTHERS. Why are you so mentally deficient?

His position boils down to the premise that occasionally murdering innocent people is a necessary evil of a moral justice system lest the all the murderers be turned loose to kill again. Which is insane.

Must be a comfortable perch to rest on without the burdens of compassion, empathy, or actual justice for people who end up wrongly executed at the hands of the state because the odds of him being subject to it are low.

 

[dainthomas]

The way to address this problem is to improve the controls and safeguards for all defendants, rather than just limiting one kind of punishment after the fact. Once someone has been wrongfully convicted then it's already too late. You've lapsed in your moral responsibility if you think that this starts and ends with removing the threat of execution from someone.

Would your opinion change once you were strapped to the table? Or would you be willing to "take one for the team"? I suppose you could take comfort in the fact that your unjustified death would allow the government to continue executing actual criminals.

 

[Phokus]

It's like the devil took a huge fucking dump and the resulting turd turned into a humanoid form that we now know as glenn1

 

[jhbball]

It's like the devil took a huge fucking dump and the resulting turd turned into a humanoid form that we now know as glenn1

lol.

 

[bshole]

His position boils down to the premise that occasionally murdering innocent people is a necessary evil of a moral justice system lest the all the murderers be turned loose to kill again. Which is insane.

Must be a comfortable perch to rest on without the burdens of compassion, empathy, or actual justice for people who end up wrongly executed at the hands of the state because the odds of him being subject to it are low.

The feel good part of this story is that the man lost his daughters in a horrible fire and then the state came around and murdered him for good measure...... adding injury to injury.

 

[BoberFett]

The feel good part of this story is that the man lost his daughters in a horrible fire and then the state came around and murdered him for good measure...... adding injury to injury.

When BoberFett finds himself agreeing with bshole, others should take notice that maybe this is a position that can't really be argued against...

 

[dank69]

When BoberFett finds himself agreeing with bshole, others should take notice that maybe this is a position that can't really be argued against...

A lot of people are agreeing with you for the first time in this thread. How's it feel to finally be on the right side of an argument?

I'm kidding. 😀

No. I'm not.

 

[Subyman]

Its actually another strawman on his part. His is speculating that murders are going to flooding back into the streets without the death penalty killing more innocent people.

He supports the death penalty because a hypothetical murderer may get paroled 50 years from now and may exact revenge (which is what glenn1 supports, revenge and vengeance) on the family of the victim? Eskimospy was right on the very first page, glenn1 is in a tail spin.

I'm going to give Glenn about 5 more posts until he devolves into a rage meltdown when confronted with the contradictions in his position.

 

[Subyman]

The way to address this problem is to improve the controls and safeguards for all defendants, rather than just limiting one kind of punishment after the fact. Once someone has been wrongfully convicted then it's already too late. You've lapsed in your moral responsibility if you think that this starts and ends with removing the threat of execution from someone.

It's disingenuous to argue cost when often the cost driver is anti-death penalty groups defense in every case regardless of obvious guilt. And I don't insist on death penalty and agree that lifetime incarceration also protects others. Although it's in no way morally superior anymore than allowing a rabid dog to die of old age locked in a kennel forever. I'm simply giving a reasonable answer to those who argue that there is no moral way to support it. That is a bunch of crap and motivated reasoning in action.

So at the beginning of this thread, safeguards and protection groups were bad and were causing the cost to be high. Now, you are arguing for more safeguards. Tail spin achieved.

 

[crashtech]

When BoberFett finds himself agreeing with bshole, others should take notice that maybe this is a position that can't really be argued against...

This might not really be as much a left/right issue as much as it is a libertarian/authoritarian one, as least that is what I see it becoming.

 

[BoberFett]

This might not really be as much a left/right issue as much as it is a libertarian/authoritarian one, as least that is what I see it becoming.

Agreed. Mostly I was pointing out that I almost never agree with bshole on anything. 😉

 

[zinfamous]

When BoberFett finds himself agreeing with bshole, others should take notice that maybe this is a position that can't really be argued against...

😀

 

[zinfamous]

The way to address this problem is to improve the controls and safeguards for all defendants, rather than just limiting one kind of punishment after the fact. Once someone has been wrongfully convicted then it's already too late. You've lapsed in your moral responsibility if you think that this starts and ends with removing the threat of execution from someone.

And you keep ignoring this. Explain what improvements are needed. You clearly reject the controls and safeguards that are already in place, that you also blame for making the death penalty "far too costly!"

So, what is your alternative?

Wrongful conviction really isn't "too late," as we have seen exonerations through the appeals process before. This is something that has already been, and will continue to be "disrupted" by technology. Look at the role that DNA evidence has played. Further, considering the number of wrongfully convicted innocents railroaded by a racist, vengeful justice system, simply through DNA evidence, a thinking human would realize the cavernous flaws in a system woefully incapable of striping the most fundamental personal liberty from an individual.

Not you, though, for the Big Thumb of government apparently has no minimal mass.

 

[glenn1]

And you keep ignoring this. Explain what improvements are needed. You clearly reject the controls and safeguards that are already in place, that you also blame for making the death penalty "far too costly!"

So, what is your alternative?

Wrongful conviction really isn't "too late," as we have seen exonerations through the appeals process before. This is something that has already been, and will continue to be "disrupted" by technology. Look at the role that DNA evidence has played. Further, considering the number of wrongfully convicted innocents railroaded by a racist, vengeful justice system, simply through DNA evidence, a thinking human would realize the cavernous flaws in a system woefully incapable of striping the most fundamental personal liberty from an individual.

Not you, though, for the Big Thumb of government apparently has no minimal mass.

So then since your argument boils down to "wrongful convictions happen," then surely you still support DP when guilt is not in doubt. Such as a guilty plea from the accused, or when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming (e.g. dozens of direct witnesses, video of the incident, etc). Or is the "wrongful convictions" angle just one more attempt to do an end-run around the underlying morality of capital punishment which you simply reject categorically anyway?

 

[touchstone]

lol this thread is fun

 

[bshole]

So then since your argument boils down to "wrongful convictions happen," then surely you still support DP when guilt is not in doubt. Such as a guilty plea from the accused, or when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming (e.g. dozens of direct witnesses, video of the incident, etc). Or is the "wrongful convictions" angle just one more attempt to do an end-run around the underlying morality of capital punishment which you simply reject categorically anyway?

It probably isn't a morality thing. It is I don't trust my fucked up government to get it right thing and I certainly do not want to give my government the right to kill me thing.

You argue a position that has no basis in reality. The standard of law is "beyond a reasonable doubt", it is NOT "guilt is not in doubt". You argue for something that does not exist. What is the point? Are you arguing for new laws that change the burden of proof for death penalty cases? If so that is a quite different discussion than the one that is being had here. We are debating the merits of the death penalty AS IT EXISTS today under the CURRENT LAWS.

 

[glenn1]

It probably isn't a morality thing. It is I don't trust my fucked up government to get it right thing and I certainly do not want to give my government the right to kill me thing.

You argue a position that has no basis in reality. The standard of law is "beyond a reasonable doubt", it is NOT "guilt is not in doubt". You argue for something that does not exist. What is the point? Are you arguing for new laws that change the burden of proof for death penalty cases? If so that is a quite different discussion than the one that is being had here. We are debating the merits of the death penalty AS IT EXISTS today under the CURRENT LAWS.

I just want to see if Zin, Don Vito, and others are arguing in good faith. They've repeatedly said their objection is based on wrongful convictions. If they oppose it categorically even if that's a non-factor they should say so. Because if they're arguing on a "I don't trust my fucked up government" basis then I can use that to oppose any government policy they do support. They don't trust government to carry out capital punishment, I don't trust them to address climate change for example and now per their "logic" I can issue that opinion as having the veneer of a "moral" argument when everyone knows that's bullshit. Once you play the "government can't be trusted" card then you lose any credibility to say they can be trusted on ANYTHING.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I just want to see if Zin, Don Vito, and others are arguing in good faith. They've repeatedly said their objection is based on wrongful convictions. If they oppose it categorically even if that's a non-factor they should say so. Because if they're arguing on a "I don't trust my fucked up government" basis then I can use that to oppose any government policy they do support. They don't trust government to carry out capital punishment, I don't trust them to address climate change for example and now per their "logic" I can issue that opinion as having the veneer of a "moral" argument when everyone knows that's bullshit. Once you play the "government can't be trusted" card then you lose any credibility to say they can be trusted on ANYTHING.

Why does it have to be such an absolute? Sure they can be trusted on matters. But people aren't infallible. When it comes to taking the life of someone any system that can be subject to error or abuse is insufficient. It can't be walked back once it's carried out if an innocent falls victim to the failings of man.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I just want to see if Zin, Don Vito, and others are arguing in good faith. They've repeatedly said their objection is based on wrongful convictions. If they oppose it categorically even if that's a non-factor they should say so. Because if they're arguing on a "I don't trust my fucked up government" basis then I can use that to oppose any government policy they do support. They don't trust government to carry out capital punishment, I don't trust them to address climate change for example and now per their "logic" I can issue that opinion as having the veneer of a "moral" argument when everyone knows that's bullshit. Once you play the "government can't be trusted" card then you lose any credibility to say they can be trusted on ANYTHING.

I said that was my main objection, which it is. As I said, the judicial system is a human enterprise, and it is nearly never the case that a defendant's guilt is not in doubt.

The fact that you are becoming so emotional about this, and resorting to profanity, tells me you have a strange personal connection to this issue that is impairing your ability to think clearly.

 

[dank69]

I just want to see if Zin, Don Vito, and others are arguing in good faith. They've repeatedly said their objection is based on wrongful convictions. If they oppose it categorically even if that's a non-factor they should say so. Because if they're arguing on a "I don't trust my fucked up government" basis then I can use that to oppose any government policy they do support. They don't trust government to carry out capital punishment, I don't trust them to address climate change for example and now per their "logic" I can issue that opinion as having the veneer of a "moral" argument when everyone knows that's bullshit. Once you play the "government can't be trusted" card then you lose any credibility to say they can be trusted on ANYTHING.

Still bullshit. There are things they can be trusted with because even if they fuck them up it's not a big deal. Someone losing their life is kind of a big deal.

 

[brycejones]

more blathering

You haven't discussed this issue in good faith for days now.

 

[glenn1]

I said that was my main objection, which it is. As I said, the judicial system is a human enterprise, and it is nearly never the case that a defendant's guilt is not in doubt.

The fact that you are becoming so emotional about this, and resorting to profanity, tells me you have a strange personal connection to this issue that is impairing your ability to think clearly.

So in other words, the justice system human enterprise represents an acceptable risk only up to the point where the DP is involved but nowhere else. Good to know that you think that someone convicted of a non-capital crime who's guilt is "nearly never not in doubt" can safely have any other penalty imposed on them. But that's OK, in the remote chance that someone gives enough of a crap about someone not on death row to try to get them exonerated, we'll just have the state stroke them a big check. Surely a couple hundred K will make up for that decade or two in jail and not getting to see their kids grow up. Unless you died first, in which case I guess you're just SOL anyway.

 

[Jhhnn]

Even if we set aside the morality of execution it doesn't make sense from a practical pov unless you're in favor of high funding for purely authoritarian aspects of govt. The price of execution in the modern world is extremely high, several $M each. It goes to the legal system & serves to clog it up. Right, wrong or indifferent, death penalty opponents will oppose any execution on any grounds possible for their own reasons. That's true whether they believe the convicted to be guilty or innocent. They'll work hard at it, a lot harder than they would for the release of the same prisoner sentenced to natural life in prison. It's a helluva lot cheaper just to keep such prisoners in high security facilities until they die, even if they live to a ripe old age. They can be segregated from the general prison population as administrators see fit. It effectively protects society from individuals likely to repeat & from systemic authoritarian greed as well. It should be enough vengeance for anybody.