Australian Politics Forum - The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #180 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 6:29pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

But it is curious how the death penalty proponents give little too no regard to the problem of executing the innocent. It is as if they don't really care. Wrongful convictions just don't seem to be a part of their agenda.

What wrongful convictions? Yoiu had to go back 80 years to find someone who was possibly innocent and executed (according to one claim only). Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

you only have to go 30 years back in the ERA of executions to find proven errors but there are several executions that have high levels of doubt not the least being Ronald ryan - LAST man executed in Australia. your belief that there would be no errors in convictions in Australia is astonishing. There are significant numbers of wrongly convicted murderers - people you would execute. Where do you get your imaginary idea that ee don't have wrongful convictions?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Luke Fowler

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 320
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #181 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:26pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Its not my way, its the way the law works. Jurors or judges should not convict if there is any doubt which they find reasonable. Long standing often misunderstood legal principle. Some people seem to think it means that there can be a doubt and still have a conviction. That is incorrect.

are you SOB??? you are unbelievably stupid in trying to understand what most people would understand rather easily. you apparently dont believe that there has ever been a wrongly convicted person.

Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. Ian, you have really no idea of the principle of reasonable doubt.

It is logically impossible to have no doubt about anything other than an a priori truth. If you had to have no doubt in order to convict, nobody could ever be convicted of anything other than claiming 2+2=5 or some such thing.

Oh, and another thing, arguing against the death penalty does not in anyway mean that you support or excuse what a violent killer or rapist has done. Resorting to this kind of attack just shows weakness in your own argument.

I was going to add more to the conversation but Mr Weekend's arguments are bang on here and I don't think I could improve on them.

Back to top

The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad. Salvador Dali

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38703
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #182 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:29pm

Well Ian, as a Lawyer of 33 years before I retired, I am looking forward to you explaining this to me:

Quote:

Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #183 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:37pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 6:29pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

But it is curious how the death penalty proponents give little too no regard to the problem of executing the innocent. It is as if they don't really care. Wrongful convictions just don't seem to be a part of their agenda.

What wrongful convictions? Yoiu had to go back 80 years to find someone who was possibly innocent and executed (according to one claim only). Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

you only have to go 30 years back in the ERA of executions to find proven errors but there are several executions that have high levels of doubt not the least being Ronald ryan - LAST man executed in Australia. your belief that there would be no errors in convictions in Australia is astonishing. There are significant numbers of wrongly convicted murderers - people you would execute. Where do you get your imaginary idea that ee don't have wrongful convictions?

Right. so if he was wrongfully convicted exactly when did the court of appeals overturn his conviction. You are going to have to provide more than one persons beleif in his innocence. Besides which, Ryan was a peice of work with a criminal history stretching back decades. Boo hoo. No loss. Just shows whose side you are on though.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:45pm by ian »

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #184 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:43pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

Well Ian, as a Lawyer of 33 years before I retired, I am looking forward to you explaining this to me:

Quote:

Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose.

Only a fool would need that explained, its pretty simple. Glad you were never my lawyer. Theres some pretty sh!t lawyers around. Ive come across a few, anothe one by the sounds of it.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38703
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #185 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:45pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

Well Ian, as a Lawyer of 33 years before I retired, I am looking forward to you explaining this to me:

Quote:

Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose.

Only a fool would need that explained, its pretty simple. Glad you were never my lawyer. Theres some pretty sh!t lawyers around. Ive come across a few, anothe one by the sounds of it.

Treat us all like that fool. Humour we poor fools and answer the highlighted question, Ian.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #186 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:49pm

Luke Fowler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

ian wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

Its not my way, its the way the law works. Jurors or judges should not convict if there is any doubt which they find reasonable. Long standing often misunderstood legal principle. Some people seem to think it means that there can be a doubt and still have a conviction. That is incorrect.

are you SOB??? you are unbelievably stupid in trying to understand what most people would understand rather easily. you apparently dont believe that there has ever been a wrongly convicted person.

Wow. I have to agree with Longy on this one. Ian, you have really no idea of the principle of reasonable doubt.

It is logically impossible to have no doubt about anything other than an a priori truth. If you had to have no doubt in order to convict, nobody could ever be convicted of anything other than claiming 2+2=5 or some such thing.

Oh, and another thing, arguing against the death penalty does not in anyway mean that you support or excuse what a violent killer or rapist has done. Resorting to this kind of attack just shows weakness in your own argument.

I was going to add more to the conversation but Mr Weekend's arguments are bang on here and I don't think I could improve on them.

Thats why its called reasonable doubt einstein, it works in the defendants favour. Another softcock

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #187 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:51pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:29pm:

Well Ian, as a Lawyer of 33 years before I retired, I am looking forward to you explaining this to me:

Quote:

Its also a fact that the burden of proof in a courtroom is considerably higher with charges like murder. You seem to have the idea that as regards burder of proof there is zero difference in a courtroom between a parking fine and a charge of murder. This is the problem when you get all your information from american tv shows.

What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose.

Only a fool would need that explained, its pretty simple. Glad you were never my lawyer. Theres some pretty sh!t lawyers around. Ive come across a few, anothe one by the sounds of it.

Treat us all like that fool. Humour we poor fools and answer the highlighted question, Ian.

The magistrate or Judge determines it by the proceedings and directions to the jury, if there is one.. Thats part of their job. Now youve learnt something from 33 years.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38703
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #188 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm

Ian, stop trying to dance in custard and answer the simple question:

'What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose."

I'll help you out to this extent. It does not matter whether a criminal trial is conducted before a Magistrate, a Judge without Jury, or a Judge with a Jury.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #189 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 5:05pm:

But it is curious how the death penalty proponents give little too no regard to the problem of executing the innocent. It is as if they don't really care. Wrongful convictions just don't seem to be a part of their agenda.

Thought I covered that with some detail, recommending that those that commit multiple murders, violent rapes and child rapes

The chance of your personal evidence being at multiple crime scenes and victims and also innocent would be so unbelievably remote as to be impossible without direct police interference And if a copper deliberately falsified evidence, then a murder charge would ensue. It would be less so the state killing an innocent person but a cop murdering an innocent person.

So it isn't that dificult to ensure innocent people are not 'accidently' knocked off their perch.

changing the criteria to multiple/serial offenders does reduce the risk but does not eliminate it. Innocents have been executed on numerous occasions.

It would not be unfair to observe that you have SOME concern about innocent executions but not enough to make you modify your view at all. And once the DP was enacted there is little chance it would remain only aimed at repeat offenders.

Life without parole has the same effect in terms of protection so why not promote that?

But you cannot produce one example.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #190 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:00pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Ian, stop trying to dance in custard and answer the simple question:

'What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose."

I'll help you out to this extent. It does not matter whether a criminal trial is conducted before a Magistrate, a Judge without Jury, or a Judge with a Jury.

No, let me help you out. Its why we dont have jury trials for parking tickets.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38703
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #191 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:06pm

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Ian, stop trying to dance in custard and answer the simple question:

'What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose."

I'll help you out to this extent. It does not matter whether a criminal trial is conducted before a Magistrate, a Judge without Jury, or a Judge with a Jury.

No, let me help you out. Its why we dont have jury trials for parking tickets.

Okay, it's time I told you. There is only one standard.....on all non civil trials, including those involving a 'parking ticket.' The burden of proof whether the Court consists of a Magistrate, a Judge sitting without a Jury, or a Judge sitting with a Jury....the burden of proof is the same and that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #192 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:14pm

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:

ian wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:00pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 8^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

Ian, stop trying to dance in custard and answer the simple question:

'What are the various degrees in the burden of proof required over whatever range of offences you choose."

I'll help you out to this extent. It does not matter whether a criminal trial is conducted before a Magistrate, a Judge without Jury, or a Judge with a Jury.

No, let me help you out. Its why we dont have jury trials for parking tickets.

Okay, it's time I told you. There is only one standard.....on all non civil trials, including those involving a 'parking ticket.' The burden of proof whether the Court consists of a Magistrate, a Judge sitting without a Jury, or a Judge sitting with a Jury....the burden of proof is the same and that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

Last I heard a parking ticket would be heard in a civil court with a different burden of proof required, so whats your point.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 38703 Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #193 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:19pm Quote: Last I heard a parking ticket would be heard in a civil court with a different burden of proof required, so whats your point. You 'heard' wrong. The burden of proof is the same as in a 'murder' Trial......beyond reasonable doubt.
Back to top	IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #194 - Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:23pm

If you think a 5 minute hearing before a magistrate is going to demand the same burden of proof a murder trial is then your on drugs. The legal principle may be the same but in practise it is not. Despite which the burden of proof can change, heres an example. It can hardly be tha same if it is shifted to the defendant rather than the prosecution now can it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-20/roxon-announces-discrimination-overhaul/4382168
Proof burden overturned in discrimination rethink
The Federal Government has announced an overhaul of anti-discrimination laws, including shifting the burden of proof to the defendant once a prima facie case has been established.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 8^th, 2013 at 9:33pm by ian »

IP Logged