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

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 104637
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #75 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

If Bayley had a twin - Grin

Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms.

but as usual, you miss the point. what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence? happens all he time. what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong? What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence? It happens.

that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Can you read?

I said

No doubt whatsoever

as decided by whom? ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake. not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts.

you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth. How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do. If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

But with: Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant
there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail -
3 meals a day & color TV at our expense.
Has justice been served?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 104637 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #76 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:29pm bump - page didn't flip
Back to top	IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 104637 Melbourne Gender:	Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2) Reply #77 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:29pm bump again - page still didn't flip.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #78 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:39pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

IM trying to get you to face the question of WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS for murder and rape - including child rape. Please dont disappoint me and bleive that such things do not happen or can be prevented.

I haven't even started my argument on who should get tapped, so Im (thank god) not the same as booby.

Like the Japanese it's not all murderers or rapists or peados.

Multiple murderers, where the evidence is crime upon crime, upon crime, same goes for rapists When it comes to child rapists, sadly they tend to be so prolific that multiple crime is par for the course.

So it isn't the one off, as you say too easy to 'get it wrong' but with a crime spree the evidence tends to be pretty conclusive, signature behaviour, DNA, etc

With all the 'innocent' criminals who have been wrongly convicted I very much doubt they were wrongly convicted for multiple murders / rapist or child rape. It is inconceivable, unless a cop deliberately planted evidence and that should in itself be a DP crime

As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

you are the first to construct a credible scenario. congrats. while i disagree with you sotrongly by making the DP only applicable to proven multiple cases of serial offending you at least have put some effort into minimizing the risk of wrongful conviction. It doesnt eliminate it of course, but it does go some way to making it more difficult. One problem I see in a practical sense is that once you reintroduce the DP for such offenses it is relatively easy to make it apply to non-multiple offenses. I see it as one of those 'thin endge of the wedge' type things.

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

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #79 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy,
Quote:

and here is my point. you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP. The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'? witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'. Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA? You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of .... what? .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #80 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

If Bayley had a twin - Grin

Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms.

but as usual, you miss the point. what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence? happens all he time. what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong? What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence? It happens.

that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Can you read?

I said

No doubt whatsoever

as decided by whom? ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake. not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts.

you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth. How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do. If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

But with: Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant
there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail -
3 meals a day & color TV at our expense.
Has justice been served?

Justice? Yes.

But then, the DP has nothing to do with justice, it's ALL about vengeance.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #81 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:55pm

Kat wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

If Bayley had a twin - Grin

Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms.

but as usual, you miss the point. what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence? happens all he time. what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong? What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence? It happens.

that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Can you read?

I said

No doubt whatsoever

as decided by whom? ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake. not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts.

you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth. How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do. If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

But with: Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant
there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail -
3 meals a day & color TV at our expense.
Has justice been served?

Justice? Yes.

But then, the DP has nothing to do with justice, it's ALL about vengeance.

No, it's not.

If it was ALL about vengeance, Jill Meagher would still be alive. Her murderer would still be behind bars - if indeed he was still breathing.

The DP might still carry some risk for the innocent - but so does the release, early or otherwise, of recidivists.

Shall we compare the numbers of innocents lost on either side?

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #82 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

[
As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

No it doesnt, I have pointed this out before to Longliar. Since the 90's violent crime has been decreasing in the US, this directly corresponds with the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #83 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:34pm

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

so 74 studies which conclude that the DP fails as a deterrent and you supply one contrary example
- Japan. This example shows a reduction in ALL Crime and unless you think the DP acts as a deterrent to crimes where it does not apply then how do you explain that? Your example categorically fails to make any link whatsoever between the DP and the drop in crime - because none exists.

correlation does not mean causation and in a case where for example THEFT has halved are you going to attribute that to the DP?

That is my point exactly. so unless these 74 studies prove conclusively that the DP causes an increase in violent crime, I'm calling bullsh1t.

You would have to stop the DP in those same areas and observe a statistically relevant decrease in crime for it to be causal. If it if it remained the same or increased then the findings of those studies are total crap.

It could be just a violent sh1thole and it has the DP, at best these studies are faulty at worst they are fraudulent.

At least with japan you can see that the place has the DP, doesn't mind using it and it is a very safe place, unlike Australia.

74 studies and you want to just presume they are wrong and that their methodologies are flawed?

Japan has ALWAYS had the death penalty post war (and I think pre-war as well) the reduction of crime is a relatively recent thing in the last 10-15 years. So the DP has had zero effect on reducing crime since it actually increasing for 50 of those post-war years. whatever has reduced crime in the last 10015 years is worth researching but it is certainly not the DP since they executed over 600 people well before the crime rate drop.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #84 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:36pm

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

If Bayley had a twin - Grin

Longy - are you drinking the cooking sherry?

the point is YOU DONT KNOW and that is enough reason to imply you cannot know his guilt in absolute terms.

but as usual, you miss the point. what about people found guilty for murder on purely cirucmstantial evidence? happens all he time. what about forensics which were contaminated or wrong? What about corrupt cops and prosecutors planting or destroying evidence? It happens.

that's why you can never guarantee a righteous verdict and unless you can do so then you are effectively saying that you dont have a problem with executing the inoocent.

Can you read?

I said

No doubt whatsoever

as decided by whom? ABSOLUTES like that mean you ahve 100% elimated every possibility of error corruption or mistake. not possible. Every branch of science (bar Climate science of course) says that its discipline is based on THEORYS and precious few axiomatic facts.

you really dont seem to understand the notion of absolute anything, not absolute truth. How do you define ABOLUTELY CERTIAN into law. we have reasonable doubt because we already know that it is the best we can do. If we could be absolutely certain wouldnt it make sense to apply this newly discovered standard of truth to ALL criminal cases?

But with: Julian Knight, Adrian Bayley, & Martin Bryant
there was no doubt & they are receiving good treatment in jail -
3 meals a day & color TV at our expense.
Has justice been served?

of course there is some doubt. You can find a lot people making claims that Bryant is innocent. I dont buy it for a second but they make claims that while highly unlikely are not impossible. And if it is not impossible then doubt - however small - still exists.

Justice is something you clearly dont understand. Justice is not execution and nor is execution justice. But I sense this debate may actually be above yoru capacity to understand

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #85 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:43pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy,
Quote:

and here is my point. you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP. The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'? witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'. Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA? You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of .... what? .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others. so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little. and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary. The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #86 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:45pm

ian wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 2:02pm:

[
As I have pointed out the DP does not always cause crime to increase, it does in the US but lots of weird sh1t happens only in the US so I wouldn't recommend that place as an example of what is good or bad.

No it doesnt, I have pointed this out before to Longliar. Since the 90's violent crime has been decreasing in the US, this directly corresponds with the reinstatement of the death penalty in many states.

total BS. for starters you provide no statistics other than nationmaster which is a known source of bogus stats. and the death penalty was reintroduced in 1976. so what happened in the 20 years after it started and the 90s when you say violent crime reduced (without evidence of course)? no answer, I bet.

and of course the 74 studies that use REAL stats and REAL statistical and research methodologies that come to the opposite conclusion to you are are wrong. because....?

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

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #87 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:57pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy,
Quote:

and here is my point. you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP. The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'? witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'. Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA? You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of .... what? .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others. so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little. and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary. The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean.

Let's try again - slowly.

If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive.

As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves.

But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk?

And what of the victims of the recidivists?

One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill.

Is that any easier?

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #88 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:03pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy,
Quote:

and here is my point. you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP. The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'? witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'. Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA? You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of .... what? .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others. so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little. and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary. The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean.

Let's try again - slowly.

If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive.

As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves.

But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk?

And what of the victims of the recidivists?

One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill.

Is that any easier?

how do you with any degree of morality happily condemn the innocent (wrongly convicted) in defence of the innocent (victims). When you talk risk analysis you ahve no idea what pandoras box you are opening. it would be therefore considered ethical by you standards to execute all sociopaths PRIOR to offending on the assumption that they will offend. Or of that is too tough how about executing a sociopath once they are found guilty of any crime... shoplifting perhaps?

the essence of what you are saying is not to execute people for what they have done but for what they MIGHT do. It would not be hard to identify criminal intentions in a personality profile. Should we execute them to avoid innocent victims?

but the biggest flaw in your plan is that the vast majority of murders are not dont by the long-term serial offender. Most are heat-of-the-moment murders by joe average. and that , dear listener, is why the DP is not a deterrent. becaus ein the heat of the moment, nobody is thinking of that.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: The Death Penalty is still drawin' a crowd (pt 2)
Reply #89 - Jul 6^th, 2013 at 8:05pm

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 6:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 6^th, 2013 at 1:26pm:

Longy,
Quote:

and here is my point. you do not even accept the possibility of the innocent being executed which is way and above the most potent argument AGAINST the DP. The mere notion of executing the innocent is anathema to almost everyone although not so much in the DP.

Answer these questions if you will.

Do you believe that executing the genuinely innocent is an acceptable price to pay for having the DP? If so, what rate of wrongful execution would you be willing to accept before wanting the DP banished?

Longy,
Such a weak argument -
the standard of proof would have to be higher than
"beyond reasonable doubt"

There would have to be no doubt whatsoever.

That fixes your problem -
now lets get that rope ready.

too easy... define 'no doubt whatsoever'? witnesses are unreliable. COnfessions are unreliable. Forensic evidence is often misinterprested and we havent even gotten to errors and corruption.

there is no such thing as 'no doubt whatsoever'. Even DNA is not perfect.

You're quite correct when you say that DNA testing is not perfect. But then again, what is?

Now let's play a little.

Would the numbers of those wrongly convicted and executed on the basis of DNA evidence be higher, or lower, than the numbers of recidivists that claim the life, or future, of another victim?

Is the chance winning the Lottery smaller than being wrongly convicted by DNA? You bet your life it is!

Or do we excuse the number of future potential victims on the grounds of .... what? .... mercy?

Isn't occupational health and safety legislation all about risk assessment? What's the difference?

No pain - no gain.

you make a habit of being fairly opaque in your posts but if I read you right you think the risk of executing the innocent is outweighed by the risks to others. so what you actually mean is that innocence to you means pretty damned little. and once again the supporters of the DP show that they really dont have a high regard for life at all despite their protestation to the contrary. The wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim of a criminal and deserving of even more protection since the state should never ever consider the execution of the innocent as trivial or even acceptable - unlike you.

Opaque? Perhaps they appear so, it's certainly not my intent. Perhaps it's comprehension problem - I know what I mean.

Let's try again - slowly.

If Jill's rapist-murderer had been dealt with by about, say, victim #5, she'd still be alive.

As you say, the wrongly convicted are every bit as innocent as any victim. In fact, they have become victims themselves.

But what of the rightly convicted? Should they be given another chance - and at what risk?

And what of the victims of the recidivists?

One hardly thinks that the previous 22 victims of this vermin are consoling themselves with thoughts of their lucky escape from the fate that befell Jill.

Is that any easier?

once again, you replace thinking with examples. Nobody is saying anything other than that the system failed Jill Meagher. That does not however mean the DP is going to change anything.

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