My argument for the death penalty...

[sirkickyass]

I have not read this whole thread but isnt it true that there cannot be a death penalty without a confession or DNA evidence? That guarentees no innocent people will be put to death.

Death Penalty rules vary from state to state, but the short answer is no.

It's not even true, as another poster stated, that you have to be guilty of pre-meditated murder to be given the death penalty. In some states you can get the death penalty for some forms of rape or kidnapping. Then there's the results of the felony murder rule which could lead to a lot of "capital" cases when far less serious offenses were intended.

 

[Hopper]

. In total, 138 people have been freed from Death Row since 1973. So if you can live with the idea that almost 4 people a year would have been put to death who were innocent of their crimes, then the Death Penalty is a really great idea.

Kinda contradictin your own self there, aincha, Biley? Bein falsely convicted aint the same as bein executed. How can ya say they "woulda been put to death" when, in fact, they were freed? There are so many devoted anti-death penalty advocates out there, doin research 24/7 on a volunteer basis, and so many procedural safeguards involved that ya could seriously argue that it is extremely unlikely, in this day and age, that any death penalty would EVER be carried out on an innocent person.

 

[sirkickyass]

Kinda contradictin your own self there, aincha, Biley? Bein falsely convicted aint the same as bein executed. How can ya say they "woulda been put to death" when, in fact, they were freed? There are so many devoted anti-death penalty advocates out there, doin research 24/7 on a volunteer basis, and so many procedural safeguards involved that ya could seriously argue that it is extremely unlikely, in this day and age, that any death penalty would EVER be carried out on an innocent person.

You've got to be kidding me. Are you seriously arguing that because some innocent convictions are detected that this must mean that 100% of innocent convictions are detected? Furthermore, that 100% of innocent convictions that are detected lead to releases? Jesus H. Christ.

This is an especially ridiculous argument given that this article appeared in the times just yesterday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/us/15bar.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Aintnuthin logic:

If you were executed, you did it. If you were let go, then that means you didn't do it. The result dictates the actuality of what occurred; the two things are never at odds with one another.

Well at least we know of one poster on this board that is ineligible for capital punishment under current Constitutional interpretation as of 2002.

 

[Hopper]

You've got to be kidding me. Are you seriously arguing that because some innocent convictions are detected that this must mean that 100% of innocent convictions are detected? Furthermore, that 100% of innocent convictions that are detected lead to releases? Jesus H. Christ.

Why would you even begin to think that? I wuz talkin about death penalty cases, not "all convictions."

 

[billyshelby]

Kinda contradictin your own self there, aincha, Biley? Bein falsely convicted aint the same as bein executed. How can ya say they "woulda been put to death" when, in fact, they were freed? There are so many devoted anti-death penalty advocates out there, doin research 24/7 on a volunteer basis, and so many procedural safeguards involved that ya could seriously argue that it is extremely unlikely, in this day and age, that any death penalty would EVER be carried out on an innocent person.

Yeah, I don't know why all the innocent people on Death Row even sweat it. All the safeguards and all. And if they do wind up with a bullet in the head, that's just the breaks. No sense worrying about a couple mistakes when you consider all the good the death penalty does. Besides, they could have just as easily died in their car or eating a steak.

 

[Hopper]

This is an especially ridiculous argument given that this article appeared in the times just yesterday:

This aint no DP case neither, but even if it wuz, on what grounds should the guy be released? You're the bottom-feeder, you know rules of evidence doncha? Why would the judge say this: "The judge refused to let the jury hear from Mr. O’Toole, saying his account was unreliable hearsay." If the judge was wrong about that, why wasn't he reversed on appeal? What is it these days? Trial by newspaper, with a son's belief bein the standard for guilt/innocence?

 

[Hopper]

Kicky, your sophistic strawman tactics don't persuade nobuddy but fools (which is who you're apparently appealin to, includin your own damn self). Addin in your ad hom attacks on my sanity don't exactly enhance the credibiity of your "impartial moderator" posture neither, except, again, mebbe in the eyes of fools.

 

[sirkickyass]

Why would you even begin to think that? I wuz talkin about death penalty cases, not "all convictions."

Sorry aint, I assumed since the entire thread was about the death penalty that you could fairly assume that when I said 'convictions' that meant 'capital convictions.' Then again, I must learn never to assume such things considering the audience.

As for the article, the point is merely that even when clemency boards unanimously recommend that someone have their sentence commuted arbitrary and non-transparent factors can conspire to ensure that a person is not released. That is probative to your underlying claim.

As for your opinion regarding my impartiality, you have the same recourse as everyone else: you may complain to an administrator. Given, however, that I have yet to vote on a single reported post of yours I have the feeling it will be difficult for even you to conceive of a way in which you have been harmed by me. I was, however, greatly amused by you calling me a fool and then in the same post railing against the use of ad hominems.

 

[Hopper]

What is it these days? Trial by newspaper, with a son's belief bein the standard for guilt/innocence?

"Mr. Kempfert is now certain that his father, William Macumber, is innocent. Arizona’s clemency board, citing Mr. Kempfert’s “very moving testimony” and saying there had been “a miscarriage of justice,” unanimously recommended last year that Mr. Macumber be freed."

Hmmm, well, what more would ya want, I ax ya?

 

[Hopper]

Sorry aint, I assumed since the entire thread was about the death penalty that you could fairly assume that when I said 'convictions' that meant 'capital convictions.' Then again, I must learn never to assume such things considering the audience.

Heh, "considerin the audience," eh? The audience, if not an utter fool, would consider the (non-DP) story you cited as support for your rant as givin an indication of just what "convictions" you had in mind, I spect.

But don't go lettin them kinda small details dissuade you from tryin to beef up your fragile ego, eh, Kicky?

 

[billyshelby]

Heh, "considerin the audience," eh? The audience, if not an utter fool, would consider the (non-DP) story you cited as support for your rant as givin an indication of just what "convictions" you had in mind, I spect.

But don't go lettin them kinda small details dissuade you from tryin to beef up your fragile ego, eh, Kicky?

You gotta love aint. He focuses on any tiny little battle he can potentially win and lays claim to the war. If he was at Waterloo, he would have killed the Drummer Boy and put himself up for a medal.

 

[Hopper]

Hmmm, well, let's see here. On the one hand:

"Mr. Macumber’s former wife, now known as Carol Kempfert, said he was a dangerous sociopath who deserved to die in prison. She denied making up his confession and tampering with the evidence used to convict him.

It is her former husband, she said, who is a pathological liar. “I was in law enforcement for almost 20 years, and no one came close to being able to manipulate like Bill,” she said. “This man could sell water to a drowning person.”


In the course of a half-hour conversation, Ms. Kempfert accused Mr. Macumber of terrible and disturbing crimes beyond the killings in the desert. Asked if he deserved clemency, she said, “Absolutely not.”

“Actually,” she added, “I think he’s lucky. If he had been caught sooner, he would have gotten the death penalty.”

==

OK, that the cop's (ex-wife's) story, eh? What else?

"The jury did hear about two kinds of physical evidence — a partial palm print and bullet casings — that prosecutors said connected Mr. Macumber to the killings. " Hmm, physical evidence, eh? But, LOOKY HERE!:

“I can fully see how my mother could have set him up and framed him,” Mr. Kempfert said. “She had access to the evidence. She was doing fingerprint courses at the time.”

So the cop "coulda" framed him, eh? Was there ever a case where that wasn't a (at least theoretical) possibility? But this case is different, I spoze, cause the convict's own son thinks he coulda been framed.