Texas Executes Mexican

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it?

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You can't just start an appeal just because you don't like the verdict that was returned.

An appeal can be filed for any criminal conviction in the US. The defendant has that right.

Quote

You failed to catch my sarcasm about how if they are going to give automatic appeals, which I am saying is like emblazoning every verdict with "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on it, why not just go through the motions of the trial to find out what the jury thinks, and then go with the opposite of the jury finding because that must be the right decision!

I love how some people love to claim sarcasm or devil's advocate when they have been shown to be wrong.

Quote

I am familiar with the 5th Amendment, of course. And once again you failed to "get" my sarcasm. My point was that if each guilty verdict cannot be trusted and the condemned gets an automatic appeal--not just an appeal if there is an allegation of a legal impropriety, but an automatic appeal--that is a message that the guilty verdict cannot really be trusted. I am cynically saying, "Well, then, maybe we should look a second time at the acquittals--since we're saying the juries are just a bunch of dolts who often arrive at a conviction when a conviction is not called for. Maybe when they acquit, they are wrong, too."

Only you are suggesting that the jury is a bunch of dolts. Any conviction can be appealed, as previously stated. One of the principles upon which our justice system is built is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to incorrectly find an innocent man to be guilty in court.

Quote

I did not say that I would donate anything to the ACLU; I said I would bet a dollar. Plus, I stipulated in good faith. I don't feel that misunderstanding my sarcasm and thus misaddressing my post constitutes good faith.

You bet a dollar and lost the bet. I posted the manner in which I would like my dollar paid in order to keep the wager legal. Of course, if we fail to see a posted picture of the receipt of the donation to the ACLU posted, it will demonstrate a lack of personal integrity on your part by not keeping your word and paying your lost bet. If that's the message you want to send to everyone, so be it.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

You said: "executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong." A more concise way of making that statement is that the death penalty is used as a deterrent.

I said that only in response to the comparison that was drawn between hitting a child to show that hitting is wrong,

Nice back-pedal.

Quote

Because we keep seeing many murderers with sentences of "25 to life". What the fuck is that? Either give him life and KEEP HIM IN THERE UNTIL HIS CORPSE IS ROTTING or DON'T CALL IT "LIFE IN PRISON"!

It's not called life in prison, it's called 25 to life. That means they could serve as little as twenty-five years or as long as life. Life without possibility of parole is just that, life without possibility of parole.

Quote

And as for your point:
You argue that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent to murderers. OK, fine. I guess that's proved by the fact that people still do choose to murder.

No, the fact that people still commit murder is not the evidence one would use to demonstrate that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. People still die in car accidents while wearing seat belts. Is that an indication that seat belts don't save lives? Non-smokers die, too. Is that an indication that tobacco use is not really a health risk?

Quote

Well, in places where life in prison is the punishment for murder, they also have murders. I guess life in prison is no deterrent to murderers, so why should we have it?

If that's what you use as supporting data, your logic is flawed and your conclusion is incorrect.

Quote

I didn't make that point; I merely asked you for evidence supporting your assertion. Read my post.

Quote

Well, now that you see my query, why couldn't you just address it?

Your query isn't worth my time, especially since you base it upon faulty logic.

Quote

It's no strawman. I think that it's a logical analogy.

It's not a logical analogy. Perhaps you should look in the SIM to find out what the definition of a skydive is.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

All you have to do now is prove that those executed would, in fact, have killed again had they only received a life sentence. Without that, you've not provided evidence supporting your assertion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[DZJ 0]

When I started thinking about the death penalty some time ago, I eventually came up with a fairly simple logical progression as to why I don't think such a penalty is compatible with a decent justice system. It goes like this:

Humans are fallible.
The justice system is a human institution
Therefore errors will be made.
Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.
Using the death penalty therefore carries an acceptance of the risk of executing the innocent.
Knowingly risking the execution of the innocent is incompatible with justice.

To my mind, questions of deterrence, expense, punishment/revenge, etc all fade in comparison with the acceptance of jeopardising innocent life.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Jim,

I remember it very well. I also remember the worthless dog being lead by police officers to court as he made multipul attempts to kick Channel 13 camera out of the hands of the camera man.

I remember his laughing and smiles with no remorse for his actions in the torture, rape and murders of those two girls...I remember a father's love for his daughter in tears and unable to speak.

The only thing that I would have preferred would have been quick trails and the immediate exicution of those involved.

The Death Penilty is an necessary tool and should be used far more often. By the way it also reduces Prison over crowding.

I agree, innocent and guilty alike, it clears em all out.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Which has happened many times. When will the majority of folks tire of having that blood on their hands.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

Uh, in case you don't understand deterrent theory, there must be the element of choice for it to work. There are 2 main types of deterrence:

- Specific
- you get punished, you therefore don't want to be punished again so you don't behave that same way

- General
- you get punished, I watch it, I don't want to be punished so I don't behave that same way

It's so much nicer when we understand concepts before just flip the switch. Deterrence, most people will follow major laws w/o needing either form of deterrence, some can't be deterred no matter what, so deterrence is relegated to fodder for politicians to appeal to certain groups of people, it's not a viable theory. It can work on teenagers in formative years, but once we have our values established there is little to change that. But teh DP works great for revenge, just that vengance on innocent people sucks.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>(1) Let's be sure to mention that not every attempt to make an appeal is even granted the right to be heard. You can't just start an appeal just because you don't like the verdict that was returned. I hope you know that. An appeal is required to have a basis at law alleging that there was something improper about the trial!

Basis on procedure as well. You have a right to review on appeal with DP cases, lower cases can just be summarily dismissed and generally are.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(2) You failed to catch my sarcasm about how if they are going to give automatic appeals, which I am saying is like emblazoning every verdict with "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on it, why not just go through the motions of the trial to find out what the jury thinks, and then go with the opposite of the jury finding because that must be the right decision!


Right, just shoot em as they leave the courtroom. There are 2 main findings in trials: a finding of fact and a finding of law. There can be multiple errors in both, including the instructions from the judge to the jury, rendering a finding of fact flawed.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(3) I am familiar with the 5th Amendment, of course. And once again you failed to "get" my sarcasm. My point was that if each guilty verdict cannot be trusted and the condemned gets an automatic appeal--not just an appeal if there is an allegation of a legal impropriety, but an automatic appeal--that is a message that the guilty verdict cannot really be trusted. I am cynically saying, "Well, then, maybe we should look a second time at the acquittals--since we're saying the juries are just a bunch of dolts who often arrive at a conviction when a conviction is not called for. Maybe when they acquit, they are wrong, too."


And the ridiculous nature of that reply is that the jury might be perfect, the judge AFU.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

"We repeat: KILL THE BRAIN, AND YOU KILL THE GHOUL!"

Are you also unaware that deterrence theory requires the element of choice?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

That's defined as incapacitation, not deterrence. At the same time, executing an innocent person incapacitates them from not killing again too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it?

What you're trying to say is that of the question of general deterrence. Again, so much nicer when we have the luxury of understanding concepts. Let me ask this:

1) Do you like pussy?

2) Assuming yes, if rape were legal, would you commit rape?

3) Of course not, your value system doesn't allow for you to harm other people, not the law. People do what they want, the law punishes them, laws deter very few juvenile types at best.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

When I started thinking about the death penalty some time ago, I eventually came up with a fairly simple logical progression as to why I don't think such a penalty is compatible with a decent justice system. It goes like this:

Humans are fallible.
The justice system is a human institution
Therefore errors will be made.
Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.
Using the death penalty therefore carries an acceptance of the risk of executing the innocent.
Knowingly risking the execution of the innocent is incompatible with justice.

To my mind, questions of deterrence, expense, punishment/revenge, etc all fade in comparison with the acceptance of jeopardising innocent life.

Perfect! Which is why the Dp is relegated to simple revenge, not deterrence.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Which has happened many times. When will the majority of folks tire of having that blood on their hands.

When Mexico wins back Texas.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

You can't just start an appeal just because you don't like the verdict that was returned.

An appeal can be filed for any criminal conviction in the US. The defendant has that right.

I was under the impression that there has to be a LEGAL BASIS for an appeal filing to be accepted.

Otherwise, for every conviction there would be an appeal. For every appeal denied, there would be an appeal to the next highest court.

My suspicions were confirmed when I went--as you could have--to Wikipedia and looked at what it has to say about appeals, to wit (emphasis mine):

Quote

In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision.

The specific procedures for appealing, including even whether there is a right of appeal from a particular type of decision, can vary greatly from country to country. Even within a jurisdiction, the nature of an appeal can vary greatly depending on the type of case.

An appellate court is a court that hears cases on appeal from another court. Depending on the particular legal rules that apply to each circumstance, a party to a court case who is unhappy with the result might be able to challenge that result in an appellate court on specific grounds. These grounds typically could include errors of law, fact, or procedure (in the United States, due process).

In different jurisdictions, appellate courts are also called appeals courts, courts of appeals, superior courts, or supreme courts...

Ability to appeal
An appeal as of right is one that is guaranteed by statute or some underlying constitutional or legal principle. The appellate court cannot refuse to listen to the appeal. An appeal by leave or permission requires the appellant to move for leave to appeal; in such a situation either or both of the lower court and the appellate court may have the discretion to grant or refuse the appellant's demand to appeal the lower court's decision. A good example of this is the U.S. Supreme Court in which at least four justices must agree to hear the case if there is a constitutional issue.

In tort, equity, or other civil matters either party to a previous case may file an appeal. In criminal matters, however, the state or prosecution generally has no appeal as of right.

I guess you lose that one. Maybe we should have bet a dollar.

Is there something you can cite besides your say-so, if you're insisting on a positive claim as you are?

Quote

Quote

You failed to catch my sarcasm about how if they are going to give automatic appeals, which I am saying is like emblazoning every verdict with "NOT TO BE TRUSTED" on it, why not just go through the motions of the trial to find out what the jury thinks, and then go with the opposite of the jury finding because that must be the right decision!

I love how some people love to claim sarcasm or devil's advocate when they have been shown to be wrong.

So do I, but that's not what I was doing. Perhaps it's because it's harder to come across in print, but I did indeed intend those comments sarcastically.

Quote

Quote

I am familiar with the 5th Amendment, of course. And once again you failed to "get" my sarcasm. My point was that if each guilty verdict cannot be trusted and the condemned gets an automatic appeal--not just an appeal if there is an allegation of a legal impropriety, but an automatic appeal--that is a message that the guilty verdict cannot really be trusted. I am cynically saying, "Well, then, maybe we should look a second time at the acquittals--since we're saying the juries are just a bunch of dolts who often arrive at a conviction when a conviction is not called for. Maybe when they acquit, they are wrong, too."

Only you are suggesting that the jury is a bunch of dolts. Any conviction can be appealed, as previously stated. Prove it, please One of the principles upon which our justice system is built is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to incorrectly find an innocent man to be guilty in court.

That is certainly a debatable concept. It's not like you can claim that that was written into the Constitution; nor can you claim that 100% of the people of the U.S. agree with that principle. While I abhor the concept of an innocent man being imprisoned, I find it very difficult to accept the notion of a known guilty man going free to continue his crimes. Who volunteers to be his next victim?

Quote

Quote

I did not say that I would donate anything to the ACLU; I said I would bet a dollar. Plus, I stipulated in good faith. I don't feel that misunderstanding my sarcasm and thus misaddressing my post constitutes good faith.

You bet a dollar and lost the bet. I posted the manner in which I would like my dollar paid in order to keep the wager legal. Of course, if we fail to see a posted picture of the receipt of the donation to the ACLU posted, it will demonstrate a lack of personal integrity on your part by not keeping your word and paying your lost bet. If that's the message you want to send to everyone, so be it.

I will pay the bet, but I never agreed to pay anyone but you. If you want the dollar, PM me your PayPal address and I shall send it. If you wish to, you can then donate the dollar to the ACLU. If I don't receive a PM from you by about mid-week, I will assume that you have no interest in pursuing this petty matter and will consider you to have dropped it.

My integrity won't be impugned once you have to admit that I paid you the dollar (even though I dispute that you actually answered my post in good faith). The dollar really will be to shut you up, rather than to admit that I lost the bet, because that, too, is debatable. But I did not agree to be forwarding any donations to anyone. I bet YOU--not the ACLU.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

All you have to do now is prove that those executed would, in fact, have killed again had they only received a life sentence. Without that, you've not provided evidence supporting your assertion.

All I needed to do was demonstrate that an executed convict never murders again. IF he would have murdered again if he'd received life in prison, he won't be able to. I did not set out to guarantee to you that he would have.

You know, I see a tremendous irony in the fact that your signature talks about "understanding." You have been demonstrating an inability to. Like when you disputed the logical accuracy of what I said about skydiving and jumping off a building to commit suicide. You said I should look up the definition of skydiving. Ha ha.

My purpose in using that analogy was to show that two things can involve doing the same thing without being the same thing. Executing a murderer is not murder just like falling from a building to kill yourself is not skydiving.

The fact that you could not wrap your mind around that one is not my fault, or my problem.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

When I started thinking about the death penalty some time ago, I eventually came up with a fairly simple logical progression as to why I don't think such a penalty is compatible with a decent justice system. It goes like this:

Humans are fallible.
The justice system is a human institution
Therefore errors will be made.

LoGicAL FaLLaCy

You cannot conclude that errors will be made; only that they could be made.

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Again, LoGicAL FaLLaCy. All you can state definitively is that they could.

Quote

Using the death penalty therefore carries an acceptance of the risk of executing the innocent.
Knowingly risking the execution of the innocent is incompatible with justice.

The first part of this is fine; the second is not. There are lots of things that are done under color of the law's authority that have the potential to violate the rights or the lives of innocent people. But knowing that an imperfect man in an imperfect system is all we'll ever have to work with, we don't just shut down the system because we can't risk innocents. We arm cops, knowing that we may see cops mistakenly shoot and kill innocent people. Does that mean arming cops is "incompatible with justice"?

Your understanding of logic needs work. I appreciate your effort and your attempt, but it needs work. You don't have it all pegged just yet.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

As for others, can you disprove that some of them who might have thought about murdering people have been dissuaded from it?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In every case, it has prevented the convicted and executed murderer from killing again. One down, X to go.

That's defined as incapacitation, not deterrence. At the same time, executing an innocent person incapacitates them from not killing again too.

It's also referred to as a flip remark, and it's a common joke I've seen used on the internet to essentially dismiss with annoyed contempt the idea that we need the death penalty to deter murderers in order to justify it. (You won't hold "life in prison without parole" to the same standard, strangely...)

Are you gonna admit that you lack a sense of humor? You take things very literally, it seems. Kinda reminds me of Rain Man doing "Who's On First?"

Quote

Let me ask this:

1) Do you like pussy?

Fuck yeah!

Quote

2) Assuming yes, if rape were legal, would you commit rape?

Fuck no!
Kinda stupid of you to ask, I feel. Almost insulting. Or, it would be if I really truly cared what you think about what I think.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Lindsey 0]

The part of the equation that you're not allowing for is the emotional factors involved. The death penalty, imho, is more about emotion than logic.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Perfect! Which is why the Dp is relegated to simple revenge, not deterrence.

Does that matter?

Is the principle of deterrence the bedrock of criminal punishment? No. It never has been. And if it has been, it has been an astronomical failure from day one -- witness the fact that we have no shortage of daily crimes committed of the very type we try to "deter."

For that matter, then, we could say that, "Imprisoning people is relegated to simple revenge, not deterrence." After all, you seem to hold punishments to the standard of "does it deter? and if not, it's just revenge and we shouldn't do it."

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[birdlike 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Errors in a system which includes the death penalty will eventually lead to the execution of the innocent.

Which has happened many times. When will the majority of folks tire of having that blood on their hands.

When Mexico wins back Texas.

Ohhh, you want to make this about illegal immigration, huh? Next thread over, bub!

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[tbrown 26]

The fact that there was no Consular notification is a violation of a treaty that we (the US) signed and should honor. We as Americans would be extremely pissed off if any foreign government executed an American citizen at all, let alone without proper Consular notification.

Other than that, and aside from the fact that I'm opposed to the death penalty altogether, I don't think there's any doubt that medellin deserved to be executed. Plenty of prisoners on death row have committed crimes that deserve it. Sadly though, too many have NOT, as in they're completely innocent, and that's the main reason I oppose it altogether.

But in this guy's case, maybe a pinata and a mariachi band might have made up for things ?

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[Channman 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't hit a kid to show him that hitting is wrong, I agree.
But that is not the same as executing someone who has killed, and holding him up to those you wish to teach that murder is wrong.

How is it different?

Do you have any evidence suggesting the death penalty works as a deterrent?

It works every time its tried...well at least here in Texas. Why have you seen the walking dead?, if so I hear a bullet to the head works.

Oh yeah? Please, share the evidence that the death penalty has reduced the incidence of murder.

Once again, I'll try and make my point clear. Currently everyone that has been convicted of murder and received a sentence of death and that sentence carried out those individuals have to my knowledge never committed another crime much less murder.

So, "death penalty works as a deterrent?" yes it does, because when their dead they tend to remain dead.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I guess you lose that one. Maybe we should have bet a dollar.

Your source did not contradict what I said. I think you'll find by reading the source that it covered judicial appeals in general, not those specific to the US or to criminal convictions. In the US, everyone has the right to appeal a criminal conviction.

Quote

I will pay the bet, but I never agreed to pay anyone but you. If you want the dollar, PM me your PayPal address and I shall send it. If you wish to, you can then donate the dollar to the ACLU. If I don't receive a PM from you by about mid-week, I will assume that you have no interest in pursuing this petty matter and will consider you to have dropped it.

My integrity won't be impugned once you have to admit that I paid you the dollar (even though I dispute that you actually answered my post in good faith). The dollar really will be to shut you up, rather than to admit that I lost the bet, because that, too, is debatable. But I did not agree to be forwarding any donations to anyone. I bet YOU--not the ACLU.

Since you seem so intent on mereceiving the $1, within the next few days I'll PM an email address where you can send $1 plus PayPal fees (since you are so concerned about me receiving the payment, not anyone else, such as ACLU or PayPal).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[normiss 635]

as is murder most of the time.

if you need someone killed to deal with a violent death of a loved one, how different are you emotionally from some of the murderers?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The fact that you could not wrap your mind around that one is not my fault, or my problem.

I understand the point you were trying to make. I also understand why your logic was faulty. It's unfortunate that you do not.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!