PDA

View Full Version : Neil Gorsuch's first vote on Supreme Court is deciding vote to allow AR execution




RonPaulFanInGA
04-21-2017, 12:49 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/21/gorsuch_votes_to_let_arkansas_execute_ledell_lee.h tml


On Thursday night, Arkansas executed Ledell Lee—the state’s first execution in 12 years. Lee is one of eight men whom Arkansas originally planned to kill over 11 days before one drug in the three-drug lethal injection cocktail expires. Four of these men have received stays of execution, but Lee’s final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected by a 5–4 vote. Justice Neil Gorsuch cast the deciding vote allowing Lee to die. It was his first vote cast as a justice of the court.

afwjam
04-21-2017, 02:48 PM
I guess he's not Pro life?

ghengis86
04-21-2017, 03:13 PM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh. Maybe if the law was altered so that the victims next of kin was given the option to carry out the execution or grant clemency for life without parole...but even that's flawed.
Just lock them up for life and let God sort out what happens in the afterlife.

Did Gorsuch gain D.C. Street cred for condemning this guy to death like Trump got for bombing Syria?

Jamesiv1
04-21-2017, 03:34 PM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh. Maybe if the law was altered so that the victims next of kin was given the option to carry out the execution or grant clemency for life without parole...but even that's flawed.
Just lock them up for life and let God sort out what happens in the afterlife.

Did Gorsuch gain D.C. Street cred for condemning this guy to death like Trump got for bombing Syria?
If you don't like this country you can get the hell out.

Cleaner44
04-21-2017, 03:37 PM
So why isn't it the vote of Clarence Thomas that is the deciding vote?

angelatc
04-21-2017, 03:41 PM
We knew he was not a liberal.

ghengis86
04-21-2017, 03:42 PM
If you don't like this country you can get the hell out.

Lol, that was a joke, right? I can't tell anymore; all the surreality as of late has busted my sarc/satire meter.

tod evans
04-21-2017, 03:47 PM
So why isn't it the vote of Clarence Thomas that is the deciding vote?

Reported!

;)

RonPaulFanInGA
04-21-2017, 04:13 PM
So why isn't it the vote of Clarence Thomas that is the deciding vote?

I surmise because a month ago, with Thomas already on the Court, it would have been a 4-4 tie.


I guess he's not Pro life?

For unborn babies, yes; convicted murderers, not so much.

Or maybe Gorsuch is personally against the death penalty, but still believes it's constitutional and that Arkansas is within the law to execute this guy. That's possible too, you know. Surely not every judge lets their personal beliefs cloud their rulings.

ProBlue33
04-21-2017, 06:34 PM
Is it not the Constitutional/Libertarian stance to let the states decide these matters ?
At least that's what I have heard Ron Paul say. If that is the law on the books of a State, a supreme court judge would respect that.

dannno
04-21-2017, 06:45 PM
Is it not the Constitutional/Libertarian stance to let the states decide these matters ?
At least that's what I have heard Ron Paul say. If that is the law on the books of a State, a supreme court judge would respect that.

Many of the anti-Trump folks only use Ron Paul's words when it suits their interests.

CaptUSA
04-21-2017, 06:51 PM
Many of the anti-Trump folks only use Ron Paul's words when it suits their interests.

Whoa! That's rich coming from you!

dannno
04-21-2017, 08:34 PM
Whoa! That's rich coming from you!

Why?

I want the troops to just come home as much as you do, what we fight about is my preference for a smaller limited foreign policy over a neocon boondoggle.

jmdrake
04-21-2017, 08:41 PM
Is it not the Constitutional/Libertarian stance to let the states decide these matters ?
At least that's what I have heard Ron Paul say. If that is the law on the books of a State, a supreme court judge would respect that.


Many of the anti-Trump folks only use Ron Paul's words when it suits their interests.

Ron Paul is on record as being against the death penalty both at the federal level and the state level.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/june/14/death-penalty-the-ultimate-corrupt-big-government-program/

From a strictly libertarian point of view. transferring the right of the state to do something immoral from the federal level to the state level doesn't matter. Ron Paul is a states rights person. But on the issue of abortion he has voted, for example, in favor of federal restrictions on late term abortions.

nikcers
04-21-2017, 08:43 PM
Why?

I want the troops to just come home as much as you do, what we fight about is my preference for a smaller limited foreign policy over a neocon boondoggle.
You don't get Trumps deal. If you give Trump an inch he will take a mile. You are asking me to bend over because Trump says he is just going to use the Tip and the establishment wouldn of gone balls deep. You are pissing on me and telling me its rain.

UWDude
04-21-2017, 08:54 PM
Good.

I'm pro-death of zygotes and puppies (and even kittens without homes), and criminals.

Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

dannno
04-21-2017, 09:40 PM
Ron Paul is on record as being against the death penalty both at the federal level and the state level.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/june/14/death-penalty-the-ultimate-corrupt-big-government-program/

From a strictly libertarian point of view. transferring the right of the state to do something immoral from the federal level to the state level doesn't matter. Ron Paul is a states rights person. But on the issue of abortion he has voted, for example, in favor of federal restrictions on late term abortions.




I do not support the federal death penalty, but constitutionally I cannot, as a federal official, interfere with the individual states that impose it.
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Paul/Capital-Punishment.php


So Ron Paul would have voted like Gorsuch.

surf
04-21-2017, 11:03 PM
very disappointed. not necessarily that the Supremes should/shouldn't decide, more that these f#cks in Arkansas (or anywhere) are still killing folks.

Krugminator2
04-22-2017, 12:29 AM
very disappointed. not necessarily that the Supremes should/shouldn't decide, more that these f#cks in Arkansas (or anywhere) are still killing folks.

Some people are overwhelmingly guilty where there is no possible doubt as to their guilt. That actually might not apply to this case and I might have voted with the liberal judges. But in some cases like with Jeffrey Dahmer or the Unabomber or OJ Simpson where there is no doubt as to their guilt, I don't see a reason why they should be breathing. I think executing someone who takes the life of another person where there is a 0% chance of their innocence is a very fair punishment. You lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

Cutlerzzz
04-22-2017, 12:42 AM
I'm against the Death Penalty but this should legally be decided at the state level. I can't even imagine what I would do in this scenario, use my tie breaking vote to kill a man or violate the law to illegally expand the power of the federal government?

ThePaleoLibertarian
04-22-2017, 01:27 AM
The death penalty is a fine thing and should be heavily streamlined. Shouldn't take more than a year to execute someone.

jmdrake
04-22-2017, 06:28 AM
Why?

I want the troops to just come home as much as you do, what we fight about is my preference for a smaller limited foreign policy over a neocon boondoggle.

You know Ron Paul is against the wall right?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/january/30/a-better-solution-than-trump-s-border-wall/

dannno
04-22-2017, 01:29 PM
You know Ron Paul is against the wall right?

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/january/30/a-better-solution-than-trump-s-border-wall/


Ron Paul is for protecting our borders, but against the wall which helps protect the border. Neither is a big priority for me, but I can understand the importance of limiting immigration when you have a welfare state. That is one area I have shifted on in the last year or so.

I'm against the wall ultimately, but there are much bigger higher priority issues involved here that actually affect me. Like the Supreme Court Justice, we gotta Constitutional Conservative, that is a much bigger deal to me. If we started having 4-5 decisions on all the Constitutional issues that came through the Supreme Court, that would be a huge loss for liberty. Most people will never see the wall that is being built, and Mexico is going to pay for it so whatever.

jmdrake
04-22-2017, 02:06 PM
Ron Paul is for protecting our borders, but against the wall which helps protect the border. Neither is a big priority for me, but I can understand the importance of limiting immigration when you have a welfare state. That is one area I have shifted on in the last year or so.

I'm against the wall ultimately, but there are much bigger higher priority issues involved here that actually affect me. Like the Supreme Court Justice, we gotta Constitutional Conservative, that is a much bigger deal to me. If we started having 4-5 decisions on all the Constitutional issues that came through the Supreme Court, that would be a huge loss for liberty. Most people will never see the wall that is being built, and Mexico is going to pay for it so whatever.

The "Mexico is going to pay for it" argument is wishful thinking that you have been sold by the ultimate salesman Donald Trump. Further Ron Paul's concern about the wall isn't the cost. It's that it is an expansion of the immigration police state. Ron Paul also warned that the wall could be used to imprison Americans in the case of a coming economic collapse which he as been warning about for years. And in order to build the wall, the private property rights of landowners along the border are already being violated. Lastly, the H1B Visa crackdown shows that the anti immigration sentiment has really nothing to do with welfare. If it did then there wouldn't be concern about immigrants who, by definition, cannot be on welfare.

TheTexan
04-22-2017, 04:18 PM
If you don't like this country you can get the hell out.

+rep

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 01:53 AM
Some people are overwhelmingly guilty where there is no possible doubt as to their guilt. That actually might not apply to this case and I might have voted with the liberal judges. But in some cases like with Jeffrey Dahmer or the Unabomber or OJ Simpson where there is no doubt as to their guilt, I don't see a reason why they should be breathing. I think executing someone who takes the life of another person where there is a 0% chance of their innocence is a very fair punishment.

Questions of criminal guilt are insescapably emprical in nature, and are therefore always subject to the possibility of doubt.

"Overwhelmingness" (whatever that is supposed to mean) has got nothing to do with it. Among those who have been found "guilty," how do you propose to effectively distinguish between those who are "overwhelmingly" guilty and those are "merely" guilty? (Yet another trial process? A coin flip? Magical divination? What, then?) And having done so (by whatever means). what jurisprudential principles are then to be used to determine the punishments that are proper for those who have been found "overwhelmingly" guilty of some crime as distinct from the punishments (for exactly the same crime, mind you) that are proper for those who have been found "merely" guilty?

There are verdicts of "guilty" or "not guilty" - and those verdicts may be correct or incorrect. That is all.

And the fact that there may be correct "guilty" verdicts (Dahmer, etc.) does not rectify or abnegate incorrect "guilty" verdicts, of which there will always and inevitably be some number. Under any system of capital punishment, no matter how stringent it may be, there will always be errors. Thus, under any such system, there will always be innocents killed in the name of punishing those who kill innocents. It is difficult to conceive a more profound and indefensible hypocrisy than this.


You lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

No you don't.

Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.

Mikezelot
04-23-2017, 02:56 AM
I am also against the death penalty but agree with the judge its a state issue.

dannno
04-23-2017, 04:07 AM
Lastly, the H1B Visa crackdown shows that the anti immigration sentiment has really nothing to do with welfare. If it did then there wouldn't be concern about immigrants who, by definition, cannot be on welfare.

Addressed here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnFE-93GYmM

tod evans
04-23-2017, 07:09 AM
Addressed here:


Come on Dannno!

There's more than just me who won't listen to Molyneux drone on........How 'bout typing out the thoughts he inspired you to have?

ProBlue33
04-23-2017, 08:42 AM
The death penalty is on par with abortion, both end life, big difference is that 1 is 100% innocent. Ron Paul is against both, but he has said it's up to the citizens of the states they live in to change the laws of their states. But from everything I have heard from Ron he would like the supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade, freedom to choose until you choose to harm another is the Libertarian way, and if that needs to be federally mandated, then so be it.
Because you know states like California will never do it on their own. Libertarian federalists have to protect innocents in liberal bastions of stupidity.

People can be framed and slandered, even video can be altered these days, strong technology exists to frame people.
I used to be for the death penalty, now I am not so sure anymore. If somebody 100% admits their guilt to 1st degree murder in court then their death is on their own word and that is biblical, that would be only the case where I would support it at this point. I know this would be rare, but it's the only way you could be 100% sure.
Remember the movie "The Green Mile", it shows that ideology cutting both ways in that movie.

Anti Federalist
04-23-2017, 09:01 AM
Based on numerous reversals, new trials, new evidence, details of cop and prosecutor corruption and plain old stupid bureaucratic inefficiency that have come to light over the years, it is safe to say roughly 10-15 percent of all death row inmates are, either technically or factually innocent.

To capital punishment supporters: is this an acceptable level of collateral killing?

If not, why not?

ProBlue33
04-23-2017, 09:36 AM
To capital punishment supporters: is this an acceptable level of collateral killing?

No, but I understand people wanting the death penalty for a guy like Jeffery Dahmer.

CCTelander
04-23-2017, 10:00 AM
Whoa! That's rich coming from you!


I know, right?

Krugminator2
04-23-2017, 12:13 PM
No you don't.

Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.


Of course you do. You have basic human rights to be free from coercion but if you don't respect other's rights to be free from coercion, your right to be free from coercion is taken away. Here is Nathaniel Branden's take "If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. "

You could set the standard for the death penalty at a higher level than guilt. You could set it where there is no possible scenario where the person is innocent. If you have an admission of guilt, the murder on videotape, a minimum number of eye witnesses that would ensure zero innocent people are executed. That would settle the issue. I would expand it further to give judges some discretion subject to personal liability if they turned out to be wrong.

Krugminator2
04-23-2017, 12:19 PM
No you don't.

Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.

////

Madison320
04-23-2017, 12:40 PM
Some people are overwhelmingly guilty where there is no possible doubt as to their guilt. That actually might not apply to this case and I might have voted with the liberal judges. But in some cases like with Jeffrey Dahmer or the Unabomber or OJ Simpson where there is no doubt as to their guilt, I don't see a reason why they should be breathing. I think executing someone who takes the life of another person where there is a 0% chance of their innocence is a very fair punishment. You lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

I don't see how you can ever be 100% sure. Just lock them up for life in a small cell.

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 01:23 PM
No, but I understand people wanting the death penalty for a guy like Jeffery Dahmer.

I understand it, too. (I shed not a single tear when Dahmer got shanked.) But it doesn't signify.

Which is the greater moral outrage: to execute a wrongly-convicted innocent, or to fail to indulge the desires of people who want the death penalty for a guy like Jeffrey Dahmer?

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 02:15 PM
Of course you do. You have basic human rights to be free from coercion but if you don't respect other's rights to be free from coercion, your right to be free from coercion is taken away.

If it can be "taken away," then it is not a right - it is a (revocable) privilege. (Which is precisely what I meant when I said, "Anything you might lose when you violate the rights of others cannot ipso facto properly have been said to be a right to begin with.")

And the notion of a right "to be free from coercion" is nonsensical. The application of coercion/force is sometimes necessary in order to enforce rights. You cannot reasonably speak about rights at all without involving the possibility of coercion.

You have the right to be free from aggressive or initiatory coercion/force, but you do not have the "right" to be free from defensive or retaliatory coercion/force.

IOW: It makes no sense to speak of "taking away" someone's rights "because [reasons]." It is a contradiction to do so.


Here is Nathaniel Branden's take "If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just."

I submit that it is not possible. For just one of many problems: how is it to be determined, without any possibility of error, whether one is, in fact, "beyond any possibility of error?" (Snake, meet tail. Tail, meet snake ...)

And in any case, I am sure that most of the judges and jurors who have sent to death row all those innocents who were later exonerated would have honestly told you that they were "fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that [those men] were guilty."

Nevertheless, they were wrong ...


You could set the standard for the death penalty at a higher level than guilt. You could set it where there is no possible scenario where the person is innocent. If you have an admission of guilt, the murder on videotape, a minimum number of eye witnesses that would ensure zero innocent people are executed. That would settle the issue. I would expand it further to give judges some discretion subject to personal liability if they turned out to be wrong.

First you say that "you could set it where there is no possible scenario where the person is innocent" (which is impossible, as I have pointed out previously - but I'll play along anyway). And then you turn right around and say that you "would ... give judges discretion subject to ... liability if they turned out to be wrong."

:confused: So which is it? It can't be both.

Krugminator2
04-23-2017, 04:11 PM
If it can be "taken away," then it is not a right - it is a (revocable) privilege.

There is no agreed definition of rights. I use Ayn Rand's concept of rights and she agrees with me on this.


I

First you say that "you could set it where there is no possible scenario where the person is innocent" (which is impossible,


Of course it is possible. I just gave 3 scenarios where it is the case. Human's have senses. There is an objective reality. If 50 people see Colin Ferguson shoot up a subway and a video camera shows him shooting, Colin Ferguson is the killer.

I personally would expand the death penalty to use discretion where you go beyond just having confessions or eye witnesses. If you have a series of independent events that point to a person's guilt and the probability of each event being a false positive is very small, when you multiply those low probability events together, you get the odds that person couldn't be guilty approaching zero basically as an asymptote. That is close enough.

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 06:22 PM
There is no agreed definition of rights. I use Ayn Rand's concept of rights and she agrees with me on this.

Definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. Thus, if you like, you (and Ayn Rand) are free to use the word "elephant" to denote "a small furry animal that purrs and uses a litter box" - but this will not turn cats into elephants or elephants into cats.

If one is not unconditionally entitled to a thing (that is, if it can be "taken away because [reasons]"), then it is not a right; it is at best a revocable privilege (regardless of what particular labels you might prefer to use in place of any of those terms).


Of course it is possible. I just gave 3 scenarios where it is the case.

No, you did not give three scenarios where it is the case that "there is no possib[ility ...] the person is innocent." You gave three highly generalized examples of things that might provide some amount of evidence that a person may be guilty. The former and the latter are not even remotely the same things. There are far, far too many possibilities for (not to mention documented cases of) false confessions, doctored evidence (including video), and erroneous "eye" witness testimony to take seriously any claim that they are even commensurable, let alone the same.


Human's have senses. There is an objective reality. If 50 people see Colin Ferguson shoot up a subway and a video camera shows him shooting, Colin Ferguson is the killer.

I personally would expand the death penalty to use discretion where you go beyond just having confessions or eye witnesses. If you have a series of independent events that point to a person's guilt and the probability of each event being a false positive is very small, when you multiply those low probability events together, you get the odds that person couldn't be guilty approaching zero basically as an asymptote. That is close enough.

No, it is not "close enough" - as is clearly and amply demonstrated by the number of cases in which innocent people have erroneously been found guilty despite judges and jurors being sincerely and "objectively" certain that the "odds that person couldn't be guilty approach[ed] zero ..."

As I said earlier, verdicts are either "guilty" or "not guilty" - and any given verdict is either correct or incorrect. That's it. That is all there is to it. That some verdicts of "guilty" will be correct (to whatever arbitrary degree of "probability" you please to leave to the discretion of whomever) does not in the slightest obviate that other verdicts of "guilty" will be incorrect. Thus, any talk of "zero percent chances" and "no possibility of doubts" is completely irrelevant and superfluous bafflegab. The problem inheres in the incorrect verdicts, not in the putatively correct ones.

To the innocent man being strapped into the chair, what does it matter how certain anyone might be that Colin Ferguson really did do it (especially given that just the same sort of "certainty" is what put the innocent man there in the first place)?

It bears repeating: Killing innocent people (as any system of capital punishment must inevitably do) in the name of punishing the killers of innocent people is the most grotesque and vicious species of hypocrisy. There is no way around this. Asymptotes do not avail.

CPUd
04-23-2017, 06:53 PM
http://i.imgur.com/7s2rvUL.jpg

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 06:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/7s2rvUL.jpg

:D:D:D

AuH20
04-23-2017, 06:57 PM
The death penalty is far too expensive. On the open & shut cases (with indisputable foolproof evidence), there should not be appeals.

Krugminator2
04-23-2017, 07:12 PM
Definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative. Thus, if you like, you (and Ayn Rand) are free to use the word "elephant" to denote "a small furry animal that purrs and uses a litter box" - but this will not turn cats into elephants or elephants into cats.


.

The very first sentence on Wikipedia is about how difficult rights are to define. "There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#History

I use Ayn Rand's concept because it makes the most sense to me.


If one is not unconditionally entitled to a thing (that is, if it can be "taken away because [reasons]"), then it is not a right; it is at best a revocable privilege (regardless of what particular labels you might prefer to use in place of any of those terms).

That makes the concept of rights either very narrow or it implies you can't punish people for anything. And it isn't the common definition of rights. Nobody says property privileges. The common usage is property rights.

Occam's Banana
04-23-2017, 09:22 PM
The very first sentence on Wikipedia is about how difficult rights are to define. "There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights#History

I use Ayn Rand's concept because it makes the most sense to me.

I did not dispute that there are different definitions of rights. As I said, definitional fiat is every discussant's prerogative.

I disputed the underlying concept denoted by your particular usage of the term "rights" in relation to the statement you were making (namely, that the rights of those who abrogate the rights of others may themselves be abrogated). I know that Rand asserts that one's "rights" necessarily derive from the nature of man qua man. Thus, if, as you claim, she also tells us that one's "rights" are contingent upon one's not violating the "rights" of others, then she is being contradictorily equivocal. Those things cannot both be correct, regardless of what definition of "rights" one chooses. This was the point is was trying to make (albeit perhaps poorly).


That makes the concept of rights either very narrow [...]

If so, what's wrong with that?

Many of today's biggest and most intractable socio-political problems arise because the concept of "rights" is being much too widely construed.


[...] or it implies you can't punish people for anything.

It does not imply any such thing. As I said earlier (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?509962-Neil-Gorsuch-s-first-vote-on-Supreme-Court-is-deciding-vote-to-allow-AR-execution&p=6457615&viewfull=1#post6457615), "you do not have the 'right' to be free from defensive or retaliatory coercion/force."


And it isn't the common definition of rights.

It is closer to whatever is more commonly understood and accepted around RPFs than Rand's is - especially if she really does engage in the contracticion noted above.

Following Anthony de Jasay, I actually prefer a definition of "rights" as "positive claims against others." I think what we commonly refer to as "rights" - such as the "right" to free speech or to keep & bear arms or what-have-you - would be better referred to only as "liberties." Had such a usage prevailed, it might have been much harder if not impossible for things like the "liberty" of free speech or of keeping & bearing arms or what-have-you to have been rhetorically hijacked and perverted into a "liberty" to force other people provide you with an education or health care or what-have-you (which is what has happened with respect to so-called "negative" rights). But I recognize that such a usage is (unfortunately) idiosyncratic and would too frequently require ancillary disclaimers and explanations, so I just don't bother.


Nobody says property privileges. The common usage is property rights.

And that's precisely because property "rights" are understood to concern something to which one is entitled - namely, one's property.

If one is not entitled to it, then it is not one's property and one has no "rights" to it - and in that case, property "privilege" would indeed be the proper term for any revocable concessions one might have.

loveshiscountry
04-24-2017, 06:32 AM
Is it not the Constitutional/Libertarian stance to let the states decide these matters ?
At least that's what I have heard Ron Paul say. If that is the law on the books of a State, a supreme court judge would respect that. A state should not be able to violate the rights of the individual. The only reason to take a life is protecting anothers life or protecting property.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:39 AM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh. Maybe if the law was altered so that the victims next of kin was given the option to carry out the execution or grant clemency for life without parole...but even that's flawed.
Just lock them up for life and let God sort out what happens in the afterlife.

Did Gorsuch gain D.C. Street cred for condemning this guy to death like Trump got for bombing Syria?

people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole. see how their views will change when seeing that their position requires some person to perform the worst work imaginable just so they can sleep with a clean conscious.

Occam's Banana
04-24-2017, 07:19 AM
people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole. see how their views will change when seeing that their position requires some person to perform the worst work imaginable just so they can sleep with a clean conscious.

:rolleyes: Yeah, I can make ridiculous arguments like that, too - like so: "People in favor of the death penalty should be put on death row for crimes they did not commit. See how their views will change ..."

Your point is even more ridiculous given that "prisoners that have life sentences without parole" compose only a small fraction of the prison population as a whole. Even if you executed every single one of them, it would make no significant difference to your allegedly "worst work imaginable." which I call bullshit on anyway - if the special snowflakes can't hack their jobs, then they should go into other lines of work (perhaps that of meter maids) instead of whining about how not enough people are being executed in order to make their jobs easier.

And in any case, locking people up in rape cages has got to be one of the most counterproductive and goddam stupidest ways of dealing with criminals. All it does is make criminals out of the innocents who get sent up. and even harder criminals out of the criminals who do.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 04:24 PM
:rolleyes: Yeah, I can make ridiculous arguments

you sure can

so life without parole for crimes I didn't commit would make everything ok because the state didn't kill me,

nice logic there.

I want assholes like you to take on the job of guarding the guy that was told his good behavior has no positive impact on the reminder of his life.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 04:29 PM
people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole. see how their views will change when seeing that their position requires some person to perform the worst work imaginable just so they can sleep with a clean conscious.

Any person who has EVER "guarded prisoners" is an a affront to the liberty movement.

Employees of the "Just-Us" department rank right down at the bottom, barely above the DA'a and AUSA's...On the scum of the earth scale..

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 04:48 PM
Any person who has EVER "guarded prisoners" is an a affront to the liberty movement.

Employees of the "Just-Us" department rank right down at the bottom, barely above the DA'a and AUSA's...On the scum of the earth scale..

what is your profession?

AuH20
04-24-2017, 04:59 PM
people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole. see how their views will change when seeing that their position requires some person to perform the worst work imaginable just so they can sleep with a clean conscious.

With or without the governmental authorities, we would still be knee-deep in this scum. That's all but assured. Humans are a virus that we should all be wary of.

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:17 PM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh.


Correction, he was convicted of murdering another person. But studies have shown that at least 1 in 25 convictions is actually an innocent person convicted of a crime they did not commit. In a country with millions of criminal convictions a year and more than 2 million people behind bars, even 1 percent amounts to tens of thousands of tragic errors. In the specific case of Lee, the Innocence Project had this to say:


In a dissenting opinion denying Lee a stay issued today, Arkansas Supreme Court Judge Josephine Linker Hart made a powerful argument for why DNA testing was in the interest of justice. Justice Hart characterized Lee’s claim for DNA testing of hairs the state claimed linked Lee to the crime as a “modest request,” noting that the hair evidence had been used against him at trial and “tilted in the State’s favor a very weak case based entirely on circumstantial evidence.”

Judge Hart also emphasized the unfairness and arbitrariness of the Arkansas court’s grant of a stay to Stacey Johnson for DNA testing while denying one to Lee, adding, “I am at a loss to explain this Court’s dissimilar treatment of similarly situated litigants.” Judge Hart concluded by stating, “The court’s error in denying the motion for stay will not be capable of correction.”

https://www.innocenceproject.org/innocence-project-responds-execution-ledell-lee/

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:21 PM
people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole. see how their views will change when seeing that their position requires some person to perform the worst work imaginable just so they can sleep with a clean conscious.

Imagine that, people act like animals when they spend everyday of their lives locked in a cage, beaten, and treated like animals.

Get out of here with your police state bootlicker bullshit.

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:27 PM
Is it not the Constitutional/Libertarian stance to let the states decide these matters ?
At least that's what I have heard Ron Paul say. If that is the law on the books of a State, a supreme court judge would respect that.

Jawohl!

https://drkokogyi.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/following-orders.jpg


http://www.activistpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/B7Crw-4CAAAZmk5.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/fkhPIgx.jpg



https://i.ytimg.com/vi/r-3WMQ_eQ9k/hqdefault.jpg






http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-one-has-not-only-a-legal-but-a-moral-responsibility-to-obey-just-laws-conversely-one-martin-luther-king-50-10-42.jpg

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 05:29 PM
With or without the governmental authorities, we would still be knee-deep in this scum. That's all but assured. Humans are a virus that we should all be wary of.

that is a healthy acknowledgement, IMO. negative for many, but not unrealistic.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 05:30 PM
Imagine that, people act like animals when they spend everyday of their lives locked in a cage, beaten, and treated like animals.

Get out of here with your police state bootlicker bull$#@!.

oustide of drug war prisoners, almost every single person locked in a cage acted like an animal to get like that


Get out of here with your police state bootlicker bull$#@!.

fuck you you little intolerant bigot pussy

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:31 PM
Of course you do. You have basic human rights to be free from coercion but if you don't respect other's rights to be free from coercion, your right to be free from coercion is taken away. Here is Nathaniel Branden's take "If it were possible to by fully and irrevocably certain, beyond any possibility of error, that a man were guilty, then capital punishment for murder would be appropriate and just. "

You could set the standard for the death penalty at a higher level than guilt. You could set it where there is no possible scenario where the person is innocent. If you have an admission of guilt, the murder on videotape, a minimum number of eye witnesses that would ensure zero innocent people are executed. That would settle the issue. I would expand it further to give judges some discretion subject to personal liability if they turned out to be wrong.

Wrong. You still do not own that person's life. And you never can own another person. To plan out the taking of that life and then to carry through with the premeditated, detailed, killing of another person, that is murder. You don't have that right and power and, as the government can only have powers delegated to it by the people, neither does the government. Killing in the heat of the moment self-defense is one thing. "Capital punishment" is just Orwellian doublespeak for state sponsored murder.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 05:35 PM
Wrong. You still do not own that person's life. And you never can own another person. To plan out the taking of that life and then to carry through with the premeditated, detailed, killing of another person, that is murder. You don't have that right and power and, as the government can only have powers delegated to it by the people, neither does the government. Killing in the heat of the moment self-defense is one thing. "Capital punishment" is just Orwellian doublespeak for state sponsored murder.

hey retard, do I have the power to lock a person up for life?

your arguments are that of a child.

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:46 PM
oustide of drug war prisoners, almost every single person locked in a cage acted like an animal to get like that

Facts say otherwise, Jimbo.

First of all, you get rid of people involve din the drug war then you cut your prison population in half, right off the bat.

Of the half that is left, somewhere between 10-20,000 people a year are innocent and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. That means that, in fact, the minority of people in prison are people locked up "who deserve it."

Of those, you begin to look at why they are there and you realize that 10,000 number begins to look too small. Do yourself a favor, go read "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent" by James Duane. Or watch the video below. It is all about how the police lie, manipulate, and coerce legal but incorrect confessions out of people and then convict them of crimes they did not commit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8&t=635s

So, quite factually, you are wrong.


$#@! you you little intolerant bigot pussy


Imagine that, the guy/girl who has no facts and is apologizing for the police state is calling me a "pussy." You'r ethe one living on your knees and loving it. Also, calling someone "intolerant" and a "******" in the same sentence? That is some meta-level idiocy and contradiction right there.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 05:49 PM
Facts say otherwise, Jimbo.

First of all, you get rid of people involve din the drug war then you cut your prison population in half, right off the bat.

Of the half that is left, somewhere between 10-20,000 people a year are innocent and convicted of crimes they didn't commit. That means that, in fact, the minority of people in prison are people locked up "who deserve it."

Of those, you begin to look at why they are there and you realize that 10,000 number begins to look too small. Do yourself a favor, go read "You Have The Right To Remain Innocent" by James Duane. Or watch the video below. It is all about how the police lie, manipulate, and coerce legal but incorrect confessions out of people and then convict them of crimes they did not commit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8&t=635s

So, quite factually, you are wrong.




Imagine that, the guy/girl who has no facts and is apologizing for the police state is calling me a "pussy." You'r ethe one living on your knees and loving it. Also, calling someone "intolerant" and a "******" in the same sentence? That is some meta-level idiocy and contradiction right there.

videos for debate replies

wow.

strike two "Jimbo"

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:51 PM
hey retard, do I have the power to lock a person up for life?

your arguments are that of a child.

Oooh, the guy/girl calling other people intolerant is now calling people "retard;" did your snowflake sensibilities get triggered?


And please, if you can't actually add to the actual discussion, which is about whether the government should have the power to execute people or not based on the American idea that government only has delegated powers, keep your man-child acting out to supermarkets where your mommy can give you a lollipop to keep you form thrashing around on the floor.

But you did inadvertently destroy your own argument. If you can't lock up a person for life yourself, then you do not have the right to delegate that power to any other government agency or organization to act in your name. Therefore the entire prison and policing system, base don that assumption, is invalidated.

PierzStyx
04-24-2017, 05:55 PM
videos for debate replies

wow.

strike two "Jimbo"

Seriously, how dare I bring little things like facts and evidence into a discussion! And you can't even muster up an insult in return? Well, continue to glorify in your own stupidity. If you can't bother educating yourself and instead insist on remaining blind, you aren't worth wasting time on. Enjoy the ditch.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 05:58 PM
Oooh, the guy/girl calling other people intolerant is now calling people "retard;" did your snowflake sensibilities get triggered?


hey retard - I called you a bigot because you are so intolerant of my position you negative rep'd me telling me to go away. you are a bigot. and a pussy. and probably a retard. but you can stay, I'll tolerate it. I'm not the bigot you are


But you did inadvertently destroy your own argument. If you can't lock up a person for life yourself, then you do not have the right to delegate that power to any other government agency or organization to act in your name.

you are the one only singling out the death penalty. I'm pointing out that you don't have the right to lock a person up.

based on such logic - neither the death penalty, nor prisons can be allowed based on such understanding of a transfer of power from individuals to groups.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:00 PM
Seriously, how dare I bring little things like facts and evidence into a discussion! And you can't even muster up an insult in return? Well, continue to glorify in your own stupidity. If you can't bother educating yourself and instead insist on remaining blind, you aren't worth wasting time on. Enjoy the ditch.

locking up a few innocent pedophiles doesn't stop me from insisting they be killed. some people are damaged beyond repair and I sanction their death.

you still want me to go away bigot?

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:15 PM
what is your profession?

Joiner, what's yours?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:20 PM
Joiner, what's yours?

computer programmer

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:22 PM
computer programmer

For a prison or government entity?

Or do you keypunch for a profitable endeavor?

I own my own business and have for decades.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:23 PM
For a prison or government entity?

Or do you keypunch for a profitable endeavor?

I own my own business and have for decades.

I help small and medium sized business's - most that don't have an I/T department but some have a very aging one and can't do web/mobile things.

CPUd
04-24-2017, 06:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO5HCzw2fVA

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:27 PM
I help small and medium sized business's - most that don't have an I/T department but some have a very aging one and can't do web/mobile things.

So how, pray tell, did you come by the opinion that;


people against the death penalty should spend a few months guarding prisoners that have life sentences without parole.


If you're the same guy I'm thinking of we've butted heads before........

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:38 PM
So how, pray tell, did you come by the opinion that;

If you're the same guy I'm thinking of we've butted heads before........

this is an argument on if we should just lock people up for life, or kill them.

Why do you care what a conservative - who must obviously be statist - thinks on the subject?

Before wasting my time explaining the nuances of statism to an anarchist, I need to know why you care for me to elaborate.

ProBlue33
04-24-2017, 06:38 PM
A state should not be able to violate the rights of the individual. The only reason to take a life is protecting anothers life or protecting property.

So your saying a home owner that has a gun should go for the kill shot when a poor thief enters his home with a 3 inch knife ?
That is more justified than putting Jeffery Dahmer down ?
Or should everybody pay taxes to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life ?

These are ideological questions worthy of discussions.

As for the State ideology we can't say well leave it to the states on this but not on that, I actually agree that federally if you commit a 1st degree murder such as a paid assassin, the penalty should be the same through the entire country whatever that is life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Gun control seems to be a good one to leave to the States, but not abortion or the death penalty, those are my thought anyways.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:43 PM
this is an argument on if we should just lock people up for life, or kill them.

Why do you care what a conservative - who must obviously be statist - thinks on the subject?

Before wasting my time explaining the nuances of statism to an anarchist, I need to know why you care for me to elaborate.

Now you're bold enough to hang the 'anarchist' label on me.....

You're not able to 'splain the nuances of anything yet why should I think you'd make an exception in my case?

As far as me asking you to elaborate on your foundation to make such an assertion as I quoted, I remember some dude a year or two back who came on this board spouting all kinds of pro-government BS who left with his tail firmly between his legs and I have the feeling you are he..............Are you?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:43 PM
So your saying a home owner that has a gun should go for the kill shot when a poor thief enters his home with a 3 inch knife ?
That is more justified than putting Jeffery Dahmer down ?
Or should everybody pay taxes to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life ?

These are ideological questions worthy of discussions.

As for the State ideology we can't say well leave it to the states on this but not on that, I actually agree that federally if you commit a 1st degree murder such as a paid assassin, the penalty should be the same through the entire country whatever that is life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Gun control seems to be a good one to leave to the States, but not abortion or the death penalty, those are my thought anyways.

even worse, what if I come home to find my neighbor raping my kid, and when I try to shoot him, the gun misfires and he runs to his house

now what? we have to get a better gun and wait for it to happen a again?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:45 PM
Now you're bold enough to hang the 'anarchist' label on me.....

I feel like I know you...maybe I'm wrong.

Am I wrong?


As far as me asking you to elaborate on your foundation to make such an assertion as I quoted, I remember some dude a year or two back who came on this board spouting all kinds of pro-government BS who left with his tail firmly between his legs and I have the feeling you are he..............Are you?

I have never backed down from you on here. I recall calling you insane a time or two though

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:47 PM
even worse, what if I come home to find my neighbor raping my kid, and when I try to shoot him, the gun misfires and he runs to his house

now what? we have to get a better gun and wait for it to happen a again?

If you're half of a parent the rapist would never run anywhere, gun or no gun....

Hell my ol' lady would rip your pecker out by its roots and feed it to you if you tried raping a child................All without a gun.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:50 PM
If you're half of a parent the rapist would never run anywhere, gun or no gun....

Hell my ol' lady would rip your pecker out by its roots and feed it to you if you tried raping a child................All without a gun.

as I have said many times.

insane. my hypothetical had no "lady at home" BTW

this forum was once a place for grassroots activism. We simply have no real reason to associate in that regard - which makes this forum wholly unique as I continue to read your weird creed shaking my head - as I'm sure you do to mine.

I don't get your stand with Rand through. You don't have any illusion he stands with your insane ideas do you?

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:52 PM
I feel like I know you...maybe I'm wrong.

Am I wrong?



I have never backed down from you on here. I recall calling you insane a time or two though

So you are the joker who worked in a "prison" which was most likely a county jail in Bumfuck?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:53 PM
So you are the joker who worked in a "prison" which was most likely a county jail in Bum$#@!?

cookoo cookoo

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:54 PM
as I have said many times.

insane. my hypothetical had no "lady at home" BTW

this forum was once a place for grassroots activism. We simply have no real reason to associate in that regard - which makes this forum wholly unique as I continue to read your weird creed shaking my head - as I'm sure you do to mine.

I don't get your stand with Rand through. You don't have any illusion he stands with your insane ideas do you?

Oh goody, you've jumped to your "insane" mantra post-haste...

Try really hard to type out cogent ideas Ace...........

Surely you're capable with your keypunch abilities?

tod evans
04-24-2017, 06:56 PM
cookoo cookoo

Your astounding intellect is shining through...:rolleyes:

I'm betting the county jail fired your dumb ass..............And that's really saying something.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:57 PM
Oh goody, you've jumped to your "insane" mantra post-haste...

Try really hard to type out cogent ideas Ace...........

Surely you're capable with your keypunch abilities?

Do you think states have the power to implement a death penalty?

Rand does. I do.

Why do you stand with Rand, and disparage people for having the same views he has?

maybe because you are a poser? or insane?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 06:58 PM
Your astounding intellect is shining through...:rolleyes:

I'm betting the county jail fired your dumb ass..............And that's really saying something.

never worked for a prison, or LEO in any way shape or form nut job.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:07 PM
Do you think states have the power to implement a death penalty?

Of course they do.


Rand does. I do.

Why the appeal to authority? Do you wish to emulate Rand Paul or are you hoping to make an impression?


Why do you stand with Rand, and disparage people for having the same views he has?

Where pray-tell have I disparaged anyone for expressing their views? This thread only has 80 some posts so given your superior 'puter skills you should be able to point those instances right out...


maybe because you are a poser? or insane?

Only a pencil-necked geek would use the word 'poser' that or a child............Which are you?

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:07 PM
never worked for a prison, or LEO in any way shape or form nut job.

So you suck kop dick for free?

Occam's Banana
04-24-2017, 07:10 PM
so life without parole for crimes I didn't commit would make everything ok because the state didn't kill me,

nice logic there.

Learn to read.

I didn't say it would "make everything ok" - I said it would prevent the hypocritical killing of innocents.

If you discover someone did not commit a crime, you can let him out prison. You can't let him out of the grave.


I want assholes like you to take on the job of guarding the guy that was told his good behavior has no positive impact on the reminder of his life.

LOL. What makes you think assholes like me wouldn't just let them escape? (You're really not too bright, are you? Spiteful, definitely. But not too bright ...)



:rolleyes: Yeah, I can make ridiculous arguments

you sure can

*yawn*

lame troll is lame

*plonk*

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:14 PM
Why the appeal to authority?

I asked if you were aware of Rand's positions as they seem to be in contrast with yours. so your appeal to authority is denied. it requires logic to use logical fallacies, so don't feel too bad.


Where pray-tell have I disparaged anyone for expressing their views?

it's funny. I'd take the time showing you, but you are such a fucking moron, this happens right after


Only a pencil-necked geek would use the word 'poser' that or a child............Which are you?

disparaging, no?

dumbass.

bwahahahahahahahahahaha

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:17 PM
So you suck kop dick for free?

you are a sicko.

Most police officers are good cops and good people.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:19 PM
dumbass.

bwahahahahahahahahahaha




*yawn*

lame troll is lame

*plonk*

I'm pretty sure this-n's second string....

The proverbial 'double-digiter'.....

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:20 PM
Most police officers are good cops and good people.

Swallow bitch!

And say "Thank You" before looking up.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:20 PM
If you discover someone did not commit a crime, you can let him out prison. You can't let him out of the grave.

this is an appeal to emotion. a killer in prison can kill again, no?

so both sets of circumstances can have the impact of more lives lost - but I'm not taking that appeal to emotion angle here.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:21 PM
Swallow bitch!

And say "Thank You" before looking up.
that was a direct quote from Rand Paul.

you are a poser - you stand for insanity.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:24 PM
that was a direct quote from Rand Paul.

you are a poser - you stand for insanity.

Golly be Jesus!

You've done gone and out smarted me.......

Copsucker!

Have you had your front teeth knocked out or did you have them pulled on your dime?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:26 PM
Golly be Jesus!

You've done gone and out smarted me.......

Copsucker!

Have you had your front teeth knocked out or did you have them pulled on your dime?

cookoo

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:28 PM
cookoo

There's that superior intellect and convincing prose that wins arguments.....

What do callouses on your knees feel like?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:31 PM
There's that superior intellect and convincing prose that wins arguments.....

What do callouses on your knees feel like?

Most police officers are good cops and good people.

the need to disparage me with homophobic nonsense for repeating that quote speaks volumes about the type of man you really are

tod evans
04-24-2017, 07:42 PM
the need to disparage me with homophobic nonsense for repeating that quote speaks volumes about the type of man you really are

No you imbecile you started with the insults and I'm more than happy to sling 'em right back at your poorly equipped ass...

It must be difficult trying to actually state a position on much of anything when you keep finding yourself having to rely on insults...




As for this thread and the topic of "The death penalty" .....

I'm all for killing those who need killing but I'm dead set against agents of the state being involved in either the trial or the execution.

They have an abysmal record at both.

Such matters would be better handled by local militias or even neighborhood groups who had a vested interest.

This is another area where federal tax dollars are best not spent, they come with too many strings.

Dr.No.
04-24-2017, 07:45 PM
The legal argument against the death penalty, even at the state level, is that it violates the eighth amendment, and by incorporation via the 14th amendment, the states are not allowed to carry out cruel and unusual punishment.

nikcers
04-24-2017, 07:48 PM
Most police officers are good cops and good people.

the need to disparage me with homophobic nonsense for repeating that quote speaks volumes about the type of man you really are Good cops get punished and filtered out of the system. I am not saying all of them are bad, but there is this whole system where they don't report anything against eachother out of fear of retribution. There aren't enough cops out there willing to write another cop a ticket. There is not a rule of law just a fancy way of creating revenue for the state and locking undesirables up. People are fucking scared to death of anyone of authority because they can murder your dog because it licked them.

The Northbreather
04-24-2017, 07:51 PM
Ron Paul is on record as being against the death penalty both at the federal level and the state level.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/june/14/death-penalty-the-ultimate-corrupt-big-government-program/

From a strictly libertarian point of view. transferring the right of the state to do something immoral from the federal level to the state level doesn't matter. Ron Paul is a states rights person. But on the issue of abortion he has voted, for example, in favor of federal restrictions on late term abortions.

Edit

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 07:54 PM
No you imbecile you started with the insults and I'm more than happy to sling 'em right back at your poorly equipped ass...

you suffer reading comprehension issues.

I'm not saying you started it. I clearly called you insane. I even owned up to doing so in other threads. I stand by that, you are nuts.

so by saying no, you are proving to again be a retard that can't debate because you can't read well

Occam's Banana
04-24-2017, 07:59 PM
this is an appeal to emotion. a killer in prison can kill again, no?

so both sets of circumstances can have the impact of more lives lost - but I'm not taking that appeal to emotion angle here.

It has nothing to do with emotion. And it has nothing to do with "the impact of more lives lost" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

It is an appeal against hypocrisy.

Killers can be punished without killing them. Capital punishment will inevitably result in the killing of innocents.

Killing innocents in the name of punishing the killers of innocents is the epitome of hypocritical self-contradiction

If anything, yours is the emotional position. You clearly don't give a damn about the wrongly-convicted innocent. I doubt you even give a damn about the rightly-convicted guilty. As I suspect is the case for many "law and order" masturbators, support for capital punishment seems to be little more than a legal way of vicariously getting off on killing other people.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 08:06 PM
Killers can be punished without killing them. Capital punishment will inevitably result in the killing of innocents.

again, a useless appeal to emotion. life in prison without parole will also result in the killing of innocents. I'm not sure which results in less deaths. countless studies on both sides can be cited arguing about the impact the death penalty has on deterring crime for instance..



If anything, yours is the emotional position. You clearly don't give a damn about the wrongly-convicted innocent. I doubt you even give a damn about the rightly-convicted guilty. As I suspect is the case for many "law and order" masturbators, support for capital punishment seems to be little more than a legal way of vicariously getting off on killing other people.

pro tip - You would do well to show less emotion when claiming I am the one to appeal to emotion

I primarily believe in consent of the governed. I also believe in the concept of originalism when honoring legal contracts.

So, I argue strongly in the favor of states having the power to do this. I find it very upsetting the way progressives use the power of the judicial system to unwind original understanding of what was agreed to. SCOTUS did well today.

tod evans
04-24-2017, 08:06 PM
you suffer reading comprehension issues.

I'm not saying you started it. I clearly called you insane. I even owned up to doing so in other threads. I stand by that, you are nuts.

so by saying no, you are proving to again be a retard that can't debate because you can't read well

More poorly worded attempts at insult...By one who claims qualified to denote insanity by mere proclamation.....

Ho-hum...

Appearing to a person of your intellect as "insane" or "nuts" surely means I'm on the right track....

After all one needs only look around to see where people of your ilk have gotten society. "Please sir, may I have more of the same only harder"?:rolleyes:

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 08:08 PM
More poorly worded attempts at insult...By one who claims qualified to denote insanity by mere proclamation.....

Ho-hum...

Appearing to a person of your intellect as "insane" or "nuts" surely means I'm on the right track....

After all one needs only look around to see where people of your ilk have gotten society. "Please sir, may I have more of the same only harder"?:rolleyes:
"my ilk".

lol.

hate to tell you, but if using the word poser implies bad things, the use of the word ilk is way, way worse.

thank you for that one. a good belly laugh there.

nikcers
04-24-2017, 08:16 PM
https://68.media.tumblr.com/ccaa178c61af535ebb939d3b4021ed3b/tumblr_oghr2wL8We1vk0b6ko1_400.gif

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 08:24 PM
https://68.media.tumblr.com/ccaa178c61af535ebb939d3b4021ed3b/tumblr_oghr2wL8We1vk0b6ko1_400.gif

not sure how your gif applies here at all?

nikcers
04-24-2017, 08:26 PM
not sure how your gif applies here at all?
I didn't think you knew what liberty was.

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 08:31 PM
I didn't think you knew what liberty was.

this thread is about powers delegated to government, and subsequently the obfuscation of those powers by the incorporation of the bill of rights.

your gif makes no sense. in the fine words of Spinal Tap - "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever"

nikcers
04-24-2017, 08:37 PM
this thread is about powers delegated to government, and subsequently the obfuscation of those powers by the incorporation of the bill of rights.
I know all about your "states rights". You probably think the state has the right to choke people to death because they broke the law. Where does it end though, when does the state start choking people to death for not paying taxes, when does that become okay?

ARealConservative
04-24-2017, 08:45 PM
I know all about your "states rights". You probably think the state has the right to choke people to death because they broke the law. Where does it end though, when does the state start choking people to death for not paying taxes, when does that become okay?

okay is relative. we don't live in the perfect utopia . bad shit happens.

if enough people say it is ok to choke you out for not paying taxes, you are fucked if you don't pay taxes. sorry. that axiom is just part of the deal.

fortunately, I believe people are generally good. the problem is usually that lone people are acting in a manner that most people don't agree with, making your question a bit of a straw man.

nikcers
04-24-2017, 08:47 PM
I'm not sure which results in less deaths.

I am the one to appeal to emotion

I find it very upsetting the way progressives use the
"We can't have an informed discussion, because we don't have data," FBI Director James Comey said in the House of Representatives in October.
"People have data about who went to a movie last weekend, or how many books were sold, or how many cases of the flu walked into an emergency room. And I cannot tell you how many people were shot by police in the United States last month, last year, or anything about the demographics. And that's a very bad place to be."

nikcers
04-24-2017, 08:55 PM
okay is relative. we don't live in the perfect utopia . bad $#@! happens.

if enough people say it is ok to choke you out for not paying taxes, you are $#@!ed if you don't pay taxes. sorry. that axiom is just part of the deal.

fortunately, I believe people are generally good. the problem is usually that lone people are acting in a manner that most people don't agree with, making your question a bit of a straw man. I would totally agree with you if we had consent in the manner, but I don't care who you or I vote for, they will still change the rules, or run someone with unlimited free tv to drown out our vote. There is no consent to this rape.

nikcers
04-24-2017, 11:02 PM
if enough people say it is ok to choke you out for not paying taxes


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISQpTALpdeA

loveshiscountry
04-25-2017, 03:32 AM
So your saying a home owner that has a gun should go for the kill shot when a poor thief enters his home with a 3 inch knife ?If the home owner wants to.


That is more justified than putting Jeffery Dahmer down ?Once in jail, the threat to society is gone

Or should everybody pay taxes to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life ?A good use for taxes


These are ideological questions worthy of discussions. Isn't the ideology built around not killing unless under eminent threat?


As for the State ideology we can't say well leave it to the states on this but not on that, I actually agree that federally if you commit a 1st degree murder such as a paid assassin, the penalty should be the same through the entire country whatever that is life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Gun control seems to be a good one to leave to the States, but not abortion or the death penalty, those are my thought anyways.The Feds cannot abuse the rights of the individual either. The Feds didn't grant life, that life isn't theirs, they should not be able to take it.

ARealConservative
04-25-2017, 06:58 AM
I would totally agree with you if we had consent in the manner, but I don't care who you or I vote for, they will still change the rules, or run someone with unlimited free tv to drown out our vote. There is no consent to this rape.

this 5-4 decision means the winners were those that were honoring the original understanding of our rules.

the first step to taking anything back is to adhere to the rules - fighting for originalism is the first step. This SCOTUS nomination might be the only good thing that comes from Trump, so this thread should be a celebration, but the useless anarchists in our midst prevent that from every happening.

tod evans
04-25-2017, 08:30 AM
this 5-4 decision means the winners were those that were honoring the original understanding of our rules.

Which "rules" and whose original understanding?

Today's kourts in no way represent the justice system this country was founded on...

I'll grant that Gorsuch was correct in standing by Arkansas in their decision but it was Arkansas who prostituted justice albeit not in the specific issue set before the SC to hear.


the first step to taking anything back is to adhere to the rules - fighting for originalism is the first step. This SCOTUS nomination might be the only good thing that comes from Trump, so this thread should be a celebration, but the useless anarchists in our midst prevent that from every happening.

Blaming anarchists or anybody else for your failure to couch logical and succinct arguments without resorting to insult is asinine.

"Originalism" is a sound theory if one uses it to refer to the constitution and bill or rights as they were written and not some 19th century interpretation...

Laymen, not lawyers, must be called upon to make such distinctions, we as a nation are dealing with centuries of lawyer interpretation and they've brought nothing but strife and disagreement.........The 'original' documents were drafted and approved by a mix of laymen and lawyers (https://www.usconstitution.net/declarsigndata.html) so the only way to counteract centuries of lawyer interpretation is to have laymen interpret for an equal number of years...

I haven't seen or heard any opinion expressed by Gorsuch that would lead me to believe he's going to even try to adhere to the constitution or bill of rights as they were written....The simple issue of whether or not states have the authority to execute a citizen sentenced to death is not exactly a pivotal issue...

Given Gorsuch's pedigree it's very unlikely that he'll ever be able to interpret the writings as they were meant;


Mr. Trump’s selection of Judge Gorsuch was nonetheless a bit of a surprise, coming from someone who had campaigned as a Washington outsider. Judge Gorsuch has deep roots in the city and the establishment Mr. Trump often criticized.

His mother was a high-level official in the Reagan administration. He spent part of his childhood in Washington and practiced law here for a decade, at a prominent law firm and in the Justice Department. And, like all of the current justices, he is a product of the Ivy League, having attended college at Columbia and law school at Harvard.


Judge Gorsuch, 49 — who was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, by President George W. Bush — is an originalist (this statement flies in the face of logic!TE), meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it. This approach leads him to generally but not uniformly conservative results. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee.html)

It is easy however to see why you would call his appointment grounds to celebrate..............More of the same....

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 08:56 AM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh.

Exactly. I mean, we've gotta choose our cause celebres carefully. Look at Black Lives Matter: every hero they pick turns out to invariably be a horrible criminal gangbanger who, any normal person would look at and say, probably totally deserved to get shot! We don't want to be Black Lives Matter.

This guy was a criminal scum. I have only so much sympathy to go around. The general populace has even less. Let it go. Executing murderers is not a problem high on the to-do list of important things to solve so that our country isn't destroyed.

Suzanimal
04-25-2017, 09:04 AM
So your saying a home owner that has a gun should go for the kill shot when a poor thief enters his home with a 3 inch knife ?
That is more justified than putting Jeffery Dahmer down ?
Or should everybody pay taxes to keep him incarcerated for the rest of his natural life ?

These are ideological questions worthy of discussions.

As for the State ideology we can't say well leave it to the states on this but not on that, I actually agree that federally if you commit a 1st degree murder such as a paid assassin, the penalty should be the same through the entire country whatever that is life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Gun control seems to be a good one to leave to the States, but not abortion or the death penalty, those are my thought anyways.

Executions cost more than life in prison - a lot more and what about my tax dollars going to execute innocent people?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2011/09/22/death-and-taxes-the-real-cost-of-the-death-penalty/#1f55947d673e

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 09:16 AM
They have an abysmal record at both.

Such matters would be better handled by local militias or even neighborhood groups who had a vested interest.

Do they really have such an abysmal record? I'm not so sure. They might. I just don't know. How many innocent people have states in the USA executed over the past couple hundred years? And then how many innocent people have mobs killed in the same time-frame and geographical area? What's the percentages?

Philosophically, people are people. Right? Whether they've organized themselves in one way, or another. So your limited objection to certain executions seems to basically be procedural. You want people to use the best possible procedures in order to ensure those deserving death receive it, and the undeserving do not. Is that right?

Occam's Banana
04-25-2017, 09:35 AM
this 5-4 decision means the winners were those that were honoring the original understanding of our rules.

the first step to taking anything back is to adhere to the rules - fighting for originalism is the first step. This SCOTUS nomination might be the only good thing that comes from Trump, so this thread should be a celebration, but the useless anarchists in our midst prevent that from every happening.

As one of the "useless anarchists" (a description I gladly accept, as I have no desire to be "useful" to statists), I have no problem at all with this SCOTUS decision.

The fact that I am opposed to the death penalty does not mean that I support the Feds sticking their goddam noses where they don't belong.

Brian4Liberty
04-25-2017, 10:17 AM
Neil Gorsuch's first vote on Supreme Court is deciding vote to allow AR execution

Hmmm. Am I the only one who saw the headline and at first thought that they had allowed a method (i.e. AR-15 firing squad)? :toady:

tod evans
04-25-2017, 10:45 AM
Do they really have such an abysmal record? I'm not so sure. They might. I just don't know. How many innocent people have states in the USA executed over the past couple hundred years? And then how many innocent people have mobs killed in the same time-frame and geographical area? What's the percentages?

Philosophically, people are people. Right? Whether they've organized themselves in one way, or another. So your limited objection to certain executions seems to basically be procedural. You want people to use the best possible procedures in order to ensure those deserving death receive it, and the undeserving do not. Is that right?

I'm good with local mobs, if you will, agreeing to execute someone for whatever reason they choose, or not....

Where I have issues, procedural, is non-local people using their set(s) of rules and procedure to convict and imprison or execute criminals, equally an issue is funding said sentencing...

There are too many people and too many differing ideas of "justice" for a one size fits all court system.

What we suffer under now isn't working and trying to implement a universal system has been a continued failure both financially and socially for literally decades...

It's time to try something different.

ARealConservative
04-25-2017, 11:34 AM
Do they really have such an abysmal record? I'm not so sure. They might. I just don't know. How many innocent people have states in the USA executed over the past couple hundred years? And then how many innocent people have mobs killed in the same time-frame and geographical area? What's the percentages?

Philosophically, people are people. Right? Whether they've organized themselves in one way, or another. So your limited objection to certain executions seems to basically be procedural. You want people to use the best possible procedures in order to ensure those deserving death receive it, and the undeserving do not. Is that right?

my new favorite poster!

ARealConservative
04-25-2017, 11:45 AM
Which "rules" and whose original understanding?

really? connect the dots!


Today's kourts in no way represent the justice system this country was founded on...

oh - the k for a c. wow. how brilliant. I mean come on.


"Originalism" is a sound theory if one uses it to refer to the constitution and bill or rights as they were written and not some 19th century interpretation...

it is the only correct theory when dealing with contract law. And my 19th century interpretation, you mean original understanding? That is the best method, when possible. When not possible, you have to deal with more modern interpretations of text - but man, if you know how it was understood at time of agreement - that is the best method. Anything else leads to a living breathing document, which is bullshit

tod evans
04-25-2017, 12:14 PM
oh - the k for a c. wow. how brilliant. I mean come on.


I know it's difficult to follow along so here's a picture...


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/KangarooCourt_8592.jpg

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 01:19 PM
I'm good with local mobs, if you will, agreeing to execute someone for whatever reason they choose, or not.... Right, I know.


Where I have issues, procedural, is non-local people using their set(s) of rules and procedure to convict and imprison or execute criminals, equally an issue is funding said sentencing... Yeah, there's no reason the whole thing should be so expensive. One of the advantages of execution should be that society doesn't have to pay for the killer's upkeep for the rest of his life and thus avoids wasting resources.


There are too many people and too many differing ideas of "justice" for a one size fits all court system. Gotcha. Now I understand. It isn't just a "what if they wrongfully execute someone?" problem, it's a centralization vs. decentralization problem.

And I, like Occam and like you, am definitely going to come out on the side of decentralization. If nothing else, for the unrelated practical strategic benefits: decentralization in and of itself will make it easier to accomplish the broad liberty agenda, even if decentralization on a particular issue does nothing to further libertarian goals, or even contradicts them.

tod evans
04-25-2017, 01:31 PM
Right, I know.

Yeah, there's no reason the whole thing should be so expensive. One of the advantages of execution should be that society doesn't have to pay for the killer's upkeep for the rest of his life and thus avoids wasting resources.

Gotcha. Now I understand. It isn't just a "what if they wrongfully execute someone?" problem, it's a centralization vs. decentralization problem.

And I, like Occam and like you, am definitely going to come out on the side of decentralization. If nothing else, for the unrelated practical strategic benefits: decentralization in and of itself will make it easier to accomplish the broad liberty agenda, even if decentralization on a particular issue does nothing to further libertarian goals, or even contradicts them.

The "What if it's the wrong guy?" question should fall squarely on the neighborhood that convicts and kills the accused, not some idiot 4 states away with a fancy prep-school degree who can wax eloquently about the sanctity of life....

Courts in a republic such as I understand would have but a few guiding principals that are interpreted by that court not by the same batch of idiots 4 states away..

Lawyers have wrangled good documents into the millions of pages of "Law" that we're all expected to abide by......The simplest solution is to remove lawyers from courts......Permit them to advise out of the room but never permit them in a courtroom, not on the bench and never representing the collective.....

Take the financial incentive out of practicing law and you'll have justice in a matter of months...

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 01:55 PM
Lawyers have wrangled good documents into the millions of pages of "Law" that we're all expected to abide by......The simplest solution is to remove lawyers from courts......Permit them to advise out of the room but never permit them in a courtroom, not on the bench and never representing the collective.....

Take the financial incentive out of practicing law and you'll have justice in a matter of months...

I am very much in favor of this reform. I love it. No lawyers in the courtroom (unless a party to the dispute). No one can ever be a judge who has ever done any legal work for a fee.

On penalty of death. ;)

tod evans
04-25-2017, 01:58 PM
I am very much in favor of this reform. I love it. No lawyers in the courtroom (unless a party to the dispute). No one can ever be a judge who has ever done any legal work for a fee.

On penalty of death. ;)

Quickest way to converting a "Just-Us" department into a Justice department that I can think of....

Danke
04-25-2017, 02:11 PM
Some people are overwhelmingly guilty where there is no possible doubt as to their guilt. That actually might not apply to this case and I might have voted with the liberal judges. But in some cases like with Jeffrey Dahmer or the Unabomber or OJ Simpson where there is no doubt as to their guilt, I don't see a reason why they should be breathing. I think executing someone who takes the life of another person where there is a 0% chance of their innocence is a very fair punishment. You lose rights when you violate the rights of others.


OJ's son Jason Simpson did it.

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 03:15 PM
It is an appeal against hypocrisy. But what's so bad about hypocrisy?

Does it really matter if the system is "hypocritical" in some way? Do we care about that? If so, why?


Killers can be punished without killing them. Capital punishment will inevitably result in the killing of innocents.

Killing innocents in the name of punishing the killers of innocents is the epitome of hypocritical self-contradiction Well, again I don't know that we should necessarily care about hypocrisy (but I could be convinced!). I don't want to be hypocritical (I don't think. Depending what that means), but I don't necessarily care if other people are being hypocritical. Let's say that all that matters is results. Just hypothetically. What result would we be trying to optimize for here? I think a sensible thing to optimize for would be "fewest number of innocent people killed per decade." So, what kind of system would minimize the innocent-person-killings (IPK)?

I think an argument could be made that brutal, public executions of murderers would be that optimized system we're looking for (or would be looking for, were we trying to optimize for that variable, IPK, discussed above). I think it would work pretty well. If we were to test out various systems in a parallel experiment on similar populations over a hundred year period, I think chances are good that a brutal punishment system would come out on top or near the top.

Eliminating IPK is a goal that we're very far away from. So minimizing it seems like a worthy interim goal. If we could bring it down from 150,000 per decade to 75,000, that would be massive improvement! We cut in half! That is not morally perfect, but I think that would still be a worthwhile accomplishment. Let's say we got it down to 10,000. Wow! If 90% of those 10,000 innocents killed had been killed by the State in erroneous executions (or misguided: witches, drug dealers, etc.), that's too bad, but that still would be a massive improvement in IPK. Then maybe at that point it makes sense to hone in on the 9,000 IPKs done at the hands of the State and whittle that number down, whereas previously maybe it made more sense to focus on the much larger number of IPKs done by private criminals. If what we actually care about is minimizing IPK, then we should do whatever sequence of actions will bring down that number as rapidly and as permanently as possible.

helmuth_hubener
04-25-2017, 03:27 PM
Based on numerous reversals, new trials, new evidence, details of cop and prosecutor corruption and plain old stupid bureaucratic inefficiency that have come to light over the years, it is safe to say roughly 10-15 percent of all death row inmates are, either technically or factually innocent.

Why is that safe to say? What leads you to that figure?

It seems very high to me. My estimate would be more between 1% and 0.1%. But, I would be very willing to change my mind on this estimate based on reality and evidence. So if you have any.......

I'm all ears!

Occam's Banana
04-26-2017, 01:13 AM
But what's so bad about hypocrisy?

Does it really matter if the system is "hypocritical" in some way? Do we care about that? If so, why?

Well, again I don't know that we should necessarily care about hypocrisy (but I could be convinced!). I don't want to be hypocritical (I don't think. Depending what that means), but I don't necessarily care if other people are being hypocritical.

If you really don't understand that contradiction (which is inherent in all hypocrisy) is fatal to rational and reasonable thinking, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. (I'll just have to embrace Aristotle's advice not to waste one's time on those who wittingly indulge contradictions.)

OTOH, if you are just being willfully fatuous for the sake of amusement, then I don't feel like playing along. (I say "amusement" and not "argument" here because there are no "arguments" to be had over contradictions - one has only to identify and reject them.)


Let's say that all that matters is results. Just hypothetically. What result would we be trying to optimize for here? I think a sensible thing to optimize for would be "fewest number of innocent people killed per decade." So, what kind of system would minimize the innocent-person-killings (IPK)?

I think an argument could be made that brutal, public executions of murderers would be that optimized system we're looking for (or would be looking for, were we trying to optimize for that variable, IPK, discussed above). I think it would work pretty well. If we were to test out various systems in a parallel experiment on similar populations over a hundred year period, I think chances are good that a brutal punishment system would come out on top or near the top.

Eliminating IPK is a goal that we're very far away from. So minimizing it seems like a worthy interim goal. If we could bring it down from 150,000 per decade to 75,000, that would be massive improvement! We cut in half! That is not morally perfect, but I think that would still be a worthwhile accomplishment. Let's say we got it down to 10,000. Wow! If 90% of those 10,000 innocents killed had been killed by the State in erroneous executions (or misguided: witches, drug dealers, etc.), that's too bad, but that still would be a massive improvement in IPK. Then maybe at that point it makes sense to hone in on the 9,000 IPKs done at the hands of the State and whittle that number down, whereas previously maybe it made more sense to focus on the much larger number of IPKs done by private criminals. If what we actually care about is minimizing IPK, then we should do whatever sequence of actions will bring down that number as rapidly and as permanently as possible.

Eliminating "IPK" is impossibile. There will always be cases of murder, negligent homicide, fatal accidents, etc. These will never be eliminated so long as human beings continue to be human and mortal.

I also don't care about "minimizing" or "optimizing" on "IPK" - as I indicated in the very post (#103) to which you replied, where I said, "it has nothing to do with 'the impact of more lives lost' (whatever that is supposed to mean)."

I oppose the killing of innocent people. I oppse it when murderers do it. I oppose it when "capital punishers" do it. Capital punishment will inevitably involve the killing of innocent people wrongly convicted. Thus, to avoid that inevitability, we have only to abstain from captial punishment. Easy, peasy, lemon-squeezy. This works to the stated purpose, and it is perfectly feasible, having been and currently being the case in many jurisdictions. And best of all, it does not involve grandiosely quixotic endeavors such as trying to "minimize" or "optimize" the killing of innocent people by concocting a tortuous pretense at some kind of emprical "calculus" involving normative judgements and other things that are unquantifiable, unmeasurable and/or incommensurable (except in artifical "just so" hypotheticals) - all just in order to somehow downplay or justify the aforementioned hypocrisy.

helmuth_hubener
04-26-2017, 08:41 AM
If you really don't understand that contradiction (which is inherent in all hypocrisy) is fatal to rational and reasonable thinking, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. (I'll just have to embrace Aristotle's advice not to waste one's time on those who wittingly indulge contradictions.)

OTOH, if you are just being willfully fatuous for the sake of amusement, then I don't feel like playing along. (I say "amusement" and not "argument" here because there are no "arguments" to be had over contradictions - one has only to identify and reject them.) The "argument" at issue is: caring whether other people are contradicting themselves. I mean, why? Who made me the hypocrisy police?




Eliminating "IPK" is impossible. There will always be cases of murder, negligent homicide, fatal accidents, etc. These will never be eliminated so long as human beings continue to be human and mortal. I didn't disagree with that. I just took the weaker position, because I didn't want to argue about whether it was literally metaphysically impossible. Surely everyone would agree at least that it's a long way away.


I also don't care about "minimizing" or "optimizing" on "IPK" - as I indicated in the very post (#103) to which you replied, where I said, "it has nothing to do with 'the impact of more lives lost' (whatever that is supposed to mean)."

I oppose the killing of innocent people. Umm, in what sense do you oppose it if you don't want to reduce it? :confused:

phill4paul
04-26-2017, 08:48 AM
Why is that safe to say? What leads you to that figure?

It seems very high to me. My estimate would be more between 1% and 0.1%. But, I would be very willing to change my mind on this estimate based on reality and evidence. So if you have any.......

I'm all ears!

I will teach you how to fish so that you do not need to be given any. Let me show you how to bait your hook....

https://www.bing.com/search?q=percentage%20of%20federal%20inmates%20tha t%20are%20innocent&pc=cosp&ptag=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Looking for a specific fish?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/national-academy-of-sciences-reports-four-percent-of-death-row-inmates-are-innocent/


The researchers concluded that their 4.1 percent finding is a conservative estimate.

You are welcome.

nikcers
04-26-2017, 09:19 AM
I will teach you how to fish so that you do not need to be given any. Let me show you how to bait your hook....

https://www.bing.com/search?q=percentage%20of%20federal%20inmates%20tha t%20are%20innocent&pc=cosp&ptag=C1AE89FD93123&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127

Looking for a specific fish?

https://www.innocenceproject.org/national-academy-of-sciences-reports-four-percent-of-death-row-inmates-are-innocent/



You are welcome.
I wish it was just this easy to change someone's view on something like this. If just having access to information was enough for people to understand something then we wouldn't have the problem that we have today. People have access to google maps but still think the world is flat. When you show them evidence they try to conceive of ways that satellites can function in a "flat world"

https://i.redd.it/zmr9czezfvty.jpg

helmuth_hubener
04-26-2017, 10:21 AM
You are welcome.
Thank you, sincerely! So it looks like there has been one (1) study attempting to address this question. Regarding the study,


The research team deployed statistical devices to put a figure on the proportion of cases of hidden innocence. In particular, they deployed a technique known as “survival analysis”, to calculate the percentage of prisoners who have been taken off death row but who might still be innocent.

They also applied “sensitivity analysis”, to take into account possible cases of exonerations where the released prisoner is nonetheless guilty, and to ensure that the overall findings erred on the side of caution.

I am skeptical of advanced statistical "devices" and "analyses" which I do not understand, but nevertheless let's dive into the study.



Significance

The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.


Abstract

The rate of erroneous conviction of innocent criminal defendants is often described as not merely unknown but unknowable. There is no systematic method to determine the accuracy of a criminal conviction; if there were, these errors would not occur in the first place. As a result, very few false convictions are ever discovered, and those that are discovered are not representative of the group as a whole. In the United States, however, a high proportion of false convictions that do come to light and produce exonerations are concentrated among the tiny minority of cases in which defendants are sentenced to death. This makes it possible to use data on death row exonerations to estimate the overall rate of false conviction among death sentences. The high rate of exoneration among death-sentenced defendants appears to be driven by the threat of execution, but most death-sentenced defendants are removed from death row and resentenced to life imprisonment, after which the likelihood of exoneration drops sharply. We use survival analysis to model this effect, and estimate that if all death-sentenced defendants remained under sentence of death indefinitely, at least 4.1% would be exonerated. We conclude that this is a conservative estimate of the proportion of false conviction among death sentences in the United States.


OK, so that's pretty straight-forward actually. I understand what they did. 1.7% of death row inmates are exonerated by the current system. Just as a note, the current system uses the standard "beyond any reasonable doubt." So, of course, this is not the number of death row inmates actually innocent of the crime of which they are accused, but those for whom the evidence no longer clears that bar. The number of innocents is some much lower number. But still! 1.7% is a high number! On the other hand, that 1.7% is not the number of innocent people who get wrongfully executed, which was the number I was putting forward, as likely 0.1% - 1%. It is the number who are freed! So it's not a condemnation of the justice process, at least not for being too harsh. On the other hand one could say it's evidence that it's too lenient, that "beyond any reasonable doubt" is too high a standard and is causing a large number of the guilty to get off, to "get away with it." I would not say this, because I like the "beyond any reasonable doubt" standard.

Anyway, they extrapolated things and said "If all the non-death row people who used to be on death row but were downgraded also had lawyers from all across the nation doing an average of $5 million dollars of pro bono work for them, taking heroic measures, making extremely innovative arguments, appealing to the Supreme Court every single time, then an equal number of them would get exonerated, too." A pretty reasonable assumption. I think they're right. And if they are, that means that about 4% of death row inmates would be getting exonerated if nobody ever got downgraded off death row -- exoneration or death, that's it, no middle ground.

Actually, I take that back: they are not completely right, because they're forgetting that there's a limited supply of lawyer-hours in the US. It's so large it seems unlimited, I know, but technically there are limits. (You need higher math.) So if the number of death-row cases for left-wing lawyers to heroically take up and eternally appeal were to quadruple, each case would not actually be able to get the same level of love and attention devoted to it as presently. It just physically couldn't happen. So, the exoneration rate would accordingly go down.

RJ Liberty
04-26-2017, 10:28 AM
If you really don't understand that contradiction (which is inherent in all hypocrisy) is fatal to rational and reasonable thinking, then I honestly don't know what to tell you. (I'll just have to embrace Aristotle's advice not to waste one's time on those who wittingly indulge contradictions.)

OTOH, if you are just being willfully fatuous for the sake of amusement, then I don't feel like playing along. (I say "amusement" and not "argument" here because there are no "arguments" to be had over contradictions - one has only to identify and reject them.)



Eliminating "IPK" is impossibile. There will always be cases of murder, negligent homicide, fatal accidents, etc. These will never be eliminated so long as human beings continue to be human and mortal.

I also don't care about "minimizing" or "optimizing" on "IPK" - as I indicated in the very post (#103) to which you replied, where I said, "it has nothing to do with 'the impact of more lives lost' (whatever that is supposed to mean)."

I oppose the killing of innocent people. I oppse it when murderers do it. I oppose it when "capital punishers" do it. Capital punishment will inevitably involve the killing of innocent people wrongly convicted. Thus, to avoid that inevitability, we have only to abstain from captial punishment. Easy, peasy, lemon-squeezy. This works to the stated purpose, and it is perfectly feasible, having been and currently being the case in many jurisdictions. And best of all, it does not involve grandiosely quixotic endeavors such as trying to "minimize" or "optimize" the killing of innocent people by concocting a tortuous pretense at some kind of emprical "calculus" involving things that are unquantifiable, unmeasurable and/or incommensurable (except in artifical "just so" hypotheticals), just in order to try an end-run around the aforementioned hypocrisy.

Post of the day.

helmuth_hubener
04-26-2017, 10:31 AM
I wish it was just this easy to change someone's view on something like this.

There is one person in this thread interested in the percentage of innocent people who get executed.

That would be me.

I am perfectly willing to believe any percentage for this unknown, so long as it has good data. 80%? 1%? 0.01%? Just show me that data.

Are you? You're the one that has an opinion regarding this figure, not me. So what are you basing it on? Where's your data? And a very strong opinion it is! Anyone who disagrees with it is a flat-earther! Your data must be just over-the-top awesome! Incontrovertible! So bring it out!

Jamesiv1
04-26-2017, 10:32 AM
Both of you guys might want to do some research before you embarrass yourselves again.

Occam's Banana
04-27-2017, 04:43 AM
The "argument" at issue is: caring whether other people are contradicting themselves. I mean, why? Who made me the hypocrisy police?

As I said:

[T]here are no "arguments" to be had over contradictions - one has only to identify and reject them.
One of the chief purposes of rational discussion and debate is to identify fallacies and errors (such as hypocritical contradictions) so that they might be corrected.

If doing so makes one the "hypocrisy police" ... well, then ... guilty as charged, I guess?? (What's my punishement? Nothing capital, I hope ...)

But if it pleases you, for whatever reason, to allow your interlocutors to indulge in fallacies and errors without challenge, then by all means do so.



I oppose the killing of innocent people.
Umm, in what sense do you oppose it if you don't want to reduce it? :confused:

In just the sense indicated in the part of my reply you elided. Namely:

I oppose the killing of innocent people. I oppose it when murderers do it. I oppose it when "capital punishers" do it. Capital punishment will inevitably involve the killing of innocent people wrongly convicted. Thus, to avoid that inevitability, we have only to abstain from capital punishment.

I oppose the killing of innocent people - thus, when murderers kill innocent people, they should be punished.

I oppose the killing of innocent people - thus, in order to avoid the killing of innocent people wrongly convicted, we should abstain from capital punishment.

helmuth_hubener
04-27-2017, 09:22 AM
If doing so makes one the "hypocrisy police" ... well, then ... guilty as charged, I guess?? (What's my punishment? Nothing capital, I hope ...) :D

No, no, the hypocrisy police do not get punishment, they get to dish it out! The punishment is generally things like: ranting, raving, universal condemnation, doxing, public crucifixion, getting them fired, otherwise attempting to destroy their livelihood, endless death threats, and, as of late, dressing up in masks and burning, tipping, and/or smashing their cars and beating their skulls in with clubs and bottles. :) Hypocrites have no place in our society. It's always OK to punch a hypocrite. :cool:


But if it pleases you, for whatever reason, to allow your interlocutors to indulge in fallacies and errors without challenge, then by all means do so. Yes, it pleases me. It pleases me greatly. Because: more time in my pocket to do things actually productive and valuable!

Look, hypocrisy is everywhere. Under every rock and twig. You could waste your whole life trying to root it out. What does it even mean?

To not live up to your own claimed standards? Well, that doesn't seem so horrible: at least you have high standards!

To try to look virtuous when really you're not? Well at least you're showing some deference to virtue by putting up the facade -- modern man simply revels and rolls around in his filth and lack of virtue gleefully and dares anyone to condemn him for it. For my children, I will take a society of hypocrites before a gaggle of proud degenerates. At least the hypocrites have the decency of not rubbing it in your face.

You've defined/redefined it to have as its principle characteristic as contradiction. That's the element of it that you disapprove of. OK, well, contradiction is bad, I suppose, if one is penning a philosophical treatise. But is it bad when buying groceries? When making health, or educational, or career, or business, or family, or interpersonal decisions? If you're doing any kind of halfway decent job at any of these things, there's going to be contradictions and inconsistencies everywhere. You'll be just strewing them about. At least choices that could be interpreted as such by hostile observers.

You are an extremely hostile observer of the State. Extremely hostile. And so am I. And full well it deserves it. But that doesn't exactly make you a cool, objective judge of its actions. You're more like the ex-wife latching on to every possible sin and crying foul to the Family Court, in this case the Gods of Logical Consistency. "Oh, so you want to skip your business meeting this time to take Junior to soccer, and yet last week you supposedly couldn't? Hypocrite." Every single stupid thing is a reason to get on his case and some great crime.

So, what about in a pure anarcho-capitalist society? There is no State. State died; you can't pick on him anymore and blame him for everything. We've got all our beautiful Private Defense Agencies dishing out justice in the free market way. Awesome. Could they execute people?

Of course they could!

Would they?

Of course they would, if it worked!

The increased insurance and secondary re-insurance rates brought on by payouts to the heirs and estates of wrongfully executed people will be vanishingly small compared to the tremendous, huge, incomparable value to their customers they've created by creating a safe, peaceful environment in which to live their lives and pursue their dreams. This is simple economics, and Austrian economics at that. The customer is the boss. The customer gets what he wants. And the customer prefers a happy society with a minimum of crime over a society with PDAs that do a more mediocre job but can pat themselves on the back for some sort of Abstract Moral Perfection.

Moral at least according to someone's definition. Not to mine. I risk the lives of innocent people all the time, and I have no guilt about it whatsoever. I do it in order to make the world better. You know what I do?

I drive.

:eek:


In just the sense indicated in the part of my reply you elided. Namely:

I oppose the killing of innocent people - thus, when murderers kill innocent people, they should be punished.

I oppose the killing of innocent people - thus, in order to avoid the killing of innocent people wrongly convicted, we should abstain from capital punishment. When I said that saying "results matter" was just hypothetical, I was just joking. But now I see that maybe it's really true! At least that's how it looks to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying you oppose it in the sense that...... you oppose it? As in, in your heart?

Perhaps also as in saying "tsk, tsk"?

This is ridiculous. To me it is. I guess your temperament is different. But according to me, when a man strongly "opposes" something, he wants to get rid of it! End it! Stamp it out! If he opposes it sincerely enough and strongly enough he will -- I know it seems rash, but he can't help it! -- actually do something in order to fight the thing he opposes. He doesn't just oppose it secretly in his heart (level 1) or even theoretically on internet message boards (level 2) he goes out and wreaks some total havok on the evil he opposes.

If you oppose the killing of innocent people, the goal is to reduce the killing of innocent people. Period. Results matter. Reality matters. To say "I oppose the killing of innocent people, but I am not interested at all and don't care about reducing the number of innocent people killed"? Oh yeah, you care so much. Nothing personal, Occam, but that seems so unmanly to me, so weak, so impotent, it's like a caricature. Please tell me I've misunderstood.

helmuth_hubener
04-27-2017, 09:26 AM
Again, please tell me I've misunderstood. Help me understand. Help me add this up:

• "I oppose the killing of innocent people."

• "I also don't care about 'minimizing' or 'optimizing' on 'IPK' [number of innocent people killed] - as I indicated in the very post (#103) to which you replied, where I said, "it has nothing to do with 'the impact of more lives lost' (whatever that is supposed to mean)."

Because to me, coming from my point of view, those two statements do not add up.

helmuth_hubener
05-01-2017, 08:14 PM
There is one person in this thread interested in the percentage of innocent people who get executed.

That would be me.

I am perfectly willing to believe any percentage for this unknown, so long as it has good data. 80%? 1%? 0.01%? Just show me that data.

Are you? You're the one that has an opinion regarding this figure, not me. So what are you basing it on? Where's your data? And a very strong opinion it is! Anyone who disagrees with it is a flat-earther! Your data must be just over-the-top awesome! Incontrovertible! So bring it out!
It sure is taking a loooong time for you to assemble all this super-strong, super-obvious data that proves the Earth is flat or toroidal or whatever it is you are convinced I'm wrong about and about which you are full of Glorious Knowledge.

Any time now....

nikcers
05-01-2017, 08:35 PM
It sure is taking a loooong time for you to assemble all this super-strong, super-obvious data that proves the Earth is flat or toroidal or whatever it is you are convinced I'm wrong about and about which you are full of Glorious Knowledge.

Any time now....
The argument I was making was it is not simple to teach someone an idea or concept in which they have already been taught and made their mind up on. Its the whole empty your cup, before you can fill it. I would never attempt to convince you of anything you have already made up your mind on because you are as stubborn as a mule. You have been neg repping me for 6 months telling me to get out of this forum so why should I even bother spending any more time on you.

helmuth_hubener
05-02-2017, 08:10 AM
The argument I was making was it is not simple to teach someone an idea or concept in which they have already been taught and made their mind up on. Its the whole empty your cup, before you can fill it. I would never attempt to convince you of anything you have already made up your mind on because you are as stubborn as a mule. You have been neg repping me for 6 months telling me to get out of this forum so why should I even bother spending any more time on you.
Oh, so now you are going to talk to me like a human being?

I like it. :)

Anti Federalist
10-11-2017, 06:24 PM
you are a sicko.

Most police officers are good cops and good people.

And Zippy gets "rep-burned" around here?

Swordsmyth
10-11-2017, 08:57 PM
And Zippy gets "rep-burned" around here?

Zippy asked for it.

ARC is probably on most people's ignore lists, I negged him today and I will again if he keeps saying that kind of garbage.

ARealConservative
10-12-2017, 06:58 AM
Zippy asked for it.

ARC is probably on most people's ignore lists, I negged him today and I will again if he keeps saying that kind of garbage.

joined April 2016.

publically bragging about neg repping - what a pussy you are.

tod evans
10-12-2017, 04:39 PM
joined April 2016.

publically bragging about neg repping - what a pussy you are.

Intelligent discourse sill evading you I see.

Does it hurt?

ARealConservative
10-13-2017, 03:29 PM
Intelligent discourse sill evading you I see.

Does it hurt?
the hypocrisy here is alarming.

wait - you are the sociopath that hates cops and the letter c.

disregard. you are a mouth breather

PierzStyx
10-13-2017, 03:32 PM
I'm against the death penalty. Especially administered by the state. But this dude beat a woman to death with a tire iron. Sheesh. Maybe if the law was altered so that the victims next of kin was given the option to carry out the execution or grant clemency for life without parole...but even that's flawed.
Just lock them up for life and let God sort out what happens in the afterlife.

Did Gorsuch gain D.C. Street cred for condemning this guy to death like Trump got for bombing Syria?

I think you should make them work for life personally. Killing them doesn't really bring justice, justice being the idea that you restore what you took. At least by making them work in some capacity and funneling the money to the family of the victim you can go some distance towards replacing the economic opportunity taken by the murder.

As a Christian, I also believe in extending the opportunity for repentance and change, even for the most evil of people.

PierzStyx
10-13-2017, 03:43 PM
joined April 2016.

publically bragging about neg repping - what a pussy you are.

I disagree with Swordsmyth quite a bit. He or she fails to understand the Constitution, fails to understand Liberty, fails to understand "Western Civilizations" greatest philosophical developments -individualism and free markets- and embraces barbaric ideas like "blood and soil;" but, the one thing he or she is not. And that is a coward.

Swordsmyth
10-13-2017, 03:53 PM
I disagree with Swordsmyth quite a bit. He or she fails to understand the Constitution, fails to understand Liberty, fails to understand "Western Civilizations" greatest philosophical developments -individualism and free markets- and embraces barbaric ideas like "blood and soil;" but, the one thing he or she is not. And that is a coward.

Thank you.

tod evans
10-13-2017, 05:28 PM
the hypocrisy here is alarming.

wait - you are the sociopath that hates cops and the letter c.

disregard. you are a mouth breather

Ho-hum...

Another halfhearted attempt by the inadequate...

Thanks for the psych analysis certainly you're qualified...:rolleyes:

Danke
10-14-2017, 05:11 AM
joined April 2016.

publically bragging about neg repping - what a pussy you are.

New members are keeping this site alive and vibrant. Piss off.