|
Do not discuss gun control, or the right to own/use guns in this thread. Please take any such discussion to this thread or you will be banned. |
On December 27 2012 04:25 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote:
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets. Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again. This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all. I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
|
So ridiculous, I feel terrible for these firefighters.
|
What an awful thing to do. Best wishes to the families of the firefighters.
|
On December 27 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 04:25 Reason wrote:On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote:
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets. Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again. This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all. I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them. This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
Confessions, CCTV, multiple credible witnesses, overwhelming forensic evidence....
Not really open for presentation or interpretation.
If there's room for doubt I'm not talking about those cases. Do I need to keep explaining that?
I've already said you need to be certain, and if you're not certain you shouldn't be wasting money keeping these people in limbo, make a decision and act upon it.
Repeat offenders and proven murderers are dealt with too lightly by the justice system and we all pay the price for it.
Perhaps you're content with that but I'm not, that is all.
|
On December 27 2012 05:19 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 27 2012 04:25 Reason wrote:On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote:
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets. Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again. This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all. I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them. This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not. Confessions, CCTV, multiple credible witnesses, overwhelming forensic evidence.... Not really open for presentation or interpretation.
Every single one of those categories of evidence relies on a human for gathering, with CCTV being the only real exception (and even then, chain of custody with video evidence is still a concern). Confessions can be coerced, given under duress, or simply solicited illegally. If you've got multiple credible witnesses, great, one must still prove that these witnesses are credible or that their views even matter. Forensic evidence brings with it tons of issues in regards to chain of custody, gathering procedure and rigor, and interpretation. There is a reason expert witness testimony is such a hot topic, as one can find an expert to testify to a great many interpretations of evidence that seems otherwise quite straight forward, and this problem is especially bad when it comes to forensics. I guess my point is that judicial "certainty" is necessarily tied to temporal elongation, for the system must acknowledge the immense room for error, even in cases that seem utterly obvious.
|
What does "convicted killer" mean? Manslaughter? Second degree murder? First degree murder? If it's one of the first two, it's understandable that Spengler was out of prison and capable of getting a rifle (arguably even RIGHT that he was, because if your prison sentence has been served, there's no reason you shouldn't be a full citizen again). But if he's guilty of first degree murder, the fact that he was out of jail means that someone fucked up big time. If you plot to end the life of an innocent human, then you have lost your right to be part of society and the fact that he was back in society was just a tragedy waiting to happen.
|
farva,
+ Show Spoiler +On December 27 2012 05:29 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 05:19 Reason wrote:On December 27 2012 04:37 farvacola wrote:On December 27 2012 04:25 Reason wrote:On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote:
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets. Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again. This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about. If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all. I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them. This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not. Confessions, CCTV, multiple credible witnesses, overwhelming forensic evidence.... Not really open for presentation or interpretation. Every single one of those categories of evidence relies on a human for gathering, with CCTV being the only real exception (and even then, chain of custody with video evidence is still a concern). Confessions can be coerced, given under duress, or simply solicited illegally. If you've got multiple credible witnesses, great, one must still prove that these witnesses are credible or that their views even matter. Forensic evidence brings with it tons of issues in regards to chain of custody, gathering procedure and rigor, and interpretation. There is a reason expert witness testimony is such a hot topic, as one can find an expert to testify to a great many interpretations of evidence that seems otherwise quite straight forward, and this problem is especially bad when it comes to forensics. I guess my point is that judicial "certainty" is necessarily tied to temporal elongation, for the system must acknowledge the immense room for error, even in cases that seem utterly obvious. You are standing in the court room and there's like 100 people there. The judge asks the criminal, did you do it? If he says yes that's a confession. I'm not talking about good cop bad cop shine a light in his face and beat him until he admits that he did it confession, I'm talking about an actual confession. If you've got multiple credible witnesses one must still prove that these witnesses are credible? No you don't, that's already been done and why they are being referred to as credible. Do their views even matter? If they witnessed the crime and are impartial in the case then their views always matter, I think that has to be two of the most basic definitions of a credible witness. Did you see it? Yes. Do you have any reason to lie? No. All five of us saw him walk into the shop and shoot this person etc If it's overwhelming forensic evidence like hmm she had human flesh between her teeth and the DNA is yours and you've got a bite taken out of your arm and we found the murder weapon hidden in your house and it's got your fingerprints all over it and it's covered in her blood etc lol are you really so worried that there's somehow an innocent explanation for all of this? There's plenty of clear cut cases you're trying to make it out like every murder conviction is some extremely difficult case and they are never quite sure if he did it or not and 40% of people arrested and put in jail for years on murder charges are then released back into society because they realised they were actually innocent all along oops lol sorry it happens all the time and they just make a big habit of arresting people and accusing them of murder on the shakiest of evidence... I'm aware you can't just round up all the evidence and witnesses in one day and run some kind of 24 hour sentence, execution and burial service but the current system in my opinion is seriously lacking. If you don't have the evidence to sentence the person to death then they shouldn't be on death row in the first place, treat them like a normal inmate without incurring any extra costs.
I think you underestimate how large a percentage of crimes are committed by the same small percent of the population.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
On December 27 2012 05:19 Reason wrote:
Repeat offenders and proven murderers are dealt with too lightly by the justice system and we all pay the price for it.
Perhaps you're content with that but I'm not, that is all.
You're coming at this from a completely different angle from me, I've made the statement I came here to make, which I'll rephrase for clarity.
A terrible thing happened here and in my opinion it could have and should have been prevented if the justice system wasn't so lenient on repeat offenders/proven murderers. I will not speak further on this matter.
|
There are some, albeit only few, where the innocent are prosecuted.
Read this in an AMA on reddit. Recently these two guys (were brothers?) were released after DNA testing from prison after 10+ years (One of their mother died before the release). Family members were divided between the prosecuted innocence and guilty.
Anyway the point being is they were essentially condemned after the victim (believe it was rape?) wrongfully, accidentally, picked out of the suspect screening...Idk how you fuck that up but someone tried to reason that mental trauma probably played a large role in the deciding factor.
So...our justice system is anything but perfect and we still make mistakes...which is very scary if you think about it.
edit: on topic:
The police didn't have any reason to suspect or follow the killer after his release. What were they suppose to bank off of? He just seemed like another ex who made a mistake and possibly redeemed himself in our justice eyes. The guy was going to kill no matter what. This terrible tragedy was going to happen in one way or another with or without guns considering you can still cause mayhem and violence without guns.
Just reading his little journal was so damn disturbing (figuring out how many houses he can burn down and "...do what I do best- killing people..."). Who the fuck makes a trap for firefighters...I mean wtf..
|
Ah mr. Brown,
You couldn't even believe it if you tried to be honest.
Who could even tell? Maybe if it was Sunday but even then, I don't know. It's 2013 and things are fucked still. I guess that (among a few other things!) is all that can be said!
|
On December 25 2012 15:14 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 15:12 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 25 2012 15:10 paradox719 wrote:On December 25 2012 10:19 Tarot wrote:On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote:
I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison. You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer. We should start executing them. Seems to work for Singapore. no desire to ever live there, I would rather not live in the United States if it became like singapore. -_- have you been to Singapore, it's a great country / city, clean streets, nice food, nice weather, fine security, good standard of living.
i know all of that, but non of that is special in most western countries. i frankly prefer not to obey laws that have no ostensible reason for existing other than 'we don't like it'.
|
|
|
United States41980 Posts
On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
I don't think the risk is worth it in a case where the murder was THAT personal and brutal.
If say a bully pushes someone so much that the victim stabs the bully, I could see that the victim could possibly be rehabilitated and released in a few years.
Or say a mother who cannot take the burden of a new child ends up suffocating that child. I could understand that and see them out of prison in a few years.
But take another case like a man who is getting divorced because his wife decided she loved another man more. If that husband decided to plan the wife's murder for a few months and ended up stabbing her 30 times in anger? I would not trust that person to ever be released back to the public.
Then there is the argument of who gets to decide who is and is not insane still, as that field of study is pretty loose still.
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
Some people are beyond help.
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
I don't think so, but I'm just a cold, cynical bastard.
My condolences to the deceased and their families. This was too awful; too many horrible things have been happening.
And through all this what is the government concerned about? Lightbulbs, apparently. o-o;
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
Well, they can I think, but to release them after doing something like that it should have to be proven beyond reasonable, or any, doubt that they will never do something like that again.
I mean where I live, West Coast of Canada, there's stuff in the newspaper all the time about how they just released guy from jail who was incarcerated for rape or molestation, and you better watch out cause he's still dangerous. If he's still dangerous he should still be in prison.
|
On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
They can, but they don't deserve it. At least not the more brutal ones.
Just my opinion though..
Should also maybe jail parents of killers too, or at least fine them. Or maybe they have to support their child's stay in jail, or at least some of it..
|
very sad. its amazing that people target first responders, but at the end of the day if you want to splash the headlines kids and first responders are the best targets. this guy got what he wanted. piece of shit.
|
Media makes MASSIVE news over the 2 police baited by a 999 call and shot, few months later another bait attack.
Sad that the media care more about money and ratings than the people, the media are parading this round just like the one a few months ago, pretty much guaranteeing it will happen again.
Shame its never the people responsible who get fucked over.
|
On January 03 2013 05:58 coasts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2012 09:35 KwarK wrote:On December 27 2012 03:33 QuanticHawk wrote:On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote:
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied? he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons You don't think people can be rehabilitated? Well, they can I think, but to release them after doing something like that it should have to be proven beyond reasonable, or any, doubt that they will never do something like that again. I mean where I live, West Coast of Canada, there's stuff in the newspaper all the time about how they just released guy from jail who was incarcerated for rape or molestation, and you better watch out cause he's still dangerous. If he's still dangerous he should still be in prison.
you know its pretty much impossible to prove what will happen in the future, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
