Topic: So fucked up its good.

Add to Reputation:  

What do you think of this post?

I agree I disagree  
Comment:

[The Scoundrel]

If there is a confession, if there is DNA evidence, if there is any way to prove beyond all doubt (not just reasonable doubt), but rock-solid PROOF that the person is guilty, I say they deserve the most horrid form of punishment imaginable.

That's where your argument fucks up. Anybody convicted by a court is supposed to be definitely guilty not just probably guilty but the truth is you can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty and that's why the death penalty should be banned. How many people are found to be not guilty after new evidence emerges years later? If you've killed the poor sap then unless you go all Frankenstien on his ass you ain't never bringing him back to life to accept his apologies and huge compensation cheque. There's no such thing as a perfect justice system but one where life imprisonment in reasonable conditions means just that with no parole or early release is as close as a fallible world will get to fairness. If you murder someone with the backing of the state then, i'm sorry, but that's just what it is, murder and probably worse than some murders because it is planned and sanctioned. Every human being deserves the right to fair treatment whilst incarcerated for whatever crime by the state. What any victim's family decides to do about it is of course another matter 

[IDOLGIRL]

That's where your argument fucks up. Anybody convicted by a court is supposed to be definitely guilty not just probably guilty but the truth is you can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty and that's why the death penalty should be banned. How many people are found to be not guilty after new evidence emerges years later? If you've killed the poor sap then unless you go all Frankenstein on his ass you ain't never bringing him back to life to accept his apologies and huge compensation cheque. There's no such thing as a perfect justice system but one where life imprisonment in reasonable conditions means just that with no parole or early release is as close as a fallible world will get to fairness. If you murder someone with the backing of the state then, i'm sorry, but that's just what it is, murder and probably worse than some murders because it is planned and sanctioned. Every human being deserves the right to fair treatment whilst incarcerated for whatever crime by the state. What any victim's family decides to do about it is of course another matter 

I don't see that proof beyond ALL doubt, not just reasonable doubt, fucks my argument up. Like I said..DNA evidence is a powerful thing, as is a signed and sealed confession of a person deemed mentally competent, that is videoed to verify that the person was not forced to confess due to someone holding a gun to his head, making threats or some shit like that. If some guy confesses to raping a child, and his sperm DNA is found in said child's orifice, well....that is proof beyond ALL doubt, and it is rock-solid proof of the crime. In that case, I would be 100000% sure the molestor is guilty, and wouldn't hesitate one millisecond to put his sorry ass in Ol' Sparky.

In many cases, the people who were found guilty and subsequently found innocent, it is because of DNA, and years ago, it was substandard, or just unavailable. These days, that is hardly the case.

I don't consider implementing the death penalty as murder. It is called justice. A life in prison is hardly punishment anymore. They live better than alot of free people. They get their three meals a day, live in air conditioned comfort, watching cable TV and getting college educations. Meanwhile, we have children who are lucky to get one meal a day because their parents are out of work, homeless people who fell on hard times but STILL manage to suffer a day-to-day existence without committing a single crime. And these unfortunate, LAW ABIDING people could only WISH to have it as good as our convicted murderers. At least they get hot meals and a roof over their heads when it rains. And TV. and a hot shower. and access to the legal system, to file frivolous lawsuits about "they won't give me chunky peanut butter! my civil rights are being abused! I'M GONNA SUE !!!" Meanwhile, the homeless family can't even qualify for food stamps.

And I do not agree that every human being deserves the right to fair treatment while in custody. Their victims deserved rights, but that wasn't on the criminal's mind at the time of the crime. If a person doesn't give a shit about the rights of the victim, then fuck their rights when they get found guilty.

And re: execution being worse than some murders because it is planned and sanctioned..are you NUTS?? How is a peaceful death by going to sleep with lethal injection, just going night-night and not waking up, with no physical suffering, as bad as someone beating another to death with a hammer? That is just insane to even suggest that execution for a crime is anywhere near as bad or even in the ballpark of 'the same' as a murder.

And the part about 'what any victim's family decides to do about it....' ...well, that's just wishful thinking, because we would just arrest the family and a whole 'nother court case would get started up (yet another glitch in our legal system). I would love nothing more than to have proven criminals tied to a chair in a soundproof room, and then let the victims and/or their families have a go at them. We could let them bring a weapon of choice, preferably the same weapon used on the original victim.

All too often, the state makes plea deals with criminals, much to the horror and disbelief of the victim/family. There are way too many people concerned with treating the criminal justly, and not near enough people concerned with doing the VICTIM/FAMILY some justice.

[~`caskur`~]

fresh dna is proof but I do not trust tests of old dna what so ever...

the English have three verdicts that can conclude an outcome in a court case...

1. Not Guilty

2. Guilty

3. Not proven.

for every "innocent" person hanged, hundreds of guilty walk free to repeat similar and worse crimes.

I believe in the death penalty but not every murder is worthy of it....there are also crimes where a victim doesn't die....but are never the same from being brain injured or the like...those perpetrators also in my opinion warrant a death penalty too.

Its all about "intentions" more than anything....

[The Scoundrel]

the English have three verdicts that can conclude an outcome in a court case...

1. Not Guilty

2. Guilty

3. Not proven.

That'll be the Scots then not the English. The kilt wearing fuckers can't even decide which way to wear thier sporran after 12 cans of Special Brew let alone render a coherent verdict in a legal case. It would appear that Aboriginal googling of facts is almost as accurate

[Cookie Monster]

In cachurs clan they tie the accused in a sack the throw them in a lake and if it floats...

[The Scoundrel]

I don't see that proof beyond ALL doubt, not just reasonable doubt, fucks my argument up.

And that's why debating this with you would be a pointless excercise. If you can't understand how fundemental absolute proof is when you're talking about taking someones life as retribution then you shouldn't really be commenting on something as important as this. Maybe join one of Looneys sadist sites and link up with the rest of the forward thinking community eh? 

[IDOLGIRL]

And that's why debating this with you would be a pointless excercise. If you can't understand how fundemental absolute proof is when you're talking about taking someones life as retribution then you shouldn't really be commenting on something as important as this. Maybe join one of Looneys sadist sites and link up with the rest of the forward thinking community eh? 

Right back attcha..perhaps it's you that should refrain from commenting on the subject, since it's a concept that you obviously cannot grasp. Is it that you can't understand that absolute proof is possible? Or that you simply don't agree with the death penalty? (seems to be the latter to me) In either case, it's amazing to me that you feel that debating the issue with me would be pointless, simply because I know that there is proof beyond ALL doubt. (that is the area you quoted to make your argument). So pick your point. Do you disagree with me simply because I support the death penalty? or because I said there is proof beyond all doubt?

 I'm sure that taking the life of a murderer, a child molestor, etc is, in your mind, an unjust price to pay. However, I'm sure that the victim thought the same thing of their own sufferings before being bludgeoned to death or anally raped at the tender age of 7 years..."this just isn't right, it's not fair, and it sure as fuck isn't the 'just' thing to do" (I do acknowledge that I doubt those are the exact words, but I do not doubt that the thought of "Please, God, NO!!" is pretty accurate)

If someone did, God forbid, commit such heinous acts on your loved one, and you opted to let him live out the rest of his life in relative comfort, laughing in your face, while he gets to eat his hot meals, watch his TV, no bills, no money issues, free health care, free college education...how you can say that is a just price to pay for what your loved one went through...that is just beyond me.

Does that make me qualify as a sadist? not hardly. But I would sure as hell feel that justice was served once he was dead. Once a criminal starts worrying about the suffering of the victim, and worrying about the civil rights of the victim, maybe that's when I'll start worrying about his.

I suppose it's a good thing that I live in a country and a state that supports and carries out (not often enough, mind you) the death penalty..where my opinion and comments on something as important as this has paid off, every time Ol' Sparky lights up. If joining a sadist site keeps the death penalty legal and implemented, I'd be happy to..show me where to sign.

[IDOLGIRL]

fresh dna is proof but I do not trust tests of old dna what so ever...

the English have three verdicts that can conclude an outcome in a court case...

1. Not Guilty

2. Guilty

3. Not proven.

for every "innocent" person hanged, hundreds of guilty walk free to repeat similar and worse crimes.

I believe in the death penalty but not every murder is worthy of it....there are also crimes where a victim doesn't die....but are never the same from being brain injured or the like...those perpetrators also in my opinion warrant a death penalty too.

Its all about "intentions" more than anything....

what happens in the 'not proven' cases? are they re-tried?

I agree that not every death warrants the death penalty. Some deaths are truly unintentional and accidental. I wouldn't slap every criminal in the chair. But i think it's pretty obvious what kind of criminals I think deserve to die. I think you said it very well...it's about the intention.

[~`caskur`~]

In my state a man was given 20 yrs for killing a mother (32), her 16 yr old son, her 7 and 5 yr old daughters. He raped the mother after she died and the public are NOT allowed to know what he did to the 16 yr old and the 7 yr old…

20 yrs for killing 4 people. He is due out of jail in 2012…..I am furious, absolutely furious that they even contemplated allowing such evil back out of prison. If that case didn’t warrant a death penalty, I don’t know what does. Even the cops working the case said they welcomed the death penalty re-enforced.

That story is featured in a show produced by Fox, called, “The Greenough Family Massacre”…

Over the last few years in my state, mothers with Post Natal Depression have seen no jail time for killing their new born babies and some aboriginal teenagers killed a 47 yr old grandfather in front of his family playing cricket on the beach on Christmas day a couple of years ago….they walked to…they saw no jail time… They also let another aboriginal man who had committed 50 rapes out of jail, only to rape another 15 yr old and beat her senseless as soon as he got out.

To say I am completely disgusted with my states criminal conviction system is an understatement.

It totally frustrates me when our system bleats “Crime Prevention” and yet fails to adequately deal with heinous crimes.

[IDOLGIRL]

In my state a man was given 20 yrs for killing a mother (32), her 16 yr old son, her 7 and 5 yr old daughters. He raped the mother after she died and the public are NOT allowed to know what he did to the 16 yr old and the 7 yr old…

20 yrs for killing 4 people. He is due out of jail in 2012…..I am furious, absolutely furious that they even contemplated allowing such evil back out of prison. If that case didn’t warrant a death penalty, I don’t know what does. Even the cops working the case said they welcomed the death penalty re-enforced.

That story is featured in a show produced by Fox, called, “The Greenough Family Massacre”…

Over the last few years in my state, mothers with Post Natal Depression have seen no jail time for killing their new born babies and some aboriginal teenagers killed a 47 yr old grandfather in front of his family playing cricket on the beach on Christmas day a couple of years ago….they walked to…they saw no jail time… They also let another aboriginal man who had committed 50 rapes out of jail, only to rape another 15 yr old and beat her senseless as soon as he got out.

To say I am completely disgusted with my states criminal conviction system is an understatement.

It totally frustrates me when our system bleats “Crime Prevention” and yet fails to adequately deal with heinous crimes.

That's what pisses me off, too. Like the man I was talking about, that had beaten a family to death with a hammer, then kidnapped the youngest two kids, a boy and a girl, repeatedly raped them both, then killed the boy while his sister watched. He had been in and out of prison for raping kids, and on his last offense, some judge thought it was a good idea to let him out on bail. Now, thanks to that brilliant decision, 4 people died horrible deaths, and one child now has to live with all of that for the rest of her life. Seeing her brother raped and killed, knowing her mother and older brother were murdered, not to mention being raped and molested herself....all because some judge thought bail was appropriate for someone with this guy's track record/history. Are you fucking kidding me? He should have never been released after the first offense..much less the second..and then released again after a third. It truly boggles the mind.

Again, what happens where you're at, if a case is 'not proven' ? Is that like our version of a hung jury, where the trial has to be held all over again, starting from scratch?

[The Scoundrel]

I'll focus on the rest when i get back from work but a "not proven" verdict means that the case is allowed to rest on file and may be reopened by the prosecution if they feel they may win the next time.

[~`caskur`~]

I don't think we have "not proven"....that is the English system and its a good one too...

What is very disturbing is the "innocent" who are locked up like Reubin (Hurricane) Carter get all the press and while it is true, wrongful convictions are not acceptable, either is allowing sociopaths back on the streets...

you see, there are people who believe, "do the crime, serve the time," but then you've got to let them out one day......people are totally mislead if they think these people let out are going to suddenly turn into model citizens...they're NOT and now we have experiences of that.

I personally am not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt they have reformed....we as a community have a duty of care towards keeping fellow citizens and especially their children, safe....this second chance crap is not on... that is a "Christian" notion... which is altruistic at best.

If "God" doesn't want to step in and cure the ills of man-unkind, then we have to play "God"...

raping and murdering people and children shouldn't be treated lightly, it should be given the heaviest penalty we can enforce...

In countries like Africa, they take the law into their own hands...the worldwide governments have signed the UN Treaty of Human Rights abolishing the death penalty (America didn't sign it to their credit)..... if the governments won't clean up the messes, then the families certainly do.....  

[deBauch]

the English have three verdicts that can conclude an outcome in a court case...

1. Not Guilty

2. Guilty

3. Not proven.

That'll be the Scots then not the English.

I don't think we have "not proven"....that is the English system and its a good one too...

 


Its like some sort of blind unstoppable tard 

[The Scoundrel]

It's really not fair to mock the afflicted but....................... 

[The Scoundrel]

IG. You really don't get where i'm coming from do you? Can i be any more plain in stating that my problem is with the absolute proof which you base your argument squarely on. See, it's not a possible situation, all cases that have been tried and have resulted in a guilty verdict are supposed to have been an absolute verdict where the criminal was absolutely guilty and deserved whatever penalty was prescribed by law. As has been shown time and time again the law is fallible and therefore any punishments that could be considered inhumane in any way should not be used otherwise each and every citizen is guilty (in the cases where they were innocent) of crimes as horrible as had been commited and if you want that on your hands then more fool you. This is why i say life imprisonment in reasonable conditions is the only possible fair sentence. Maybe after what i say here you think i may be soft on vile offenders but you couldn't be further from the truth. If anyone was even suspected by means of a rough guess that they'd hurt anyone close to me then i would invent new methods of torture that Medieval goal keepers would vomit in thier cornflakes just to contemplate. It's the state sanctioning of things that i disagree with love.

[Angelica]

It's the state sanctioning of things that i disagree with love.

LMAO..don't you just love the fact that he delivers a slap and ends it by calling you "love"..

Gotta love those Brits.

[The Scoundrel]

We're gentlemen Ange. If we slap a lady we like to at least kiss it better 

[IDOLGIRL]

IG. You really don't get where i'm coming from do you? Can i be any more plain in stating that my problem is with the absolute proof which you base your argument squarely on. See, it's not a possible situation, all cases that have been tried and have resulted in a guilty verdict are supposed to have been an absolute verdict where the criminal was absolutely guilty and deserved whatever penalty was prescribed by law. As has been shown time and time again the law is fallible and therefore any punishments that could be considered inhumane in any way should not be used otherwise each and every citizen is guilty (in the cases where they were innocent) of crimes as horrible as had been commited and if you want that on your hands then more fool you. This is why i say life imprisonment in reasonable conditions is the only possible fair sentence. Maybe after what i say here you think i may be soft on vile offenders but you couldn't be further from the truth. If anyone was even suspected by means of a rough guess that they'd hurt anyone close to me then i would invent new methods of torture that Medieval goal keepers would vomit in thier cornflakes just to contemplate. It's the state sanctioning of things that i disagree with love.

Therein lies the problem. I'm guessing that you're a Brit. Here in the states, we do not find people guilty based on absolute proof. All the prosecution has to do is provide enough evidence to prove his case 'beyond reasonable doubt'...meaning, it is more likely than not that the person is guilty. That is a far cry from absolute proof.

Quote Wiki:

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof required in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.

I am not a fan of reasonable doubt. I'm not sure if you actually get where I'm coming from. There IS such a thing as absolute proof. If a person is caught red-handed in the act, would that not be absolute proof that he committed the crime? If a man is taped on a security camera blowing the head off a convenience store clerk, that would be absolute proof. If his DNA was smeared all over the victim, and the criminal gave a signed, sealed, videotaped confession, that is absolute proof. In an American court of law, however, you could still have these things, but if the defense attorney is able to cast reasonable doubt, the guy could walk.

It's all about who can spin the best story. Attorneys and experts for the defense make their living by providing doubt. Not because the defendant is actually innocent, but because that's what they get paid to do.

LMAO..don't you just love the fact that he delivers a slap and ends it by calling you "love"..

Gotta love those Brits.

That was a slap?

[The Scoundrel]

Gawd Girl you're starting to act like Caskur and that's not a pat on the back by any means. Why can't you understand that judicially there is only one verdict that is guilty and that absolute proof doesn't come into it? Did you not read my statement on how perpetrators should be treated if they were even suspected of a crime on my family?? Stop relying on the government to sort out your problems and buy a set of knuckle dusters to satisfy your hatred problems. Honestly. a good battering of a twat really helps. 

{edit} 

[IDOLGIRL]

Gawd Girl you're starting to act like Caskur and that's not a pat on the back by any means. Why can't you understand that judicially there is only one verdict that is guilty and that absolute proof doesn't come into it? Did you not read my statement on how perpetrators should be treated if they were even suspected of a crime on my family?? Stop relying on the government to sort out your problems and buy a set of knuckle dusters to satisfy your hatred problems. Honestly. a good battering of a twat really helps. 

{edit} 

did you not see the post I made regarding what happens when a family member takes it into his own hands? I know I've said quite a bit here..perhaps your eyes glazed over that part. It has nothing to do with relying on the government to sort out my problems. it has to do with the system punishing those who take the law into their own hands, regardless of how much we might agree with a parent blowing the head off a molestor. Vigilante justice is not rewarded here. Do I agree with vigilante justice?  It all depends on the case. But I have seen some instances where I completely agree with it. Other times, not so much. How a perpetrator SHOULD be treated, and how a perpetrator IS treated are two very different things.

And I'm not quite sure why you're not getting what I am saying on this topic. I know I'm not typing in Greek. I never said that I didn't understand, nor have my statements implied that I didn't understand, that the absolute proof that I would like see does not come into play when rendering a guilty verdict. I know our judicial system runs on 'burden of proof' and 'beyond reasonable doubt'. What I have said is that I would have no problem executing people if I had ABSOLUTE proof. Do I believe absolute proof is possible? Yes. Do I believe our system runs on abolute proof? No. We run on 'beyond a reasonable doubt', which is a far cry from ABSOLUTE proof. Just because someone is said to be guilty because that is more reasonable than him not being guilty does not equate to absolute proof. It means 'well, it makes more sense that he's guilty than it makes that he's not guilty'. Absolute proof would take away the 'reasonable doubt'. If we ran on 'absolute proof', we wouldn't have so many innocent people in jail, and so many perpetrators walking free.

Let's put it this way...if you walked into my house, and saw a sink full of mixing bowls, beaters, and cake pans, and the house smelled of freshly baked cake, you could say that it is beyond reasonable doubt that I baked a cake. A reasonable person would say "she made a cake'. However...if you had all that evidence, as well as a freshly baked caked cooling on the counter, and a video tape of me making said cake on the date in question...that would be absolute proof. But the way our judicial system works, using the above scenario, a person could be sentenced to death because of an aroma and some dirty dishes.

I'm sure you still won't get my point here. I'm not debating how our system works. I know how it works.


I had said that if there was a way to have proof beyond ALL doubt, not just reasonable doubt, that I wouldn't have a problem dishing out the most horrid punishment imaginable. You responded with this:

That's where your argument fucks up. Anybody convicted by a court is supposed to be definitely guilty not just probably guilty but the truth is you can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty and that's why the death penalty should be banned.

My whole argument is that you CAN be 100% sure. That is possible. DNA, videos, fingerprints..those provide proof. HOWEVER, the problem is, in our system, you don't have to be 100% sure. You just have to think that it makes more sense that he's guilty than it does that he's  not. Do I agree with that being the way it works? Just the logic of ''it makes more sense than not'' to put someone in the electric chair? No. That is why I said, from my first post, that I want absolute proof, beyond ANY doubt, not just reasonable doubt. Would many people die if things were run the way I would want them to? with ABSOLUTE proof? Probably not--but when they did die, I would know that there was no doubt at all, reasonable or otherwise, before they died. If you want the system to work on 'definitely guilty' rather than 'probably guilty', you need to remove the 'reasonable' and make it "guilty beyond doubt''.