DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 126 - 150 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/14/2005 02:40:47 PM · #126
Originally posted by hokie:

I love this part........

Wow..I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes of my life even writing this about this "Man of the Year"


You missed this bit:

From the beginning of his sentence, Williams maintained his innocence regarding the four murders, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, exclusion of exculpatory evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, biased jury selection, and the misuse of jailhouse and government informants.[6] Williams claimed that the police found "not a shred of tangible evidence, no fingerprints, no crime scenes of bloody boot prints. They didn't match my boots, nor eyewitnesses. Even the shotgun shells found conveniently at each crime scene didn't match the shotgun shells that I owned." However, the prosecution's firearms expert, a sheriff's deputy, testified during trial that the shotgun shell recovered from the Yang murder crime scene matched test shells from the shotgun owned by Stanley Williams. No second examiner verified his findings. The Defense claims this expert's methodology was "junk science at best." [7]

Whether or not he was a bad man (it seems pretty likely), is there not a shred of doubt in your mind? Miscarriages of justice are not that unusual. Is society any the better for killing this (potentially innocent) man? Or does it do nothing more than satisfy your's (and my) gut reaction that this man ought to die if he did what he was found guilty of doing?
12/14/2005 02:45:11 PM · #127
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I see all this discussion but no detailed information about him being posted; people should actually read about him.. Stanley Tookie Williams - Wikipedia


I do not see how this helps your case, unless it's only intent was to inform. The information I received was that Tookie Williams was a mean person derived from challenging circumstances. Unfortunately for Mr. Williams, he made some poor choices early on in life. Choices that ultimately led to his execution. We all make choices. And many many folks come from "challenging" circumstances without deciding to murder others for their money.
12/14/2005 02:48:14 PM · #128
Originally posted by legalbeagle:



Whether or not he was a bad man (it seems pretty likely), is there not a shred of doubt in your mind? Miscarriages of justice are not that unusual. Is society any the better for killing this (potentially innocent) man? Or does it do nothing more than satisfy your's (and my) gut reaction that this man ought to die if he did what he was found guilty of doing?


I didn't "miss" this part..who do you think you are talking down to?

You know, lawyer's don't have exclusive rights to high IQ's...:-/

And doubt? No..not a shred. 26 years. 26 YEARS...and not one bit of evidence that would get one of the most liberal court systems in America to grant another trial.

Plus..he would never co-operate with authorities to help bring down the gangs he so passionately wrote about.

And...better yet..his kids were such charmers too! A convicted murderer and another...whether it's his kid or not is in question..a convicted sex offender.

Too bad we couldn't get to this guy before he had a chance to pro-create and saved more misery.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 14:51:03.
12/14/2005 02:51:30 PM · #129
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

But you appear to be trying to say that a 16 year old (incidentally an age that in some jurisdictions is the age of majority) is fully developed mentally.


No, as I have stated repeatedly they may or may not, the same goes for 18 yr olds, the same goes for 21 yr olds, 30-40 yr olds.

But I believe a jury should be able to determine that a 16 yr old is competent to have known better. Just as we determine a 30 yr old mentally retarded individual might not be competent to have known better, and judge the matter accordingly.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Originally posted by "theSaj":


Frankly I question the realistic accuracy of the entire study you reference.

And your anecdotal impressions are more reliable?


Than many studies, yes. (And many have fundementally flawed premises. In fact, there has been much discussion on how something like 75% of studies are flawed, or the presentation and representation to the public is flawed.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

No - I said that one way to govern against democratic deficit of opression of the minority is to have an representative democracy (per the UK and the US): you elect a representative who will represent you, not necessarily your policies. This means that the governing body has the right to ignore a desire of the majority where those governing take a more enlightened/rational decision that is not based on mob-rule.


Then your argument is moot. As we are talking about the U.S. which has such a system. And furthermore, you have brought this point up on a number of occasions in reference to various similar arguments. But usually in the context of debates on American policy.

I am puzzled however by the fact that you usually do so in the context of trying to prove that a stance that you are opposed to is not necessarily right just because the majority agree. And yet, the issues usually involve situations in which those said elected officials have made a decision on behalf of those they represent.

This is why I say your statement as to this is a moot point. Your in a sense arguing against that which does not exist for that which does exist, but still rejecting it's results. In fact, using the arguments of the one as an attack on the other, even though it falls into the latter category.

Either, you are changing your tune. Or misrepresenting the argument, or merely tossing a red herring onto the floor of discussion.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Responsible when? In avoiding unwanted contraception or in giving birth. I believe that it is generally the woman who will be responsible for giving birth and, where there is no man standing by her, to raise the baby alone.


There is always a risk of contraception when one has the ability. One must make weigh the risks, make their decision and accept the outcome of consequences.

Every time I get on the highway I am at risk for an accident, one that could even potentially be my fault. Would it be right to simply tell the person who I hit. "I choose not to be responsible for said accident." Our society rejects such thinking in almost all other cases. Except this one...

(Oh, and I strongly support the requiring of reasonable support from the father.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


I am not sure why my opinion (representing a majority view in many places) is BS and based in ignorance


Because, to essentially quote you, being in the majority opinion does not necessarily mean you're right. And science (yes, that thing conservatives are always accused of dismissing) has without a shadow of a doubt proven that a fetus is not part of a woman's body.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


You prize the sanctity of life which you (I guess) consider to arise early in foetal development


You prize the sanctity of [innoncent] life...there is a major difference. And which has shown to in fact arise early in the development of the fetus.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


I consider the life of the mother more important until foetal development shows more significant signs of life than cell multiplication and becomes viable.


a) viability is a crap statement, viability...let's discuss viability. I have a little friend, now 5. She was born just after 6 months. (Much much earlier than all the partial birth abortions.) She is viable based on our modern technology. From your argument of viability one should deduce that partial birth abortions should be illegal and murder. Furthermore viability grows earlier as modern medical technology advances. Second, viability depends on the environmnet. Are tadpoles viable? they're not fully developed frogs. In fact, they are essentially still fetal frogs. Take one out of water and it will die. Take a fish out of water it dies. So viability is often more defined by environment. As medical technology advances, what happens to your viability argument when we can create an artificial womb that could bring a 4 week old fetus to full development. They now become viable.

b) The argument of the woman's health and life and safety is moot. As most on this side have granted clauses for the cases in which a woman's physical health is in jeopardy. (And even clauses for rape and incest.) So what you're really talking about is financial health and well being. I find it quite odd (hypocritical) when liberals argue for the death of innoncents for financial gain.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


An important contrasting factor is that my opinion does not prevent you from leading your life in accordance with your principles, but your viewpoint prevents me from leading my life in accordance with mine.


And this is supposed to be an argument. So, essentially, if it doesn't directly affect me I have no right nor responsibility to act.

1. We never should have had abolitionists. Southern slave owners should have lived as they pleased.
2. Germans should be able to kill Jews, because it's not affecting me directly.
3. Massacres in Yugoslavia, Sudan, etc. should be allowed, or at the least I should not interfere with their principles

What you are arguing is "turn a blind eye" but I find it funny that you won't apply this to any where else, outside this particular issue.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Additionally, to the extent your argument is influenced by religious principles, it becomes an article of faith and loses some authority.


Okay, LB, please show me where I have made a religious argument. You don't want religious people to dismiss your ability to have morals without religion. But you so casually dismiss religious people's ability to have morals outside of or beyond religion.

And this is what you always resort too. I address you solely on a rational non-religious basis and you come back with a crap argument like that. "Because you're religious you have no argument."

Come on...that's just cowardly.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


you do in 25 states - read the sentence after the one you quoted about 25 years without parole in 33 states


I did, and I commented that we've had life sentences before. But by the time 25 yrs comes up activist judges create precident for their release. And we go thru the cycle again.

There is a lot of pressure to affirm "life = life" and make life sentences with out parole non-releasable sentences. And yes, many states are passing such. And, as the years go buy, if such sentences hold true - you will see less and less support for the death penalty. As such, I believe Texas is considering potentially abolishing the death penalty with passage of new no "parole" laws.

But the problem is that many fear loopholes will be found, and activist judges will set precedent. Life with no parole is not a new concept. Been around for years. But people still have been released. People just don't trust the system.

If that trust gets re-established, than more will be willing to recind the death penalty. Myself included (as stated 1/2 dozen times in this thread).

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

this is impossible - innocents will be killed, as there is always a fundamental uncertainty

Not true, there are times that there is no doubt. Individual was witnessed at the scene of the crime, officials caught perpetraror in the act of the crime, video captured the crime, fingerprints and DNA evidence confirms it was the individual.

Sure, we can doubt our entire existence. "We don't think, therefore we are not." But that'd be a rather bit moronic.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


This is directly limked to the already strong requirement that a higher degree of certainty of guilt is obtained where the penalty is not reversable - this argument directly contradicts your statement that greater efforts should be made to prevent the execution of innocents


No it does not, because if said evidence does not exist than said individual will not find himself on death row. But rather, it will be as you put it "life w/out parole" but enforced.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


all of these can be tampered with, faked, accidentally mixed, forced from a suspect, go missing as a consequence of sloppy defence etc - there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence, but the belief in it has convicted what we now know to be innocent men. The evidence you mention does not deal with the critical mental component requisite in many crimes.


If such evidence is missing, than the death sentence should not be applied. Yes, police have planted evidence before. Guns in cars, etc.

But that is IMHO not irrefutable evidence. When you were filmed kidnapping a little girl and your semen was found inside her. When you are caught on film blowing the back out of a 7-11 clerk and an undercover cop was in the back of the store and arrests you. And it's all caught on camera. There is no doubt. The death penalty should be available. And available quickly.

Now mind you, this will likely mean a 90% reduction of people on death row.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


this person is young and not fully mentally matured


And I believe this varies. In the urban environment I've met 30yrs olds less mentally mature and developed than I was at 13.

So, should they not be tried as an adult? Hey, if you can't read better than a 4th grade reading level - guess we shouldn't try you as an adult either. You're obviously not a mentally competent adult. (Is that what you're saying - of course not...but in hyperbole, that's what it really comes down to)

Hence, my view, that in some cases a 16 yr old is mentally competent to be tried as an adult, and in other case not, and in some cases a 30yr old is not competent to be tried as an adult either.

Forest Gump comes to mind...
12/14/2005 03:06:21 PM · #130
Originally posted by hokie:

No..not a shred. 26 years. 26 YEARS...and not one bit of evidence that would get one of the most liberal court systems in America to grant another trial.


It is refreshing to see someone believe so strongly in the accuracy of the court system. It does not address my other point: does his execution serve a purpose, other than to deny us the ability to release him if new, contrary evidence were discovered tomorrow?
12/14/2005 03:10:15 PM · #131
i have see quite a few post of people providing an example which would incite a deadly reaction, the example being extremely easy to understand and relate to e.g:
- what would you do if this guy came and sadistically kill your whole family, i bet you would kill him

Now, if all this people posting this example can understand that any human being can be pushed to kill, why would we pass such hard judgment on some one who has done so, could it be that the reasons he did are not as simple as the example provided and that it does require a bit more understanding on racial, upbringing, emotion and economical situations of the criminal??

by killing the criminal we are just neglecting the real reasons and not preventing anything.. if death penalty would work to prevent crime i would expect the USA to be a safe country..but is it?
12/14/2005 03:12:27 PM · #132
Originally posted by Pano:

i have see quite a few post of people providing an example which would incite a deadly reaction, the example being extremely easy to understand and relate to e.g:
- what would you do if this guy came and sadistically kill your whole family, i bet you would kill him

Now, if all this people posting this example can understand that any human being can be pushed to kill, why would we pass such hard judgment on some one who has done so, could it be that the reasons he did are not as simple as the example provided and that it does require a bit more understanding on racial, upbringing, emotion and economical situations of the criminal??

by killing the criminal we are just neglecting the real reasons and not preventing anything.. if death penalty would work to prevent crime i would expect the USA to be a safe country..but is it?


oh boy.

Pano, you might want to duck for cover. I sense a barage coming.
12/14/2005 03:21:05 PM · #133
Originally posted by Flash:



oh boy.

Pano, you might want to duck for cover. I sense a barage coming.


:)) im under my desk :)
12/14/2005 03:23:10 PM · #134
Originally posted by "pano":

Now, if all this people posting this example can understand that any human being can be pushed to kill, why would we pass such hard judgment on some one who has done so


Because, it is understood that their are mitigating circumstances. And in fact, our courts take account of such.

2 yrs ago I read an article about a 16 yr old who beat her father to death in his sleep. Guess what...the judge let her go free NO CHARGES AT ALL. And I agreed.

Why?

Her father had molested and raped her for years. She repeatedly sought help thru school system and city agencies and was repeatedly declined and put back into the same environment. Often suffering even worse. Finally after years of abuse and no means of escape, (if I recall she tried running away and was returned home by authorities). She took a baseball bat and in the middle of the night bashed her father's head in. Did she murder? yes! But the judge deemed it in self-defense. He acknowledged a failure in the system at all levels and noted the defendent's attempt at alternatives (all of which were denied her). And deemed her not guilty and gave no sentence.

This is the difference. There is a dramatic difference between her actions, and a robber blowing away a cashier of no relation whatsoever for a measly $30. A big difference between the above and a man who rapes and kills 7 yr old girls.

And that is why we have courts...to determine the matter and an appropriate sentence.

You make it seem as if our courts simple sentence...that's not the case.

Originally posted by "pano":

and that it does require a bit more understanding on racial, upbringing, emotion and economical situations of the criminal??


What are you trying to say?

- Race is an excuse to murder?
- Upbringing, so having a drunk for a dad is justification for murder?
- Emotions, so if i'm emotional I can kill without consequence?
- Poverty is an excuse to murder? (I grew up very poor, hand me down clothes, food was sometimes scarce, and we had moped for a family car - um...I never murdered.)

This is the rationality that the vast majority of Americans reject. Because if you apply it uniformly - it fails to stand up!

12/14/2005 03:24:38 PM · #135
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by hokie:

No..not a shred. 26 years. 26 YEARS...and not one bit of evidence that would get one of the most liberal court systems in America to grant another trial.


It is refreshing to see someone believe so strongly in the accuracy of the court system. It does not address my other point: does his execution serve a purpose, other than to deny us the ability to release him if new, contrary evidence were discovered tomorrow?


I don't believe in the accuracy of the court system as a whole..I believe in the accuracy of this case.

And you know, I can understand your interest in discussing this because you are a lawyer and have some point you feel to prove but I have stated my opinion on the death penalty and this case several times.

If you were truly interested in knowing MY opinion ( which I doubt )
you could find this with a bit of research.

I highly doubt you will be swayed by anything I have to say...and...based on my own belief ..nothing you say will sway me.

Being 12 years your senior..I was discussing and debating the death penalty in high school while you were still at home in diapers. I doubt I will find new evidence in my psyche or yours in another couple of paragraphs that I have not been able to discern in the previous 28 years or thousands of other opinions I have read in that time :-/
12/14/2005 03:34:06 PM · #136
Originally posted by theSaj:



This is the difference. There is a dramatic difference between her actions, and a robber blowing away a cashier of no relation whatsoever for a measly $30. A big difference between the above and a man who rapes and kills 7 yr old girls.

And that is why we have courts...to determine the matter and an appropriate sentence.

You make it seem as if our courts simple sentence...that's not the case.

Originally posted by "pano":

and that it does require a bit more understanding on racial, upbringing, emotion and economical situations of the criminal??


What are you trying to say?

- Race is an excuse to murder?
- Upbringing, so having a drunk for a dad is justification for murder?
- Emotions, so if i'm emotional I can kill without consequence?
- Poverty is an excuse to murder? (I grew up very poor, hand me down clothes, food was sometimes scarce, and we had moped for a family car - um...I never murdered.)

This is the rationality that the vast majority of Americans reject. Because if you apply it uniformly - it fails to stand up!


Hi theSaj,

once again you provide me with a whole explanation to why some killed (the case of the 16y/o) so i can relate, and then with just an 'isolated action' example, this is not fair, please provide enough background on why this rober killed and don't be as silly as to think it was the 30$, becausr this does not happen in the whole world so ther must be more reason to kill than 30$

12/14/2005 03:42:19 PM · #137
Originally posted by theSaj:

But I believe a jury should be able to determine that a 16 yr old is competent to have known better
not my argument - is there so little risk in prosecuting juveniles that you should permit them to be executed?

Originally posted by "theSaj":


[your anecdotal impressions are more reliable?] Than many studies, yes.
say no more... I forgot that you only speak in "facts".
Originally posted by "theSaj":

This is why I say your statement as to this is a moot point. Your in a sense arguing against that which does not exist for that which does exist, but still rejecting it's results. In fact, using the arguments of the one as an attack on the other, even though it falls into the latter category.

Either, you are changing your tune. Or misrepresenting the argument, or merely tossing a red herring onto the floor of discussion.


Cannot understand you. Popular approval of a policy does not mean that it should be enacted - and there are certain, limited safeguards to prevent that happenning in a representative democracy where the policy is populist but unworkable or undesirable from a rational/principled point of view. That does not mean that it won't happen, merely that there are obstacles.

Originally posted by thesaj:

Every time I get on the highway I am at risk for an accident, one that could even potentially be my fault. Would it be right to simply tell the person who I hit. "I choose not to be responsible for said accident." Our society rejects such thinking in almost all other cases. Except this one...(Oh, and I strongly support the requiring of reasonable support from the father.)


Example would be valid if it were only women who were capable of having an accident (not going there...). It is only fathers that can run away with relative impunity (whether that is right or wrong).

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Because, to essentially quote you, being in the majority opinion does not necessarily mean you're right. And science (yes, that thing conservatives are always accused of dismissing) has without a shadow of a doubt proven that a fetus is not part of a woman's body.


Never claimed to be "right" just queried why I am always the bullshitter, and you are only ever dealing in facts. I have never suggested that a foetus is "part" of a woman. In order to achive the libveration of women, women must have control over their bodies, including the choice as to whether to bear children. IMO - there is a point at which a foetus' rights compete with those of the mother to self determination - but its rights do not compete at the point of conception. They compete at a later date, and I do not propose to get into a slanging match as to whether that should be 5 or 6 months - that kind of detail can be argued interminably and there is no right answer.

Originally posted by theSaj:

So what you're really talking about is financial health and well being. I find it quite odd (hypocritical) when liberals argue for the death of innoncents for financial gain.


It should be a right of the mother to bear these factors in mind. Her rights compete with those of a foetus. The relative rights of mother and foetus change over time.

Originally posted by theSaj:

And this is supposed to be an argument. So, essentially, if it doesn't directly affect me I have no right nor responsibility to act....
What you are arguing is "turn a blind eye" but I find it funny that you won't apply this to any where else, outside this particular issue.
no - I only said it was a factor. Care should (as it generally is) be taken when compromising the rights of one person (ie me) to satisfy the concerns of a person who will be unaffected by the decision (ie you).

Originally posted by thesaj:

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Additionally, to the extent your argument is influenced by religious principles, it becomes an article of faith and loses some authority.


Okay, LB, please show me where I have made a religious argument. You don't want religious people to dismiss your ability to have morals without religion.
see bold
Originally posted by theSaj:

But you so casually dismiss religious people's ability to have morals outside of or beyond religion.
no - I would argue the opposite. Morality is not the preserve of religion, but born out of society.

Originally posted by theSaj:

And this is what you always resort too. I address you solely on a rational non-religious basis and you come back with a crap argument like that. "Because you're religious you have no argument."

Come on...that's just cowardly.


Just thought that it would play a part in your reasoning - you do appear to assume that human life starts at conception, which is a moderately religious take on the matter.

Originally posted by theSaj:

we've had life sentences before. But by the time 25 yrs comes up activist judges create precident for their release. And we go thru the cycle again.


so you would support the death penalty because it is discovered after 25 or so years in some cases that the person shouldn't really be locked up any more. Isn't this an argument against the death penalty: that so many people are ultimately released, an option that is not available to the dead...?

Originally posted by "theSaj":


Not true, there are times that there is no doubt. Individual was witnessed at the scene of the crime, officials caught perpetraror in the act of the crime, video captured the crime, fingerprints and DNA evidence confirms it was the individual.


Okay - to take your example, what if the person committed the crime while sleepwalking? What if under the threat of their famiy being wiped out? What if the video was a bit blurry and there was a misidentification, the crime was just off-camera and the person "caught in the act" was running for help after touching the evidence, leaving the fingerprints (or the police added the finger prints because he "knew" the suspect was guilty but wanted a bit more evidence), and poor quality controls at the lab meant that a sample from the suspect got mixed up with the sample evidence, creating a positive match? The mistaken video evidence and mix up of DNA samples have both happened quite a bit. There is always doubt. If we took your standards to the extreme, there would be no death penalties.
Originally posted by theSaj:

But that is IMHO not irrefutable evidence. When you were filmed kidnapping a little girl and your semen was found inside her. When you are caught on film blowing the back out of a 7-11 clerk and an undercover cop was in the back of the store and arrests you. And it's all caught on camera. There is no doubt. The death penalty should be available. And available quickly.
Video and DNA are not 100% reliable as explained above and innocent men have been convicted because of both.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 15:43:24.
12/14/2005 03:47:29 PM · #138
By the way....I am still waiting on anyone to talk about the victims in this case. They are the ones who helped Tookie become so popular.

How quickly we forget the bit actors in the drama in the interest to fight the eternal death penalty argument.

I would like to know what Albert Lewis Owens might be doing today or how about Yee-Chen Lin, she was only 42 at the time she was shot in the face at close range, totally eliminating her lower jaw..probably could have had a little more left in the tank.

Oh..I get it...that takes away from the important debate...the evil court system that frames tortured souls like Tookie and denies them justice for 26 years.

Pfftt...truth..noone cares. It doesn't serve anyones purpose to talk about them. They are just the background. We all know it's about the bad guys. They are the interesting ones..they sell the books and movies and get the stars to come out.

I wonder if Jamie Foxx layed one wreath of flowers at the graves of these people on his trip to visit his pal Tookie? Nawww....that doesn't draw the cameras and the At-a-boys at the local actors union and among his homies.

Yeah...everybody is going to win the hearts and minds of the american public highlighting the Tookie's of the world. Maybe if people did spend more time talking about the victims people like me might stop for a minute to pause and listen..instead of just chalking it up to idle pop culture wine and cheese talk. :-/

Oh..if you think I am a bit cynical....you might be on to something...

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 15:49:35.
12/14/2005 03:51:21 PM · #139
Originally posted by hokie:

And you know, I can understand your interest in discussing this because you are a lawyer and have some point you feel to prove but I have stated my opinion on the death penalty and this case several times.


I understand your opinion. I agree that he was probably guilty and deserved punishment. I am not trying to "prove" anything. I like debating. This is a big ticket issue - I think that it is healthy for people to think and challenge and be challenged on the issues. Just because I don't give much ground does not mean that I do not change my opinions.
Originally posted by hokie:

Being 12 years your senior..I was discussing and debating the death penalty in high school while you were still at home in diapers...
I am sad that you chose to make this statement.
12/14/2005 03:54:02 PM · #140
Originally posted by hokie:

By the way....I am still waiting on anyone to talk about the victims in this case. They are the ones who helped Tookie become so popular.


I feel sorry for them and their families. His death may bring some of their families some relief.

I am not sure that the relief it will afford justifies the sacrifice of society's principles - it is the principle I defend, not Williams.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 16:06:04.
12/14/2005 04:07:57 PM · #141
Originally posted by hokie:

Being 12 years your senior..I was discussing and debating the death penalty in high school while you were still at home in diapers...
I am sad that you chose to make this statement. [/quote]

My point in making this statement is simple.

Lots of people who may be all fired up about the death penalty seem to come at this thing as if this may be the first REAL discussion any intelligent person has had about the topic.

My point is...I am highly educated,I am around a lot of highly educated "thinkers" (lord save my soul). You will never know how often I have been involved in this kind of debate in 28 years.

But, the debate is always the same..it has not changed in 28 years.

It goes a little like this...see if this sounds familiar.

Man is not perfect...ergo..the courts (being man-made) are not perfect

...follow me now..its gets a little tricky at this point...

The courts..being an imperfect system ..are incapable of EVER PRODUCING A VERDICT THAT COULD BE INDISPUTABLE..being imperfect and all.

....we are coming to the home stretch.....

So....the courts should not be given the ability to enforce penalties that cannot be overturned..which they will be because..THEY ARE IMPERFECT.

Of course..I left the whole "I am a Christian, we should be like Jesus, vengeance is wrong, who are we to play god" thing all alone...although I have had to participate in THAT debate almost as often..especially if you get a few frisky pacifists around.

Now..take that argument...throw in some various points of historical references..and you have almost every debate I have ever heard concerning the Death Penalty.

So..the "Being 12 years your senior..I was discussing and debating the death penalty in high school while you were still at home in diapers" quote of mine was used as a reminder....been there..done that....a bunch. Not as an attack against you and your youth compared to my endless wisdom kind of thing :-/

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 16:10:52.
12/14/2005 04:23:35 PM · #142
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by hokie:

By the way....I am still waiting on anyone to talk about the victims in this case. They are the ones who helped Tookie become so popular.


I feel sorry for them and their families. His death may bring some of their families some relief.

I am not sure that the relief it will afford justifies the sacrifice of society's principles - it is the principle I defend, not Williams.


There it is in a nutshell. The great argument. Individuals are not considered in the search for truth in principles.

You know the funny thing. This search for the perfect world and a set of principles is wonderful..I make that argument a lot..more than anyone could possibly believe (it usually gives me the intellectual high ground in an argument..a height of which I can easily lob stones upon my adversaries).

But, this search for the perfect answer usually means that people..you know..the very thing these intellectual principles are supposed to protect, get overlooked. That is why the intellectual community loses support among the people..the dispassionate way victims are thrown to the side as immaterial in the pursuit of perfect justice.

That is my point. The intellectuals could have their cake (the imperfection of the death penalty and the need for reform) and eat it too IF for one minute...the victims were shown as getting , at the very least...EVEN TREATMENT AS THE CRIMINALS.

Get Jamie Foxx or Mike Ferrel to hold up the photos of the victims..have them ask Tookie during one of their conferences .."Tookie..do you ever think about the people you have murdered, mutilated and molested...or is it all about the Tookster?"

If I heard just one time this kind of discussion..I might have a change in heart that all this debate is really nothing more than a bunch of "I am smarter than you..let me tell you about it" types having a bit of a go at it.
12/14/2005 04:27:35 PM · #143
Originally posted by "pano":

please provide enough background on why this rober killed and don't be as silly as to think it was the 30$


The example I gave was mitigated as a self-defense in relation to the deceased. The example of the robber is in no way mitigated by self-defense in relation to the decease.

The clerk killed had no relation to the robber who murdered him. It is generally accepted that it is wrong to take one's anger or revenge out on an innoncent non-associated individual.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Popular approval of a policy does not mean that it should be enacted - and there are certain, limited safeguards to prevent that happenning in a representative democracy where the policy is populist but unworkable or undesirable from a rational/principled point of view. That does not mean that it won't happen, merely that there are obstacles.


Yes...very true. But I take issue with your habit of using this fact as an argument against any point you disagree with. This fact, applies both ways. It makes no determination of right or wrong, it just states the fact that majority may not always be right. Nor does it express that majority cannot be right.

Thus is it not an argument in support of your position nor against it. But it seems that in ever thread you state such as if it is an argument.

If you are in the majority, you tout it as proof. And when someone touts themself being in the majority you state the above as disproval. These are not arguments. And they surely are not rational arguments.

Hence, my dismissal of it.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Example would be valid if it were only women who were capable of having an accident (not going there...). It is only fathers that can run away with relative impunity (whether that is right or wrong).


Perhaps, before birth...but there are cases of mothers abandoning fathers to raise the children on their own. It is much rarer, but it does occur.

And adoption is always an option. Actually, adoption for newborns has an extremely high "take" rate. (It's the older kids usually in foster care who have a lot of trouble being placed.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


In order to achive the libveration of women, women must have control over their bodies, including the choice as to whether to bear children. IMO - there is a point at which a foetus' rights compete with those of the mother to self determination - but its rights do not compete at the point of conception.


Can you provide a scientific definition of that point? So much posting on erring in caution with executing criminals on the possibility of innoncence.

But when it comes to abortion, there is no concern to err on the side of caution. And there seems to be so much talk about how wrong it is to make a decision regarding another's body but to dismiss the act of the mother doing just that for the baby...and you wonder why we find it confusing.

You state there is a point. Would you support the ban on partial birth abortions (except in the cases when there is a physical risk to the mother or in cases or rape and incest)? YES or NO

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


It should be a right of the mother to bear these factors in mind. Her rights compete with those of a foetus. The relative rights of mother and foetus change over time.


When do they change, and why? at what time? on what scientific basis? are you absolutely sure? shouldn't we err on the side of caution for innoncent's sake?

How you can be anti-death penalty but pro-choice is to me and many others very confusing. How you can argue to err on innoncence one moment but not the next. To err in caution for probable criminals on the off chance of innoncence, but not to do the same for innoncents is to me extremely irrational.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Care should (as it generally is) be taken when compromising the rights of one person (ie me) to satisfy the concerns of a person who will be unaffected by the decision (ie you).


Agreed, and if you want to make out with another guy in the privacy of your home go ahead. If you want to make out with a girl in the privacy of your own home go ahead. I really don't care. But when the issue of innoncents being killed comes into play - that is when I believe action is justifiable in restricting your actions. Heck, why should we restrict any kind of killing? we restrict not wearing a seatbelt, we restrict driving with cell phones....simply because of their RISK to life. But when it comes to a flat out and out threat to life, we are told to take care in restricting. Guess what....this may come as a total SHOCK to you. But I did take "care" in deciding to take the stance I have. (I question whether you have taken the care to consider the innoncents involved?)

Okay, LB, please show me where I have made a religious argument.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

no - I would argue the opposite. Morality is not the preserve of religion, but born out of society.


Okay then, and seeing as I make care to avoid religious arguments and keep my arguments from a secular and philosophical realm (except rare occasions where I preface the fact and don't hold one outside my faith to any regard of the statement). So since I do not throw "religious" arguments your way. Can you cease attacking me on this ground every debate.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Just thought that it would play a part in your reasoning - you do appear to assume that human life starts at conception, which is a moderately religious take on the matter.


In past threads I have discussed the idea of a scientific method of establishing such. And whether there is good ground. In fact, some of discussed the idea of brainwaves, or neurons firing, etc as possibilities. But it must be a measurable, definable determination. And I have expressed that if something substantial could be demonstrated that I might consider such. I've expressed my arguments against the term "viable" because it is poorly defined and continually changed thus a dynamic element can't be used as a standard.

Essentially, what constitutes a 1st Down?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


so you would support the death penalty because it is discovered after 25 or so years in some cases that the person shouldn't really be locked up any more. Isn't this an argument against the death penalty: that so many people are ultimately released, an option that is not available to the dead...?


No, because the situation within prisons is different than out. And different temptations exist outside of prison that are not within. A sexual predator may appear fine, because in all normal aspects of day to day life they were fine. But only in the presence of young girls did they find that they could not control themselves. So after 25 yrs in prison they might seem perfect citizens, but their temptation has been removed. So they're released 25 yrs later. But now they're surrounded by little girls again and their evil unfolds once more. So no, having that risk is not acceptable to me or my family. No it is not an argument against the death penalty but rather quite a strong one for it.

***

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Okay - to take your example, what if the person committed the crime while sleepwalking?


They can make a plea for temp. insanity which will likely mitigate their crime and land them in a psychological prison instead of death row.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

What if under the threat of their famiy being wiped out?


Once again, a mitigating circumstance and one the courts take into account.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


"What if the video was a bit blurry and there was a misidentification, the crime was just off-camera and the person "caught in the act" was running for help after touching the evidence, leaving the fingerprints (or the police added the finger prints because he "knew" the suspect was guilty but wanted a bit more evidence), and poor quality controls at the lab meant that a sample from the suspect got mixed up with the sample evidence, creating a positive match?


Video was blurry...err on caution. Simple as that. As I said, it'd probably result in many less death row convictions. And for the ones that are made - much speedier deaths.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The mistaken video evidence and mix up of DNA samples have both happened quite a bit. There is always doubt.


If there is ALWAYS doubt, why should we punish criminals at all? Shouldn't we just say... "well, there was a 0.000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000238% chance you did not commit the crime. So you're free to go.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


If we took your standards to the extreme, there would be no death penalties.


And if we took your's to the extreme there would be no penalties. Your point?

Oh, as for evidence tampering. I am very against such. Perhaps we should re-instute some Roman style policies. If a police tampers with evidence and it is proven that the individual was innoncent. Said officer receives their sentence (or serves the same amount of time). Such a policy would great reduce such. And this is not so much an argument for or against the death penalty, but rather a totally seperate idea I have for reform of our judicial system.

"NO ONE MOURNS THE INNONCENT"

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 23:55:35.
12/14/2005 04:32:03 PM · #144
saj..help a brother out..your posts are KILLING MY EYES.

Can you take one point per post and pound him with that ;-p
12/14/2005 04:36:40 PM · #145
Sorry Hokie...

Gotta question for you: "How do you feel about your name being similar in appearance to his? Hokie vs Tookie? In fact, one might say you both are 'okie'...do you agree or disagree? With you both being okie's, what distinguishes you from him?

Why should we not give you the death penalty?

(could it be because Hokie hasn't committed murder? stay tuned folks...answer coming soon)


;)
12/14/2005 04:43:48 PM · #146
Originally posted by theSaj:

Originally posted by "pano":

please provide enough background on why this rober killed and don't be as silly as to think it was the 30$


The example I gave was mitigated as a self-defense in relation to the deceased. The example of the robber is in no way mitigated by self-defense in relation to the decease.

The clerk killed had no relation to the robber who murdered him. It is generally accepted that it is wrong to take one's anger or revenge out on an innoncent non-associated individual.


No, it was not self-defence, it was murder, the kid could have escaped there fore rendering the self defence theory useless.. it is only more undertandable and the hate is more personal/directed

Ok now i challenge you to try to undertand un-personal/deirected hate, surely you are able to do that after all you are also OK with killing some one who did not do anything to you personaly using the death penalty

12/14/2005 04:45:16 PM · #147
Originally posted by theSaj:

Sorry Hokie...

Gotta question for you: "How do you feel about your name being similar in appearance to his? Hokie vs Tookie? In fact, one might say you both are 'okie'...do you agree or disagree? With you both being okie's, what distinguishes you from him?

Why should we not give you the death penalty?

(could it be because Hokie hasn't committed murder? stay tuned folks...answer coming soon)

;)


hasn't commited murder YET, i would hide if i were you :-)))



Message edited by author 2005-12-14 16:46:17.
12/14/2005 04:52:52 PM · #148
Originally posted by theSaj:

Sorry Hokie...

Gotta question for you: "How do you feel about your name being similar in appearance to his? Hokie vs Tookie? In fact, one might say you both are 'okie'...do you agree or disagree? With you both being okie's, what distinguishes you from him?

Why should we not give you the death penalty?

(could it be because Hokie hasn't committed murder? stay tuned folks...answer coming soon)


;)


heheheh..dude, you KILL me!! Does that mean you get the death penalty?

Serious though, I got to stay away from the rhetorical debates..it kills my productivity as I try to keep up with all the mental gymnastics they require...I just don't have the brains cells or the endless resevoir of B.S. to compete like I used to
12/14/2005 05:13:10 PM · #149
Originally posted by "pano":

No, it was not self-defence, it was murder, the kid could have escaped there fore rendering the self defence theory useless.


She tried repeatedly and was returned home by police for running away. I essentially stated such.

Originally posted by "pano":


Ok now i challenge you to try to undertand un-personal/deirected hate, surely you are able to do that after all you are also OK with killing some one who did not do anything to you personaly using the death penalty


Okay, I will understand it. If I killed a man. I would expect to be tried for murder. And, regardless of my environment, poverty, race, ethnicity, education, etc. I would expect to be tried and convicted. And if deemed worthy of the death penalty....i'd expect that to be the result.

Having a tough life is not a mitigation of the specified crime. There are reasonable mitigations to various crimes. (ie: stealing food to feed one's self is a mitigating factor, but if you are stealing food from your neighbor but pulling down a million dollar a year paycheck. Don't expect us to accept you were hungry as a valid reason for your theft.

If you want to make mere environment a factor for murder, than living on the planet earth is in and of itself justification for murder.

Originally posted by "pano":


OK with killing some one who did not do anything to you personaly using the death penalty


I am reasonably okay with society executing an individual who caused harm to society. No, I am not OK with me executing someone (outside the order of law & society) when they have made no offense to me or my relations.

Originally posted by "hokie":


heheheh..dude, you KILL me!! Does that mean you get the death penalty?


Well, as it was said in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"....one of these days you're going to die laughing! ;)

Likely will be my cause of deceasation (is that a word).

;)

- Saj

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 18:17:40.
12/14/2005 05:15:27 PM · #150
Originally posted by hokie:

...I just don't have the brains cells or the endless resevoir of B.S. to compete like I used to


So you're admitting your arguments are "B.S."?

j/k, no need to reply :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 05:00:16 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 05:00:16 PM EDT.