someone getting fried

Sweep_the_Leg · July 31, 2019, 9:00pm

Because it’s illegal to escape from our prisons.

Black_Swan · July 31, 2019, 9:04pm

Hate to side with Poopenhauer, but I actually prefer many Scandinavian models to the US system and would support making it legal for them to escape our prisons. Seems wasteful, whatever those models did I’m sure it wasn’t that bad.

Schopenhauer · July 31, 2019, 9:04pm

Is making it illegal supposed to act as a deterrent?

Black_Swan · July 31, 2019, 9:09pm

Are you about to go full lib and argue that illegality is not a deterrent? Because even in prison for non-life sentences people weigh the fact that they’ll get released in 3-5 or whatever vs almost certainly being caught and then having your sentence multiplied.

Schopenhauer · July 31, 2019, 9:13pm

"If I have to choose between the population (including victims families) paying taxes to sustain a predator for life in a cage or insuring a more accurate final verdict (including subsequent reversals) through appeals and then erasing them, then it’s the latter. "

What the heck is this sentence supposed to mean if costs of a judicial model has nothing to do with it?

You’re creating a false dichotomy, and an illogical comparison. You’re saying you can either have [costs] or [better judicial system]. Sorry I assumed you meant [costs] or [costs]

Schopenhauer · July 31, 2019, 9:15pm

It was a low effort shot at Sweden’s model, and I made a low effort response. Not everything is part of the ‘librul agenda’

Black_Swan · July 31, 2019, 9:26pm

Schopenhauer:

Black_Swan:

Where in this statement did I say it was too expensive to keep them in jail or that we should remove appeals? I never made either claim. I don’t think you understood anything I said or have been saying in the prior few posts.

There is no redeeming value to Anders Behring Breivik existing in captivity.

"If I have to choose between the population (including victims families) paying taxes to sustain a predator for life in a cage or insuring a more accurate final verdict (including subsequent reversals) through appeals and then erasing them, then it’s the latter. "

What the heck is this sentence supposed to mean if costs of a judicial model has nothing to do with it?

You’re creating a false dichotomy, and an illogical comparison. You’re saying you can either have [costs] or [better judicial system]. Sorry I assumed you meant [costs] or [costs]

That statement had nothing to do with comparing the amount of cost as usual people not bothering to understand the point before responding. My prior points and context should have made it excessively clear I was not making a cost argument.

Black_Swan · July 31, 2019, 9:26pm

I mean he made a valid point, yours made no sense.

Malee · August 5, 2019, 8:30am

Black_Swan:

brain\_wash\_your\_face:

Black_Swan:

hei.so:

Seeing a whole new side to Greenman in this thread. Criminals do not think rationally when committing a crime. Torture would not be a deterrent to would-be criminals.

Black_Swan:

You can’t ignore the fact though, that with the use of DNA and the high burden of proof and process placed on death row convictions in the modern era, margin of error is now infinitesimal.

Which is not zero.

It’s effectively zero. To say otherwise would be to just blatantly misunderstand the burden of proof in the modern era for capital punishment. You need very strong evidence, nearly always inclusive of DNA which is effectively infallible. To argue otherwise and hold that out as a rationale is just failure to use reasoning.

Human error or corrupt investigators are still in play, though. DNA is accurate, but evidence can still be planted or otherwise contaminated.

Again, you have to weigh the body of evidence. Sure, somebody could in theory arrange a crime scene or create an elaborate CBS drama coverup that goes through the lab and the highest levels of government. In reality arranging a crime scene without implicating yourself if wildly difficult, for the same reasons its difficult to commit a crime in the first place. On top of that, DNA is not the sole piece of evidence considered. Again, I think people are somewhat confused about what goes into a modern death row conviction. It would literally and factually be easier to just kill a person yourself and get away with it rather than weave some elaborate high stakes low success rate plan to kill some other person then frame another on to death row, it actually is so comically illogical it makes zero sense. It’s a total boogie man concept and I’m surprised we haven’t pinned it on man bear pig.

In fact, let me turn it on its head. Show me a case after 1995 where that has ever happened and resulted in a death row conviction if you want to argue it can happen. That’s two decades across a nation.

I think people are just winding you up on the planting evidence bit. The bigger issue for me is this belief that DNA evidence is all you need like on Law & Order. Reality is that wealthy defendants who can afford first-class representation will dodge execution (or conviction altogether). Poor defendants will make up the bulk of death row.

Isaiah_53_5 · August 18, 2019, 3:02am

I don’t think all prosecutors go for the death penalty as well.