Death Penalty

[vegetariantaxidermy]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinaki ... 5804a75208

[Walker]

I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?

Such precision resists pragmatic, applicable codification and manifestation under conditions that sustain The Age of Corruption.

[Walker]

This has to stop.

e-prime feedback:

You premise that the threat of the death penalty will deter future heinous crimes, crimes such as those displayed, but crimes not necessarily restricted to murder, those other crimes definable by a committee, according to as yet unspecified criteria.

In effect, this says that the possible benefit of innocent lives saved as a result of the deterrence, saved lives that may have been victims without the deterrence, outweighs the risk of a wrongful execution.

In effect, this reasoning asserts that society needs to tolerate the small possibility of wrongful execution, and thus excuse wrongful executions, for the societal benefit of possibly stopping what must be stopped.

Si?

I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?

Good Lord, the best of intentions could not stop a Be, or a Fragment.

[Vitruvius]

I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?

Such precision resists pragmatic, applicable codification and manifestation under conditions that sustain The Age of Corruption.

If you're going to keep repeating the bald assertion - that there's a risk of wrongful conviction, I can only present you again with the evidence I've presented before.

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)
Answered 10 months ago

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.2%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted. Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without facing consequences.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

When in addition you consider that serious crimes are a small percentage of overall crimes, that tend to receive some extra attention, and add in a death panel - reviewing the case to make a determination about the nature of the crime, there's zero chance of wrongful execution.

And your argument is, ah, but that's also a lie, and everything is a lie, and nothing is true. Let's not play post modernist politics because that really is corrupt!

[Walker]

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days…

However, woe to fourth very.

[Age]

I have shown that the risk of wrongful execution is zero. Do you disagree?

Such precision resists pragmatic, applicable codification and manifestation under conditions that sustain The Age of Corruption.

If you're going to keep repeating the bald assertion - that there's a risk of wrongful conviction, I can only present you again with the evidence I've presented before.

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)
Answered 10 months ago

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.2%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted. Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without facing consequences.

Just because you like a law does not mean nor make it is right.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

When in addition you consider that serious crimes are a small percentage of overall crimes, that tend to receive some extra attention, and add in a death panel - reviewing the case to make a determination about the nature of the crime, there's zero chance of wrongful execution.

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here is a great example of just how blind some people can be, and the reason why they become so blind is because of their already gained and well maintained beliefs.

And your argument is, ah, but that's also a lie, and everything is a lie, and nothing is true. Let's not play post modernist politics because that really is corrupt!

Your claim that you have provided evidence that there is zero chance of wrongful execution is a great example of corruption of thee Truth, and as such is just a downright lie.

Human beings are executed wrongly, in the days when this is written, and will continue to be wrongly executed unless your system changes, for the better. This you can not refute.

[Vitruvius]

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days…

However, woe to fourth very.

You miss the point that DC Candler is talking about all crimes; so of that 0.2% - only a few would be serious crimes, and these would be reviewed by a panel to determine the nature of the crime. Only a few of those would be Inhuman Crimes, so you're talking about fractions of fractions of 0.2%, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Given these statistics and further safeguards, your argument is that the infinitesimal outweighs the benefit. But how often is some shit-bag let out; after years in prison at untold cost to the taxpayer, and does the same thing again?
Can you tell me that never happens?

[RCSaunders]

... very, very, very few people, ... are wrongly convicted these days ...

Why should anyone be wrongly convicted of anything? How much wrong is OK with you? And what's the point? If you think the purpose of punishment is to protect others, how may have to be punshed before it's enough. "If we can just save one person from being robbed, or raped, or murdered, imprisoning or executing 1000 wrongly will be worth it?"

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without facing consequences.

I can't speak for anyone else, but anyone who confuses obeying the law with doing right is as morally corrupt as it gets. If the law says you must report your neighbor to the police if they are ... (pick any ethnic variety you like) and you do it, you are evil. When the law is immoral (which most laws are) it is wrong and evil to obey them.

[Age]

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days…

However, woe to fourth very.

You miss the point that DC Candler is talking about all crimes; so of that 0.2% - only a few would be serious crimes, and these would be reviewed by a panel to determine the nature of the crime. Only a few of those would be Inhuman Crimes, so you're talking about fractions of fractions of 0.2%, statistically indistinguishable from zero. Given these statistics and further safeguards, your argument is that the infinitesimal outweighs the benefit. But how often is some shit-bag let out; after years in prison at untold cost to the taxpayer, and does the same thing again?
Can you tell me that never happens?

If human beings, like "yourself" "vitruvius", did NOT grow up viewing OTHER human beings as "shit-bags", then human beings would NOT grow up doing those things, which 'you' say are perfectly acceptable anyway, like for example, killing human beings.

The hypocrisy you have SHOWN here is OUTSTANDING.

[Age]

... very, very, very few people, ... are wrongly convicted these days ...

Why should anyone be wrongly convicted of anything? How much wrong is OK with you? And what's the point? If you think the purpose of punishment is to protect others, how may have to be punshed before it's enough. "If we can just save one person from being robbed, or raped, or murdered, imprisoning or executing 1000 wrongly will be worth it?"

Great question. But also let us not forget that punishment has NEVER stopped crime/wrong doing, EVER.

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without facing consequences.

I can't speak for anyone else, but anyone who confuses obeying the law with doing right is as morally corrupt as it gets. If the law says you must report your neighbor to the police if they are ... (pick any ethnic variety you like) and you do it, you are evil. When the law is immoral (which most laws are) it is wrong and evil to obey them.

VERY, VERY True.

[Vitruvius]

... very, very, very few people, ... are wrongly convicted these days ...

Why should anyone be wrongly convicted of anything? How much wrong is OK with you? And what's the point? If you think the purpose of punishment is to protect others, how may have to be punshed before it's enough. "If we can just save one person from being robbed, or raped, or murdered, imprisoning or executing 1000 wrongly will be worth it?"

Wow, things must be rough in the world inside your head - a world which has no relation to the world we all live in, because you don't believe in anything. It's not possible to discuss anything with you RC - because there's no collective consciousness. Your yardstick of everything is you. So, y'know - good luck with that.

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean you can break it without facing consequences.

I can't speak for anyone else, but anyone who confuses obeying the law with doing right is as morally corrupt as it gets. If the law says you must report your neighbor to the police if they are ... (pick any ethnic variety you like) and you do it, you are evil. When the law is immoral (which most laws are) it is wrong and evil to obey them.

That's your opinion about your opinion ad infinitum. Thanks for sharing!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is a lot of doubt concerning the conviction of Darlie Routier who is currently on death row. And I don't care what your 'opinion' is--it's irrelevant. The point is that she could quite easily be executed and innocent.

[Gary Childress]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... n-28-weeks



This has to stop.

Agree with you there. I wish it would too.

[henry quirk]

Haven't "seen" Henry around for a while? (Since Sept. 1)

Indeed.

I meant it when I posted...

...my time and contributions here will be light from now on...

...this forum is not a friendly place (*management sucks [vigorously, while on its knees]).

And, after a month and half (more or less) away, I pop in to find the same whackadoodles bein' whackadoodly over the same manure.

Seems only right I should drop some Quirk-brand diarrhea into the mix before goin' off again.

First up: duh-duh-duh-dubious over in the quotes thread.






*fuck 'em (with a big red dildo)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

This site is probably the closest thing to free speech left in existence, so it's ironic that an American who is always banging on aboout 'freedom' would have a massive extended butt-hurt sulk about it just because he had one thread locked (a thread that had, incidentally, been allowed to continue for months and consisted almost entirely of site-clogging 'memes').