WORKING ON FIFTY!

[rigney]

Just left the Gifford's shooting post and ran across this. Rarely, but in all honesty, this time I am without words.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/115496449.html

Edited February 8, 2011 by rigney

[ydoaPs]

What a mighty fine hyperlink you have there. Mind tellin us more about it?

[rigney]

What a mighty fine hyperlink you have there. Mind tellin us more about it?

 

Yes, it's sensationalism, but sadly it's news. My local source here in Cleveland, Ohio is Cox.Net. The link below is as shocking and even more gruesome.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8310101/New-York-TV-executive-found-guilty-of-beheading-wife.html

Edited February 8, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Your first link seems to tell the story of a situation in which the police will charge him with any possible outstanding murder charge and he will plead guilty. There is no downside to him pleading guilty - but if he denies it and gets found guilty he can suffer death penalty. Some police forces would have already charged him with every outstanding case just to improve their clear up rate.

[rigney]

Your first link seems to tell the story of a situation in which the police will charge him with any possible outstanding murder charge and he will plead guilty. There is no downside to him pleading guilty - but if he denies it and gets found guilty he can suffer death penalty. Some police forces would have already charged him with every outstanding case just to improve their clear up rate.

 

I take your reasoning verbatim. But the guy should have been put to death years ago. What about the second case in question?

[md65536]

What is it that you are speculating? Do you have some theory involving aliens or a government coverup?

 

 

Please note that all posts that are not baseless in scientific fact or not outside of mainstream physics should not be in the Speculations forum.

Readers come here looking for absurd opinions and ridiculous conjecture, and don't expect to be confused by facts.

 

Reminder: The rules of the Speculations forum:

 

No maths.

Incomprehensible.

You must contradict accepted science.

No evidence.

Obvious errors.

It's not science.

 

 

 

Okay this post is in jest, but the serious part of it is: Elsewhere in the forums there are rules about what should and shouldn't be posted... why is Speculations treated as a joke or a dumping ground? This thread is about news, and is not even science related. If there's anywhere on this site where the post belongs, it might be the Lounge?

 

 

 

But anyway... now that the thread is already here, please ignore my curmudgeonly post and carry on the discusion...

Edited February 8, 2011 by md65536

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I think this belongs in politics, but I'm not sure what the point is. I don't see why it was posted in Speculations. Can we buy a vowel here, Pat? Li'l help?

[rigney]

!

Moderator Note

I think this belongs in politics, but I'm not sure what the point is. I don't see why it was posted in Speculations. Can we buy a vowel here, Pat? Li'l help?

 

You're right! It really doesn't belong in Speculations or anywhere else on this forum. "My Bad"! If I may, I suggest you can it.

 

What is it that you are speculating? Do you have some theory involving aliens or a government coverup?

 

 

Please note that all posts that are not baseless in scientific fact or not outside of mainstream physics should not be in the Speculations forum.

Readers come here looking for absurd opinions and ridiculous conjecture, and don't expect to be confused by facts.

 

Reminder: The rules of the Speculations forum:

 

No maths.

Incomprehensible.

You must contradict accepted science.

No evidence.

Obvious errors.

It's not science.

 

 

 

Okay this post is in jest, but the serious part of it is: Elsewhere in the forums there are rules about what should and shouldn't be posted... why is Speculations treated as a joke or a dumping ground? This thread is about news, and is not even science related. If there's anywhere on this site where the post belongs, it might be the Lounge?

But anyway... now that the thread is already here, please ignore my curmudgeonly post and carry on the discusion...

 

Ok,! I erroneously screwed up and put the post in Speculations, and understand your frovolity. But if Psychology and Physiology are not sciences, then I do beg your pardon. Otherwise, must everything not relating to Hubble, Einstein or Newton be relegated to the trash can? It's possible that neither of these guys are capable of tying their own shoes. But on the other hand, they both may be rocket scientists?

 

Psychology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology

 

Physiology http://www.google.com/search?q=Study+of+the+human+body%3F&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en

Edited February 9, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I take your reasoning verbatim. But the guy should have been put to death years ago. What about the second case in question?

Do you want to discuss the errors by the judges? Are you suggesting that according to the laws in the country/state where this murderer committed his crimes, he must be put to death?

I have no idea about the laws, so I cannot participate in such a discussion.

 

Or do you wish to discuss whether a serial killer can be put to death?

I am against the death penalty in all cases... for reasons that have been explained much better than I can by those politicians who abolished it many years ago in every country in Europe, and many others outside Europe. Sorry that I do not provide a link... It basically comes down to the point that death is a final thing, and cannot be changed. A dead person cannot be made alive.

There is no perfect justice system... every justice system will make mistakes. If the death penalty exists, then the law will kill innocent people.

 

Obviouly, this guy with 49 confessed murders is not going to be one of those mistakes. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and the safest line is to draw it at no death penalty ever.

 

Put that guy in jail for the rest of his life...

[imatfaal]

Nice Post Captain. The Innocence Project at Cardozo School of Law provides profiles for over 200 people in the USA wrongly convicted and subsequently exonerated through DNA evidence - 17 where awaiting the death penalty!

[rigney]

Do you want to discuss the errors by the judges? Are you suggesting that according to the laws in the country/state where this murderer committed his crimes, he must be put to death?

I have no idea about the laws, so I cannot participate in such a discussion.

 

Or do you wish to discuss whether a serial killer can be put to death?

I am against the death penalty in all cases... for reasons that have been explained much better than I can by those politicians who abolished it many years ago in every country in Europe, and many others outside Europe. Sorry that I do not provide a link... It basically comes down to the point that death is a final thing, and cannot be changed. A dead person cannot be made alive.

There is no perfect justice system... every justice system will make mistakes. If the death penalty exists, then the law will kill innocent people.

 

Obviouly, this guy with 49 confessed murders is not going to be one of those mistakes. But a line must be drawn somewhere, and the safest line is to draw it at no death penalty ever.

 

Put that guy in jail for the rest of his life...

 

How can you draw a line between sanity and insanity when it comes to "cold blooded" murder? Me? God forbid, but I simply can't. A man cutting his wife's head off for lack of decorum, is little different to me than butchering four dozen people at his own volition. We have qualms and differences about justice, but what is justice? Life is not a given, it is granted. Granted through a benevelonce that I'm yet to understand. But, to willfully destroy another human or any creature without justification or purpose is disgraceful to the meaning of humanity itself. To even kill a snake without it haven bitten or tried to bite you, is a dishonorable act. Nature gives us brains to discern the difference. I would never lock a snake up, expecting retribution. But then, neither would I lock up a malicious murderer, longer than needed to dispatch them. Edited February 11, 2011 by rigney

[ParanoiA]

Nice Post Captain. The Innocence Project at Cardozo School of Law provides profiles for over 200 people in the USA wrongly convicted and subsequently exonerated through DNA evidence - 17 where awaiting the death penalty!

 

Nice project. I've always been disturbed by our seeming lack of concern to exonerate the wrongly convicted. There's probably way more to it than I realize, but I don't get the resistance by courts to deal with this. Enough with the death penalty already, it runs counter to the spirit of our justice system.

 

There is no perfect justice system... every justice system will make mistakes. If the death penalty exists, then the law will kill innocent people.

 

Right on.

Edited February 11, 2011 by ParanoiA

[rigney]

name='CaptainPanic' timestamp='1297358700' post='588705']

Do you want to discuss the errors by the judges? Are you suggesting that according to the laws in the country/state where this murderer committed his crimes, he must be put to death?

 

I can't argue with your conviction as to what justice means to you. But I hope and pray the day will never come in our future when you are looking up at a blade coming down to sever your head, and you have that instant to think, "I was wrong". That would be an absolute pity. Yes, an innocent life may be lost from time to time due to human error. But should that exonerate a (blatant)?, and brutal murderer, when we know his deeds to be a fact? And that, whether it be one or a hundred?

Edited February 11, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Rigney - you talk about not understanding another's concept of justice and juxtapose it with an image of 'blade coming down to ...' How does a slightly sinister "I hope nothing nasty happens to you" type comment tie in with your ideas of justice? Do you think that muggers take a quick survey and only attack those who deny the morality, efficacy, and legality of the death penalty in a modern state?

 

Also what makes you equate life imprisonment with exoneration? Even without a full life term (ie it is not mandated that the prisoner will live out their entire lives incarcerated) then a life prisoner is never exonerated or even able to "repay the debt to society" - the life prisoner may be allowed out of prison, but he/she remains on licence and subject to recall for the rest of their natural.

 

Yes, an innocent life may be lost from time to time due to human error

i respectfully disagree - I would go with Blackstone (who wrote the book on Criminal Law) echoed by Ben Franklin "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Edited February 11, 2011 by imatfaal

[Mr Skeptic]

i respectfully disagree - I would go with Blackstone (who wrote the book on Criminal Law) echoed by Ben Franklin "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

I agree, but only to a point. Is it still better that 100 guilty escape than that 1 innocent suffer? 1000? 1,000,000? At some point we need to accept that we will punish the innocent, or that we cannot punish anyone at all.

[ParanoiA]

I agree, but only to a point. Is it still better that 100 guilty escape than that 1 innocent suffer? 1000? 1,000,000? At some point we need to accept that we will punish the innocent, or that we cannot punish anyone at all.

 

And I think that point is the death penalty. I accept we need to punish people and that the innocent will get caught up in it and because of that I think we should limit our punishments to the kind that can at least be stopped upon discovery. Digging up corpses for reanimation isn't an option....yet.

 

 

I would go with Blackstone (who wrote the book on Criminal Law) echoed by Ben Franklin "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

 

That's the spirit I was talking about right there. That Ben Franklin soundbite doesn't reconcile with the death penalty; they seem antithetical to each other.

[rigney]

And I think that point is the death penalty. I accept we need to punish people and that the innocent will get caught up in it and because of that I think we should limit our punishments to the kind that can at least be stopped upon discovery. Digging up corpses for reanimation isn't an option....yet.

 

 

That's the spirit I was talking about right there. That Ben Franklin soundbite doesn't reconcile with the death penalty; they seem antithetical to each other.

 

imatfaal

Posted Today, 08:42 AM

 

Rigney - you talk about not understanding another's concept of justice and juxtapose it with an image of 'blade coming down to ...' How does a slightly sinister "I hope nothing nasty happens to you" type comment tie in with your ideas of justice? Do you think that muggers take a quick survey and only attack those who deny the morality, efficacy, and legality of the death penalty in a modern state?

 

Oh! The blade is very real and also quite subtle. I may be wrong in my stance on justice. But if, and I say if!, the Muslim Righteous Brothers or street gangs ever take control of even a part of this country, it won't make a damn bit of difference how you feel about justice. Mexico is a perfect example if you want, or dare to look into their desperation. Our turn will come unless we get our heads out of our backsides and start enforcing laws! And if one of these upstanding orginizations should bring your innocence up on charges, I will show my sympathy for you, but other than that; I'll keep my damn mouth shut. You are somewhat safe now because, even with all of our faults, things are handled in moderation. Believe me, a time will come, that will not always be the case. By the way, what kind of business or work are you in? Or a student, trying to save the world? Edited February 11, 2011 by rigney

[imatfaal]

Oh! The blade is very real and also quite subtle. I may be wrong in my stance on justice. But if, and I say if!, the Muslim Righteous Brothers or street gangs ever take control of even a part of this country, it won't make a damn bit of difference how you feel about justice. Mexico is a perfect example if you want, or dare to look into their desperation. Our turn will come unless we get our heads out of our backsides and start enforcing laws! And if one of these upstanding orginizations should bring your innocence up on charges, I will show my sympathy for you, but other than that; I'll keep my damn mouth shut. You are somewhat safe now because, even with all of our faults, things are handled in moderation. Believe me, a time will come, that will not always be the case. By the way, what kind of business or work are you in? Or a student, trying to save the world?

 

So your idea of argument is barely veiled threats of damnation. Again where is any stance on justice - you just seem to be peddling fear. You are making an assumption that an attitude of harsh punishment is the only bastion against social anarchy - this is highly contested; there is no point just saying how bad things can get, you need to prove the point that draconian law and enforcement make a difference.

 

You say that we need to start enforcing laws - how? Do you really see the USA as too lax? How many more people can the USA jail? 1 in 100 adults are in jail - what margin of increase is left? Talk about a carceral society!

 

And you would negatively judge me for being a "student, trying to save the world" would you? No, can't help you score cheap points there; I work in shipping, based in London, Piraeus, and New York.

[ParanoiA]

Oh! The blade is very real and also quite subtle. I may be wrong in my stance on justice. But if, and I say if!, the Muslim Righteous Brothers or street gangs ever take control of even a part of this country, it won't make a damn bit of difference how you feel about justice. Mexico is a perfect example if you want, or dare to look into their desperation. Our turn will come unless we get our heads out of our backsides and start enforcing laws! And if one of these upstanding orginizations should bring your innocence up on charges, I will show my sympathy for you, but other than that; I'll keep my damn mouth shut. You are somewhat safe now because, even with all of our faults, things are handled in moderation. Believe me, a time will come, that will not always be the case. By the way, what kind of business or work are you in? Or a student, trying to save the world?

 

I'm confused why you think prison instead of death means we aren't enforcing laws. All we're advocating is just to stop killing - we're not advocating anything beyond that. Keep putting them in prison, enforcing laws, all that, we like that. Criminals going to jail is good stuff.

 

Besides, the death penalty doesn't punish them as thoroughly anyway. They'll endure punishment as the process is executed, and then...nothing. Dead. Do you remember when you didn't exist? Do you feel the punishment of not existing? What makes you think a child murderer or any of these sickos deserves to have it so good? I'd rather they live in a cage and endure decades of punishment.

[rigney]

So your idea of argument is barely veiled threats of damnation. Again where is any stance on justice - you just seem to be peddling fear. You are making an assumption that an attitude of harsh punishment is the only bastion against social anarchy - this is highly contested; there is no point just saying how bad things can get, you need to prove the point that draconian law and enforcement make a difference.

 

You say that we need to start enforcing laws - how? Do you really see the USA as too lax? How many more people can the USA jail? 1 in 100 adults are in jail - what margin of increase is left? Talk about a carceral society!

 

And you would negatively judge me for being a "student, trying to save the world" would you? No, can't help you score cheap points there; I work in shipping, based in London, Piraeus, and New York.

 

In all honesty, I wasn't trying to be judgemental, just wanting to draw you out. And cheap shots, look at your accusations! You want me to feel like "Jack the Ripper" or this Green River strangler monster because I think both of these guys should be "OFFED"? No! I simply can't accomodate you. Be up front with your disagreements and I will glady converse with you, just don't nibble around. When the mercenaries of chaos in this country feel inclined, to think the picking are easy, Mexico will look like a nice place to visit. But by then, England will have a new name printed in Arabic. Edited February 11, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

How can you draw a line between sanity and insanity when it comes to "cold blooded" murder? Me? God forbid, but I simply can't.

 

A man cutting his wife's head off for lack of decorum, is little different to me than butchering four dozen people at his own volition. We have qualms and differences about justice, but what is justice? Life is not a given, it is granted. Granted through a benevelonce that I'm yet to understand. But, to willfully destroy another human or any creature without justification or purpose is disgraceful to the meaning of humanity itself. To even kill a snake without it haven bitten or tried to bite you, is a dishonorable act. Nature gives us brains to discern the difference. I would never lock a snake up, expecting retribution. But then, neither would I lock up a malicious murderer, longer than needed to dispatch them.

Please describe the situation in which a convict should only just escape the death penalty, and get another punishment instead.

 

Where do you draw the line? You must draw a line... You cannot base a justice system on incidents and emotions. You have to write down the law. If you wish to discuss this in a science-forum, you must expect that we ask you to make things a little concrete. What you do until now in this thread is nothing more than a display of emotion regarding this particular convict. That's all nice, but now I ask of you that you make a clear proposal when the death penalty is justifiable, and when it is not justifiable.

 

I personally draw that line at killing nobody at all. I want to know where you draw the line.

[rigney]

Please describe the situation in which a convict should only just escape the death penalty, and get another punishment instead.

 

Where do you draw the line? You must draw a line... You cannot base a justice system on incidents and emotions. You have to write down the law. If you wish to discuss this in a science-forum, you must expect that we ask you to make things a little concrete. What you do until now in this thread is nothing more than a display of emotion regarding this particular convict. That's all nice, but now I ask of you that you make a clear proposal when the death penalty is justifiable, and when it is not justifiable.

 

I personally draw that line at killing nobody at all. I want to know where you draw the line.

 

I pretty much explained how I feel about killing morally, not legally as you define it. Here in the states we have laws on the books governing everything from passing gas in church to the proper method of spitting on a sidewalk. And those laws go on to include mass murder. It's that gray area of the application which pisses me off and nullifies the effect of these laws. Our biggest loop hole is the legal profession itself. When I arrived in Cleveland, Ohio in 1951, if you went to the yellow pages of a phone book, you'd likely find a dozen or so pages dedicated to attorneys. Today, 60 years later and with half the population, attorneys need their own phone book. Since 1951 the population of Cleveland has diminished by a resounding 50%. From close to a million then, as compared to less than 500,000 today. But, our phone book have grown to require an additional 128 pages listing only Attorneys. And as I said, with half the population? And why? You may be a law school student or a practicing attorney, but I don't plan to be dragged into a professional dispute where I have no expertise. The Manson's, O.J.Simpsons, Green River stranglers, plus a host of other brutal murderin' bastards that are sitting in a jail cell for life at my expense, makes looking at the prospects of Sharia law, not seem too bad. But, if you are actually looking to define sympathy, you might go to the dictionary. The definition, i'm sure is somewhere between sh-t and syphilis. Have a good one. Edited February 16, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

I pretty much explained how I feel about killings morally, not legally as you define it.

Also morally you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

I still would like to get an answer... you can choose yourself whether you take a moral or a legal approach.

 

You still should be able to describe a situation in which a criminal escapes the capital punishment, but only just.

 

Also morally, I think the law should never kill someone.

[rigney]

Also morally you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

I still would like to get an answer... you can choose yourself whether you take a moral or a legal approach.

 

You still should be able to describe a situation in which a criminal escapes the capital punishment, but only just.

 

Also morally, I think the law should never kill someone.

 

What do you consider a moral obligation? I would not take you as a conscious objector, but on the other hand, are you?

Were you ever in the military? If not, it's hard spelling out morals while using such a concept. A spotter picks up a sniper at 2,000 yds. The shooter gets into position and caps the supposed (bad guy). Morally, is this right or wrong? Be honest! and tell me your thoughts. An enemy walks into your camp, unarmed and with his hand folded neatly behind his head. But instinctively you bust a cap on him. Right, wrong? It's 2AM, you and your wife are lying peacefully in bed. Your door creaks open and the hulk of an intruder is standing only feet from you. Do you cover your head and pray, holler out, "Halt, who goes there?" Or simply cap the dumb s,o.b. and let the cops sort it out? No! morals can't be played out in todays court room settings. Our judicial system is a shambles and too dramatic to get things done right. And why?, there is so much money changing hands The game is better than drug trafficing and it's legal. Should the shooter in either of the instances not have shot the perp, but simply let him walk away, or feed him? Be your own judge. Should any of the three be prosecuted? I pray nothing like this ever happens in your life. With your concept of fairness, I can't imagine you making such a decision.

Edited February 16, 2011 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

How about this situation: A man comes at you with a weapon hollering that he's going to kill you. However, you manage to knock him out, then tie him up. Then you shoot him. While almost no one would have faulted you to shoot him in the first place, shooting him after he gets tied up is going to get you charged for murder. Yes, even though in this situation there is no need for a trial to determine the man's guilt due to the circumstances, it would still be murder. Except when the state does it, in which case it is execution. Now I'm not against execution but in the US it is not particularly cheaper than life imprisonment so there is little reason to carry one out.