• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ok, why should *this* guy live?

Drudgewire said:
His point is, by definition, the death penalty does not qualify as murder since the term includes that whole " under conditions specifically covered in law" thing. "Homicide?" Arugably yes. "
Click to expand...

Not arugably at all. Only arguable if you don't know the definition of the word.
 
dtugg said:
How could that possibly follow?
Click to expand...

I read the article. The guy has had his date of exicution postponed to look a a claim of double jepardy. As that is a fundamental consitutional right, and this is due process, the only reaction is emotional.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Not arugably at all. Only arguable if you don't know the definition of the word.
Click to expand...


It's the whole "by another person" thing. Do you put the death on one person? It's certainly iffy enough to debate, although I tend to agree that it does qualify and don't really care enough about the semantics either way to lose any sleep over it.
 
Uzzy said:
Except that capital punishment is a final and absolute punishment. Prison is needed to protect society, and doesn't go to the extreme of killing people for their crimes (which they may not have actually committed, of course).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's a different argument, and in fact the only anti-death penalty argument I accept -- no court system is advanced enough to be trusted with such a power.

However, if you go to prison for 20 years for something you didn't do, you'll never get those 20 years back, either.
 
Well, it's sort of like this: because some people, the so called Confessing Sam types, will cheerfully confess to anything whatsoever, the higher profile the better. This is in addition to the people who merely cave in under psychological pressure under interrogation and sign whatever is put in front of them. A good Confessing Sam will give a false testimony without any coercion, even maintain his/her guilt long after he/she's been ruled innocent.

The first recorded Confessing Sam that can be categorically classified as such is probably Robert Hubert in 1666. He actually went and confessed that he started the great fire of London by throwing a fire bomb through the window of a particular bakery. The problems with that confessions are just starting with the fact that that particular bakery had no windows. Hubert also was never anywhere near it. Even more importantly, he hadn't arrived in London until two days _after_ the fire. He was also judged to be too crippled to actually throw anything.

They hanged him anyway, btw, and maintained his guilt to the bitter end.

That's really why I hate the idea of executing someone, even if he provided a full confession. Even confessions given of one's own free will can often be false and given for a variety of reasons. Confessions squeezed out of someone by psychological pressure by the police doubly so. And then some people are just that suggestible and prone to confabulation. Etc.

Even in Powell's case, we don't really know if that taunting letter was the truthful confession, or some idiot's idea of inflicting some emotional distress right back. We can say that _probably_ he's the murderer, but short of having God's cell phone number we'll never be sure.

And he's a bit of a special case. Most other cases are nowhere near that clear cut.

And, really, there's nothing more you can do once you discover that someone's innocent after you've executed him. E.g., if the next year or even next day after Robert Hubert's hanging the sanity had finally sunk in that he couldn't have done it... you can't resurrect him, can you?
 
ponderingturtle said:
I read the article. The guy has had his date of exicution postponed to look a a claim of double jepardy. As that is a fundamental consitutional right, and this is due process, the only reaction is emotional.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I still don't see your point. He's still a dirtball.
 
dtugg said:
But this guy clearly did it so I am glad the state is going to kill him.
Click to expand...

Just to play devils advocate with this: He was tried for this crime with the full weight of a legal investigation, and found not guilty. Now he has confessed. But people confess to things they didn't do all the time. Why is it so clear that it is a truthful confession, rather than a bit of unpleasant bragging, when the full investigation didn't throw up enough evidence to convict him?

Edit: I see Hans is driving at a similar point, missed that - sorry, Hans.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Well, it's sort of like this: because some people, the so called Confessing Sam types, will cheerfully confess to anything whatsoever, the higher profile the better. This is in addition to the people who merely cave in under psychological pressure under interrogation and sign whatever is put in front of them. A good Confessing Sam will give a false testimony without any coercion, even maintain his/her guilt long after he/she's been ruled innocent.

The first recorded Confessing Sam that can be categorically classified as such is probably Robert Hubert in 1666. He actually went and confessed that he started the great fire of London by throwing a fire bomb through the window of a particular bakery. The problems with that confessions are just starting with the fact that that particular bakery had no windows. Hubert also was never anywhere near it. Even more importantly, he hadn't arrived in London until two days _after_ the fire. He was also judged to be too crippled to actually throw anything.

They hanged him anyway, btw, and maintained his guilt to the bitter end.
Click to expand...

Good to see that justice was served properly at least.
 
dtugg said:
Yeah. I still don't see your point. He's still a dirtball.
Click to expand...

So how do we determine who should and should not get due process?

If this whole thread is look at the slimeball, sure this man is a first rate slimeball. So what?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So how do we determine who should and should not get due process?

If this whole thread is look at the slimeball, sure this man is a first rate slimeball. So what?
Click to expand...

Where did anyone say or even imply that he should not get process?
 
In My Spare Time said:
Understood. Therefore beating a slave to death in old testament times was not murder if they took a couple days to die because that was also not unlawful. Aren't dictionary definitions a great way to win an argument about moral issues?
Click to expand...

If the law allowed it, then it was lawful. Whether it was moral is a separate issue that can never really be answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom