Death Penalty

[Dr. Keith]

DNA evidence has come along quite a bit since 1969, believe it or not.

Also, I don't see how this applies to a case where someone has 33 bodies buried under their house.

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

 

[Warp12]

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

This commentary makes no sense.

We are comparing someone who was exonerated on DNA evidence, from a case in 1969...to Gacy, who had 33 bodies buried under his house. The proof of guilt is quite different, as is the level of crime.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If he had been executed promptly, the case would have been closed, too. Without any further resource burden, nor a lifelong financial investment. But that can never happen, because of so many bleeding hearts. They need a victim to support, even if it is a child murderer.

Every time an animal like this is finally executed, you will see a few weirdo's outside protesting the result. I find those people sickening.

Speaking of animals...maybe when a dog mauls and kills a child, we should not euthanize them. After all, they are probably less culpable than a guy who has 33 bodies buried under his house. We can all protest the event while shouting, "Justice for Fido!". Then we can house, feed, and provide medical care for the dog until it expires of natural causes.

I don’t support child murders, I support a system that is exceptionally careful before it decides that a person in its custody must be killed. Especially since I don’t see a functional difference between life in a cage and death that is worth the effort.

Sort of how you don’t see a functional difference between a canine and a human. Actually, I knew a big dog once that made your position more tenable, but even then I decided there is a difference.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This commentary makes no sense.

We are comparing someone who was exonerated on DNA evidence, from a case in 1969...to Gacy, who had 33 bodies buried under his house. The proof of guilt is quite different, as is the level of crime.

Gacy’s appeals were not about who killed those people. I could read them to you, but there are big words. Maybe find a summary somewhere, like a middle school library.

 

[Warp12]

Gacy’s appeals were not about who killed those people. I could read them to you, but there are big words. Maybe find a summary somewhere, like a middle school library.

I was not referencing his appeals in any way. Although, none of them would be a reason to stop his execution. Which should have occurred much earlier on, imo.

 

[AmyStrange]

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Some folks here use the Tucker Carlson technique of only asking questions because to answer questions would reveal how ridiculous (and stupid) their beliefs are.

ETA: I'd rather have those on Death Row suffer and be tortured, but I'm glad I'm not in charge of the punishment phase, because I'm human and I'd probably make a lot of mistakes, but at least I'm honest about it.

 

[Warp12]

I don’t support child murders, I support a system that is exceptionally careful before it decides that a person in its custody must be killed.

Great, so we are in agreement. So, based on the evidence in many cases, you should not object to certain executions. Right?

Also, please see this comment:

However, I have already mentioned (repeatedly) the idea of reform regarding the death penalty. Things such as further refining the cases in which it is called for, procedural review, etc...but, nobody seems to care about that. They seem to be entirely focused on abolition. And that, to me, is where it shows that it is more of an ethical matter. And that debate is endless.

I also want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

 

[AmyStrange]

Great, so we are in agreement. So, based on the evidence in many cases, you should not object to certain executions. Right?

Also, please see this comment:



I too, want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

"thorough and efficient" meaning you want them shot in the head right now and not later. To hell with due process.

I can see where you're coming from with Gacy, but the way you say it is muddy and disgusting because you're not answering questions or giving any kind of real detail.

It's just shoot them in the head and be done with it.

ETA: I'm wondering who exactly you would do this to right now, but I'm not holding my breath while waiting for your answer.

I'll just assume you don't have one.

ETAA: Ridgway shouldn't count because if they break his deal than every family who could find out what happened to a loved one from a serial killer would probably never, ever know what happened to theirs, and that's a purely selfish thing to advocate just so you can watch or know he died.

It would be more constructive to go out and find evidence yourself that he killed someone outside King County, but that would mean you'd have to get out of your armchair and really do something about your "supposed" ideals.

 

[Bob001]

......
I also want a thorough and efficient process when it comes to imposing the death penalty.

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

 

[AmyStrange]

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

Don't hold your breath waiting for answers.

They don't have any good ones (or real ones) to give you. At least none that wouldn't make their answers look stupid.

 

[lomiller]

DNA evidence has come along quite a bit since 1969, believe it or not.

Wrongful convictions still happen in the age of DNA evidence, believe it or not.

Also, I don't see how this applies to a case where someone has 33 bodies buried under their house.

Cases where the person is really guilty don't change a thing, you have to prevent executing the ones wrongfully convicted first and foremost. The police, prosecutors judge and jury involved in these wrongful convictions and even the public at large were every bit as certain they have the right guy as you are that Gacy is guilty. With the death penalty there is no going back when they get it wrong, which does happen.

 

[lomiller]

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

Conservatism is an inherently fear driven phenomenon and uncertainty scares them. As such they can't tolerate uncertainty so they try to deny it's existence at every turn. IOW have a pathological NEED for a single correct answer, and executing someone, anyone, then forgetting about it forever whether that person was guilty or not plays into that..

 

[Thor 2]

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Well put Dr.

Mind you it surprises me not, when the loud voices of the ignorant, show they have the strongest convictions.

 

[Warp12]

I’m sorry. It took me a while to catch on because I treat most people here as if they at least know the basics if they hold a strong opinion on a topic, but it finally hit me. You think the appeals are about whether he filled those people or not. Dear precious thing, please go read a few appeal briefs and come back when you have just an inkling of what they were actually arguing about.

Well put Dr.
…
Mind you it surprises me not, when the loud voices of the ignorant, show they have the strongest convictions.

Odd. I wasn't even discussing Gacy's appeals, and I made this abundantly clear.

 

[Warp12]

IOW have a pathological NEED for a single correct answer, and executing someone, anyone, then forgetting about it forever whether that person was guilty or not plays into that..

Completely incorrect, and not congruent with my multiple statements advocating for reform.

 

[Warp12]

You don't seem willing to acknowledge that no human process can be perfect. How many innocent people are you willing to execute to maintain the death penalty? Also, the death penalty is either prohibited or suspended in a majority of states. What do the citizens of those states lose in comparison with the states where they still kill people? What do the citizens of every Western country that has prohibited the death penalty lose in comparison with the U.S. states that still impose it?

You also have refused to explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the death penalty vs. the undisputed financial costs and legal hazards.

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

 

[GlennB]

Wrongful convictions still happen in the age of DNA evidence, believe it or not.

Cases where the person is really guilty don't change a thing, you have to prevent executing the ones wrongfully convicted first and foremost. The police, prosecutors judge and jury involved in these wrongful convictions and even the public at large were every bit as certain they have the right guy as you are that Gacy is guilty. With the death penalty there is no going back when they get it wrong, which does happen.

It really is this simple. Forget the specific case of Gacy, who was 'obviously guilty' and look at the other 'obviously guilty' executions, where 'obviously guilty' turned out to be horribly wrong.

 

[AmyStrange]

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

Giving us your ideas for reforming the system would be a good start, but you never give any.

Your response always seems to be, shoot them in the head and to hell with due process.

Personally, I'd rather see them get tortured, because killing them quickly is too damn easy, but it's a good thing I'm not in charge, because I'm human (unlike some folks), and I'd probably make a lot of mistakes.

ETA: It also seems like you just want to go back to the good old days when you could lynch blacks (or anyone for that matter) just because you didn't have to worry about a pesky little thing called due process.

 

[Bob001]

I am advocating for reform, to improve the process. This can potentially cut down on costs and other hazards. No human process will ever be perfect. But as I have said before, we should not hedge our bets when sentencing.

You have already stated that there is literally no case that you would advocate for the death penalty to be imposed. No matter how concrete the evidence, no matter how heinous the crimes. So, what is there left to debate?

The criminal justice system serves the community. How are the people in places where the death penalty is imposed better off than the people where it is not?

 

[Dr. Keith]

Odd. I wasn't even discussing Gacy's appeals, and I made this abundantly clear.

I’m not going to read back through but I feel certain you complained that he should have been killed much sooner. If not, my bad.