More injuste system relating to gun laws. This time in Ohio

• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;915482 wrote:Suppose 20,000 men convicted of murder were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and 19,999 of them were guilty. That means that 19,999 guilty men and 1 innocent man paid for 20,000 guilty men's crimes.
  
  By your logic that is not justice.

  That's why I said that a suitable option didn't exist as of now.
  
  However, at least the 1 innocent man has the possibility of being freed. It's not justice, but it's better that the alternative ... From his standpoint anyway.
• dwccrew

  

  majorspark;915482 wrote:Suppose 20,000 men convicted of murder were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, and 19,999 of them were guilty. That means that 19,999 guilty men and 1 innocent man paid for 20,000 guilty men's crimes.
  
  By your logic that is not justice.

  Excellent point.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;915489 wrote:I don't find the alternative perfectly acceptable in the most heinous cases. When two punks molest a child, rape and strangle their mother, tie the girls to their beds, burn them alive, are caught red handed in the act, and admit to the crime. No doubt as to their guilt. When John Couey rapes a young girl then buries her alive and an autopsy reports her skeletal fingers protruding from the plastic bag trying to dig her way out. I could go on and on with these no doubt heinous crimes.
  
  Due justice is not served on these heinous murders with no doubt of their crimes by giving them 3 square meals a day, a warm bed to sleep in, access to a library, forms of entertainment, communication with the outside world, etc...

  When did I say we have to give them communication to the outside world, etc? Just because I don't think we should kill people doesn't mean I want to buy murderers Xbox 360s.
  
  And wasn't there "no doubt" of the guilt of everyone that we've executed? Only to find out later in some cases that we were or could possibly be wrong?
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;921579 wrote:When did I say we have to give them communication to the outside world, etc? Just because I don't think we should kill people doesn't mean I want to buy murderers Xbox 360s.
  
  And wasn't there "no doubt" of the guilt of everyone that we've executed? Only to find out later in some cases that we were or could possibly be wrong?

  Generally it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute no doubt.
• O-Trap

  

  dwccrew;923555 wrote:Generally it is beyond a reasonable doubt, not absolute no doubt.

  I would contend that it is rare to find enough "reasonable" people to put on a jury. As such, I don't have much faith that what is deemed reasonable doubt is actually reasonable, particularly in cases where the crimes were especially violent or are especially high profile.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;921579 wrote:When did I say we have to give them communication to the outside world, etc? Just because I don't think we should kill people doesn't mean I want to buy murderers Xbox 360s.

  Never said you did. But the fact is murders serving life do get a lot of privileges beyond three squares and a warm bed. Letters of correspondence, access to libraries, interviews with the media, these things happen approved by the department of corrections. Charles Manson has been caught at least a couple of times with a cell phone.
  

  I Wear Pants;921579 wrote:And wasn't there "no doubt" of the guilt of everyone that we've executed? Only to find out later in some cases that we were or could possibly be wrong?

  I told you the system needs reformed. I gave some rough ideas that would make it virtually impossible to execute an innocent person.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;924308 wrote:Never said you did. But the fact is murders serving life do get a lot of privileges beyond three squares and a warm bed. Letters of correspondence, access to libraries, interviews with the media, these things happen approved by the department of corrections. Charles Manson has been caught at least a couple of times with a cell phone.

  So end those privileges for serious offenders. Seems simple and not a very good argument for the death penalty.
  
  

  I told you the system needs reformed. I gave some rough ideas that would make it virtually impossible to execute an innocent person.

  Again, I can't abide by "virtually impossible". Because there will eventually be someone who didn't do what they were accused of or circumstances were different than realized to the point that they did not deserve the death penalty.
  
  Let's look at this:
  
  MOST EXECUTIONS, 2005
  COUNTRY EXECUTIONS
  CHINA at least 1,770
  IRAN at feast 94
  SAUDI ARABIA at least 86
  UNITED STATES 60
  PAKISTAN 31
  YEMEN 24
  VIETNAM 21
  JORDAN 11
  MONGOLIA 8
  SINGAPORE 6
  
  Great fuckin' list to be on.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;924416 wrote:So end those privileges for serious offenders. Seems simple and not a very good argument for the death penalty.

  So you would be ok with a heinous murder serving life without parole confined to a 6x8 cell. 3 squares of the cheapest basic tasteless nutrition. A 1/2" mattress pad with one wool blanket and a thin pillow. One hour of solitary exercise a day. No TV, no internet, no library. Nothing. Just the murderer and the blocks and bars plus a lot of time to think about his crime
• dwccrew

  

  I Wear Pants;924416 wrote:So end those privileges for serious offenders. Seems simple and not a very good argument for the death penalty.
  
  
  Again, I can't abide by "virtually impossible". Because there will eventually be someone who didn't do what they were accused of or circumstances were different than realized to the point that they did not deserve the death penalty.
  
  Let's look at this:
  
  MOST EXECUTIONS, 2005
  COUNTRY EXECUTIONS
  CHINA at least 1,770
  IRAN at feast 94
  SAUDI ARABIA at least 86
  UNITED STATES 60
  PAKISTAN 31
  YEMEN 24
  VIETNAM 21
  JORDAN 11
  MONGOLIA 8
  SINGAPORE 6
  
  Great ****in' list to be on.

  Iran and Saudi Arabia are legit. C'mon now!
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;924665 wrote:So you would be ok with a heinous murder serving life without parole confined to a 6x8 cell. 3 squares of the cheapest basic tasteless nutrition. A 1/2" mattress pad with one wool blanket and a thin pillow. One hour of solitary exercise a day. No TV, no internet, no library. Nothing. Just the murderer and the blocks and bars plus a lot of time to think about his crime

  Sounds like psychological hell. I wouldn't disagree with most of it, though.
• majorspark

  

  O-Trap;924681 wrote:Sounds like psychological hell. I wouldn't disagree with most of it, though.

  Some would claim this to be cruel and unusual punishment. How could we subject one to a life of this if there is the remotest of chances that he is innocent?
• majorspark

  

  I said earlier on in this thread. There are heinous murderers that leave no doubt of their guilt. I suggested a system that singles out them and them only for the death penalty. The vast majority rots in prison for the rest of their life.
  
  No solid arguments against my plan of reformation. If there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the scumbag is innocent then life with goodies.
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;924691 wrote:Some would claim this to be cruel and unusual punishment. How could we subject one to a life of this if there is the remotest of chances that he is innocent?

  In a nutshell (and this is far more simplistic than the issue actually warrants), because the punishment is not permanent. A man undergoing the aforementioned punishment for his crimes can be freed at a later date.
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;924693 wrote:I said earlier on in this thread. There are heinous murderers that leave no doubt of their guilt. I suggested a system that singles out them and them only for the death penalty. The vast majority rots in prison for the rest of their life.
  
  No solid arguments against my plan of reformation. If there is a .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the scumbag is innocent then life with goodies.

  No doubt according to whom, though?
  
  I'll say this: If a person ADMITS to the killings, fine. At that point, I'm okay with the death penalty.
• majorspark

  

  O-Trap;924695 wrote:No doubt according to whom, though?

  A trained death penalty judiciary. Checked by the state executive.
  

  O-Trap;924695 wrote:I'll say this: If a person ADMITS to the killings, fine. At that point, I'm okay with the death penalty.

  Now you are getting closer to my plan. Have you any doubt as to the guilt of Jeffrey Dahmer, Richard Couey, Ted Bundy, Richard Allen Davis, I could go on. There is no doubt associated with many of these heinous killers. A system that siphons of the dross is what I am after. It would result in the rapid execution of the most heinous criminals with virtually no doubt of their guilt and the commutation of life to the majority of the rest. A choice few would meet death by the state. The vast majority of murderers rot for life.
• O-Trap

  

  majorspark;924699 wrote:A trained death penalty judiciary. Checked by the state executive.

  I'm not sure which I trust less: the current crop of oft agenda-driven justices in a given state or a jury of oft ignorant jurors.
  
  Inasmuch as that is the case, I'd prefer as little permanence based on their decisions as possible.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;924665 wrote:So you would be ok with a heinous murder serving life without parole confined to a 6x8 cell. 3 squares of the cheapest basic tasteless nutrition. A 1/2" mattress pad with one wool blanket and a thin pillow. One hour of solitary exercise a day. No TV, no internet, no library. Nothing. Just the murderer and the blocks and bars plus a lot of time to think about his crime

  Sure whatever, I mean. I'd probably let them talk to someone every once in a while but yes I'd be okay with severely limiting and getting rid of a lot of their privileges.
  
  But my idea of the justice system isn't necessarily to provide what we think of as "justice" but to make it least likely that these people will commit those crimes again. So in a lot of crazy murderers cases that means locking them up for life. While I don't want them having Xboxes and shit I also am not obsessed with them having tasteless nutrition, etc (though it should be super cheap obviously). Same thing with drug abusers/dealers. I don't think the goal should be to punish them but to make it least likely that they continue that sort of activity. Which is why I don't believe in jail for those "crimes".
  
  But it's probably stupid arguing that because we likely have very different ideas of what the goal of the justice system is and should be.