Connecticut Governor Vetoes Bill That Would End Death Penalty

[John Scott]

I guess you could also examine the mental ages, IQ and colour of the general population on death row, I wonder what those figures would show?

What do you suppose they would show? If there are fewer Asian Americans than Whites on death row than in American society, should we suppose that courts are discriminating against Whites?

Never supported it, never will. One innocent person is one too many.

I didn't know we were debating the killing of innocent people. I really doubt you'll find a majority of people supporting the killing of innocent people.

As far as the death penalty for non-innocent murderers, I'm all for it. It's called justice.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

What do you suppose they would show? If there are fewer Asian Americans than Whites on death row than in American society, should we suppose that courts are discriminating against Whites?
...

A cursory search revealed:

http://www.ejusa.org/moratorium_now/broch_race.html

University of Iowa law professor David Baldus conducted an exhaustive criminal sentencing study in Georgia in the 1980s. He found that prosecutors sought the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but only 15% of black defendants with black victims. Similar patterns of racial bias are found across the country.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...w.demo.lm.html

"Death row's racial disparity, however, is not the result of a race-neutral application of the death penalty or a perverse form of affirmative action," they wrote, but rather a "racial hierarchy" that stems in part from prosecutors' reluctance to seek death in cases involving black defendants and black victims, and their eagerness to seek death in cases involving black defendants and white victims. Because the murder victims of black offenders are nearly always black, this "reluctance to seek the death sentence when the victim is black reduces the number of blacks in general on death row and more than offsets prosecutors' propensity to seek death sentences for blacks who murder whites."

Clearly there is inequality of sentencing.

Originally Posted by John Scott

...
I didn't know we were debating the killing of innocent people. I really doubt you'll find a majority of people supporting the killing of innocent people.

As far as the death penalty for non-innocent murderers, I'm all for it. It's called justice.

It seems you are aware that the death penalty means innocent people are executed, but some don't or if they do they are willing to accept it and call it justice. So for them:

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

It has and will happen, hence my objections.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I really doubt you'll find a majority of people supporting the killing of innocent people.

LOL, duh.

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

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

It has and will happen, hence my objections.

It seems we're coming from the same position on this one. Was actually reviewing that link last night when I was tempted to reply. Get out of my head!

[John Scott]

Wrongful_execution

Seems a useful person would object to wrongful execution, and not all executions, if wrongful execution is honestly what he objects to.

Surely you are against wrongful incarceration? But you don't go objecting to all incarceration. Same principle applies.

[John Scott]

University of Iowa law professor David Baldus conducted an exhaustive criminal sentencing study in Georgia in the 1980s. He found that prosecutors sought the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but only 15% of black defendants with black victims. Similar patterns of racial bias are found across the country.

Again, a horrific failure to apply logical consistency to your own statements.

If more Blacks on death row than Whites is indicative of racial bais, then the fact that there are more men on death row than women, by a wholly greater margin, would have to be thought of as indicative of gender bais.

Of course, we know that women are less inclined to commit capital crime, and we know that WASP culture is less approving of crime than certain Black subcultures.

[micoblanco]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Should the death penalty be abolished? WHY? WHY NOT?

Mico A: Yes, it should be abolished for the sake of the people who have been accused for doing something they didn't do.

Mico B: No, I support it for the sake of innocent ones (victims) like Evelyn... I feel really sorry about what happened to her. She's just a 3 year old angel and I can't imagine why it should happen to her.

IMO, the real problem here is not whether we are against or in favor of death penalty. If the authority can accurately (100%) distinguish the real doer of the insane crime, I guess the discussion is already over but then again, it's not that easy.

[John Scott]

Mico A: Yes, it should be abolished for the sake of the people who have been accused for doing something they didn't do.

That isn't a problem of the death penalty - it's a problem of the justice system. Whether a person is put to death or put in prison, if he's innocent the problem is in convicting innocent people.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by Brian

...
It seems we're coming from the same position on this one. Was actually reviewing that link last night when I was tempted to reply. Get out of my head!

Sorry Brian

Time difference, I got to it before you did.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Seems a useful person would object to wrongful execution, and not all executions, if wrongful execution is honestly what he objects to.

Surely you are against wrongful incarceration? But you don't go objecting to all incarceration. Same principle applies.

Absolutely, I would hope every one would object to wrongful execution and wrongful incarceration, but the consequences of wrongful execution cannot be rectified in any meaningful way. And it's consequences are many;

• The death of an innocent person obviously,
• A possible guilty person unpunished,
• The victim suffers another wrong, by not getting true justice,
• The family, friends of the innocent person have to live with the fact, not knowing of that person's innocence and with the possible stigma attached.

It is an injustice not just to one person but to many and to society.

If merely incarcerated, perhaps release and restitution could be made in the light of new evidence. There is no coming back from the finality of execution.

[StrongInTheArm]

University of Iowa law professor David Baldus conducted an exhaustive criminal sentencing study in Georgia in the 1980s. He found that prosecutors sought the death penalty for 70% of black defendants with white victims, but only 15% of black defendants with black victims. Similar patterns of racial bias are found across the country.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Again, a horrific failure to apply logical consistency to your own statements.

If more Blacks on death row than Whites is indicative of racial bais, then the fact that there are more men on death row than women, by a wholly greater margin, would have to be thought of as indicative of gender bais.

Of course, we know that women are less inclined to commit capital crime, and we know that WASP culture is less approving of crime than certain Black subcultures.

Ermm... I think you might have miss read the quote. I took it to say, there was a large discrepancy between how often prosecutors sought the death penalty, comparing black defendants committing crimes against white victims, against black defendants committing crimes against black victims.

The figures suggest an inequality in how black defendants are treated based on the race of their victims. Which can't be right, surely? 70% vs. 15% that is a huge difference!

[John Scott]

consequences of wrongful execution cannot be rectified in any meaningful way.

And incarceration can be rectified? No. Not unless you've invented a time machine to go back in time and restore the innocent person the days, weeks, years or decades that were stolen from him. Not to mention the abuse he is going to suffer in prisons full of murderers and rapists.

# A possible guilty person unpunished,
# The victim suffers another wrong, by not getting true justice,
# The family, friends of the innocent person have to live with the fact, not knowing of that person's innocence and with the possible stigma attached

These are not exclusive to death penalty cases. Incarcerating the wrong person produces the same result.

If merely incarcerated, perhaps release and restitution could be made in the light of new evidence.

Merely incarcerated? Wow. That's insane. Who in their right mind would use the word "merely" before the word "incarcerated".

Seems to me you are willing to allow the justice system to convict innocent people just so you have an specious argument against the death penalty. If you insisted upon accuracy in conviction, you wouldn't have the shadow of an argument against the death penalty.

[John Scott]

The figures suggest an inequality in how black defendants are treated based on the race of their victims. Which can't be right, surely? 70% vs. 15% that is a huge difference!

So the study showed that it the death penalty was based upon the color of the victims? Not the horrific nature of the crime? Wow. That would be huge news! Hurry, call CBS, CNN and Fox News, and tell them that judges have based their decisions on the color of the victims, and not the level of depravity demonstrated in the crime.

Oh, wait, you just confused correlation with causation. Just because victims were White doesn't mean that caused the death penalty to be invoked.

inequality in how black defendants are treated based on the race of their victims

You suffer from an socialist misunderstanding of "equality". Suggesting that the color of a person's skin should affect their sentence is just racist.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

If you insisted upon accuracy in conviction, you wouldn't have the shadow of an argument against the death penalty.

Just how would you insure 100% accuracy in conviction?
Apparently, you've figured out something that has eluded the entire human race.
Please do share.

[John Scott]

Just how would you insure 100% accuracy in conviction?

100% accuracy would imply that all guilty people are convicted. I doubt we will ever come close to that.

Apparently, you've figured out something that has eluded the entire human race.

No, it's not that hard to refuse to convict innocent people. It just means enacting safeguards that may benefit guilty people just the same as they benefit innocent.

Is it really that difficult to refuse to convict in the absence of clear evidence of guilt? We aren't that far away from it now. The fact that many juries refuse to convict people the state puts on trial for murder is very, very promising.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

100% accuracy would imply that all guilty people are convicted. I doubt we will ever come close to that.

Agreed. Flawed humans deciding the fate of other flawed humans.
Until a way can be figured out to remove the flaws in the system, I find it difficult to come out in favour of killing people.

Originally Posted by John Scott

No, it's not that hard to refuse to convict innocent people. It just means enacting safeguards that may benefit guilty people just the same as they benefit innocent.

Again, agreed, but I would like another safeguard to be that we don't execute people, once convicted.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Is it really that difficult to refuse to convict in the absence of clear evidence of guilt? We aren't that far away from it now. The fact that many juries refuse to convict people the state puts on trial for murder is very, very promising.

What would constitute "clear evidence"?
Even something as precise and persuasive as DNA results can (and have been) be tampered with, skewed to produce "expected" or "desired" results because the tests are performed by flawed humans.
What do we have that's more conclusive than DNA? Nothing.

In a world where police, politicians and judges are corrupt, I don't see where we'd be anywhere close to only convicting and punishing the guilty to a degree of 100%, unless we refuse to convict anyone.

Even locally, we have too many cases going before the courts now where an innocent person has been in jail for a crime they didn't commit. And, in some of those cases, it seemed pretty obvious at the time of conviction that they were guilty.

David Milgaard
Guy Paul Morin
Donald Marshall Jr.

Many of you will know names like these from your own localities.

[John Scott]

Again, agreed, but I would like another safeguard to be that we don't execute people, once convicted.

That's your real issue right there. You talk about the chance of killing innocent people, but what you're really against is killing anybody.

Even something as precise and persuasive as DNA results can (and have been) be tampered with, skewed to produce "expected" or "desired" results because the tests are performed by flawed humans.

Damn we are so flawed. So very flawed. Yup, we are so flawed that we can't engineer anything. Better limit buildings to 10 feet in height, as long as they are being built by flawed humans.

Or, wait, don't we have engineers design them, other engineers check them, builders build them, all along the way being inspected by engineers. Yup.

That same kind of system could be used in courts, instead of the hap-hazard system we have in place now, which is little better than a joke.

What would constitute "clear evidence"?

Anything that shows that only the person charged with the crime could have committed it.

Even something as precise and persuasive as DNA results can (and have been) be tampered with, skewed to produce "expected" or "desired" results because the tests are performed by flawed humans.

Change the system to preclude the chance of tampering.

What do we have that's more conclusive than DNA? Nothing.

Yeah, nothing. If you forget those beautiful things called security cameras.

In a world where police, politicians and judges are corrupt, I don't see where we'd be anywhere close to only convicting and punishing the guilty to a degree of 100%, unless we refuse to convict anyone.

There's your other problem. You want to convict, even if it means convicting innocent people. Sick, sick, sick.

In a world where police, politicians and judges are corrupt

Yes, they are so corrupt. So corrupt that they are convicted innocent people left and right... Except for the fact that most suspects in homicides are never indicted, and of those who are indicted, the vast majority are not convicted (of homicide).

I feel relatively safe from a murder conviction. It's too easy to get off. A system with more systematic checks and balances could result in more guilty people being convicted and no innocent people suffering that fate.

[Zap]

That's your real issue right there. You talk about the chance of killing innocent people, but what you're really against is killing anybody.

Ummmm. Yeah.
I don't think it's right to kill people. Killing people = very bad.
I hope that's crystal clear now.

Damn we are so flawed. So very flawed.

Yes. We are. We're only human.

Yup, we are so flawed that we can't engineer anything. Better limit buildings to 10 feet in height, as long as they are being built by flawed humans.

Now... Here's where you lose me. When you begin to exaggerate other's statements, it shows exaggeration is needed.
As a species, we've accomplished a great many wonderful things. Engineering is just one example.
But we're still not perfect. As great as we are, we make mistakes.

Or, wait, don't we have engineers design them, other engineers check them, builders build them, all along the way being inspected by engineers. Yup.

That's because human beings are flawed.

Anything that shows that only the person charged with the crime could have committed it.
Change the system to preclude the chance of tampering.

These statements are obvious but thank you for sharing them.
Allow me to rephrase.

Question: Exactly, how do you propose to convict only guilty people of crimes?

Yeah, nothing. If you forget those beautiful things called security cameras.

LOL! Go catch a Hollywood movie. I would suggest a big budget summer blockbuster. Then come back and tell everyone that you believe everything you see.

Yes, they are so corrupt. So corrupt that they are convicted innocent people left and right... Except for the fact that most suspects in homicides are never indicted, and of those who are indicted, the vast majority are not convicted (of homicide).

I feel relatively safe from a murder conviction. It's too easy to get off. A system with more systematic checks and balances could result in more guilty people being convicted and no innocent people suffering that fate.

Yes. People are corrupt.
And, I'm still waiting to hear exactly what these infallible checks and balances, you speak of, entail.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against the human race or unnecessarily down on humanity. But we have our limitations, dude.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

And incarceration can be rectified? No. Not unless you've invented a time machine to go back in time and restore the innocent person the days, weeks, years or decades that were stolen from him. Not to mention the abuse he is going to suffer in prisons full of murderers and rapists.

These are not exclusive to death penalty cases. Incarcerating the wrong person produces the same result.

Merely incarcerated? Wow. That's insane. Who in their right mind would use the word "merely" before the word "incarcerated".

Seems to me you are willing to allow the justice system to convict innocent people just so you have an specious argument against the death penalty. If you insisted upon accuracy in conviction, you wouldn't have the shadow of an argument against the death penalty.

Hold your horses there! I think wrongful incarceration is abominable, anyone in the justice system should be ashamed that it happens. It was not my intention to leave you in any doubt of that. So don't get all indignant with me.

It is merely a matter of degree. There is no way of mitigating the atrocity of wrongful execution. At least with wrongful incarceration you can try to make restitution through financial compensation. Sure it ain't perfect, it would be better if it was entirely avoided in the first place, but at least the guy ain't dead. There ain't nothing you can do about that mistake!

[John Scott]

I don't think it's right to kill people. Killing people = very bad.
I hope that's crystal clear now.

Crystal clear. So when somebody happens to enter your home and terrorize your wife and kids, just remember, killing is "very bad".

Yes. We are. We're only human.

"Only", yes, "only human", "only the species that has the most superior ability to design systems to accomplish amazing feats". That "only".

Here's where you lose me. When you begin to exaggerate other's statements, it shows exaggeration is needed.

Of course I lose you there. My bad. I should not have assumed that you would be able to follow the reasoning as a rational person would. You know, like, humans are faulty, but they have the ability to master their faults by detecting their own faults and implementing systems to correct them.

But we're still not perfect. As great as we are, we make mistakes.

Yes, that is why we develop systems whereby we correct our own faults.

LOL! Go catch a Hollywood movie. I would suggest a big budget summer blockbuster. Then come back and tell everyone that you believe everything you see.

That has to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen an adult make. You really are on a roll, aren't you?

You obviously don't appreciate the benefit of security cameras to law enforcement. I'd nominate them for a Nobel prize if they were eligible. Seems every day I am hearing about some criminal caught by security cameras. Just the other day, some collectivist threw gasoline in a pachinko parlor, lit it up, and walked away as several people burned to death. This dangerous psycho was caught on the security camera. And you're going to dismiss it with what? Your eloquent, ever mature "LOL!" Yes, a quote from you. Again, it was "LOL!" Murderers caught? No, you're more interested in "LOL!" Pedophile kidnappers convicted? "LOL!"?

Yes, debating you is still like debating a 2 year old, after all these years.

Don't get me wrong.

It would be impossible for me to get you wrong. "You" don't have a coherent thought process to get wrong.

And, I'm still waiting to hear exactly what these infallible checks and balances, you speak of, entail.

I'd start with throwing out every indictment that isn't backed up by incontrovertible proof of guilt.

There are many cases where incontrovertible proof exists. And there are a lot of cases where there is just circumstantial evidence. The standard of "reasonable doubt" is way too low, IMO, because people run towards certainty with very little evidence.

[Cricket]

Okay folks, let's take a deep breath here and not let this get personal.