everytime 1% of me wavers on the death penalty

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

In the past year, it is actually trending up.

The only reason I remembered that exchange on cougarboard was that I agreed very strongly with you in that argument. I haven't heard any stats for the past year, but I believe you.

[MikeWaters]

My point in that argument is that I take issue with the fact that the world is on some sort of unstoppable slide into wickedness. I think that view promotes an unhealthy fatalism, where Mormons might not take action to help improve things.

I have always felt that crime in America is terribly high and is not talked about enough.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Like I said, most the folks who believe in the death penalty don't believe in fair trials in their hearts.

I understand you have good reasons for opposing the death penalty, SU. What you are saying here though just isn't true. I will acknowledge there are a fair number of folks out there who think that guilt is an opinion formed in their minds or in the press rather than the specific result of a deliberative process. However, I don't think anyone wants to see an innocent executed. You and I know that demonizing the adversary makes it easier to not deal with what he is saying, but it is also a mistake. This would be like saying that death penalty opponents don't really want to see murderers punished. Obviously this is not so.

While your point is well taken that our processes used to be much less fair, I think you are sort of fighting with ghosts there. In our current system people get so many bites at the apple that the person who gets executed bears little resemblence to the person who committed the crime. No one can say that there is a rush to judgment today.

If there are any battles left to be fought on this front, I would say it is in making sure that defense counsel appointed to defend many of these cases are adequately compensated so that you don't have the bottom of the barrell working a a death penalty case.

Still, I think in the end this is a moral question more than anything else. The process we use is not perfect, but it is fair.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Actually, SU, rich white liberals have had a long history of coddling criminals. I don't presume you will want to argue this point.

I was watching O'Reilly tonight. He was covering a case of child rape, where the defendant didn't even receive probation. This is in Vermont. Bill covered another case in Vermont where a 6 year old was molested and the defendant only received probation.

This is certainly something SU would support. He doesn't believe in being harsh. Child molesters are misunderstood. Well, until your child is raped, that is.

This country is being OVERRUN with crime. And the shocking thing is not that we have the death penalty. The shocking thing is that there are murders and no one cares. The shocking thing is that you never hear of vigilantes.

No, we are content with our crime. And we have people like SU who want to legitimize the drug gangs, make it all legal.

Rich white folks are very confortable saying whatever it is they like, knowing that it will never affect them.

My next door neighbor had her house broken into twice since I have lived here. The lady down the street at the convenience store was murdered over a few dollars. A guy down the street was bullrushed and had his home invaded. People drive down the alleys looking for open garages.

Yes, I am quite aware of crime. And I am not a fan. And I don't intend to do any coddling.

O'Reilly was dead wrong on this one by the way. This was not the sentence of the judge after a trial, it was pursuant to a plea agreement. The thing that O'Reilly has totally missed is that we don't know why that plea was entered. No one wants to get the bad guys more than the prosecutors in most cases, but some times their case turns to shit and they can't win at trial so they cut a deal. Maybe he didn't have the evidence he needed. Maybe the parents refused to let the child testify. There are a lot of reasons the prosecutor might have cut a deal.

This is a good example of what I was talking about in my other post where people "know" someone is guilty and can't believe they got off light. The problem is that guilt is not what we might surmise in our minds and the court room is not the real world. Guilt is the result of a process whereby each and every element of an offense must be proved. Sometimes, there is a missing piece and you just can't win. This is a good thing. Sometimes what everyone "knows" turns out to be wrong. Just ask the guy who was accused of bombing the Atlanta Olympics.

Sorry to rant, but O'Reilly is just wrong here. Show me a judge abusing his discretion and you'll get me on board more easily, but prosecutors have to make tough calls and unless I have all the facts I give this one the benefit of the doubt.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I understand you have good reasons for opposing the death penalty, SU. What you are saying here though just isn't true. I will acknowledge there are a fair number of folks out there who think that guilt is an opinion formed in their minds or in the press rather than the specific result of a deliberative process. However, I don't think anyone wants to see an innocent executed. You and I know that demonizing the adversary makes it easier to not deal with what he is saying, but it is also a mistake. This would be like saying that death penalty opponents don't really want to see murderers punished. Obviously this is not so.

While your point is well taken that our processes used to be much less fair, I think you are sort of fighting with ghosts there. In our current system people get so many bites at the apple that the person who gets executed bears little resemblence to the person who committed the crime. No one can say that there is a rush to judgment today.

If there are any battles left to be fought on this front, I would say it is in making sure that defense counsel appointed to defend many of these cases are adequately compensated so that you don't have the bottom of the barrell working a a death penalty case.

Still, I think in the end this is a moral question more than anything else. The process we use is not perfect, but it is fair.

My statement was a little reckless but I submit the sentiment expressed by Il Padrino--the newspapers say these guys were terrorists so who cares if they got a fair trial?--is common. Even worse, is Balboa who says, "You want them to have a fair trial, you're in bed with ruthless dictators." Taken to its logical conclusion this attitude makes a mockery of any serious system of civil liberties. People who think that way are usually among those who favor the death penalty. What they are doing is taking civil liberties for granted in a world where overall civil liberties have been the exception not the rule.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My statement was a little reckless but I submit the sentiment expressed by Il Padrino--the newspapers say these guys were terrorists so who cares if they got a fair trial?--is common. Even worse, is Balboa who says, "You want them to have a fair trial, you're in bed with ruthless dictators." Taken to its logical conclusion this attitude makes a mockery of any serious system of civil liberties. People who think that way are usually among those who favor the death penalty. What they are doing is taking civil liberties for granted in a world where overall civil liberties have been the exception not the rule.

No, the newspapers don't need to tell me that they are terrorists. Their behavior and actions over the years tell me they are terrorists.

I challenge you to tell the families of any or all of their victims that they didn't get a fair trial.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, the newspapers don't need to tell me that they are terrorists. Their behavior and actions over the years tell me they are terrorists.

I challenge you to tell the families of any or all of their victims that they didn't get a fair trial.

I know that this is a death penalty thread, but since it has gooten twisted into a little Iraq, I have got to quibble with the application of the death penalty of Saddam and co.

Whether e deserved it or not Saddam's execution is almost certainly a bad thing, especially now. The way in which it was carried out, the expediency, and the attendant circumstances all serve to undermine the claims of the Maliki government to legitimacy in the respect that it comes off as a sectarian lynching rather than the sober administration of justice one might expect from a mature judicial process.

This only serves to reinforce the notion of the Sunni minority that a new Iraq, where political and judicial processes serve primarily as a means of pushing a political agenda and reinforcing the sanctity of the regime. The wider spread that this perception is the less likely Sunni's or even Kurds are likely to buy into the democratic processes and institutions that must be erected post haste in order for us to truly say mission accomplished.

To me, the stoogeish interpretation of the death penalty by the Iraqi's is illustrative of the difficulties in application that make it unpalatable from a practical point of view, whatever a person's moral views on the sanctity of all human life. The administration is of the penalty is arbitrary, and when looking at the statistics of the application of the death penalty it is hard to escape the conclusion that it is applied without regard to fairness, and that the institutions charged with its governance do not function in equality.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

No, the newspapers don't need to tell me that they are terrorists. Their behavior and actions over the years tell me they are terrorists.

I challenge you to tell the families of any or all of their victims that they didn't get a fair trial.

Now you're making me laugh. You know not one whit about any of this except as it's been fed to you by the news media, unless you have a job in the CIA of which I'm unaware. My essential point is that you don't have any personal knowledge of any of this and you are in no position to decide whether any defendant here got a fair trial, or, to address your most offensive statements, whether any of these defendants forfeited their rights to civil liberties which you so take for granted.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I am against capital punishment. You may recall that post I made on CB that generated almost an entire page of responses. It wasn't exactly the height of my popularity...

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I am against capital punishment. You may recall that post I made on CB that generated almost an entire page of responses. It wasn't exactly the height of my popularity...

People have died so that you could express your opinion.

People will die confirming mine.