Death Penalty - Page 3

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by Olmstead

A bigger can of worms than sending someone straight to the guillotine because they're "obviously" guilty and "obviously" deserve it? The expensive safeguards exist for a reason.

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

Dr. Keith · 10th February 2022, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Based on the evidence accumulated in Gacy's case, I don't see any need for overwhelming expense or delay in his execution. He was on death row for 14 years, ridiculously. But that is a different can of worms.

No, that is the can of worms needed once you decide to kill people.

Quote:

So, you would rather see him rot in jail, as that amounts to a greater punishment, in your mind?

I don’t see death as any more punishment.

Quote:

Why would I read the New Testament?

To help you think more about your wallet.

Olmstead · 10th February 2022, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Olmstead

If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so.

Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner.

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Venom · 10th February 2022, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

TheGoldcountry · 10th February 2022, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Please stop reading minds, you suck at it.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

Please stop reading minds, you suck at it.

I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner.

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime.

TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure.

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

TheGoldcountry · 10th February 2022, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground.

No. Your logic is abysmal.

I shed no tears for murderers who are executed, but I am still against the death penalty.

You seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone might disagree with the state having the power to do things, even if the result happens to favor their personal wants or desires at the time.

bobdroege7 · 10th February 2022, 06:19 PM

I would like to see us take all the prosecutors that have put people on death row that were later exonerated and found innocent and randomly hang one each year.

Norman Alexander · 10th February 2022, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

Quote:

I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page.

Originally Posted by Me

There will be plenty of people who will try to equate "opposition to death penalty" with "bleeding heart liberal wants to set all child-molesters, rapists and murderers (proven or otherwise) free".

Uh...no. That's all sorts of logical fallacies right there, not to mention being wrong.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13726575

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13726575

The problem is, numerous people have already expressed their objection to capital punishment, even in the most egregious of cases. Sanctity of life, you see.

Blue Mountain · 10th February 2022, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act.

An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance.

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Maybe it isn't helpful to you, or your position. That is about the only justification for your avoidance, as I see it.

It is a pretty simple question, and several others had no issue with providing an answer. My final attempt: Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you?

Warp12,

I see death by execution and life imprisonment as roughly equally severe penalties; therefore, I am emotionally indifferent to which outcome Gacy received (I like the way The Gold Country put it in comment #89). Again, the problem with only arguing only about Gacy is that it ignores that the death penalty cannot be limited only to the Gacy's of the world. Bringing up Gacy appeals to one's emotions, not to facts or logic. It is a puerile argument.

In addition you have avoided serious discussion of the various arguments that have been put forth against the death penalty or simply denied that the problem existed. Let me list those that I offered:

1. Some innocent people will be executed.*
2. The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment.
3. The threat of the death penalty has been used to coerce people into giving false testimony against others.

If a DP-supporter does not deny the existence of these problems, then he or she must have arguments to the effect that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I am all ears.

*Regarding (1) I remember George HW Bush answering the question of possibly innocent people being executed with a question, asking the interviewer to name any innocent people executed. In the last 30 odd years, the goalposts got moved.
EDT
Justice Scalia implied that no innocent person has been executed: "'It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit,' Scalia wrote in the 2006 Kansas v. Marsh case. 'If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.'"

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 08:08 PM

I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high.

"As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC

"'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!'
He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link.

Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis, also known as compositional bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act.

An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place.

Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance.

Interesting take and thank you for your input, but it still seems hypocritical to me, and one of those reasons is because most are more than happy to force a woman to have a baby (some for religious reasons), but won't help them afterwards which seems to go against this specific christian belief:

Quote:

Matthew 25: 42-45
“For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’”

I'm not a believer in organized religion, but I thought Jesus was a pretty cool dude.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high.

"As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC

"'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!'
He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link.

Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing.

That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's?

How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime.

TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure.

What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty.

That seems hypocritical to me.

Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's?

How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

Dahmer wasn't executed by the state. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn.

Mostly the same? What do you mean?

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Mostly the same? What do you mean?

You drew the false-equivalence. I am just mocking it. I won't engage you on this, any further.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Dahmer wasn't executed by the state. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate.

He was executed. How do you feel about it?

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

He was executed. How do you feel about it?

Dahmer was a sick **** and he deserved whatever he got.

Originally Posted by Warp12

You drew the false-equivalence. I am just mocking it. I won't engage you on this, any further.

You really need to bone up on your mocking skills.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Dahmer was a sick **** and he deserved whatever he got.

So, the death sentence would have been OK, in his case?

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

Nobody is saying that no innocent has never been put to death.

Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed?

I'd like to return to another example that I offered, that of Cameron Todd Wilingham. Some of the best arson investigators in the country (Hurst, DeHaan, and Beyler, among others) have looked at the Wilingham case and concluded that there was no indication of arson. How anyone can defend the death penalty given the execution of people on the basis of faulty evidence is a conundrum for me.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, the death sentence would have been OK, in his case?

I certainly didn't cry over it.

Now, let me ask you a question. Gary Ridgway was able to avoid the death penalty because he agreed to help give closure to the families of those he killed. I personally wished he had been strangled to death, but I can understand the reason he was able to avoid it.

What do you think about that?

By the way, he can still get the DP if he's proven guilty of other murders outside of King County.

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed?
.

My statement is not false. I am talking about arguments being port forth in this thread.

Now, tell me why Richard Ramirez should not have been executed prompty...as opposed to his death 24 years later, while on death row?

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed?

I'd like to return to another example that I offered, that of Cameron Todd Wilingham. Some of the best arson investigators in the country (Hurst, DeHaan, and Beyler, among others) have looked at the Wilingham case and concluded that there was no indication of arson. How anyone can defend the death penalty given the execution of people on the basis of faulty evidence is a conundrum for me.

Thank you for bringing that up, because that's one of the cases that really pisses me off, and what really gets me was that one of the reasons they thought he was a satanist was because he had a Led Zepplin poster.

WTF?!!

Plus, his wife set him up, after he was almost granted a reprieve (commutation) from the DP by the governor.

I may be wrong about that last part, because I'm posting from memory and my memory isn't always that great.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

My statement is not false. I am talking about arguments being port forth in this thread.

Now, tell me why Richard Ramirez should not have been executed prompty...as opposed to his death 24 years later, while on death row?

Actually, he almost was lynched by a mob after his picture was spread all over the newspapers and TV.

Personally, I think they should've let them do it.

TomB · 10th February 2022, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

He was executed. How do you feel about it?

One can shed no tears over the death or execution of a bad person and still be against the death penalty. It's not a contradiction.

The most compelling argument against the death penalty is that the justice system is not, and will never be, infallible. The death penalty creates the very real possibility of irreversible mistakes. Keeping that in mind, one can want Gacy dead, be glad he was executed, but still believe that in context of the bigger picture that we should not have the death penalty because the possibility of error outweighs the benefit of executing the Gacys of the world.

Even for cases with strong evidence. Because there is no way to non-subjectively classify cases into categories based on strength of evidence. It also means that we are saying some people's convictions are "well, we think they are guilty, but the evidence isn't strong enough for real confidence." Do you really want guilty verdicts to be on a spectrum?

Warp12 · 10th February 2022, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

I certainly didn't cry over it.

Now, let me ask you a question. Gary Ridgway was able to avoid the death penalty because he agreed to help give closure to the families of those he killed. I personally wished he had been strangled to death, but I can understand the reason he was able to avoid it.

What do you think about that?

By the way, he can still get the DP if he's proven guilty of other murders outside of King County.

So, can we just kill Ridgway tomorrow, by whatever means? Or are you against that?

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's?

How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

In the James Earhart case, compositional bullet lead analysis was performed using inductively-coupled atomic emission spectrometry, also known as inductively coupled optical emission spectrometry. Sounds pretty sciency. The spectrometry part was actually sound, but the technique was riddled with assumptions that were no better than unprovable, and the testimony given by supposed experts was often misleading or wrong. How do you feel about that?

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

So, can we just kill Ridgway tomorrow, by whatever means? Or are you against that?

I doubt you'll be able to get near him, but if he's ever found guilty of another murder outside King County, I'll bet he gets the silver bullet, but then again, this is Washington State after all.

ETA: Personally, I'd rather see him shackled to a wall naked, and then have the family members of his victims whack him in the nuts with a lead pipe, but that's me.

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

Plus, his wife set him up, after he was almost granted a reprieve (commutation) from the DP by the governor.

I may be wrong about that last part, because I'm posting from memory and my memory isn't always that great.

Her story changed over time, according to this link, which is similar to what gritsforbreakfast said.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Her story changed over time, according to this link, which is similar to what gritsforbreakfast said.

(ignore, I skipped over the "her" in your post, sorry)

Wait a minute, that's not what it actually says:

Myth:

Willingham’s statements about the fire were inconsistent.

Facts:

• Willingham’s statements to law enforcement officials were remarkably consistent, even under intense interrogation, and remained consistent over the course of a decade. He always said he heard his daughter crying, woke up, tried to get his children but couldn’t, and exited the house.

• On one fact, Willingham changed his story. He admitted that he exaggerated having gone inside the babies’ room (he said he wanted to sound brave and feared that people would think he was a coward for not going into the burning room).

Chris_Halkides · 10th February 2022, 09:33 PM

Amy Strange,

Scroll down further in the story. I was referring to Stacy Kuykendall, Todd Wilingham's ex-wife, who at first said that he did not confess, then later said that he did.

"About Willingham’s ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, even John Jackson (who prosecuted Willingham and steadfastly believes he was guilty) says: “She’s given very different stories about what happened on this particular day right up to the date of his execution…It’s hard for me to make heads or tails of anything she said or didn’t say.”"

The host of the blog Gritsforbreakfast Scott Henson wrote, "I don't know which time Kuykendall was telling the truth or what was her motive when she didn't, but I know for sure it can't all be accurate."

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides

Amy Strange,

Scroll down further in the story. I was referring to Stacy Kuykendall, Todd Wilingham's ex-wife, who at first said that he did not confess, then later said that he did.

"About Willingham’s ex-wife, Stacy Kuykendall, even John Jackson (who prosecuted Willingham and steadfastly believes he was guilty) says: “She’s given very different stories about what happened on this particular day right up to the date of his execution…It’s hard for me to make heads or tails of anything she said or didn’t say.”"

The host of the blog Gritsforbreakfast Scott Henson wrote, "I don't know which time Kuykendall was telling the truth or what was her motive when she didn't, but I know for sure it can't all be accurate."

yeah, I saw that, but I skipped right over your "her" and thought it said "his", sorry, but I did add that to my post.

ETA: some of those comments (in the Grit's article) really make me sick, but I noticed you were in there giving all those "anonymous" posters the business. Good for you!

Dr. Keith · 10th February 2022, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry

No. Your logic is abysmal.

I shed no tears for murderers who are executed, but I am still against the death penalty.

You seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone might disagree with the state having the power to do things, even if the result happens to favor their personal wants or desires at the time.

You would think a vaccinated person who is against mandates would understand.

Dr. Keith · 10th February 2022, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

Even if one agrees that Gacy was ok you still have all the systemic issues: where do you draw the line and how do we insure we got it right.

Not worth the cost to me. Life in prison is easier to administer and no less punishment.

AmyStrange · 10th February 2022, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Warp12

It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no.

It's interesting how you expect folks here to answer your questions, but you very rarely ever answer theirs.

10th February 2022, 04:35 PM	#82
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,429	Originally Posted by Warp12 Based on the evidence accumulated in Gacy's case, I don't see any need for overwhelming expense or delay in his execution. He was on death row for 14 years, ridiculously. But that is a different can of worms. No, that is the can of worms needed once you decide to kill people. Quote: So, you would rather see him rot in jail, as that amounts to a greater punishment, in your mind? I don’t see death as any more punishment. Quote: Why would I read the New Testament? To help you think more about your wallet.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

10th February 2022, 05:18 PM	#86
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by Warp12 I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all. Please stop reading minds, you suck at it.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

10th February 2022, 06:01 PM	#88
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner. I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all. I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime. TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure. What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. That seems hypocritical to me.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 06:06 PM. Reason: ETA: not getting it (after Gary Ridgway)

10th February 2022, 06:19 PM	#90
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,605	I would like to see us take all the prosecutors that have put people on death row that were later exonerated and found innocent and randomly hang one each year.
bobdroege7 Illuminator Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 3,605	__________________ Un-american Jack-booted thug Graduate of a liberal arts college! Faster play faster faster play faster

10th February 2022, 06:24 PM	#91
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 13,602	Originally Posted by Warp12 Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years. Quote: I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all. Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page. Originally Posted by Me There will be plenty of people who will try to equate "opposition to death penalty" with "bleeding heart liberal wants to set all child-molesters, rapists and murderers (proven or otherwise) free". Uh...no. That's all sorts of logical fallacies right there, not to mention being wrong. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13726575
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015} Last edited by Norman Alexander; 10th February 2022 at 06:27 PM.

10th February 2022, 04:24 PM	#81
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Olmstead A bigger can of worms than sending someone straight to the guillotine because they're "obviously" guilty and "obviously" deserve it? The expensive safeguards exist for a reason. Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years.

10th February 2022, 04:35 PM	#83
Olmstead Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2018 Posts: 1,348	Originally Posted by Warp12 Yeah, there probably wasn't quite enough evidence in the Gacy case. I can see why it took 14 years. If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so.

10th February 2022, 04:44 PM	#84
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Olmstead If you change the appeals procedure based on how obvious someone's guilt is during the initial trial, what's the point of the appeals procedure? We already know they're all guilty, the initial trial says so. Again, that is a big topic that relates to the overall "system" and charges that can be levied. I might argue that a revamp as related to capital punishment, and in what cases it may be sought, could speed up the process in a just manner. I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

10th February 2022, 05:14 PM	#85
Venom Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: United States Posts: 6,080	Originally Posted by Warp12 I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all.

10th February 2022, 05:41 PM	#87
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Warp12 I think, though, that people often hide behind these sort of "procedural" and "fairness" arguments, when their overwhelming motivator is personal ethics. Nobody wants to be seen as a "bleeding heart" for a serial killer, after all. Originally Posted by TheGoldcountry Please stop reading minds, you suck at it. I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground.

10th February 2022, 06:10 PM	#89
TheGoldcountry Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 7,354	Originally Posted by Warp12 I'll take it you have no ethical issues with capital punishment, then? Cool. Finally, a common ground. No. Your logic is abysmal. I shed no tears for murderers who are executed, but I am still against the death penalty. You seem unable (or unwilling) to accept the fact that someone might disagree with the state having the power to do things, even if the result happens to favor their personal wants or desires at the time.
	__________________ I have no idea what you're trying to say, but I'm still pretty sure that you're wrong. -Akhenaten I sometimes think the Bible was inspired by Satan to make God look bad. And then it backfired on Him when He underestimated the stupidity of religious ideologues. -MontagK505

10th February 2022, 06:45 PM	#92
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Warp12 It seems like you are still squirming around the question. Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Simple yes or no. Originally Posted by Norman Alexander Ah yes, the picked this one back on the first page. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5#post13726575 The problem is, numerous people have already expressed their objection to capital punishment, even in the most egregious of cases. Sanctity of life, you see.

10th February 2022, 07:51 PM	#93
Blue Mountain Resident Skeptical Hobbit Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg Posts: 7,228	Originally Posted by AmyStrange What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. That seems hypocritical to me. I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act. An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place. Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance.
	__________________ The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)

10th February 2022, 07:59 PM	#94
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,944	Your turn to answer Originally Posted by Warp12 Maybe it isn't helpful to you, or your position. That is about the only justification for your avoidance, as I see it. It is a pretty simple question, and several others had no issue with providing an answer. My final attempt: Is the execution of Gacy an acceptable outcome, for you? Warp12, I see death by execution and life imprisonment as roughly equally severe penalties; therefore, I am emotionally indifferent to which outcome Gacy received (I like the way The Gold Country put it in comment #89). Again, the problem with only arguing only about Gacy is that it ignores that the death penalty cannot be limited only to the Gacy's of the world. Bringing up Gacy appeals to one's emotions, not to facts or logic. It is a puerile argument. In addition you have avoided serious discussion of the various arguments that have been put forth against the death penalty or simply denied that the problem existed. Let me list those that I offered: 1. Some innocent people will be executed.* 2. The death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. 3. The threat of the death penalty has been used to coerce people into giving false testimony against others. If a DP-supporter does not deny the existence of these problems, then he or she must have arguments to the effect that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. I am all ears. *Regarding (1) I remember George HW Bush answering the question of possibly innocent people being executed with a question, asking the interviewer to name any innocent people executed. In the last 30 odd years, the goalposts got moved. EDT Justice Scalia implied that no innocent person has been executed: "'It should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit,' Scalia wrote in the 2006 Kansas v. Marsh case. 'If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.'"
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 10th February 2022 at 08:30 PM.

10th February 2022, 08:08 PM	#95
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,944	Justice Scalia's example I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high. "As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC "'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!' He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link. Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis, also known as compositional bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 10th February 2022 at 09:07 PM.

10th February 2022, 08:21 PM	#96
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Blue Mountain I don't see it as hypocritical at all. Those who oppose abortion are against killing a person (we can argue about when an embryo becomes a human; for me that's in the third trimester) who is innocent of wrongdoing; there are no judgements against him or her. For the death penalty, the person has been judged and found no longer worthy of living due to some heinous act. An interesting perspective on this is, surprisingly, from the Bible. In the Old Testament (Leviticus 20), people who have committed a capital crime and are put to death are said to have "their blood on their own heads." That is, not only are they guilty of whatever crime for which they were executed, they are also guilty of murder—their own, for having committed the crime in the first place. Having said all that, I'm against the death penalty for reasons already discussed here: the fact the sentence cannot be undone, the fact that once the person is dead the punishment has ceased, and, in rare cases, the possibility on the part of the criminal for understanding and repentance. Interesting take and thank you for your input, but it still seems hypocritical to me, and one of those reasons is because most are more than happy to force a woman to have a baby (some for religious reasons), but won't help them afterwards which seems to go against this specific christian belief: Quote: Matthew 25: 42-45 “For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’” I'm not a believer in organized religion, but I thought Jesus was a pretty cool dude.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 08:26 PM. Reason: removed "religious"

10th February 2022, 08:35 PM	#97
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides I offer the Henry Lee McCollum case to point out that the death penalty is sometimes meted out when the crime is particular heinous, not when the certainty of guilt is particularly high. "As regular readers may recall, Scalia specifically pointed to a convicted killer named Henry Lee McCollum as an obvious example of a man who deserved to be put to death." MSNBC "'For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat,' Scalia wrote in Callins v. Collins. 'How enviable a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!' He was referring to Henry Lee McCollum, who at the time had already been on death row for 12 years. McCollum's conviction was overturned on Tuesday when DNA evidence implicated another man in the case. McCollum had been on death row for almost 30 years." Huffpost For more on the McCollum/Brown Case see this link. Earlier I offered the James Earhart case. He was convicted primarily on the basis of a forensic technique (comparative bullet lead analysis) that was said to be probably not salvageable by the 2016 PCAST report. I am not certain that he was factually innocent or guilty, but I am certain about one thing. That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's? How do you feel about Dahmer's execution?

10th February 2022, 08:37 PM	#98
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by AmyStrange I look at all the procedures and appeals as a safeguard in case I am ever accused of a crime. TBH, I am against the death penalty, but at the same time, I waver a little when it comes to folks like Gacy or Bundy, although, when it came to Gary Ridgway not getting it, I can understand the need to give the families closure. What also bothers me is that many of the same folks who are anti-abortion are also in favor of the death penalty. That seems hypocritical to me. Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn.

10th February 2022, 08:38 PM	#99
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's? How do you feel about Dahmer's execution? Dahmer wasn't executed by the state. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 08:40 PM. Reason: added "by the state"

10th February 2022, 08:39 PM	#100
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 Because executing a mass-murderer is mostly the same as being against the termination of the unborn. Mostly the same? What do you mean?
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/

10th February 2022, 08:42 PM	#101
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by AmyStrange Mostly the same? What do you mean? You drew the false-equivalence. I am just mocking it. I won't engage you on this, any further.

10th February 2022, 08:42 PM	#102
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by AmyStrange Dahmer wasn't executed by the state. He was beaten to death by a fellow inmate. He was executed. How do you feel about it?

10th February 2022, 08:47 PM	#103
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 He was executed. How do you feel about it? Dahmer was a sick ** and he deserved whatever he got. Originally Posted by Warp12** You drew the false-equivalence. I am just mocking it. I won't engage you on this, any further. You really need to bone up on your mocking skills.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/

10th February 2022, 08:55 PM	#104
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by AmyStrange Dahmer was a sick **** and he deserved whatever he got. So, the death sentence would have been OK, in his case?

10th February 2022, 08:59 PM	#105
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,944	Faulty forensics again Originally Posted by Warp12 Nobody is saying that no innocent has never been put to death. Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed? I'd like to return to another example that I offered, that of Cameron Todd Wilingham. Some of the best arson investigators in the country (Hurst, DeHaan, and Beyler, among others) have looked at the Wilingham case and concluded that there was no indication of arson. How anyone can defend the death penalty given the execution of people on the basis of faulty evidence is a conundrum for me.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

10th February 2022, 09:03 PM	#106
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 So, the death sentence would have been OK, in his case? I certainly didn't cry over it. Now, let me ask you a question. Gary Ridgway was able to avoid the death penalty because he agreed to help give closure to the families of those he killed. I personally wished he had been strangled to death, but I can understand the reason he was able to avoid it. What do you think about that? By the way, he can still get the DP if he's proven guilty of other murders outside of King County.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/

10th February 2022, 09:06 PM	#107
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed? . My statement is not false. I am talking about arguments being port forth in this thread. Now, tell me why Richard Ramirez should not have been executed prompty...as opposed to his death 24 years later, while on death row?

10th February 2022, 09:09 PM	#108
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides Justice Scalia said words to that effect. Now that you have been shown that your statement is false, has your position changed? I'd like to return to another example that I offered, that of Cameron Todd Wilingham. Some of the best arson investigators in the country (Hurst, DeHaan, and Beyler, among others) have looked at the Wilingham case and concluded that there was no indication of arson. How anyone can defend the death penalty given the execution of people on the basis of faulty evidence is a conundrum for me. Thank you for bringing that up, because that's one of the cases that really pisses me off, and what really gets me was that one of the reasons they thought he was a satanist was because he had a Led Zepplin poster. WTF?!! Plus, his wife set him up, after he was almost granted a reprieve (commutation) from the DP by the governor. I may be wrong about that last part, because I'm posting from memory and my memory isn't always that great.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 10:39 PM. Reason: added, WTF, commutation and ?

10th February 2022, 09:11 PM	#109
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 My statement is not false. I am talking about arguments being port forth in this thread. Now, tell me why Richard Ramirez should not have been executed prompty...as opposed to his death 24 years later, while on death row? Actually, he almost was lynched by a mob after his picture was spread all over the newspapers and TV. Personally, I think they should've let them do it.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 10:26 PM. Reason: better wording

10th February 2022, 09:12 PM	#110
TomB Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,409	Originally Posted by Warp12 He was executed. How do you feel about it? One can shed no tears over the death or execution of a bad person and still be against the death penalty. It's not a contradiction. The most compelling argument against the death penalty is that the justice system is not, and will never be, infallible. The death penalty creates the very real possibility of irreversible mistakes. Keeping that in mind, one can want Gacy dead, be glad he was executed, but still believe that in context of the bigger picture that we should not have the death penalty because the possibility of error outweighs the benefit of executing the Gacys of the world. Even for cases with strong evidence. Because there is no way to non-subjectively classify cases into categories based on strength of evidence. It also means that we are saying some people's convictions are "well, we think they are guilty, but the evidence isn't strong enough for real confidence." Do you really want guilty verdicts to be on a spectrum?
TomB Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 1,409

10th February 2022, 09:13 PM	#111
Warp12 Banned Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: USA Posts: 7,583	Originally Posted by AmyStrange I certainly didn't cry over it. Now, let me ask you a question. Gary Ridgway was able to avoid the death penalty because he agreed to help give closure to the families of those he killed. I personally wished he had been strangled to death, but I can understand the reason he was able to avoid it. What do you think about that? By the way, he can still get the DP if he's proven guilty of other murders outside of King County. So, can we just kill Ridgway tomorrow, by whatever means? Or are you against that?

10th February 2022, 09:14 PM	#112
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,944	a lead-pipe cinch Originally Posted by Warp12 That conviction was in the early 80's, and did not rely on such things as modern DNA proof. Now, how exactly does that factor into a case like Gacy's? How do you feel about Dahmer's execution? In the James Earhart case, compositional bullet lead analysis was performed using inductively-coupled atomic emission spectrometry, also known as inductively coupled optical emission spectrometry. Sounds pretty sciency. The spectrometry part was actually sound, but the technique was riddled with assumptions that were no better than unprovable, and the testimony given by supposed experts was often misleading or wrong. How do you feel about that?
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz)

10th February 2022, 09:17 PM	#113
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Warp12 So, can we just kill Ridgway tomorrow, by whatever means? Or are you against that? I doubt you'll be able to get near him, but if he's ever found guilty of another murder outside King County, I'll bet he gets the silver bullet, but then again, this is Washington State after all. ETA: Personally, I'd rather see him shackled to a wall naked, and then have the family members of his victims whack him in the nuts with a lead pipe, but that's me.
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 09:57 PM. Reason: better wording

10th February 2022, 09:19 PM	#114
Chris_Halkides Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 10,944	Todd Wilingham's wife's story Originally Posted by AmyStrange Plus, his wife set him up, after he was almost granted a reprieve (commutation) from the DP by the governor. I may be wrong about that last part, because I'm posting from memory and my memory isn't always that great. Her story changed over time, according to this link, which is similar to what gritsforbreakfast said.
	__________________ It is possible both to be right about an issue and to take oneself a little too seriously, but I would rather be reminded of that by a friend than a foe. (a tip of the hat to Foolmewunz) Last edited by Chris_Halkides; 10th February 2022 at 09:21 PM.

10th February 2022, 09:26 PM	#115
AmyStrange Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: PNW Posts: 1,984	Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides Her story changed over time, according to this link, which is similar to what gritsforbreakfast said. (ignore, I skipped over the "her" in your post, sorry) Wait a minute, that's not what it actually says: Myth: Willingham’s statements about the fire were inconsistent. Facts: • Willingham’s statements to law enforcement officials were remarkably consistent, even under intense interrogation, and remained consistent over the course of a decade. He always said he heard his daughter crying, woke up, tried to get his children but couldn’t, and exited the house. • On one fact, Willingham changed his story. He admitted that he exaggerated having gone inside the babies’ room (he said he wanted to sound brave and feared that people would think he was a coward for not going into the burning room).
	__________________ The most unbelievable crime-fighting team of all time. Read the horrifying beginning here (for FREE): http://www.amystrange.org/ Last edited by AmyStrange; 10th February 2022 at 09:31 PM. Reason: added myth and facts and ignore