Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

blue_bean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,617
Location: Behind the wheel

26 Mar 2015, 6:23 am

An execution that would cost less than a box of bullets? Excellent.

Ammo is in infinite supply in Murica, lethal injection drugs aren't.



Lazar_Kaganovich
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2014
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 412

26 Mar 2015, 7:12 am

blue_bean wrote:
Ammo is in infinite supply in Murica




Erm, not it's not.

Spending the rest of ones life as Bubba's b*tch is FAR WORSE than any means of execution in the US. And furthermore, many high profile killers end up getting murdered in prison; like Jeffrey Dahmer for example. Jailhouse justice is much cheaper and much more terrifying. Not to mention the fact that the blood is not on the states hands.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

26 Mar 2015, 9:15 am

trollcatman wrote:
I heard recently that the European courts or some other such organisation has ruled that life without any chance of parole is also inhumane. That even the worst evil nutcases deserve a chance to redeem themselves (which in the case of the really wacky people is very unlikely to happen of course).

I suppose that, if new exculpatory evidence were to be found, I would want a court to be required to consider it against all previous evidence and redetermine or affirm the previous opinion(s). Seems fair enough.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

26 Mar 2015, 9:22 am

AspieUtah wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
I heard recently that the European courts or some other such organisation has ruled that life without any chance of parole is also inhumane. That even the worst evil nutcases deserve a chance to redeem themselves (which in the case of the really wacky people is very unlikely to happen of course).

I suppose that, if new exculpatory evidence were to be found, I would want a court to be required to consider it against all previous evidence and redetermine or affirm the previous opinion(s). Seems fair enough.


I think the way it was meant was not that there would be new evidence, but that the convicted person should always have a chance to show he has been reformed and shows he is no longer a danger to society. Of course for people like serial killers and the real depraved criminals it is unlikely, but according to them even the worst people should have a chance to work to better themselves and show they are no longer the evil person they were when convicted. They never talked about new evidence, of course that has always been an option. It wasn't about their innocence, it was about possible redemption regardless of what they had done.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

26 Mar 2015, 9:30 am

trollcatman wrote:
I think the way it was meant was not that there would be new evidence, but that the convicted person should always have a chance to show he has been reformed and shows he is no longer a danger to society. Of course for people like serial killers and the real depraved criminals it is unlikely, but according to them even the worst people should have a chance to work to better themselves and show they are no longer the evil person they were when convicted. They never talked about new evidence, of course that has always been an option. It wasn't about their innocence, it was about possible redemption regardless of what they had done.

As a believer in the U.S. concept (however difficult to achieve) of the restoration of rights, I like the idea of the ability of courts to review new evidence (including that of any victims) against the old evidence to mitigate existing sentences.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

26 Mar 2015, 9:37 am

AspieUtah wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
I think the way it was meant was not that there would be new evidence, but that the convicted person should always have a chance to show he has been reformed and shows he is no longer a danger to society. Of course for people like serial killers and the real depraved criminals it is unlikely, but according to them even the worst people should have a chance to work to better themselves and show they are no longer the evil person they were when convicted. They never talked about new evidence, of course that has always been an option. It wasn't about their innocence, it was about possible redemption regardless of what they had done.

As a believer in the U.S. concept (however difficult to achieve) of the restoration of rights, I like the idea of the ability of courts to review new evidence (including that of any victims) against the old evidence to mitigate existing sentences.


But do you believe that some evil serial killer could redeem himself, even if he really did commit the crimes? That is what this is about, that it is inhumane to deny even the worst people any chance of redemption, however small.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

26 Mar 2015, 9:57 am

trollcatman wrote:
But do you believe that some evil serial killer could redeem himself, even if he really did commit the crimes? That is what this is about, that it is inhumane to deny even the worst people any chance of redemption, however small.

Yes, absolutely. The "restoration of rights" concept is exactly that, but in a slightly more narrow application; if an individual committed crimes that resulted in his or her restriction of rights, and subsequently proved himself or herself to be worthy of a court-ordered restoration, the courts in many states (as well as federally) are obligated to consider the new evidence against the old. The legal ability of expungement is another good example of redeeming oneself to the point of earning back social trust under the law. But, such restorations or expungements aren't easy and require diligent work. To the individual who truly desires society to regain trust in him or her, the hard work is satisfying and painless.

I just wish more courts in the United States would recognize this long-standing concept. It seems that the European Union has done so.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

26 Mar 2015, 10:15 am

AspieUtah wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
But do you believe that some evil serial killer could redeem himself, even if he really did commit the crimes? That is what this is about, that it is inhumane to deny even the worst people any chance of redemption, however small.

Yes, absolutely. The "restoration of rights" concept is exactly that, but in a slightly more narrow application; if an individual committed crimes that resulted in his or her restriction of rights, and subsequently proved himself or herself to be worthy of a court-ordered restoration, the courts in many states (as well as federally) are obligated to consider the new evidence against the old. The legal ability of expungement is another good example of redeeming oneself to the point of earning back social trust under the law. But, such restorations or expungements aren't easy and require diligent work. To the individual who truly desires society to regain trust in him or her, the hard work is satisfying and painless.

I just wish more courts in the United States would recognize this long-standing concept. It seems that the European Union has done so.


Ah, I wrongly assumed that by evidence you meant only "evidence of innocence", and not evidence of redemption. I'm not good with legalspeak but I think I agree with you :D



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

26 Mar 2015, 10:21 am

trollcatman wrote:
Ah, I wrongly assumed that by evidence you meant only "evidence of innocence", and not evidence of redemption. I'm not good with legalspeak but I think I agree with you :D

You weren't wrong. I was. I focused at first on "evidence of innocence" and realized that I should have extended that to "evidence of redemption" because that is what I believe. My mistake.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Iamaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,183
Location: Irrelevant

26 Mar 2015, 12:18 pm

What the heck?! O_o


_________________
I'm an author: https://www.amazon.com/author/benfournier
Sub to my YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/Iamnotaparakeet
"In the kingdom of hope, there is no winter."