The Tea Party Says - "Let Them Die"

[dteowner]

Let's see… No forensic evidence. No murder weapon. Eyewitness accounts only (which 7 out of 9 recounted). Yup, looks like "beyond reasonable doubts" to me!

Polly want a cracker? The shell casings found at the murder scene matched shell casings from Davis' gun, collected at one of his previous violent crimes. That's called forensic envidence, champ. When you're completely full of crap in the first sentence, what does that say about the rest, I wonder?

 

[zahratustra]

The shell casings found at the murder scene matched shell casings from Davis' gun, collected at one of his previous violent crimes. That's called forensic envidence, champ.

It's called forensic evidence from PREVIOUS crime scene champ. There was no proof WHAT SO EVER that Davis even had a gun on this particular day.

Now who is completely full of crap?

 

[dteowner]

Same barrel marks equals same gun for both events, and somehow Davis never once claimed his gun was lost/borrowed/stolen. What's that forensic evidence tell you? That blindfold must be tremendously comfy for you.

edit- Nice and slow for the terminally blind:

This is a REAL victim who deserves our tears. He was gunned down in cold blood, leaving behind a wife, a 2-year-old, and a baby. He was shot in the heart and in the face. He never had the chance to draw his own weapon.
http://www.odmp.org/officer/8410-officer-mark-allen-macphail-sr

Why do you rail on for a killer?

 

[zahratustra]

No, he just have said that he didn't have a gun…

"Cooper testified that he was inebriated when shot and said that although Davis was one of the people he had quarrelled with, he "don't know me well enough to shoot me". A friend of Cooper, Benjamin Gordon, stated that the man who shot Cooper was wearing a white T-shirt and blue shorts, though on cross-examination he stated he did not know Davis and had not seen the person who shot Cooper"

"A ballistics expert testified that the .38 caliber bullet that killed MacPhail could have been fired from the same gun that wounded Cooper at the Cloverdale pool party, though he admitted doubt about this. However, he stated he was confident that .38 casings found at Cloverdale matched one allegedly later found by a homeless man near the scene of MacPhail's shooting"

"Davis' defense team failed to call the witnesses who had changed their testimony when Davis was given an evidentiary hearing in 2010"

Cameron Todd Willingham
Jesse Tafero
Ellis Wayne Felker

 

[dteowner]

If the evidence is so shaky, how do you explain that after 20 YEARS of appeals not a single court was convinced? Conspiracy to keep the black man down? There ain't that much tinfoil in the world.

 

[MasterKromm]

What is the difference between the terms kill and murder?

I believe murder to be the intentional and uncoerced killing of the innocent… I also believe that when a man(or woman) commits murder(not all homicides are murder) he forfeits his innocence and right to life.

Hypothetically speaking - Would the killing of Anders Breivik be justified? If not, would any of you argue it as murder?

 

[JemyM]

Murder is unlawful killing. It's as simple as that.

 

[MasterKromm]

Murder is unlawful killing. It's as simple as that.

No, it is the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice afterthought". An important distinction which separates it from other types of unlawful killing…

You say that so matter of fact, but humor me, what is unlawful killing? Does that term carry the same meaning for all people and their respective nations? Never mind the fact that, as honest Abe put it, law without enforcement is only (good) advice. How many people obey the law because it's the law or because they fear it's enforcement? So, again just hypothetically speaking, in the event of total societal breakdown(IE martial law or no law) what is murder?

 

[zahratustra]

If the evidence is so shaky, how do you explain that after 20 YEARS of appeals not a single court was convinced?

That's a very good question...

 

[JemyM]

what is unlawful killing?

"You shall not murder" was one of the ten commandments. In the bible, after the law was introduced, Moses urged members of his troup to take their swords and kill their own families and friends in order to show loyalty to their new god. (Exodus 32:26-29). 3000 was killed that night according to the story. The reason they weren't murdered (thus killed against the law) was that the act was permitted/urged by the authority and thus lawful.

Unlawful killing is killing that is legally prohibited.

Does that term carry the same meaning for all people and their respective nations?

This have been studied. There are no cultures known to anthropology that permits murder.

How many people obey the law because it's the law or because they fear it's enforcement?

People who actually know the law are in minority. However, as a general rule I consider crime to be irrational, meaning that people do not do a risk-vs-reward calculation prior to comitting crimes. Fear-of-law-enforcement barely go through the head of most to-be criminals. If one did a such calculation they have a psychological disorder and represent a minority.

So, again just hypothetically speaking, in the event of total societal breakdown (IE martial law or no law) what is murder?

The reason murder is regulated in every culture known to anthropology is that killing needs to be regulated for a tribe to survive. It's therefore the tribes ruling authority that decides who is to live and who is not. Lawful killing is permitted by the ruling authority where as murder is unpermitted killing.

 

[Ubereil]

"You shall not murder" was one of the ten commandments. In the bible, after the law was introduced, Moses urged members of his troup to take their swords and kill their own families and friends in order to show loyalty to their new god. (Exodus 32:26-29). 3000 was killed that night according to the story. The reason they weren't murdered (thus killed against the law) was that the act was permitted/urged by the authority and thus lawful.

Unlawful killing is killing that is legally prohibited.

This have been studied. There are no cultures known to anthropology that permits murder.

If murder is killing that isn't allowed, isn't this true by definition ("no culture allowed killing they didn't allow")?

Übereil

 

[JemyM]

If murder is killing that isn't allowed, isn't this true by definition ("no culture allowed killing they didn't allow")?

It might seem that way, but I believe they mean "expressed regulations against killing", meaning that they all have regulation about what killing is not allowed. There are no cultures which lacks such regulation (thus allowing all forms of killing at all times). Now if you like the source for this information I have to confess it's buried somewhere in my library on anthropology which will make it difficult to find the original quote or research.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Personally, I'd like to write a novel about "the perfect crime" (if I could, that is, because my interests are with completely different genres).
It would involve killing someone by the state, being accused of murder.
That would be the "perfect murder", imho.

 

[MasterKromm]

Jemy, we seem to be in agreement when discussing the basics… I'm not confused over the terminology "murder or unlawful killing", or why it is regulated by every human group. I'm interested in how the classification of murder varies between groups. For example, the stoning of an adulterer under sharia law would never be sanctioned in the West. More importantly, at what stage do members within a host society completely ignore the law(in the ME sharia vs govt)?

Your belief, that crime is irrational and perpetrators do not consider risk/reward, is just that - yours. Crime can be very rational, even if it is to the detriment of the host society. This is especially true for repeat offenders, as it boils down to pleasure vs pain… Have you heard of the rational choice theory?

What constitutes murder varies between groups, and it varies between individuals. Or do you dispute that?

 

[Ubereil]

Have you heard of the rational choice theory?

Not only has he heard of it - he's dissed it on this very forum.

Übereil, in this very thread even

 

[MasterKromm]

Not only has he heard of it - he's dissed it on this very forum.

Übereil, in this very thread even

Thanks for pointing that out… I jumped into the discussion a bit late.

As for his interpretation, to each his own. I'm not a sociologist/psychologist but I'll bounce it off my mom(she has a couple degrees in those fields). Will post more later on… Though after having read through their earlier exchanges I must agree with DTE(for the most part).

-EDIT-

He seems to actually agree with it in the end though, to one degree or another… Or maybe not…

Some of the points I have taken away from your posts:

1) You can hold someone accountable for their choices, despite their ignorance, as a means of possibly shaping their future actions.
2) For true choice to exist the consequences(of said choice) must be equal in magnitude and direction.
3) People do not consciously pick the lesser of two choices.
4) People do not think before they commit to an action, they act on impulse.

If #3 and #4 are to be taken as truth, #1 is entirely pointless. #2 is predicated on ones ability to gauge equivalence and assign subjective value to the desired consequences of their choices. Desired consequences are not always achieved. Sexual gratification is anything but constant, variability makes equality or repetition of results impossible. #2 is denying the antecedent. If the consequences are equal then true choice exists. The consequences are not equal therefore true choice does not exist. Picking the lesser or bad choice and it's subsequent consequence is still true choice. Your added "true" qualification is entirely subjective and left to, I assume, self appointed moral authority figures. Like you or the Pope, right?

Back to #2+3, here's a scenario:

Man desires sex. Man tries to attract woman to achieve that end. Man fails horribly in his quest. Man still desiring sex can either A) forgo sex or B) rape someone. According to you there is no real choice here, for the potential consequences of his choices are not equal. So, which would be the lesser of the two choices, raping or not raping?

-EDIT - #2

Back to the whole rational choice theory…

I can only speak from my own personal experiences… So I'll tell you a little story, growing up I lived in a middle class neighborhood and attended private school through HS. Long story short, one of my good childhood friends started smoking marijuana around the age of 12(exposure to it from his older brother). Shortly thereafter he also began dealing the stuff… Could you imagine that an affluent kid would resort to selling pot? Well he did and made a small fortune throughout our HS years. But every sale/drug run was a calculated risk - from his suppliers, network of fellow sellers, clients and law enforcement. He avoided detection until the time he "retired" because everything was thought out and planned in advance with multiple contingency plans.

The same holds true for any career criminal or criminal syndicate…

The only criminals who don't fall into the rational choice theory are those acting purely on impulse or in the heat of the moment…

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

I suppose the time period could be negotiated, although I'd still want it to be consistent, at least within any given state and preferably nation-wide (which might be challenging given that Texas and the East Coast would argue the time frame as a surrogate for arguing capital punishment in general). My theory, which is admittedly unsupported, is that part of the reason things take 10+ years now is that both sides willingly stall to kick the can down the road (and, undoubtedly, to rack up more legal fees). With a 5 year limit in place, stall tactics become counterproductive and both sides can get to work.

I would assert that the appeals process takes so much time because there are over 2 million Americans currently being incarcerated, many of whom have active appeals, and this places a great deal of stress on judges, lawyers, and court officials, who already have full case-loads with people who haven't been convicted yet.

Besides, we still disagree on this fundamentally, because I wouldn't ever agree to a hard timeline for terminating the appeals process. The DPIC database has evidence of persons being pardoned after 22-30 years on death row. Statistically, these are outliers, but realistically, they're innocent people who would have otherwise been wrongfully executed

 

[dteowner]

Take a look at the appeals submitted in the Davis case. They tried to throw everything short of "the sun rose in the east" against the wall hoping absolutely anything would stick and the vast majority of them had nothing to do with his innocence or lack thereof, but rather procedural nitpicks. Similarly, does a "cruel and unusual punishment" appeal have anything to do with proving zahra's angel deserves his halo? That's a lawyer being desperate to avoid a consequence rather than arguing the innocence of his client, all while the meter runs. With a time limit hanging over everyone's heads, perhaps we only tie up the courts with appeals with some legal merit.

On a more philosophical level, our legal system rarely seems to be about guilt/innocence anymore. Perhaps it's a skewed sample where we see more media reports of obvious criminals walking on some stupid technicality than falsely accused people being exonerated. I suppose that colors my opinion of the value of 20 years of appeals.

 

[Captain Buzzkill]

Take a look at the appeals submitted in the Davis case. They tried to throw everything short of "the sun rose in the east" against the wall hoping absolutely anything would stick and the vast majority of them had nothing to do with his innocence or lack thereof, but rather procedural nitpicks. Similarly, does a "cruel and unusual punishment" appeal have anything to do with proving zahra's angel deserves his halo? That's a lawyer being desperate to avoid a consequence rather than arguing the innocence of his client, all while the meter runs. With a time limit hanging over everyone's heads, perhaps we only tie up the courts with appeals with some legal merit.

On a more philosophical level, our legal system rarely seems to be about guilt/innocence anymore. Perhaps it's a skewed sample where we see more media reports of obvious criminals walking on some stupid technicality than falsely accused people being exonerated. I suppose that colors my opinion of the value of 20 years of appeals.

It's. The. Law. By definition, it cannot take shortcuts, and if someone gets a new trial due to a technicality, then the law is still working. We're talking about executing someone - ending a human life - and we shouldn't do that with anything but the utmost respect for the law, otherwise, we're no better than the person we've condemned. That's one of the great things about the rule of Law that sometimes pisses people off. Yes, it does give more justice to the accused, even after they're pronounced guilty, than was ever given to the victim, but that assures us that the Law is going to maximize finding innocence, rather than just being an over-ritualized lynch mob. It's the only moral high ground that we can claim when the consequence of a crime is death - that we've given the condemned every possible opportunity to prove his innocence, even if that means attacking the conviction on technical grounds in order to gain a new trial. Troy Davis utilized the legal system the way it was designed, even taking his case to the highest court in the land at the eleventh hour. That makes me feel good, personally. It at least gives the appearance of the Law giving a shit about getting it right.

I would agree with your suspicions in your second paragraph. We're overly enamored with morbidity and bad news. I would bet cases like Casey Anthony are fairly rare.

 

[dteowner]

Yes, it does give more justice to the accused, even after they're pronounced guilty, than was ever given to the victim, but that assures us that the Law is going to maximize finding innocence, rather than just being an over-ritualized lynch mob.

As has happened several times, we end up with a very similar evaluation of the situation, but come to a different answer. It's a little frustrating that you stubbornly cling to the wrong answer all the time ( ) but I find it strangely encouraging that at least some small portion of "the opposition" is seeing and considering the same gameboard as me.