Equal Protection and Equality

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I don't think due process requires that people should be able to appeal a verdict for frivolous reasons.

Who gets to make the decision concerning what are actually "frivolous reasons?" Not just any Joe the Bloehard has the qualifications to make that decision!

Just sayin'

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

If we executed scumbags in an average of one year instead of twelve years, the death penalty might be a lot more effective as a detterent.

But Blackstone didn't say better that a thousand guilty escape; he said ten.

Originally Posted by bigtex

Who gets to make the decision concerning what are actually "frivolous reasons?" Not just any Joe the Bloehard has the qualifications to make that decision!

BT, he has a "quota system" ... one a year and every 10th man is innocent!

We could get big jars of jelly beans ... black and white ones. Once he or she is convicted of a death penalty offense, the convicted person while blindfolded reaches into the jar and pulls out a jelly bean. There are 100 white ones and 10 black ones.

White no death penalty, black you get the juice! If by November there are still black ones in there, all the whites get removed, to make sure the quota of one is met for that year.

Actually, since justice is "blind" and all have the same equal opportunity, its fair, .. well not so fair if one is convicted in November and no one has picked a black jelly bean!!!!

Oh, to meet the one inncent man a year requirement, all those found not guilty have to draw too, until one finally draws a black bean. Then for the rest of the year, none who are found "not guilty" will have to draw.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

BT, he has a "quota system" ... one a year and every 10th man is innocent!

We could get big jars of jelly beans ... black and white ones. Once he or she is convicted of a death penalty offense, the convicted person while blindfolded reaches into the jar and pulls out a jelly bean. There are 100 white ones and 10 black ones.

White no death penalty, black you get the juice! If by November there are still black ones in there, all the whites get removed, to make sure the quota of one is met for that year.

Actually, since justice is "blind" and all have the same equal opportunity, its fair, .. well not so fair if one is convicted in November and no one has picked a black jelly bean!!!!

Oh, to meet the one inncent man a year requirement, all those found not guilty have to draw too, until one finally draws a black bean. Then for the rest of the year, none who are found "not guilty" will have to draw.

With Assup being less active these days, I assume you're trying to make up for the shortage of profoundly stupid posts. Someday you may be dipshit of the year.

[JCM800]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

We could get big jars of jelly beans ... black and white ones. Once he or she is convicted of a death penalty offense, the convicted person while blindfolded reaches into the jar and pulls out a jelly bean. There are 100 white ones and 10 black ones.

White no death penalty, black you get the juice! If by November there are still black ones in there, all the whites get removed, to make sure the quota of one is met for that year.

Actually, since justice is "blind" and all have the same equal opportunity, its fair, .. well not so fair if one is convicted in November and no one has picked a black jelly bean!!!!

Oh, to meet the one inncent man a year requirement, all those found not guilty have to draw too, until one finally draws a black bean. Then for the rest of the year, none who are found "not guilty" will have to draw.

are they going to use Jelly Belly's?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JCM800

are they going to use Jelly Belly's?

Surely ... "What's the difference"?

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The law doesn't require certainty in proving guilt. It requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's the best standard. If certainty was the standard in a criminal case, we'd never convict anyone of anything.

While I think beyond a reasonable doubt is a find standard for proving guilt in most cases, I think given the irreversable nature of the death penalty, a higher standard should be imposed in order to carry out that sentence.

It's not to say we can't convict someone on the regular beyond resonable doubt standard, but before we execute someone, don't you think society has an obligation to be damn sure the person is actually guilty?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

While I think beyond a reasonable doubt is a find standard for proving guilt in most cases, I think given the irreversable nature of the death penalty, a higher standard should be imposed in order to carry out that sentence.

It's not to say we can't convict someone on the regular beyond resonable doubt standard, but before we execute someone, don't you think society has an obligation to be damn sure the person is actually guilty?

It's a very debatable point. A good case can be made for life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. I personally believe life in prison is less of a deterrent than the death penalty, but it does have the advantage of eliminating the possibility of executing an innocent person.

If we get rid of the death penalty, or raise the standard of proof to absolute certainty, in order to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed, we have to weigh that against the possibilty that more innocent people may be murdered. The protection of the innocent should be the goal.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I don't think due process requires that people should be able to appeal a verdict for frivolous reasons.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The protection of the innocent should be the goal.

Uhhh, I wonder if Joe the Bloehard knows the meaning of the phrase, "conflicting testimony."

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Uhhh, I wonder if Joe the Bloehard knows the meaning of the phrase, "conflicting testimony."

That's what happens when one is spouting cliches in an attempt to make "a point." And it occurs most frequently when folks talk in a vacuum without ideas being tested.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Someday you may be dipshit of the year.

But not this day. I'm standing back and giving the floor to you, ...

.... while actually making fun of your quota idea. Really not "funny," but remarkable.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

It's a very debatable point. A good case can be made for life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. I personally believe life in prison is less of a deterrent than the death penalty, but it does have the advantage of eliminating the possibility of executing an innocent person.

If we get rid of the death penalty, or raise the standard of proof to absolute certainty, in order to protect innocent people from being wrongfully executed, we have to weigh that against the possibilty that more innocent people may be murdered. The protection of the innocent should be the goal.

I'm fine with life without parole (as long as we actually make sure it's without parole) as an alternative to the death penalty.

Most studies done on death penalty deterrence show that at least as it is, it doesn't really deter violent crime. Now whether or not that's because the frequency of us carrying it out is a factor in there - that has yet to be determined.

Again, I'm not against the death penalty in itself, ie I don't think it's inhumane. My issue is with the current accuracy of the determination of guilt.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

But not this day. I'm standing back and giving the floor to you, ...

.... while actually making fun of your quota idea. Really not "funny," but remarkable.

It appears that Joe the Bloehard is doing his best to give StupidOldLyingFart a run for his title!

Perhaps we should just refer to them as 1A and 1B!

[Randy4Candy]

Would your "equality" be separate?

[CuteOldGuy]

The death penalty will not be a deterrent unless it is quick and public. Otherwise, it's a waste of money. It costs states more to fund appeal after appeal than it does to house them for life.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

But not this day. I'm standing back and giving the floor to you, ...

.... while actually making fun of your quota idea. Really not "funny," but remarkable.

I never proposed a quota you fucking idiot. You're just doing the standard strawman argument. It's sophomoric but I guess it's the only trick you have.