Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Full Version: The Florida Governor
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Quote:Nate most of the stories are about peole that we're almost executed but proved inocent then released. Even without the death penalty they'd still spend the same time wrongfully behind bars.

Unless you advocate private law systems there will always be cases of the state wrongfully impriosining people that's with or without a death penalty. In the cases where individuals where found inocent and released the system worked, albeit horribly late but regardless the appeal system worked.

For me the only time I advocate the death penelty is in cases where the individual is found beyond redemption or rehabilitation. Cases such as rape or molesting children, most of the time id prefer to put prisoners in a work program make them contribute to society.

I guess im just wondering what you would advocate?


Bear in mind I am basically limiting the above to people sentenced to death.


Drifter asked for people EXHONERATED after execution, which is a far more difficult thing, as a huge amount of limited resources are used simply to save the lives of those who are still alive. Even with new evidence and witnesses recanting their lives, or even a confession by someone else it is a challenge. Many of the post humous EXHONERATIons have occurred through accident as much as anything else.


Abolish the death penalty, for one.


It is ridiculously expensive, unfairly employed, politically charged, among other things.


The death penalty is pointless as a deterrent, and that is coming from someone who defended murderers, interviewed serial killers, and tried to understand what was going on at the time of the event. Never, not one time, did the accused contemplate the penalty, other than the simplified notion of going to jail or prison.


Also, how do you justify one innocent person's murder at the hands of the state?


ONE PERSON?


I mean this-isn't everyone involved in that scenario, from the prosecutor to the Judge to the Gov. to the executioner simply guilty of murder?


Tell me why that isn't simply a fact. When is "oops" a defense? (A complete defense, not just mitigation)


The cost of going through an execution is amazing in relation to a life sentence.


The real bottom line is this: we cannot get it right, from who we decide to kill as a society, to how we do it, to finding a way to droit that makes sense.


This Old Testament crap makes no sense, and unless you believe that Christianity is based on killing innocent men, well, then that makes no sense either.



Abolish mandatory sentencing (a tad more flexible on this, but by and large, you employ Judges to impose sentences, and taking discretion from them is basically like saying you'd rather trust a politician without the facts rather than the person who has the acts and person directly before them.)


I had a kid once who was just stupid. 2 prior felonies, one for a driver's license suspension (many people don't know this can even BE a felony) and the other was a possession of weed over 20 grams.


The current charge was (at the time) breaking into his ex girlfriend's house, and waiting for her to come home, called her a name, then pushed her (& yes, that is it-that's the prosecutor's version) in the arm-no injury, didn't knock her back, much less down, then he ran away.


The prosecutor wanted him to plead to 3 years, he was 26. He had over a year in by the time of trial. He was hard headed, and wouldn't even consider taking the offer.


Because of when he got out on the weed charge, he was classified as a prison release reoffender.


So, a conviction meant a mandatory sentence of life with nothing else the judge could do.
Nate I agree the entire system had problems. I'm not even a big proponent of the death penelty I just think there are some cases where it's the only option.


I am 100% with you on mandatory sentacing the law is never as simple as a one case fits all approach.
Boy, Nate sure is fired up.

Quote:Boy, Nate sure is fired up.
Haha true. He's apparently passionate about it!

 

Mandatory minimums are stupid but, so are half the judges. 

 

The death penalty...don't know how I feel about that one. Hope I never have a reason to really debate it one way or the other. 

 

On one hand, you're right, one innocent person is too much. However, if some animal butchered my family, and the cops got him first....I don't think knowing that the guy was going to live out his days in air conditioned comfort would sit well with me. I'd be sitting outside the fence with the rifle waiting on recess :thumbsup:
Quote:Haha true. He's apparently passionate about it!

 

Mandatory minimums are stupid but, so are half the judges. 

 

The death penalty...don't know how I feel about that one. Hope I never have a reason to really debate it one way or the other. 

 

On one hand, you're right, one innocent person is too much. However, if some animal butchered my family, and the cops got him first....I don't think knowing that the guy was going to live out his days in air conditioned comfort would sit well with me. I'd be sitting outside the fence with the rifle waiting on recess :thumbsup:
This is kind of how I feel about it. It's easy for me to say that there is no good reason for the death penalty that I don't agree with it (which I don't) but I always wonder how differently I'd feel once the issue was closer to home. Our opinions on issues always change when the directly effects us. 
The death penalty is changed by how you view the justice system. For example if you view jail and the justice system in general as a form of punishment or adult time out the question becomes what is unforgivable?


I view the justice system as a means of reform. When adults do things illegal it's the violation of rules we as a society have put in place, so these individuals need to be reformed taught a way to work within the rules we've agreed upon. Some violations are beyond reform, raping a child for example you can't teach someone that has violated a child that its unacceptable they've severed their conscious at some point. Because they're beyond reform the only option is to permanently remove them thus the death penalty. These cases are rare and I'll admit it's not how it's used today so In its present form I have a problem with the death penalty.


The purpose of the justice system should be to reform individuals that violate the laws we as a society agree upon, but that would also mean removing "moral laws" on the books today such as narcotics prohibition, prostitution and gambling.
Quote:The death penalty is changed by how you view the justice system. For example if you view jail and the justice system in general as a form of punishment or adult time out the question becomes what is unforgivable?


I view the justice system as a means of reform. When adults do things illegal it's the violation of rules we as a society have put in place, so these individuals need to be reformed taught a way to work within the rules we've agreed upon. Some violations are beyond reform, raping a child for example you can't teach someone that has violated a child that its unacceptable they've severed their conscious at some point. Because they're beyond reform the only option is to permanently remove them thus the death penalty. These cases are rare and I'll admit it's not how it's used today so In its present form I have a problem with the death penalty.


The purpose of the justice system should be to reform individuals that violate the laws we as a society agree upon, but that would also mean removing "moral laws" on the books today such as narcotics prohibition, prostitution and gambling.


I am almost positive that the Florida criminal punishment code was revised to read that the primary purpose was punishment-it's been awhile and ill have to look that up if need be.


The thing about the concept of "removing them from society" is that is exactly what a life sentence is. Not to mention the least expensive concept.


By the way, how do you morally justify the executioor killing someone who has done nothing to them? Because someone has to do the deed?


I don't know what purpose the death penalty serves in any way, shape, or form. If satisfying a thirst for vengeance is it, then I hope you have looked at why the crime was committed. If a drug dealer kills another drug dealer who in turn killed his brother, I guess that would be justified.....completely justified?


What does it teach kids? If someone hits you, it is justified to hit them back?


Violent behavior is ok, so long as you have a good reason (I'm going to assume we'd agree that taking someone's life could fall under "violent act" whether it's smothering someone with a pillow, shooting them in the head, beating them to death, or actually injecting lethal chemicals into their body, although that person did absolutely nothing to you.)
Quote:Haha true. He's apparently passionate about it!

 

Mandatory minimums are stupid but, so are half the judges. 

 

The death penalty...don't know how I feel about that one. Hope I never have a reason to really debate it one way or the other. 

 

On one hand, you're right, one innocent person is too much. However, if some animal butchered my family, and the cops got him first....I don't think knowing that the guy was going to live out his days in air conditioned comfort would sit well with me. I'd be sitting outside the fence with the rifle waiting on recess :thumbsup:


I think people get more involved and know who they are allowing to be placed as judges.


I read on the TU comments how they refer to the Judges as darn liberals who coddle criminals....


Trust me, I don't think one would be considered that way after a week in their courtroom, and I know they don't identify that way. There is one local judge I think would identify as more libertarian, but that's about as far left any of them would lean.
Quote:I am almost positive that the Florida criminal punishment code was revised to read that the primary purpose was punishment-it's been awhile and ill have to look that up if need be.


The thing about the concept of "removing them from society" is that is exactly what a life sentence is. Not to mention the least expensive concept.


By the way, how do you morally justify the executioor killing someone who has done nothing to them? Because someone has to do the deed?


I don't know what purpose the death penalty serves in any way, shape, or form. If satisfying a thirst for vengeance is it, then I hope you have looked at why the crime was committed. If a drug dealer kills another drug dealer who in turn killed his brother, I guess that would be justified.....completely justified?


What does it teach kids? If someone hits you, it is justified to hit them back?


Violent behavior is ok, so long as you have a good reason (I'm going to assume we'd agree that taking someone's life could fall under "violent act" whether it's smothering someone with a pillow, shooting them in the head, beating them to death, or actually injecting lethal chemicals into their body, although that person did absolutely nothing to you.)


In its current form it is used as an ultimate punishment or threat to coerce confessions and avoid trial.


I only advocate a death penalty when someone's beyond rehabilitation. Murder happens for all kinds of reasons to me those are not all cases beyond retribution.


Life sentences are pointless your saying this individual is beyond retribution can not be reformed so society must care for him until his natural death, at that point the system has failed and they should be removed from society.


I believe in less laws only those that protect property and life, individuals that violate someone's else life or property should either be reformed or removed, adult time out is a pointless exercise.
Nate, the reason the death penalty is not abolished is that it's the only way the public trusts the state to keep criminals from murdering again. If a life sentence always meant LIFE, there would be little support for the death penalty.



http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html

 

I'm thinking that the number of innocent people who have been executed is about the same as the number of life-sentenced criminals who committed murder after being released.


 

In any case, you have successfully sidetracked a discussion about the governor's race into a discussion about capital punishment. There is really no difference between the two candidates on this topic.


Quote:Nate, the reason the death penalty is not abolished is that it's the only way the public trusts the state to keep criminals from murdering again. If a life sentence always meant LIFE, there would be little support for the death penalty.

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html'>http://www.wesleylowe.com/repoff.html</a>

 
I'm thinking that the number of innocent people who have been executed is about the same as the number of life-sentenced criminals who committed murder after being released.


 
In any case, you have successfully sidetracked a discussion about the governor's race into a discussion about capital punishment. There is really no difference between the two candidates on this topic.


Life is life in florida. There is no parole.


So your thinking is wrong, dead wrong, in that regard.


Now, I have had seen plenty of murderers released after they served a sentence of a term of years, in many cases from an agreement with the state attorney.
You're still at zero, big boy.

 

Color me unimpressed..... :down:

 

Now, let's re-read the question more slowly so that we understand.....

 

 


So, which executed offenders have been PROVEN to be innocent?


 

 

 

Quote:Boy, Nate sure is fired up.
Yeah, and he's also dead wrong. That, or he's a flat-out liar. He still can't back up his obtuse statement. He tried throwing out some neat stats which did absolutely nothing to support his original claim. Very slippery of him, but he's still on the losing end of this argument until he can provide one concrete name.

Quote:Life is life in florida. There is no parole.


So your thinking is wrong, dead wrong, in that regard.


Now, I have had seen plenty of murderers released after they served a sentence of a term of years, in many cases from an agreement with the state attorney.
 

So explain these three:


 

Michael Lawrence -- Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term, 1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990. 
---------------------------------------
Donald Dillbeck -- Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after escape. Condemned 1991.
---------------------------------------
Edward Kennedy -- Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after prison break. Executed 1992.
Quote:You're still at zero, big boy.


Color me unimpressed..... :down:


Now, let's re-read the question more slowly so that we understand.....



So, which executed offenders have been PROVEN to be innocent?








Yeah, and he's also dead wrong. That, or he's a flat-out liar. He still can't back up his obtuse statement. He tried throwing out some neat stats which did absolutely nothing to support his original claim. Very slippery of him, but he's still on the losing end of this argument until he can provide one concrete name.
Actually I did.
Stupid state of Illinois.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-...-sentences



Feel free to not read this and bury your head in the sand.


Also....you....do....get.....that logically you aren't going to find a lot post humously, although there are several examples, simply due to the fact that they are, you know, dead, their family has undoubtedly long since exhausted every nickel in trying to SAVE HIS LIFE, and there is not only absolutely no motivation by the state to reveal the truth, but rather they will CONTINUE to make it difficult to do thing s like DNA tests.


You do logically get that right?


Let me guess, just because the guy above came 50 hours from being murdered by the state is something to laugh off.


Actually, the proponents of the death penalty depend on people remaining either ignorant and willfully ignorant.


Feel free to not choose either and continue to adopt both.
Quote:So explain these three:


Michael Lawrence -- Florida. Killed robbery victim. Life term, 1976. Paroled 1985. Killed robbery victim. Condemned 1990. [/size]

---------------------------------------[/size]

Donald Dillbeck -- Florida. Killed policeman in 1979. Escaped from prison in 1990, kidnapped and killed female motorist after escape. Condemned 1991.[/size]

---------------------------------------[/size]

Edward Kennedy -- Florida. Killed motel clerk. Sentenced to Life. Escaped 1981. Killed policeman and male civilian after prison break. Executed 1992.[/size]
You are really making me work too hard and do your research for you!

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/doing/'>http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/doing/</a>


Basically, there was parole, then there wasn't, but those eligible previously were still eligible.


Read the paragraph titles "less than 1% paroled yearly"


Hopefully that makes some sense to you, because it was a major pain explaining to people sentenced that they were going to be serving at least 85% of their sentence and the guy sentenced far before you has different rules.
Quote:You are really making me work too hard and do your research for you!

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/doing/'>http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/timeserv/doing/</a>


Basically, there was parole, then there wasn't, but those eligible previously were still eligible.


Read the paragraph titles "less than 1% paroled yearly"


Hopefully that makes some sense to you, because it was a major pain explaining to people sentenced that they were going to be serving at least 85% of their sentence and the guy sentenced far before you has different rules.
 

And the two who escaped? Has the state legislature rescinded 'escape.'


 

This is not to mention that the state can, at any time, change the law back to allowing parole.


 

Meanwhile, here is a list of murderers who committed another murder after they were executed:


 

 

 

 

 

.

The recidivism rate for executed murderers is 0.00%. Clearly this is the best deterrent to prevent repeat offenses. The process might need to be better, but that is true of any process that relies on technology for a portion of the proving stage; it's always adapting to new variables.


And Rick Scott is a hundred times better than Charlie Crist in the categories that matter.
Quote:Actually I did.
Actually, you didn't.

 

This question may be above your intelligence level.

 

A simple name is all that is required to answer it. You have yet to provide one name, just one simple name, where an innocent Florida inmate was executed, and was later proven to be innocent.

 

I won't waste any more time with this. You're simply incapable of backing up your argument. That, or you are just a flat out liar. Typical......

Quote:Actually, you didn't.

 

This question may be above your intelligence level.

 

A simple name is all that is required to answer it. You have yet to provide one name, just one simple name, where an innocent Florida inmate was executed, and was later proven to be innocent.

 

I won't waste any more time with this. You're simply incapable of backing up your argument. That, or you are just a flat out liar. Typical......


Leo Jones probably won't matter to you.


I imagine the Supreme Court of florida and numerous other people are also "flat out liars." I imagine the proof and facts that came out after the verdict isn't enough to concern you whether some person who is not guilty is being murdered by the state.



By the way, you do get that when these things are appealed, guilt or innocence is not the issue being determined, right?


You don't have an argument to back up, it would appear.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11