|
Author
|
Topic: Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 29 of 205 (660673)
04-28-2012 10:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by NoNukes
04-26-2012 7:11 AM
|
|
It is about revenge, and a distorted, barbaric notion of what constitutes fairness. That, and killin' colored people.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 04-26-2012 7:11 AM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 46 of 205 (660797)
04-29-2012 3:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-29-2012 2:30 PM
|
|
Mr. Willingham
You don't think Cameron Todd Willingham was innocent? I don't see what other conclusion is possible based on the scientific conclusion that the fire that killed his children was not arson. The Wikipedia article doesn't present the matter as being as clear-cut as you claim it to be. Would you care to elaborate on how you came to believe there was a "scientific conclusion that the fire that killed his children was not arson"? Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 2:30 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 50 of 205 (660801)
04-29-2012 3:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by subbie
04-29-2012 3:30 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
Wiki writes: Fire investigator Gerald L. Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions and an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene. Hurst said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Precisely. There wasn't really any evidence to force a conclusion of arson.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 3:30 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 51 of 205 (660802)
04-29-2012 4:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
04-29-2012 3:35 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
Would you care to elaborate on how you came to believe there was a "scientific conclusion that the fire that killed his children was not arson"? From this, presumably quote:
{From, Analysis of the Fire Investigation Methods and Procedures Used in the Criminal Arson Cases Against Ernest Ray Willis and Cameron Todd Willingham} The investigations of the Willis and Willingham fires did not comport with either the modern standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980—1992. The investigators had poor understandings of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of elimination. A finding of arson could not be sustained based upon the standard of care expressed by NFPA 921, or the standard of care expressed by fire investigation texts and papers in the period 1980—1992.
Well that doesn't support at all what Crash said. Nor does the case of Willingham even come close to satisfying Onifre's request for an example of an innocent person who was executed. Looking at the facts of the case (as presented on Wiki) it isn't really clear whether the man is guilty or not. There's certainly ample amounts of reasonable doubt, and I am not at all convinced of Willingham's guilt. But neither am I convinced of his innocence. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 48 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2012 3:35 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 57 of 205 (660810)
04-29-2012 4:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
04-29-2012 4:10 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
You don't have to be. You simply have to accept the abundant scientific evidence that the fire was not the result of arson. Willingham can't be guilty of a crime that did not occur, by definition. But there is no evidence that there wasn't a crime. There's a lot of ambiguous evidence. And there's plenty of missing evidence in support of an arson conclusion. And the wording used in reports on the matter makes it very clear that the independent investigators are not concluding that there was no arson. They are only commenting on the fact that there is no evidence to support an arson conclusion. Based on this an acquittal or verdict of not-guilty should have been handed out. But not a declaration of innocence. And so you're right, and I agree on this point: Willingham should have been found not guilty. But Onifre isn't talking about not-guilty, is he? He's talking about innocence. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 4:10 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 58 of 205 (660811)
04-29-2012 4:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 53 by Modulous
04-29-2012 4:19 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
There's certainly ample amounts of reasonable doubt Innocent until proven guilty. Proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But neither am I convinced of his innocence. Fortunately, in most cases, we don't have to prove someone is innocent as that is very difficult in most cases. While I can prove my innocence in the JFK murder, I cannot prove my innocence in the murder of Halton McCollin (who was murdered very close to where I was at the time). If there is reasonable doubt whether an arson occurred, there is even more doubt that he is guilty of arson. It's far from clear that Mr. Willingham was innocent. It's only clear that he should not have been found guilty (and executed). And Onifre was very specific in his request for examples of innocent people being executed. Onifre made it further clear in an earlier message that he is looking for 'serious proof' of innocence. I was showing that Crash's example of Willingham doesn't address Onifre's request since he failed to present the required 'serious proof' of innocence. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 53 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2012 4:19 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 4:54 PM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 67 of 205 (660826)
04-29-2012 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 4:49 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
But Onifre isn't talking about not-guilty, is he? He's talking about innocence. Yes, and Onifre's point is a red herring. The entire issue of guilt/non-guilt/innocence is a red herring. No matter who's making the point or what their point is. But that's for a different post.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 4:49 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 8:02 PM | | Jon has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 81 of 205 (660845)
04-29-2012 9:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 8:02 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
Jon, that's a pretty silly statement. Surely there are some valid things to discuss that do revolve around guilt/non-quilt/innocence. Absolutely not. That an innocent person might face a certain penalty as a result of a wrongful conviction has nothing to do with whether that penalty is just or unjust, right or wrong, moral or immoral, civil or barbaric.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 8:02 PM | | NoNukes has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:49 PM | | Jon has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 84 of 205 (660848)
04-29-2012 9:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
04-29-2012 8:51 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
The legal state of "innocence" is the state of being not guilty of the crime. Willingham is perforce not guilty of the crime because no crime occurred. There's a difference between your so-called 'legal state of "innocence"' and the 'state of being not guilty of the crime'.
Innocent v. Not Guilty By the standard you employ, here, nobody can properly be considered "innocent." If by 'properly' you mean 'legally', then you are correct: innocence isn't something that a court decides. Again: 'Innocent' and 'Not Guilty' are two different things.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 8:51 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 85 of 205 (660849)
04-29-2012 10:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by NoNukes
04-29-2012 9:49 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
Jon writes: That an innocent person might face a certain penalty as a result of a wrongful conviction has nothing to do with whether that penalty is just or unjust, right or wrong, moral or immoral, civil or barbaric. What if we are discussing whether the person actually is innocent or was wrongly convicted? Whether the death penalty represents a just, civil, and non-cruel punishment has nothing to do with whether or not the punished party has been wrongly convicted or not. Even when guilt is 100% certain, the questions are still the same along with the answers: Is capital punishment just? No. Is capital punishment civil? No. Is capital punishment non-cruel? No. Guilt or innocence has nothing to do with it. If murder is the most heinous crime, then execution is the most cruel punishment. It simply cannot stand; and we must not stand for it.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2012 9:49 PM | | NoNukes has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 90 of 205 (660855)
04-29-2012 10:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
04-29-2012 10:19 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
I mean, you're right - maybe he was guilty of a completely different arson, or a completely different crime altogether. Maybe Texas got it right by accident and justly executed Jack the Ripper when they killed Willingham. But by that definition of "guilty" no one can be said to be innocent. Justice is sophistry if the presumption is guilt, as it seems to be with you and NoNukes. Oops... Looks like we've pushed Crash too far. Now he's resorting to his typical backed-in-a-corner nonsensical misrepresentation of his opponents. Good grief. Come back when you've got your head out of your ass and have washed the shit off your face.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 04-29-2012 10:19 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 92 of 205 (660857)
04-29-2012 10:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by subbie
04-29-2012 10:29 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
There are many who disagree with your conclusions about the justice, civility and cruelty of capital punishment. Showing them that in practice the death penalty results in more blacks and poor people getting killed than whites and rich people might convince them to abandon the practice. In addition, showing them that innocent people have been killed because of imperfections in our criminal justice system might make a difference to them as well. But that has nothing to do with why capital punishment is wrong. And that is the first thing that must be pointed out to such people. If we play their game, we only further the nonsensical idea that it's okay to kill other people so long as you're pretty dern sure they deserve it.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 10:29 PM | | subbie has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 94 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 10:52 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 96 of 205 (660861)
04-29-2012 11:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 95 by subbie
04-29-2012 11:26 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
and nothing is inconsistent with his statement that "It was just a fire." You're a pretty sly one, mister. But I think we all know that just because evidence is consistent with a conclusion does not mean that said evidence supports that conclusion.
Nothing changes the fact that he said, "It was just a fire." He can say a lot of things. And he's allowed to come to any conclusion he wants. But that doesn't mean that just because he did the investigation that any conclusion he comes to must necessarily be supported by the evidence he found. He could have very well written the entire report as is only to conclude that the whole fire was the result of the malicious activities of magical children-hating fairies who burn their bodies to collect the ash for use as magical fairy dust. But I wouldn't give much weight to that conclusion just 'cause he said it and claimed that it was based on the evidence in his report. Jon
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 95 by subbie, posted 04-29-2012 11:26 PM | | subbie has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2012 11:01 AM | | Jon has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 116 of 205 (660926)
04-30-2012 4:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
04-30-2012 12:19 PM
|
|
Re: Mr. Willingham
Jon writes: Is capital punishment just?
Justice depends to a great extent on risk. Where there is a significant chance of being wrong, it is decidedly unjust to invoke an irreversible penalty. Fair enough. We differ in how we understand justice, though. From my perspective, justice is a fitting punishment for a crime.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by ringo, posted 04-30-2012 12:19 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by ringo, posted 04-30-2012 5:02 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 117 of 205 (660928)
04-30-2012 4:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 115 by onifre
04-30-2012 4:31 PM
|
|
Such people need to be removed from existence others around them so that they don't harm others around them. That's better.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by onifre, posted 04-30-2012 4:31 PM | | onifre has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by onifre, posted 04-30-2012 6:28 PM | | Jon has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2