Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...

[kerosene]

I can appreciate an interest in something for one's own curiosity. I just suspect that figure is wildly exaggerated, no matter how many crime books or attorneys you know. Have you actually sat down and figured that statistic up, or did you just "feel" like it would be 97% based only on what you read and know? I just find it to be highly presumptuous to spout off a seemingly hard statistic and use it as a basis (among other biased anticdotes) for your argument.


So which is it? Can you cite your reference for that 97% figure or are you really just "guessing"? If you can site it, I might be able to salvage some understanding for your opinion in this matter.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by case

I can appreciate an interest in something for one's own curiosity. I just suspect that figure is wildly exaggerated, no matter how many crime books or attorneys you know. Have you actually sat down and figured that statistic up, or did you just "feel" like it would be 97% based only on what you read and know? I just find it to be highly presumptuous to spout off a seemingly hard statistic and use it as a basis (among other biased anticdotes) for your argument.


So which is it? Can you cite your reference for that 97% figure or are you really just "guessing"? If you can site it, I might be able to salvage some understanding for your opinion in this matter.

Actuallly, I think my experience counts for something. All you have to do is look at how many people who were guilty who get off on technicalities; evidence of guilt that is supressed by the court for one reason or another--like "it will inflame the jury--therefore these photos will not be allowed"...."Yes, he has a rap sheet as long as my arm for beating his wife and kids, but we're not going to allow the jury to hear that in this case of him murdering said wife and kids--it's not relevant"-- and things of that nature. If you're going to tell me that THOSE things don't happen, and that they DON'T have an effect, you're fooling yourself.

Better yet, instead of wanting statistics from me, considering that when I put stats out there, it doesn't make people look at my argument any differently anyway, why don't you come up with your own to prove to me that the courts don't accord the defendant every right, even above and beyond that of the victim?

And I don't wanna hear about race and gender. Just because someone of a particular race or gender got convicted doesn't mean they're NOT guilty. Just because you're a minority or a woman or a child does not mean that you don't deserve punishment for a crime that you DID commit, merely because a majority, a man, or an adult who committed the same crime got off. That has no relevance to your particular case. I'm sorry that a guilty person went free. Damned sorry. But that doesn't mean that we should let you go, too.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

"it will inflame the jury--therefore these photos will not be allowed"

Showing graphic photos to a jury can only appeal to thier emotional side. It will anger them and make them want to find someone to blame it on, even if that person didn't commit the crime. They are more likely to convict when shown bloody photos. If the photos don't convery any information other than "a brutal murder took place," there is no need to show the jury.

The testimony of the coroner, crime scene investigator, etc. should be enough in most cases. If there is a dispute about the facts, and the photos address those facts, then sure, show the jury the photos.

Once a person has been found guilty and the penalty is being discussed, then it's appropriate to show the photos around. Let them judge the severity of the crime by looking at the scene.

[Lady Sidhe]

I dunno...look at what happened with OJ....

[kerosene]

The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.

Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.

[glatt]

The OJ trial is hardly typical of criminal trials in the USA.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by case

The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.

Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.

I gave statistics earlier, and it didn't seem to make a difference. See the post I made with all the stats...

[chainsaw]

9 year old kills 11 year old over ball

[wolf]

It's all the fault of the Pokemon stuff ... nobody really dies in battle, they just go unconscious until revived at a Pokecenter. Oh, wait, that's what my generation's parents said about Wile E. Coyote. Never mind.

We really need to get back to reading the unabridged Grimm's Fairy Tales to children.

Maybe the Brits do have something with this kitchen knife control thing ...

[lookout123]

or maybe this is just another symptom of our ever-increasing population combined with our ever-decreasing sense of accountability.

more and more people, living closer and closer together, with a larger and larger sense of entitlement with no fear repurcussion. you've got a couple of generations of "don't let anyone tell you what to do - think for yourself"* ingrained into the kids and BLAMMO! more and stupider sh*t happens.

* this is not to suggest we should raise nonthinking subservient clones, but rather that individualism and selfcenteredness can be taken too far.

[wolf]

I have long espoused a theory that much like Malthus' rats there is a level of population density beyond which humans start eating each other.

[lookout123]

i'm still pretty picky about who i eat, so we obviously haven't gotten to that density yet.

[wolf]

You aren't in NYC. I'm very worried about BreakingNews. So many people there like Chinese ...

[lookout123]

from the posts i've read, he seems to like this and is doing his best to spread the wealth, so to speak.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by lookout123

or maybe this is just another symptom of our ever-increasing population combined with our ever-decreasing sense of accountability.

more and more people, living closer and closer together, with a larger and larger sense of entitlement with no fear repurcussion. you've got a couple of generations of "don't let anyone tell you what to do - think for yourself"* ingrained into the kids and BLAMMO! more and stupider sh*t happens.

* this is not to suggest we should raise nonthinking subservient clones, but rather that individualism and selfcenteredness can be taken too far.

I agree on this. My whole point is accountability, more so than the death penalty itself. No one ever has to take responsibility anymore, because it's always someone or something ele's fault that they do the things they do. As long as we keep blaming everyone and everything except the person who committed an act, then there will be the opinion that punishment does not work. How can it work when people have been brought up to believe that nothing is their fault, and hence, they don't deserve punishment?

I'm the first to swat my daughter's bottom when she does something I've told her not to do repeatedly. That's punishment. It's deserved punishment, and it's also a deterrant to her doing it again in the future. It's not my fault that she committed a forbidden act; often, she knows that she's not supposed to do it, because she'll look at me while she's doing it, with that, "hmm...are you going to stop me?" look. I don't give her a punishment that's overly severe for the act. I rarely have to do more than slap her hand or swat her bottom. She cries for a minute, but it's more for effect, and she knows then that sticking one's finger in the light socket is forbidden.


And as to Wolf's comment on the cartoons *grin*...perhaps it was said in a joking manner, but whenever someone slams today's movies as the source of violence in people, especially children, I generally make the point that the movies are more realistic in re consequences than the cartoons are. Ol' Wiley E. Coyote gets blown up, smooshed, etc., and always comes back. When the Terminator blows you away, you're gone for good. Now which one shows consequences in a more realistic way? Hm? Hm? HM?




Sidhe