John Allen Muhammed Executed in VA at 9:22 pm

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

You can't tell the difference between the names of people on a list and the people themselves? I see. Now I'm beginning to gain an insight into your thinking processes. No wonder you support capital punishment.

This is just pathetic. Answer the question, Joe.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
I haven't. But I haven't really seen the United States’ parallel peer either.

I have. Pretty much every developed country -- every OECD country, say -- is a peer of the US in every regard relevant to the desirability of capital punishment. Each of those peers doesn't have capital punishment, or at least isn't using it in peace time. And each of those peers has dramatically lower murder rates than the US does.

Each of those so-called peers had dramatically lower murder rates during the moratorium on executions as well, Thomas. Apparently, there's more to it than that.

Thomas wrote:

Moreover, within the US, states with capital punishment are peers of states without it. Hence, your failure to find peers to compare does not reflect a dearth of peers. It only reflects a dearth of interest on your part to confront your political faith with empirical reality. (As an aside, this dearth of interest seems quite common to followers of Ayn Rand, who ironically call themselves Objectivists.)

See above.

Thomas wrote:

But even if there was an actual dearth of peers to compare, it wouldn't help your argument, because I don't owe you a reason why governments shouldn't go around killing people. You owe me a reason why they should. If you could show that the death penalty leads to fewer people being killed, that would qualify as a good reason. But by your own admission you can't, whether it's your own fault or not.

I owe you a reason? How's that? I can show you that murder rates spiked during the moratorium, and fell when executions were resumed. You are correct that it isn't my fault that it's impossible to prove cause and effect. But I sure don't see why I owe you anything.

1 Reply

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

On page 4 of this thread, OCCOM BILL wrote:
In other news, while I still feel as strongly as ever that rapists, child molesters and other repeat violent offenders should be killed along with murderers, in considerably larger numbers... recent experience with courts and juries has convinced me that humans can't be trusted with the responsibility of making this decision... so I am forced to retract my support for the death penalty in most cases... until such time the ultimate decision is mine to make.

LINK

Then, addressing O'Bill yesterday, and offering interesting insight into his own thinking processes, joefromchicago wrote:
You can't tell the difference between the names of people on a list and the people themselves? I see. Now I'm beginning to gain an insight into your thinking processes. No wonder you support capital punishment.

Joe's actually half right on this one. If a system were developed that virtually guaranteed the guilt of the condemned; I'd be in favor of condemning a great deal more criminals.

Yesterday I sat through the Sentencing faze of two convicted murderers (one potentially innocent) and listened to the loved ones of the 3 murder victims and I've got to tell you it wasn't easy. The challenge of assisting my boss in opposing the State was intriguing as hell... but even the bloody photos of evidence did nothing to bring the horror home like watching the tears flow from the victim's mothers as they begged for the harshest available punishment. If I could trust the State to deliver the ultimate punishment only to those deserving of same; I'd sign that petition in a heartbeat.

But alas, I can't trust them to do that. The trial I assisted in was full of errors by the presiding judge (IMO)... and I don't believe the outcome would have been the same had she not blocked evidence and testimony I believe the fact finders were entitled to, and allowed some testimony that defied reason or any foundation in law. Much case law was summarily dismissed and I fully expect the Innocence Project will get the fella a new trial at the very least (if they can't invoke double jeopardy once this case is overturned.) Frankly, I can’t know myself if justice was done… but the benefit of that doubt is supposed to go to the accused. It didn’t.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

I can show you that murder rates spiked during the moratorium, and fell when executions were resumed.

I'll be happy to look at your evidence, and I'm willing to change my mind if I find it convincing. It may well not happen, but it wouldn't be the my first time on A2K, either.

Occom Bill wrote:

But I sure don't see why I owe you anything.

You don't owe me anything. But if you want to kill people, you owe them a reason that doing so will do more harm than good -- whether you see that you owe it or not.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

The trial I assisted in was full of errors by the presiding judge (IMO)... and I don't believe the outcome would have been the same had she not blocked evidence and testimony I believe the fact finders were entitled to, and allowed some testimony that defied reason or any foundation in law.

Will they be able to appeal based on the fact that their attorney's assistant was incompetent? Smile

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Sounds like you've been there...

As a general rule I cannot support a death penalty in America at this point in time, just too many ways it resembles giving the Ronnie Earles and Mike Nifongs of the world a license to kill people.

Before I could feel good about the idea I'd want minimally the following criteria to apply:

1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.
2. The person in question must represent a continuing threat to society should he ever escape or otherwise get loose. The "bird man" of Alcatraz would not qualify, John Muhammed clearly would.
3. I'd want all career/money incentives for convicting people of crimes gone which would likely mean scrapping the present "adversarial" system of justice in favor of something like the French "inquisitorial" system in which the common objective of all parties involved was a determination of facts.
4. I'd want there to be no societal benefit to keeping the person alive. Cases in which this criteria would prevent hanging somebody would include "Son of Sam" who we probably should want to study more than hang, or Timothy McVeigh who clearly knew more than the public ever was allowed to hear.

Given all of that I could feel very good about hanging Charles Manson, John Muhammed, or Paul Bernardo, but that's about what it would take.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.

We should be sure, but what are you saying here? Death penalty if we're really, really sure, and life in prison if we're kind of sure?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
I can show you that murder rates spiked during the moratorium, and fell when executions were resumed.

I'll be happy to look at your evidence, and I'm willing to change my mind if I find it convincing. It may well not happen, but it wouldn't be the my first time on A2K, either.

Occom Bill wrote:
But I sure don't see why I owe you anything.

You don't owe me anything. But if you want to kill people, you owe them a reason that doing so will do more harm than good -- whether you see that you owe it or not.

I think you've seen it before, and didn't find it convincing, but here you go.

http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/62102tucker.gif

Please keep in mind that no one is claiming there couldn't be another explanation. But a while back, Joe challenged the veracity of the numbers and I did back them up %100 with stat's from the D.O.J. and even recreated the graph with their numbers. Total waste of time of course, because Joe can't EVER be wrong, so he more or less denied ever challenging them in the first place.

3 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.

We should be sure, but what are you saying here? Death penalty if we're really, really sure, and life in prison if we're kind of sure?

Sounds crazy... but I agree with Gunga on this. Juries can't be counted on for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, any more than D.A.'s can be counted on to seek justice over mere victory or Judges can be counted on to be impartial. They're all human beings and I suspect too frequently just go with their guts, prejudices and all. I think the only way I could resume advocating a death penalty is if it were a second panel of professionals who were charged with the sole responsibility of looking for any doubt. FWIW, I think 7 career military officers, as close to 10 years in as possible, should have to unanimously agree that there can be NO doubt about guilt or the sentence should be commuted to life. Ideally, they should be 10 years in, and face dishonorable discharge if any doubt is ever established. That would satisfy me, anyway.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

roger wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

1. Guilt should be beyond any doubt whatsoever; the usual criteria of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't cut it for hanging somebody.

We should be sure, but what are you saying here? Death penalty if we're really, really sure, and life in prison if we're kind of sure?

Sounds crazy... but I agree with Gunga on this. Juries can't be counted on for even the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, any more than D.A.'s can be counted on to seek justice over mere victory or Judges can be counted on to be impartial.
They're all human beings and I suspect too frequently just go with their guts, prejudices and all.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT !

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
We've been here too many times, Joe. This is where I list examples of murderers sentenced to life who've killed again...

You've posted lists before, but not of murderers sentenced to life without parole who have killed anyone outside the prison walls. And that's the only list that has any kind of relevance where the options being discussed are capital punishment and life without parole.
I see you're still ducking this question, Joe. Why would a list of those murdered outside of prison be relevant, but a list of those murdered inside the prison would not?

How could I be ducking the question? You never asked that question before.

Let me explain: In a debate where the two opposing sides advocate capital punishment or life in prison without parole, it's simply irrelevant to bring up examples of murderers who have been sentenced to life with parole. Nobody is advocating that position, so bringing them up doesn't affect anybody's argument. Your list was filled with murderers who went on to kill again after they got out of prison. How is that relevant in a discussion where nobody is in favor of letting these guys out of prison again?

As for killings inside the prison walls, as I pointed out before, that's merely an argument for better prisons. It's absurd that the state can create an environment where prison killings can occur and then say "we can't stop these guys from killing, so we should kill them first." That argument, after all, could be used to justify killing all prisoners. If the state wants to prevent prison killings, it should take the steps necessary to prevent them, short of preemptively killing the prisoners itself.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

But a while back, Joe challenged the veracity of the numbers and I did back them up %100 with stat's from the D.O.J. and even recreated the graph with their numbers. Total waste of time of course, because Joe can't EVER be wrong, so he more or less denied ever challenging them in the first place.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

I think you've seen it before, and didn't find it convincing, but here you go.

I wouldn't be surprised if I hadn't been, because it doesn't convince me right now. Please remind me again: How do you explain the left half of the graph, where executions and capital crimes decrease in parallel?

I would guess that Joe's response to your graph might have been that correlation doesn't prove causation -- and he's right. But in this case we don't even reach his point: Your graph, taken as a whole, doesn't yield a correlation between the capital crime rate and the execution in the first place. The two graphs move in parallel for half the time period for which we have data, and move in opposite directions for the other half. It neither supports nor contradicts your position at all.

Occom Bill wrote:

Please keep in mind that no one is claiming there couldn't be another explanation.

Indeed there is. Back in the 80s, our teachers in high school used to show us a graph that plotted both the German stork population and the German birth rate since World War II. The two plots decreased in parallel, which proves --- that correlations alone don't prove much.

Because your graph does not even demonstrate a correlation to begin with, it is less convincing than the stork population vs childbirth plots of my youth. Sorry.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

So . . . does this mean that you're never wrong--even when drinking heavily?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I think Joe's drug of choice is quiche. Of course, he calls it Chicago-style pizza.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
We've been here too many times, Joe. This is where I list examples of murderers sentenced to life who've killed again...

You've posted lists before, but not of murderers sentenced to life without parole who have killed anyone outside the prison walls. And that's the only list that has any kind of relevance where the options being discussed are capital punishment and life without parole.
I see you're still ducking this question, Joe. Why would a list of those murdered outside of prison be relevant, but a list of those murdered inside the prison would not?

How could I be ducking the question? You never asked that question before.

Let me explain: In a debate where the two opposing sides advocate capital punishment or life in prison without parole, it's simply irrelevant to bring up examples of murderers who have been sentenced to life with parole. Nobody is advocating that position, so bringing them up doesn't affect anybody's argument. Your list was filled with murderers who went on to kill again after they got out of prison. How is that relevant in a discussion where nobody is in favor of letting these guys out of prison again?

As for killings inside the prison walls, as I pointed out before, that's merely an argument for better prisons. It's absurd that the state can create an environment where prison killings can occur and then say "we can't stop these guys from killing, so we should kill them first." That argument, after all, could be used to justify killing all prisoners. If the state wants to prevent prison killings, it should take the steps necessary to prevent them, short of preemptively killing the prisoners itself.

Three times you ducked it, Joe; choosing instead to attack me and the phrasing of the question rather than answer in earnest. This was obvious to all. Your fairytale "better prison" system doesn't seem to be on the horizon, so that's just another copout to avoid answering the question in earnest. There'd be less crime in the Ghetto if parents paid more attention to their kids too, but knowing that doesn't change the real world one iota.

People are imperfect... including Judges, Parole board members, guards, etc. I've already shown you a case where a fellow who had been condemned, was booted off of Death Row per the moratorium, then got released and commited several more senseless murders. Execution would have prevented this. A naive belief that we could just manage murderers "better" will not.

I'm now forced to oppose the Death Penalty because it keeps open the possibility of releasing an innocent man. The unfortunate side effect is that it also keeps open the possibility that conviced killers will kill again. Historically, the latter appears to have happened considerably more often than the former.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Are you denying this took place? Or is that your explanation as to why?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
I think you've seen it before, and didn't find it convincing, but here you go.

I wouldn't be surprised if I hadn't been, because it doesn't convince me right now. Please remind me again: How do you explain the left half of the graph, where executions and capital crimes decrease in parallel?

You just did. Murders and Executions took an essentially parallel path (downward), but then the murders spiked during the moratorium, only to return to a loose correlation when executions resumed. NO, cause and effect cannot be confirmed, but the historical fact remains the same: Murder rates did spike during the moratorium, and they did drop when the moratorium was lifted. And I have little doubt that our so-called peer countries were no closer to matching our murder rates during the moratorium.

Thomas wrote:

I would guess that Joe's response to your graph might have been that correlation doesn't prove causation -- and he's right. But in this case we don't even reach his point: Your graph, taken as a whole, doesn't yield a correlation between the capital crime rate and the execution in the first place. The two graphs move in parallel for half the time period for which we have data, and move in opposite directions for the other half. It neither supports nor contradicts your position at all.

Correct. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it certainly provides a foundation for further research. I seem to recall you participating in one of these and taking the fence in that obviously correlation doesn't prove causation, but that it would be equally foolish to dismiss it as coincidence simply because it couldn't be proven. (Not certain that was you, and I'm not good enough with the current search engine to attempt to locate it.) Anyway, I don't see how you fail to see the obvious deviation during the moratorium, but this has been argued ad nauseum and I don't think I want to put the time in to do it again.

Especially since I can no longer support the Death Penalty anyway. I don't see my fairytale precautions against condemning the innocent coming true any sooner than Joe's fairytale better prison system.

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
Please keep in mind that no one is claiming there couldn't be another explanation.

Indeed there is. Back in the 80s, our teachers in high school used to show us a graph that plotted both the German stork population and the German birth rate since World War II. The two plots decreased in parallel, which proves --- that correlations alone don't prove much.

Because your graph does not even demonstrate a correlation to begin with, it is less convincing than the stork population vs childbirth plots of my youth. Sorry.

Again, I don't see how you can deny the existence of the loose correlation as depicted in that graph, regardless of whether you think the stats are related. As to whether or not these stats are related, I think reasonable people can disagree.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Thomas wrote:

How do you explain the left half of the graph, where executions and capital crimes decrease in parallel?

Occom Bill wrote:

You just did.

No I didn't. I am puzzled by the contradictions I'm seeing in your data.

1. If executions deter capital crimes, we should expect the capital crime rate and the execution rate to consistently move in opposite directions. That's called a negative correlation.

2. If executions foster capital crimes, we should expect the capital crime rate and the execution rate to consistently move in parallel. That's called a positive correlation.

What we actually observe is inconsistency: We see #1 from ca 1930 to 1960 and #2 from ca. 1960 to the end of the 1990s. To make things worse, the newest data indicates a return to parallel movement from the late 1990s to the present. (They are not in your graph, but you can find them by searching the Bureau of Justice Statistics.)

Over the whole time interval, then, your data shows no correlation at all. That's grotesquely insufficient evidence to kill people on.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Try looking without the predisposition, Thomas. You'll see that as long as a substantial percentage of murderers were being executed... the murder rates per capita were on the decline, both before and after the moratorium. During the moratorium, the murder stats per capita jumped way up, then returned to pre-moratorium levels after it was lifted. You really don't see that? (It’s not an opinion, it is a statistical reality… even if you think it’s a random anomaly.)

Further, I originally offered the graph to substantiate my claim that this country's supposed peers were no closer to being our murderous equals during the moratorium, but in fact, were even further away. Surely you'll concede this much?

1 Reply

John Allen Muhammed Executed in VA at 9:22 pm

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know