Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 Mar '15 10:561 edit
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Not what he said or implied. Some smug Americans like to argue that the exposure and correction of judicial errors demonstrates that actually everything is fine. That is a tactic to evade the demands for change.
    that's exactly what he said or implied.
  2. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    26 Mar '15 11:05
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    that's exactly what he said or implied.
    Fine
  3. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55792
    26 Mar '15 15:04
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    so we might as well just kill them, right? at least we would save money.

    and if the convict is in fact innocent, we would avoid that awkward moment where we set him free and admit to ruining his life.

    pfff, who wants to deal with that drama.




    when i came to this thread i expected the "some innocents will suffer in order for the justice syste ...[text shortened]... kill them all because you know what is best for them. you sir are one psychotic little duckling.
    I said there is little difference between incarcerating someone wrongfully fro thirty years and killing them. I thought it was obvious that the solution was to not wrongfully convict people. Instead of calling me psychotic, you should realize that you are both rude and have limited cranial capacity.
  4. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    26 Mar '15 15:26
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I said there is little difference between incarcerating someone wrongfully fro thirty years and killing them. I thought it was obvious that the solution was to not wrongfully convict people. Instead of calling me psychotic, you should realize that you are both rude and have limited cranial capacity.
    That's a nice solution. I also have a good solution for crime: if everyone just stops performing criminal acts, crime is immediately reduced to zero.
  5. Standard memberfinnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    To the Left
    Joined
    25 Jun '06
    Moves
    64930
    26 Mar '15 15:43
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That's a nice solution. I also have a good solution for crime: if everyone just stops performing criminal acts, crime is immediately reduced to zero.
    Need to clarify your notion of a solution. Is it

    a) to reduce crime to zero
    b) to reduce crime
    c) to punish crime

    To achieve a) I suggest you decriminalise everything. The purpose of laws is to criminalise behaviours that we know will take place. Otherwise the laws would have no purpose. So if you decriminalise everything the implication is that the behaviours will arise and go unpunished. In some cases that would be undesirable I am sure but not in all cases. In other cases the position is ambiguous. There is an argument that criminalising recreational drugs establishes a market for crime which was not previously there and which in turn aggravates the problems of drug use.

    To achieve b) and reduce crime, I suggest looking to countries that have achieved the best possible results. I am afraid that Americans will not like doing that, because the environment in which there is considerably less crime is one with considerably less inequality and a criminal justice system geared primarily towards rehabilitation. I have seen no evidence that judicial murder reduces rates of homicide for example.

    To promote c) as the primary policy goal requires a very tough attitude which disregards the complexity surrounding all criminal behaviours and treats crime as a moral issue, without acknowledging social factors that generate increased or for that matter reduced crime rates. In other words, there is a failure to take seriously the point that "there but for the grace of God go I." As one example, street culture in working class communities is a totally different environment for young adults to operate compared with the environment in which middle class young adults operate. Both groups commit crimes, since that is often a product of youth, but different types of crime and with different consequences. In addition, since a lot of crime is a feature of youth, and associated with the psychology of youth, it follows that the same people ten years later may not require the same types of control and may indeed mature to become responsible and well socialised adults. So while prison may protect us from the predations of young males, we may no longer require that protection as they mature.
  6. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    26 Mar '15 16:18
    Originally posted by finnegan
    a) to reduce crime to zero
    b) to reduce crime
    c) to punish crime
    Each of your big three are worthy goals, and need to work together instead of separately. Surely there are acts made criminal, that perhaps ought not be (the victimless crimes).

    Reduction of crime is accomplished by punishment. A book I read several decades ago entitled "Criminal Justice" was a compilation of works of experts in the field, judges and prosecutors. Rehabilitation, though popular in some circles has shown little promise at that point or lately either. Recidivism remains as high or higher than before, and studies indicate that the only thing that stops young male criminals is growing older. By their 50s most recidivist get the picture and go straight.

    Another useful consideration on the limits that punishment can do, or rehabilitation for that matter, is that most incarcerations occur well into a criminal career. Most criminals by the time they are caught, convicted and jailed, have committed dozens of crimes without being caught. They believe they are invincible, and that is often reinforced during their initial incarceration by others who rationalize how they can continue without getting caught again.

    The one thing that does seem to work is that during incarceration the criminal doesn't commit further crimes or create additional victims. Society is protected by incarceration, whether the criminal is rehabbed or not.

    Another thing standing out in this book was that first offenders are often treated with kid gloves, getting suspended sentences in hopes of them going straight. The big majority end up getting caught again and eventually doing time.
  7. Joined
    05 Sep '08
    Moves
    55792
    26 Mar '15 17:02
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    That's a nice solution. I also have a good solution for crime: if everyone just stops performing criminal acts, crime is immediately reduced to zero.
    I would agree that if we could eliminate all crime it would be wise to repeal the death penalty. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether we the death penalty prevents fixing the damage from wrongful convictions. I merely pointed out my belief that traditional means of compensation do not undo long term wrongful convictions and the economic and social loss associated with them.
  8. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    26 Mar '15 22:25
    Originally posted by quackquack
    I said there is little difference between incarcerating someone wrongfully fro thirty years and killing them. I thought it was obvious that the solution was to not wrongfully convict people. Instead of calling me psychotic, you should realize that you are both rude and have limited cranial capacity.
    "I said there is little difference between incarcerating someone wrongfully fro thirty years and killing them. "
    this is what makes you psychotic.
  9. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    03 Apr '15 22:481 edit
    Anthony Ray Hinton, a 58 year old African American man, has just been
    released from prison, after spending almost thirty years on Alabama's death row.
    He had been wrongfully convicted of two murders in 1985.

    "He was a poor person who was convicted because he didn't have the money
    to prove his innocence at trial. He was unable to get the legal help he needed for years."
    --Bryan Stevenson (Hinton's lawyer now)

    After his release, Ray Hinton's first request was to find a restaurant in
    which he could enjoy more and better food than he had in prison.

    How much financial compensation should Ray Hinton be given?
  10. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    04 Apr '15 02:15
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    Anthony Ray Hinton, a 58 year old African American man, has just been
    released from prison, after spending almost thirty years on Alabama's death row.
    He had been wrongfully convicted of two murders in 1985.

    "He was a poor person who was convicted because he didn't have the money
    to prove his innocence at trial. He was unable to get the legal help ...[text shortened]... etter food than he had in prison.

    How much financial compensation should Ray Hinton be given?
    I don't think the man can be compensated adequately financially. And would today's taxpayers be responsible for the mistakes of a court thirty years ago?
  11. Standard memberQuarl
    Quarl
    Joined
    06 Jun '14
    Moves
    1135
    04 Apr '15 17:12
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yeah, that's why the wrongly convicted immediately kill themselves upon release.
    All of them? Immediately? Source please.

    Why don't they kill themselves when in prison instead of waiting til they're released?

    I have no strong opinion...just curious.
  12. Standard memberQuarl
    Quarl
    Joined
    06 Jun '14
    Moves
    1135
    04 Apr '15 17:17
    Originally posted by Duchess64
    He had been wrongfully convicted of two murders in 1985.

    "He was a poor person who was convicted because he didn't have the money to prove his innocence at trial. He was unable to get the legal help he needed for years."
    In the US an accused man must prove his innocence, not the other way around. Strange indeed.
  13. Standard memberQuarl
    Quarl
    Joined
    06 Jun '14
    Moves
    1135
    04 Apr '15 17:35
    Anthony Ray Hinton, a 58 year old African American man, has just been
    released from prison.

    Managers John Davidson and Thomas Wayne Vason were fatally shot in two separate fast-food robberies in 1985. While there were no fingerprints found at the scene, Hinton was arrested and convicted after another employee identified him in a photo lineup and on the claim that a revolver matching the type used was taken from his mother's home was the weapon used in both murders.

    The case's dismissal was after Hinton's attorneys presented testimony from ballistics experts that determined the revolver from his mother's home could not be positively matched to the crimes, according to the statement.

    The charges against Hinton were dismissed on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to conclusively link him to the crimes.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    04 Apr '15 18:19
    Originally posted by Quarl
    All of them? Immediately? Source please.

    Why don't they kill themselves when in prison instead of waiting til they're released?

    I have no strong opinion...just curious.
    The comment was sarcastic. AFAIK people who are released after being wrongfully convicted are generally happy about it.
  15. Zugzwang
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    04 Apr '15 19:212 edits
    Originally posted by Quarl
    Anthony Ray Hinton, a 58 year old African American man, has just been
    released from prison.

    Managers John Davidson and Thomas Wayne Vason were fatally shot in two separate fast-food robberies in 1985. While there were no fingerprints found at the scene, Hinton was arrested and convicted after another employee identified him in a photo lineup and on the cl ...[text shortened]... missed on the grounds that there was not enough evidence to conclusively link him to the crimes.
    According to the news story that I recall reading, Ray Hinton had long called
    for the authorities to retest the gun (alleged murder weapon) because he
    expected it would prove his innocence, but the authorities had kept refusing.
    Ray Hinton and his supporters apparently believe there was misconduct by
    the authorities and that his wrongful imprisonment was just an 'innocent mistake'.
Back to Top