OK... The Death Penalty...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby Luke T. » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:54 pm

RCC wrote:
More the "we should be less like Iran and China" argument.


Because the DP makes us just like them? I've never understood this line of debate regarding any issue.
"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)

I 69dodge

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:58 pm

Luke T. wrote:

And if it costs 10 trillion to jail somone for 30 days and only the cost of a bullet to execute them?


Ready, aim, fire.

Interesting. If we banned the use of imprisonment, it completely changes the calculus of punishment.


Under that scenerio execution would be the only reasonable means of punishment for most serious and violent crimes. We'd have to take a step back and examine other solutions for petty crimes, and whether some should be crimes at all if death turns out to be the only realistic punishment....


Perhaps you should take a step back, and realize at this point that you have somehow convinced yourself that my position seems to imply some sort of assumption that the death penalty is always wrong. It does not, only that current socio-economic factors make it much less reasonable than it would be absent those factors. I think that a developing country has every reason in the world to opt for swift execution of even a less than premeditated murderer rather than expend resources on extremely careful litigation and/or imprisonment. The US is not a developing county, McDowell County, West Virginia notwithstanding....

However, you claimed that economics do not enter into the question, yet you are unwilling to admit that they do, rather putting forth this counterhypothetical. I have answered it. Try answering mine....

User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Postby Luke T. » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:59 pm

Hexxenhammer wrote:
Luke T. wrote:As technology improves, so will the odds that the people on death row really are guilty of murder.

Sooner or later, it boils down to one simple question. A moral one. It has nothing to do with money or technology or human error or the appeals process. Those are all distractions from the real question.

"Is it right to kill another human being for killing another human being?"


I say yes, barring those other points. I don't mind calling it what it is either, which is basically revenge.


Or sheer punishment as I stated. All distractions get flung aside if you have a person caught in the act, on film, with several witnesses who know him by name, and the killer bragging about it in court.

Should he be killed? It's a yes, no, undecided question. I am undecided.
"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)



I 69dodge

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32837
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1569 times

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby Grammatron » Tue Dec 14, 2004 5:59 pm

V.2 wrote:
RCC wrote: My position is that the human race at this point and time has largely out-evolved the death penalty... Not as a moral issue.
I oppose the death penalty due primarily to the inevitable(?) execution of innocent people, and by the fact that it's not reversable, which impresses me as immoral.

Certainly most of the democratic/civilized human race has evolved past it. I am always staggered by the list of countries that have capital punishment, and that the USA is on the list:


How do you know it's evolution and not a step in the wrong direction?
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Postby Luke T. » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:11 pm

RCC wrote:However, you claimed that economics do not enter into the question, yet you are unwilling to admit that they do, rather putting forth this counterhypothetical. I have answered it. Try answering mine....


In the reality of life, economics has been allowed to disrupt what are moral questions. The paper where I live has highlighted this in the example of a home invader/burglar who was arrested several times in the course of a month in the actual act of burglary. Each time, he was released after a day in jail. This guy got so bold that when one woman came home, she found him in her shower, and he calmly told her he'd be done in a minute. On his way out, he took some of her possessions. With her standing helplessly by. At some point, he robbed a house of some handguns and started using those on people who caught him in the act.

So a trillion dollar execution? Of course not. But we are already halfway down the slippery slope of letting economics take priority over morality.

But you started this topic saying we had out-evolved the death penalty. That sure sounds like a morality line of thinking to me.
"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)



I 69dodge

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:15 pm

Luke T. wrote:As technology improves, so will the odds that the people on death row really are guilty of murder.
What is an acceptable chance of failure to kill? 100-1? 200-1?

Along with technology, the training and attitude of the police/prosecution would have to change. All it takes is one Fred Zain to fuck it up...

Fred Zain is the victim of his own success. Over the years, Zain rose to the position of Chief of Serology at the West Virginia Department of Public Safety (crime laboratory). What he couldn't establish in the laboratory was arrived at through a unique form of logic called "backwards reasoning." If the defendant is guilty, it is likely that ... is the predicate for such reasoning. It presumes the defendant's guilt, and bases its findings on that presumption. But when you add to that presumptive base inadequate facilities, conflicting duties, an overwhelming caseload, and put them in the hands of an unqualified "expert," you have the prescription for disaster.

The disaster came in the form of Glen Woodall, convicted in 1987 of multiple felonies, including two counts of sexual assault, and sentenced to a prison term of 203 to 335 years. At Woodall's trial, Zain testified that, based upon his scientific analysis of semen recovered from the victims, "[t]he assailant's blood types ... were identical to Mr. Woodall's." Woodall's conviction was affirmed on appeal, but DNA testing done in a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding established that Woodall could not have been the perpetrator. His conviction was overturned in 1992 and Woodall was freed. Woodall sued the State of West Virginia for false imprisonment, and received $1 million in settlement. This ultimately led to an extraordinary investigation of the entire body of Zain's work ordered by the West Virginia Supreme Court. The report concluded that the actual guilt of 134 people was substantively in doubt because the convictions were based on inculpatory reports and/or testimony by Zain.

http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm

(emphesis added)

Actually, we are still cleaning up this mess. The only reason it was caught was a later breakthrough in technology. If Zain had been a DNA expert, this would have never been caught.

Sure, there can be a foolproof system, but technology is the least of the problems...




Sooner or later, it boils down to one simple question. A moral one. It has nothing to do with money or technology or human error or the appeals process. Those are all distractions from the real question.

"Is it right to kill another human being for killing another human being?"


Depends.

Total Accident?

Self-Defense?

Mistaken Self Defense?

Assisted Suicide?

Negligence?

Recklessness?

Heat of Passion?

Mental age of six?

Killed for the fun of it?


I'm not sure what technology can differ among mental states..

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:20 pm

Grammatron wrote:
V.2 wrote:
RCC wrote: My position is that the human race at this point and time has largely out-evolved the death penalty... Not as a moral issue.
I oppose the death penalty due primarily to the inevitable(?) execution of innocent people, and by the fact that it's not reversable, which impresses me as immoral.

Certainly most of the democratic/civilized human race has evolved past it. I am always staggered by the list of countries that have capital punishment, and that the USA is on the list:


How do you know it's evolution and not a step in the wrong direction?


I didn't know that "evolution" means that it is in the right direction... I see no problem with a troubling form of evolution. I'm not thrilled about the ebola virus...

As societies become wealthier they tend to move away from more violent punishment. As cities become larger crime tends to increase.

Evolution is value neutral....

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32837
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1569 times

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby Grammatron » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:26 pm

RCC wrote:I didn't know that "evolution" means that it is in the right direction... I see no problem with a troubling form of evolution. I'm not thrilled about the ebola virus...

As societies become wealthier they tend to move away from more violent punishment. As cities become larger crime tends to increase.

Evolution is value neutral....


Well that's the thing: crime in USA is down and in Europe it's up. I certainly am not saying DP is the reason for it, but we must be doing something righter than them enlighten folks over that there region.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:34 pm

Luke T. wrote:
RCC wrote:However, you claimed that economics do not enter into the question, yet you are unwilling to admit that they do, rather putting forth this counterhypothetical. I have answered it. Try answering mine....


In the reality of life, economics has been allowed to disrupt what are moral questions. The paper where I live has highlighted this in the example of a home invader/burglar who was arrested several times in the course of a month in the actual act of burglary. Each time, he was released after a day in jail. This guy got so bold that when one woman came home, she found him in her shower, and he calmly told her he'd be done in a minute. On his way out, he took some of her possessions. With her standing helplessly by. At some point, he robbed a house of some handguns and started using those on people who caught him in the act.

I don't see the point. They keep releasing this guy on bail and he committs a crime and he makes bail and so on.

Don't see where economics enters into it. If the law requires prompt bail, and he makes it. Either a stupid judge setting the bail or a bad loophole in the law.

I really don't see the connection...

So a trillion dollar execution? Of course not. But we are already halfway down the slippery slope of letting economics take priority over morality.
But you are allowing that it is at least to be considered?

But you started this topic saying we had out-evolved the death penalty. That sure sounds like a morality line of thinking to me.


So when I said in the next paragraph: "Not as a moral issue. I think a government has and should have the authority to use death as sanction. It is neither cruel or unusual, nor is it in itself a moral problem that a government kills to punish unlawful killing"

...had you stopped reading before that or did you just assume I was lying?

I mean, evolution just is. Crime evolves. The Ebola virus evolves. Evolution isn't about making everyone happy, rather about adapting to current conditions.

Our social development (I should have said that developed countries have evolved beyond it being practical, I fucked up there) has reached or is at least approaching a point where our concern over an accidental execution makes the death penalty no longer practical.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32837
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1569 times

Postby Grammatron » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:43 pm

RCC wrote:Our social development (I should have said that developed countries have evolved beyond it being practical, I fucked up there) has reached or is at least approaching a point where our concern over an accidental execution makes the death penalty no longer practical.


Maybe, but scientific development is making it more possible to avoid accidents.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:48 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC wrote:I didn't know that "evolution" means that it is in the right direction... I see no problem with a troubling form of evolution. I'm not thrilled about the ebola virus...

As societies become wealthier they tend to move away from more violent punishment. As cities become larger crime tends to increase.

Evolution is value neutral....


Well that's the thing: crime in USA is down and in Europe it's up. I certainly am not saying DP is the reason for it, but we must be doing something righter than them enlighten folks over that there region.


I'd examine the numbers, look closely at DP level offenses to better see the difference there for one thing.

Check the age demographics for one possible idea. That is the first place to look whenever there is a big difference in crime rates. They likely had a bigger loss in WWII and thus less of a following "baby boom."

The US is getting quite old. I don't know if Europe is the same, they could be, but the first place I would look to explain a difference is the age.

Then the urban/rural comparison.

What about comparing the crime rate of Texas (kills people like it is going out of style, which maybe it is) and W.Va. (no death penalty),

http://www.ocjc.state.or.us/IndexCrimeRates01.htm (2001 numbers)

W.Va. wins that one, but even I will say that has more to do with age and population density than the effects of the death penalty...

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:02 pm

Grammatron wrote:
RCC wrote:Our social development (I should have said that developed countries have evolved beyond it being practical, I fucked up there) has reached or is at least approaching a point where our concern over an accidental execution makes the death penalty no longer practical.


Maybe, but scientific development is making it more possible to avoid accidents.


I never really saw lack of science as the probem.

Misuse of science due to malice (backwards reasoning) or just pure ineptness is a larger problem.

As of now DNA is freeing some people wrongly convicted. This is more an accident of history as with rare exception, these convictions occured before the latest technology. Often, it has uncovered instances (such as my link) where the state has fraudulently used the then state-of-the-art process to frame someone.

If they had considered DNA they would have simply included that in the fraud. Nothing special about DNA freed the wrongly convicted, rather the massive paradigm shift just shed light on the fact that there is a lot of fraud in "forensic" evidence.

For some reason, there is a confidence level that DNA is some magical device to prove or disprove murder. It isn't. It can be faked by placing sample blood on evidence from the scene. Even worse, the way that the stuff works involves some pretty subjective measurements. The difference between a discarded "noise" reading and that reading being an allele that shows non-conformity with the sample given by the defendant is sometimes obvious, but not always. It is the call of the examiner, and to say that these tests are less than double blind is a massive understatement.

The test materials clearly describe what sample is the defendants, and in one case I had the damn thing set out my client's criminal history....

DNA in itself is just a tool as reliable as those using it, as is any other tool.

V.2
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 2:55 am

Re: OK... The Death Penalty...

Postby V.2 » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:04 pm

RCC wrote:Texas
Ah yes, I fondly remember the smell of sizzling retard wafting through the warm evening breeze.

User avatar
Luke T.
Posts: 27062
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Nowhere near Pakistan

Postby Luke T. » Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:46 pm

RCC wrote:
Luke T. wrote:
RCC wrote:However, you claimed that economics do not enter into the question, yet you are unwilling to admit that they do, rather putting forth this counterhypothetical. I have answered it. Try answering mine....


In the reality of life, economics has been allowed to disrupt what are moral questions. The paper where I live has highlighted this in the example of a home invader/burglar who was arrested several times in the course of a month in the actual act of burglary. Each time, he was released after a day in jail. This guy got so bold that when one woman came home, she found him in her shower, and he calmly told her he'd be done in a minute. On his way out, he took some of her possessions. With her standing helplessly by. At some point, he robbed a house of some handguns and started using those on people who caught him in the act.

I don't see the point. They keep releasing this guy on bail and he committs a crime and he makes bail and so on.

Don't see where economics enters into it. If the law requires prompt bail, and he makes it. Either a stupid judge setting the bail or a bad loophole in the law.

I really don't see the connection...


Harding was cited for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of a stolen vehicle, and booked into the Justice Center jail. He was released the same day because of crowding.

Eight days later, he was reported to be acting suspiciously on the 6400 block of Southeast 85th Avenue. Police found him carrying shiny silverware wrapped in a velvet cloth. They accused him of trespassing and arrested him on a warrant for failing to show up for court on the stolen motorcycle case.

He was taken into custody and released less than two weeks later under Close Street Supervision, which set conditions for his release, such as a curfew.

The curfew didn't curtail his activity, police said.

Instead, detectives said Harding hit his stride from Sept. 21 to 30.

On Sept. 21, he broke into a home in the 4300 block of Southeast Long Street, detectives said. The homeowner's nephew, Blake Miura, confronted Harding, who ran away. A police dog tracked him down.

Harding was accused of two counts of residential burglary. He was released from jail the next day because of crowding, sheriff's deputies said.


In one month, this guy was caught and released three times.

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index. ... onian?fpfp


Luke T. wrote:
RCC wrote:

But you started this topic saying we had out-evolved the death penalty. That sure sounds like a morality line of thinking to me.


So when I said in the next paragraph: "Not as a moral issue. I think a government has and should have the authority to use death as sanction. It is neither cruel or unusual, nor is it in itself a moral problem that a government kills to punish unlawful killing"

...had you stopped reading before that or did you just assume I was lying?

I mean, evolution just is. Crime evolves. The Ebola virus evolves. Evolution isn't about making everyone happy, rather about adapting to current conditions.

Our social development (I should have said that developed countries have evolved beyond it being practical, I fucked up there) has reached or is at least approaching a point where our concern over an accidental execution makes the death penalty no longer practical.


Crime doesn't evolve. Law and order does.

edited to fix vbb errors
"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells" - pillory (7/13/02)



I 69dodge

User avatar
RCC
Posts: 7015
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:28 pm
Location: Here for now.
Been thanked: 21 times

Postby RCC » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:19 pm

Luke T. wrote:
Harding was cited for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and possession of a stolen vehicle, and booked into the Justice Center jail. He was released the same day because of crowding.

Eight days later, he was reported to be acting suspiciously on the 6400 block of Southeast 85th Avenue. Police found him carrying shiny silverware wrapped in a velvet cloth. They accused him of trespassing and arrested him on a warrant for failing to show up for court on the stolen motorcycle case.

He was taken into custody and released less than two weeks later under Close Street Supervision, which set conditions for his release, such as a curfew.

The curfew didn't curtail his activity, police said.

Instead, detectives said Harding hit his stride from Sept. 21 to 30.

On Sept. 21, he broke into a home in the 4300 block of Southeast Long Street, detectives said. The homeowner's nephew, Blake Miura, confronted Harding, who ran away. A police dog tracked him down.

Harding was accused of two counts of residential burglary. He was released from jail the next day because of crowding, sheriff's deputies said.


In one month, this guy was caught and released three times.

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index. ... onian?fpfp

If anything, this supports the point that economics must be taken into account in determining criminal justice policies more rather than less these days. Worrying about "morality" to the exclusion of allocation of available resources leads to these kinds of absurditites.

If economics were not a factor, if money was no object, then there would be political support to allocate enough resources to have enough jails. At this point there is no such support, and to not recognize that this needs to be taken into account when developing criminal justice policy is just crazy, and a good example of the pitfall of democracy. It is easy to vote for all sorts of programs, not so easy to vote to take money from people to pay for them.

Conservatives that refuse to recognize this are basically the same as liberals who somehow think that advanced medical care is a right. Two viewpoints, same absurdity based on emotional blindness to economic reality.




Luke T. wrote:
Crime doesn't evolve. Law and order does.



:lol:

(At least I hope that is a joke)

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66406
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3184 times
Been thanked: 2014 times

Postby Doctor X » Tue Dec 14, 2004 9:57 pm

In Texas, we have the death penalty and we uuuuuuuusssssseeee it! If you come to Texas and kill somebody--we'll kill you back! The legislature is trying to put through a law in which if there are three credible witnesses you don't sit for years waiting on appeals, you go right to the head of the line.

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty; Texas is building an express lane!

--Ron White, Drunk in Public and other versions.


A little levity.

Anyways, oddly enough, not much to add. Both RCC and LukeT have valid points, which is often the case when the practical meets the idea. RCC argues from the practical--and it is an argument worth considering. Can we afford a death penalty? How do you make it "cheaper" without risking error?

Error is a significant problem. Sitting in jail--by the way, "proving yourself innocent" does NOT mean you automatically "get out" if you had a "fair trial!"--for two decades for something you did not do sucks. It really sucks. What if you have to shiv someone to prevent yourself being raped or forced to read Jack Chick tracts? Do not know it that has ever happened . . . need to write to Law and Order Spin Off. . . .

Right, rotting and having everyone you care about "know" you are a scumbag sucks. However, at least you can enjoy vindication and money. Hardly makes up for it but at least it is something.

If you are dead?

The death penalty has long solved the "cruel and unusual" aspect with lethal injection. Sorry, folks, but I cannot buy that as "cruel" or "unusual"--not that anyone has made that argument yet.

What it has not solved is making it "fool-proof."

However, we do have a continuum. Ron White's jokes aside, some cases are clear. Look at the woman who drowed her kids in Virginia (?). She merited death. Better, the woman who shot her kids in Washington--to free herself for an affair--should have received death--I do not remember if Washington had a death penatly at the time.

Richard Ramirez--"Night Stalker"--death!!

Of course, "easy" cases are "easy." I am pulling this from my nethers, so perhaps RCC can correct it, but I imagine the "clear" ones do not exactly cost as much with appeals--not as much to research/argue.

So we have two areas of debate methinks . . . three . . . three areas of debate:

1. Is the DP morally/ethically justifiable?
2. Is it worth the cost necessary to apply it at all fairly?
3. I forgot my last point . . .

Wanders in search of coffee. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Denise
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:13 pm

Postby Denise » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:00 pm

My opinion here, I know a lot of these points have been brought up.

I think it's fucked up to give the government the power to kill it's citizens, unless it's in defense of a peace officer or another citizen ie cop shoots man with hostage, or similar situation. Governments can be corrupt. Why do we allow a system that is prone to corruption to mete out the irreversable and ultimate penalty?

Innocent perps have been released after non government entities have proved their innocence. Not just proved reasonable doubt but innocence. That scares the hell out of me.

Death row is not a picnic in the park. Why is it relief to euthanize a disease victim but considered retribution to kill a person on death row? I think being forced to live in a small cell 24 hours a day with 1 hour out for exercise is a pretty good punishment.

This case is particularly disturbing to me because I don't think the government even proved that Laci was murdered, although I know it's likely. It seems to me that this was an emotional decision listening to the soundbites from the jurors. I also think it was a mistake not to sequester them during the penalty phrase. I didn't get to watch the jurors speak live but I did see one of them say that they had names for the reporters. Was something said before to them about the reporters having names for them? If not, how did they know that the reporters had given them names if they had not seen the coverage?

I know it's cliche but I don't think it's worth the life of one innocent even if 1000 guilty are killed by the state in such a situation.

Would I want the perp killed if it was one of my own? Probably. But I'd want it to be painful and our current methods are pretty darn quick and painless. But that's the animal part of my brain. The part that would only want revenge. And I think such a penalty brings out the animal part of our society, the mob mentality.

Maybe some day the death penalty would be fairly imposed. Not according to how much money the accused has, not according to the color of his skin. In a better world there would not be corrupt government officials. There would not be corrupt lab workers ( I seem to recall a case a few years ago where they had to throw out a bunch of cases because of this- maybe someone can find it). There would be 100% proof. Not gonna happen I realize. So year after year, others are going to be exonerated even in this great age of DNA testing.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66406
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3184 times
Been thanked: 2014 times

Postby Doctor X » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:10 pm

A Brief Interlude. . . .

I didn't get to watch the jurors speak live but I did see one of them say that they had names for the reporters. Was something said before to them about the reporters having names for them? If not, how did they know that the reporters had given them names if they had not seen the coverage?


The jurors were unidentified during the trial and were required to have nicknames--"Why am I 'Mr. Pink?!'" The reporters did not know the names of the jurors--beyond "juror number five"--so they tended to make nicknames for the jurors--such as "Pinkie" and "Strawberry Shortcake" for the woman with actually red-color'd hair.

During the press conference, the jury admitted that they had nicknames for reporters. They did not interact with reporters at all--as I am sure RCC can elaborate--doing such removes the juror and sends the reporter to the "stripey hole" with a guy named "Darrel." However, the jurors could see the same people in the gallery every day for six months.

The press conference is worth seeing. This jury renewed a lot of faith in a system damaged by the ignoramii that attended the O.J. trial--though I know a DA who has tried--"successfully"--DP cases who contends Marsha . . . Marsha! Marsha! Marsha! . . . Clark and Her Merry Band lost the case . . . which is another digression.

Right back to the topic. . . .

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Denise
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 4:13 pm

Postby Denise » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:13 pm

I know the reporters had nicknames for the jurors. My question was if it came out in the newsconference before that comment from the juror.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 66406
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3184 times
Been thanked: 2014 times

Postby Doctor X » Tue Dec 14, 2004 10:20 pm

I recall no indication that they knew reporters gave them nicknames. They were told they had to use something other than there own names amongst themselves.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!


Return to “Politics & Social Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests