RE: Rick Perry on Capital Punishment and the Importance of Innocence

[Robstailey]

personally, i think the death penalty should be available to anyone who is given a life sentence. it should be their choice, simply because some people would rather die than spend their life in jail.

[Broggy69]

With any trial, I believe all evidence needs to be used, and not be inadmissible, because a lawyer, feels it may be harmful to their case. If evidence was retrieved improperly, then punish the people who did not follow procedure. But all evidence should be allowed, none should be inadmissible.

[theheinzification]

@Broggy69 firstly what constiutes as evidence? secondly, what is your point? that death penalty is ok if everyone follows your advice since no errors are possible then? plz clarify.

[Broggy69]

@theheinzification What constitutes as evidence? Are you kidding? E-mails, Letters, DNA, fingerprints, anything that proves or disproves that 1 the person was thinking about said crime, 2 Was at said crime scene at the time the crime was committed, and 3 all evidence from the crime scene and personal housing be used. A lot of innocent people are put into jail, because layers are more interested in winning cases, then the truth, so they try to get as much evidence inadmissible. 

[theheinzification]

@Broggy69 evidence: i wanted to point out, that some evidence is rightfully dismissed. hearsay for example. but youre probably right, a lot is lawyer-ish trickery. i dont think it works that way where i live though, but we dont have death penalty (and nevertheless a way lower crime rate and way less ppl in jail) anyways.

so do you wanna suggest a better system in dealing with evidence would dependably protect innocent ppl from getting convicted?

[Broggy69]

@theheinzification Correct, here say, and falsified evidence should be, but DNA, finger, prints, pictures, and video shouldn't, just because an investigator, not properly initialed, dated, signed, or filled out the forms should be dismissed, because that is human error. A better way, though would increase the time of the trial, is have the Jury decided what evidence they feel is important to the case. For every innocent person in jail, is one guilty person that is free.

[theheinzification]

@Broggy69 no doubt.

so your post wasnt directly related to the death penalty. i understood that wrongly. my bad.

[Broggy69]

@theheinzification I am not fully against the death penalty, but also not for it. I think there are some people out who only want to harm people, so if they have life time imprisonment, with no chance of parole, then fine, but that rarely happens. The death penalty though needs some extra safeties involved, such as a trial for punishment and not done by a judge, with all evidence to be presented. The trial would not be about the crime, but whether or not the death penalty should be allowed.

[kloneo]

@Broggy69 not done by judge? That's the only thing left that, at least aspires to be, some safeguard against justice becoming the child of public prejudiced and media opinion. I am for the death penalty if it is for a brutal and/or multiple premeditated murder/rape. But make sure the physical evidence of the crime is saved and DNA tested because it's too easy to fail and wrongly convict without it. I don't want innocent people to die just because they were in wrong place at wrong time.

[gothatfunk]

the cluster fuck over an Osama trial would indeed have been a nightmare, but i don't think that is a reasonable rationale for suspending the principle.

[Bloodthr0e]

I think the bottom line is someone is going to get screwed no matter what, because there is no such thing as an infallible system. So the question is, should a FEW innocent lives be lost randomly because of mistakes made during a trial or should a FEW (probably more) innocent lives be knowingly placed in danger and lost because particularly dangerous murderers were allowed to continue living? I would rather the loss of innocent life be unintentional.

[Bloodthr0e]

Executing a few dozen a year may not change things that much, but you seem to value very much the innocent lives of people wrongly executed. However, you don't seem to extend that compassion to the few lives that would be lost if these types of murderers were allowed to continue living. Keep in mind that they are a danger not only to security guards, but other inmates, maybe someone who simply stole some money that they needed, as well as, anyone in society if they were to ever escape prison.

[Bloodthr0e]

I mean following your same logic, people shouldn't go to jail for 10 years for stealing money simply because innocent people have been wrongly convicted of stealing money. Innocent people being convicted is unavoidable. People need to be punished. That is a necessity. And yet there is no reason to keep dangerous murderers alive. It is neither vital nor helpful to society. It is only a drain on society.

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e I explicitly explained my video the difference between incarcerating an innocent person and executing them. I will not repeat myself again for your benefit.

[Bloodthr0e]

@smpunditz Good to know you ran out of rebuttle.

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e I didn't run out of rebuttals I am just not interested in repeating a statement I made in the damn video. I don't need to rebut points I've already addressed.

[Bloodthr0e]

Of course innocent people have been tried and wrongly executed. That is inevitable. There's no system that can be infallible. Im sure lots of people have been wrongly administered medicine and killed by it. I suppose we should stop implementing science and medicine. Scientologists use this basic argument against psychologists - 'some psychological practices have been inhumane so all psychology must be bad'. It's crazy. There isn't a technology or practice that doesn't leave some innocent hurt.

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e Your analogy falls flat. Medicine saves millions of lives every year. Do executions accomplish that? Executions aren't some vital element to progress like science and technology.

Innocent people choose to take medication and all the risks that are associated with it. Not to many people choose to be found guilty of a crime they didn't commit and then be executed.

[Bloodthr0e]

@smpunditz I have to disagree. What is an execution? When one man kills in self defense, that is an execution. That is forcing death on someone who doesn't want it. Look at any war against tyranny like the nazi's. The taking of life to preserve life is a practice that is more vital to survival than medicine. People who murder forgo their decision to live equally and yes, a few innocent lives will be lost by execution, but no technology or practice is infallible or incapable of hurting innocents.

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e 'When one man kills in self defense, that is an execution.'

It's no wonder you disagree since you have co-opted the word to mean what you want it to.

[Bloodthr0e]

Okay, you're against the death penalty. What do you think we should do with all these criminals? Would you really ask another person to risk their life watching over these dangerous criminals for the rest of their lives? Would you be willing to do that job yourself, and why don't you? So you want people to risk their lives and spend their tax money to keep these criminals alive inside a cube. To what end? What does it accomplish? Couldn't that time and those resources be better spent elsewhere?

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e

Do you seriously believe a hundred or two executions a year make the lives prison guards any safer?

As far as the costs, death row inmates tend to be on death row for quite a few years. The costs of execution vs life imprisonment aren't as clear cut as you seem to think they are. How many innocent people you are willing to risk executing to save resources anyway?

[Bloodthr0e]

@smpunditz To answer your first question, yes, I do believe it makes their lives safer. Why wouldn't it? To answer your second question, every judgement is a risk. You can never be 100% certain someone did a crime even if they admit to it. That is unavoidable. And resources are finite. 1/3 of the world is starving and there is no reason to spend resources needlessly. Are you willing to spend the rest of your life and risk yourself to watch over a murderer in a cube? If not, that's hypocrisy.

[smpunditz]

@Bloodthr0e security guards who work at maximum security prisons are there because they choose to. It's irrelevant as to whether or not I want the job. Actually my dad has worked at a prison and my positon would be the same if he still did. There are possibly hundreds of dangerous people at a given penitentiary. Executing a few dozen a year isn't going to change that much. Life sentences are not bleeding this country dry, your resource draining argument is trite.

[Haywerth]

@Bloodthr0e What??? Whatever happened to "Tis better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be put to death?"

[joshcena33]

@Bloodthr0e I could say the exact same thing about your position. How would you feel if someone burned down with your family inside? Then the state calls YOU an arsonist, locks you up in prison and declares that you will be executed. But you'd be okay with that wouldn't you? After all, it saves resources. You don't want to volunteer to be executed for no reason? What a hypocrite you are...tch...

[HonestDiscussioner]

I would acknowledge your intellectual points, but Governor Perry has already signed an executive order for your death warrant. Something about "he didn't need evidence . . . or even a crime".

;-)

[smpunditz]

@HonestDiscussioner WHAT SHIT!!

I bet he made a deal with MERCK to test the T-virus on my dead corpse. Evil bastard.

[HonestDiscussioner]

@smpunditz Come on man, this is a serious topic, quit goofing off. He wouldn't do that, not before he held a prayer rally to make sure the T-virus took.

[GoblinXXX]

@HonestDiscussioner I believe "He needed killin'!" qualifies as legal justification for homicide in Texas, anyway.

[GrapplingIgnorance]

I've been thinking about punishment of this nature quite a bit myself lately. Isn't it equally true that you can't give someone back 20 years of his/her life too? Certainly it's possible to give them more than you can if they're dead, but our life is nothing but time, and that's what's taken away with imprisonment, right?

[smpunditz]

@GrapplingIgnorance well I said as much in the video that you can't give them back the years that they lost but you can give them some form of compensation. Once their dead though you can't give them anything at all.

There are many examples of this problem you bring up throughout the justice system. You for instance can pay someone's medical expenses plus wage losses if you injure them but you can't make them walk again if you crippled them in the process.

[chrisbuxton1958]

There are many reasons why the death penalty should be consigned to history; the one you highlight is the most important. Judicial execution is the hallmark of the backward.

[LatumWay]

Wooo video response from smpunditz! WIN.

Thanks man.

[smpunditz]

@LatumWay no prob. Love your vids. I've tried to find the time to make videos and today happened to be that day.

[GoblinXXX]

@smpunditz Speaking for the rest of the internets (and yes, I AM the official spokesman!), it's good to see you again.

[smpunditz]

@GoblinXXX well it's great to hear from the official spokesman of the internets of all people.

[GoblinXXX]

@smpunditz Hey, it's a big responsibility, and one I take very seriously. ;)

[joshcena33]

@LatumWay

And he called you "LattumWay". Bonus points.

[LatumWay]

@joshcena33 i no rite