The death penalty is good . It insures scumbags won't get out of prison and kill again . Has Ted Bundy killed any more ? Thank you , I rest my case . If a few innocents get whacked in the process , thats just how it go's , nothings perfect .
@Largo64 I know what you mean . Allow me to elaborate . The death penalty should only be used in case's were there is absolutely no doubt the person is guilty . All others ( including circumstantial evidence ) should be converted to life with out the possibility of release . Example , Ted Bundy - death , Casey Anthony - life . I know I've said before Anthony should get death but thats because I believe she had a hand in on that babys death .
@1955woodsmin I can agree on the certainty of Bundy's guilt, and I also think Anthony killed her baby. But the standard of "reasonable doubt" is not high enough. Anyway, my objection to capital punishment is philosophical. I just don't think the state should kill its citizens. Incarceration protects the public. Killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong just makes no sense. And it's cheaper to keep 'em. I know it seems counterintuitive, but it really is.
@Largo64 I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you . As long as their alive theres always the possibility of them getting out through escape or some wacko politician pardoning them . Not to mention they don't deserve TV or an education on the tax payer's and one thing that disgust me is I understand in some states they can conceive children ,,, just what we need their bad blood running the streets . Its like what ever makes them tick has just been handed down and free to mature .
Abolitionists of capital punishment always claim not to grasp the distinction between "kill" and "murder." Let us say that someone is ruthlessly blind to the fact that kill and murder are morally identical then "if capital punishment is murder done by the state, then imprisonment is kidnapping done by the sate."
This is the best argument against the death penalty i have ever heard. It is time we follow the rest of the civilized world and ABOLISH capitol punishment. Thank you so much for this video!
My uncle is in jail for life because he paid someone to beat someone up, and the dude killed the guy; if this was America he'd be executed for a crime he did not commit.
"pro lifes" are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who live by double standard principles and manipulate others to do the same because what they're really in pursuit of is power and personal gain not the protection of life.
Larry, this is the 3rd time I've watched & commented, but YT has not posted. SOOO great show, but I won't add anymore in case they don't post this'n. Mary
There are journals that have more up-to-date information of escapes (I know it's only one of the things you talk about here) but those journals require a monetary subscription. I don't have the resources to subscribe. If you could prove that a significant number of people escaped from prison and committed murders, you might strengthen your claim that living convicts present a greater risk. I still could not agree with you that state execution is either just or a deterrent.
I find the death penalty particularly repugnant now that we seem to be on the verge of boosting peoples lifespans to nearly indefinite scales. What would the effect of the state renouncing the death penalty on this account have on deterring murder? Is it that we expect that killing only takes away a couple dozen years of a persons eternal afterlife that seems to justify state sanctioned murder? What if the state took the position that post mortum life was fiction for weak minds stopped killing?
as of 2005, 144 out of the 3254 death row inmates had committed their capital murders in prison or after escape. Nearly 800 of the capital murders were committed while criminals were on parole or probation.
To extrapolate, that would mean 354 out of the total of 8000, sent to death row since 1973, committed their capital murder(s) in prison or after escape.
Would you please cite where this information came from? I'm not doubting you here, but when I tried to find information on prison escapes, as I believe I told you, the most recent report was from about 1999. It said, as I also admitted to you, that there were over a thousand escapes in one year. But it also said the vast majority of those were walk-aways from minimum security places.
I perused the Bureau of Justice Statistics, several articles, and could find nothing on escapes. The tables on recidivism showed some small number of new crimes of people released after murder sentences, but the nature of those crimes was not stated. If you think I'm snowing you I'll PM you the links to the studies I went to - the studies YOU directed me to.
Thanks, Dudley, but several articles I looked up say only that these two men escaped from a county jail, not a high-security lockup. Also there was no mention in any news story of what they were in jail for. Your contention has been that escapees convicted of murder will likely murder again. The bad reportage is not your fault, but this doesn't, at least so far, illustrate your point.
Largo, i have provided links where murderers escaped & murdered, again.
One was, for sure, a capital murderer, who was given life when the death penalty was optional.
He escaped and murdered 2 more folks.
That's two more than we have proof for an innocent executed since 1900.
Why don't you research all of the potential death penalty cases whereby death wasn't given & the murderer harmed or murdered again, in prison, after escape or after release?
You provided the above story about two men who escaped from a county jail and killed someone. Nothing in the article you linked nor in several others I found myself said that they were in jail for murder or for that matter, why they were incarcerated in the first place. This is getting tiresome, and most people have already stopped commenting. You think it's just to execute persons in custody. I don't. Let's leave it at that until the next video, which will be on methods of execution.
I accuse you of dishinesty because you so misrepresent my positions, as well as your own. You say your only issue is not killing people and not about innocents.yet the whole foundation for these videos is my paper on innocence and your attempt to discredit it.
Come on.
It is an absolute truism that living murderers are more likely to harm and murder, again, yet you dispute that!
So, me calling you dishonest, after repeatedly reviewing these issues is understandable.
I refuted you with your own words, quoted exactly as you wrote them. I have been careful to disagree with your ideas only and not to attack you personally. You have not shown the same courtesy to me. This "debate between us is now over, since you have departed from ideas and resorted to attacks only. It's too bad. But you just can't tolerate disagreement.
You are free to make further comments expressing your point of view. But if you resort to ad hominem again you will be blocked.
No one disputes that an actual innocent found guilty is a bad result. All systems convict some actual innocents.
However, my point was that Krone was long released from death row, prior to his being freed from jail because of actual innocence. I was being clear and accurate.
My additonal point was that actual innocents are more at risk of being sentenced to jail and dying while serving under that sentnece than it is likely an innocent will be executed.
I know you are sincere, Dudley. I don't know how to express to you, though, that, while statistically you may be able to prove that killing murderers removes any possibility of recidivism, it is still the calculated act of a government against an individual who may, after all, be innocent. I don't care how remote you think that possibility is, even you cannot insist that it will ever be zero.
For the state to take even one life wrongly is taking one life too many. What if that one were yours?
I do get your point. But statistics don't justify the official killing of even one innocent person. You still cannot prove that no innocent will be executed.
The state is not responsible for crimes not yet committed. You wouldn't want to live where the state could profile certain people and execute them because of the probability that they may commit murder in the future. But that is what you are asking the state to do to people who are already in custody and no longer a threat to society.
I never stated the government was responsible for crimes not committed.
Government does, however, have, a duty to responsibly evaluate criminals and their risk to the public, when the government is considering the voluntary release of criminals into probation, parole and other early release programs.
Yet, over and over, again, they get it wrong, and many innocents are murdered and harmed because of government irresponsibility.
"I HAVE NEVER DENIED AN INNOCENT COULD BE EXECUTED.
It is less likely one of my loved ones will die, if we retain the death penalty. Clearly It is more likely one of my loved ones will die, if we abandon the death penalty."
You don't deny that an innocent could be executed, therefore there IS for you an acceptable number of wrongful executions in order to protect innocents from those already convicted and incarcerated.
A quote from your article, Innocence Issues - - The Death Penalty, "Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900."
As I said before, "no proof" is just wiggle words. You did indicate that no innocent had been executed, even though you have had to admit that some innocents had been convicted and might have been executed if not for DNA evidence after trial.
"And, there is no proof of an innocent executed since 1900."
Much can be taken from inference. If, as you say, there is no proof that any innocent person has been executed since 1900, there IS proof that, using DNA evidence AFTER someone was already on death row, persons were released that might have been executed. That they were released is not the point. That most of the time since 1900 nobody ever heard of DNA IS the point. It is LIKELY that many others died who would have been saved by DNA.
Given that it is likely that, lacking DNA evidence for most of the 20th century, not just a few persons MUST have been executed wrongly. Whether you agree with the DPIC's numbers or not, it is clear that some people have been convicted and sentenced to death wrongly. In the face of that evidence, for you to insist that there is "no proof" of a wrongful execution in more than a century is both cynical and dishonest. You, sir, are the dishonest one. Since you won't argue the facts, we are done.
You stated in the article that I first quoted that there was no proof that any innocent person had been executed in the US since 1900. "Proof" is your wiggle word, but you certainly did imply that there were no mistakes.
You stated that the DPIC's numbers amounted to 0.2% of persons actually exonerated. That is not zero. Then you proceed to say that the death penalty is acceptable to you. That is not stating an actual number, but it IS saying that something above zero is acceptable. You justify it by saying that people are more at risk without it. You have accepted that some actual number above zero as better than a speculative number of persons "at risk" without the penalty. I twisted nothing. You did.
"I have never stated nor implied nor thought 3) that government should execute people who might commit murder in the future."
You not only implied, but stated clearly that government should execute people already in custody because in the remote chance that they should escape they were likely to commit more murders. What is that if not killing to prevent future murders? Do you not comprehend the actual meaning of the words you use?
I have made nothing up. I've called you on your own words.
My position protects more innocents. Yours sacrifices more innocents.
I don't support the death penalty because it protects more innocents. I support the death penalty because it is just. It is a secondary and important outcome of the death penalty that it does protect more innocents.
Understand? Based upon all your previous repsonses, sadly, you likely don't and will just twist, again.
"Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty."
That is speculation on your part. But again, to kill someone already incarcerated is unnecessary. That parson can hurt no innocent again.
Please don't repeat the escape or "clerical error" arguments. Those just sound desperate.
My main point has always been that innocents will be executed. Your argument allows that there is some acceptable number for that risk. Mine is that the only acceptable number of victims of the state is zero.
I will concede that an escapee is possibly more dangerous than he was before capture. I will even concede the clerical error. I have no doubt that violent people in prison remain violent and dangerous. That's what COs are trained to handle.
I don't think I've been discourteous or rude. You don't like what I've had to say, so I suppose you may think so. Accusing me of dishonesty is unfair, as I have said nothing I don't believe. You don't agree, but you have no reason to accuse me.
Ray Krone was released on evidence produced after TWO separate juries found him guilty WRONGLY. How can that possibly be a good illustration of your point. It proves that juries make mistakes, and that some people can be killed because of those mistakes. Krone was released. But the jury system and the "reasonable doubt" standard of proof had nothing to do with his receiving justice.
No confusion. Innocents released from death row don't get to be in your plus column. They were found guilty by juries in the system I think needs to be changed. If there were no death penalty, no innocents COULD be executed. The point is simple but you insist on obfuscation.
I apologize for using the word "obfuscation." I see that there is nothing deliberately misleading about your argument. I just don't agree with it.
As to the DPIC, I am not ready to say that they either are being deliberately deceptive, even though you appear to think so. There is a high degree of passion on both sides of this debate, and anyone might get carried away.
The DPIC knows exactly what they are doing and it has been verified, often. They have redefined exonerated and innocent to increase the numbers.
I have never seen, known or heard of them, every, attenpting to clarify and be honest about the numbers of actiual innocents with the now 133 eonerated.
Of course it is deliberatedly deceptive. Decpetion, by definition, is deliberate.
Anyone interested in justice will demand a fair, thorough look at both sides of this or any case. Here is the side that the pro Troy Davis faction is, intentionally, not presenting.
Even if there are problems with the courts, the chief executive officer, either a governor or President, can always commute the sentence of or pardon a convict, assuming what you say is true. Why hasn't that happened with the case you first talked about?
I wrote to Governor Sonny Purdue of Georgia, but it may have been a waste of time. Someone told me that in Georgia, the ability to commute a sentence lies with a board similar to a parole board. You would have to convince several people that they should admit that the state made a mistake. You might not be surprised to know that many people would rather let a person die than admit that they were wrong.
I guess my point is just that, even if there are procedural problems in his criminal court case, there is an extra-judicial route to correct the problem, assuming the injustice is so obvious. In most states that is with the governor, in Georgia it is with the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
I understood you. But my point was that boards like that are loath to admit that the state has made a mistake. I am not at all confident that Davis' sentence will be commuted. Some of those people just like the surge of power they get from killing other human beings legally.
this is a very important topic, i am convinced that leaving behind death penalty / capital punishment is equal to progress. it is a necessary step on the way to a more humane society.
and only a few rogue nations do death penalty anyway. the united states are so far behind when it comes to a variety of human rights issues, obama really should start to do something about it, i dont understand why he now that he is in office somehow lost interest in these issues.
Over 600 members? Wow! here are a couple of groups I won't be joining! Pedophiles are sick and dangerous, and should certainly be removed from society permanently. But kill them? I think some of our society is pretty bloodthirsty. For such people I guess it's a good thing that there are legal ways to feed their blood lust.
Actually there are lots of people in that group that aren't concerned with legality at all. They feel they should be allowed to kill people themselves. Also, if you go onto that group and argue the facts with them they will label you a pedophile and call for your execution as well.
In reference to your point about pedophiles being permanently removed from society, it's kind of hard to argue for that when the estimated rate of recidivism among pedophiles is only 12.7% no? Some should be certainly, but all of them?
Well I wouldn't want a former drug dealer or a formerbank robber living next door to me and my kids either but that doesn't mean that I think they should be permanently removed from society.
"Pedophile" is a label greatly used these days - unfortunately, it's greatly misused. We apply this term with abandon to anyone accused of relations with anyone under eighteen. For example, that label was applied to Mark Foley. Problem is, there's no evidence that he's a pedophile - just a sleaze-bag.
Hopefully, you're using the label correctly - applying to someone who has a compulsive attraction to prepubescent children. I think it provides cover to real pedophiles to do otherwise.
I would have said the same thing, and not that long ago. Because there are no doubt people who deserve to be killed I have vacillated on this issue over the years. I completely understand the sense of retribution that comes from seeing a truly evil person like a Ted Bundy put to death. But in the long run, I think we pay too high a price to avenge ourselves, when protection could be achieved by simply removing and holding such people permanently. And we would then never kill anyone wrongly.
Without justice there is no liberty. Whats the value of a life if we take it so lightly in our own system? I am off to part 2, fantastic work, 5 stars
That is exactly why I am against the death penalty. I would be for it in certain circumstances (i.e. torturers, war crimes etc.) if there was no possibility of innocents being convicted, but that is impossible.
ONLY 32?! WTF?! If even one single innocent person is killed by the state that is one too many!
Uh... you don't know much about the law because the driver is always just as guilty as the passenger, the law rules that it is the driver's responsibility to know who and what is getting in their car. For example, police pull you over and find drugs in your friend's bag that you didn't know he had. You are just as guilty as him. Happens a lot. I don't want to live in a country were the driver can just say he didn't know and get away with being "the getaway driver" every time.
We're talking here about changing the law. Do you really think that if you are pulled over and the cops find drugs on a friend of yours that you didn't know he had, that you are actually just as guilt as your friend? I hope you enjoy your jail time. I do know the law. I just think guilt by association is wrong.
Largo64, it is possession , anything inside your car is yours. And anyone should know that possession is nine tenths of the law or do you want to change that too?
Even if you were right (you're not) you do not possess the people in your car, do you? If the law isn't fair it needs to be changed. It used to be that if you happened to be in a house in which anyone was busted for possession of an illegal substance, whether you knew about it or not, you could go to jail. Was that fair? Of course not. It's also now not legal.
Largo64, you dont own the guy that just robbed a bank but you are in possession of the money he just stole if it is in your car. So, you think that when people are in possession of stolen property they should now just say they didn't know where it came from and get away with it? Might as well free everyone in jail.
Get a dictionary! Available at all good bookstores. Bookstore = "a store that sells books". You get the idea :-)
specious: looking good at first sight, but plausibly deceptive, i.e. pretending (or seeming) to be fair but actually a lie, a trick.
culpable: worthy of blame, blameworthy, at fault and to blame.
BTW I take your points Larry but I also will skip part 2. Sorry but it's hard to get really interested in something that (I hope) will never affect me directly :-)
The death penalty is good . It insures scumbags won't get out of prison and kill again . Has Ted Bundy killed any more ? Thank you , I rest my case . If a few innocents get whacked in the process , thats just how it go's , nothings perfect .
1955woodsmin 2 months ago
@1955woodsmin >> If a few innocents get whacked in the process , thats just how it go's , nothings perfect .<<
Easy for you to say. But what if the innocent was you or someone you care about?
Largo64 2 months ago
@Largo64 I know what you mean . Allow me to elaborate . The death penalty should only be used in case's were there is absolutely no doubt the person is guilty . All others ( including circumstantial evidence ) should be converted to life with out the possibility of release . Example , Ted Bundy - death , Casey Anthony - life . I know I've said before Anthony should get death but thats because I believe she had a hand in on that babys death .
1955woodsmin 2 months ago
@1955woodsmin I can agree on the certainty of Bundy's guilt, and I also think Anthony killed her baby. But the standard of "reasonable doubt" is not high enough. Anyway, my objection to capital punishment is philosophical. I just don't think the state should kill its citizens. Incarceration protects the public. Killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong just makes no sense. And it's cheaper to keep 'em. I know it seems counterintuitive, but it really is.
Largo64 2 months ago
@Largo64 I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you . As long as their alive theres always the possibility of them getting out through escape or some wacko politician pardoning them . Not to mention they don't deserve TV or an education on the tax payer's and one thing that disgust me is I understand in some states they can conceive children ,,, just what we need their bad blood running the streets . Its like what ever makes them tick has just been handed down and free to mature .
1955woodsmin 2 months ago
Abolitionists of capital punishment always claim not to grasp the distinction between "kill" and "murder." Let us say that someone is ruthlessly blind to the fact that kill and murder are morally identical then "if capital punishment is murder done by the state, then imprisonment is kidnapping done by the sate."
Th0ughtGazer 4 months ago
hey can i do xtranormal videos to can any one check them out if you sub i wiil sub back if you leave a comment saying you have subed
bobandnorman 1 year ago
@bobandnorman I don't trade subs. I sub to people whose content interests me.
Largo64 1 year ago
@Largo64 o sorry i had some one else do that the must of click your channel and advertised my channel sorry
bobandnorman 1 year ago
This is the best argument against the death penalty i have ever heard. It is time we follow the rest of the civilized world and ABOLISH capitol punishment. Thank you so much for this video!
vaddoff 2 years ago
My uncle is in jail for life because he paid someone to beat someone up, and the dude killed the guy; if this was America he'd be executed for a crime he did not commit.
unassumption 2 years ago
Very good job at refuting his arguments.
KampfKeks04 2 years ago
dudleysharp's mentality:" Who care if innocent people are executed? Better safe than sorry. Hur hur hur!"
Methinks that dudleysharp is none too "sharp".
TheGoodSirKnight 2 years ago
So what made Mr Sharp change his mind?
Was he "born again"?
BrightestDeath 2 years ago
5 huge stars. Great video, it is so sad to see so many who call themselves pro life can be so pro death penalty and pro war.
When a life is taken there is no return, what is said to their family and to society when later these people are shown to be innocent?
Nothing . I am sure if Mr Sharp found his loved one was killed wrongly his postion would greatly differ.
To take a life is to take a life.
justbekindtooall 2 years ago
What you say is entirely true.
"pro lifes" are a bunch of fucking hypocrites who live by double standard principles and manipulate others to do the same because what they're really in pursuit of is power and personal gain not the protection of life.
Torchmark 2 years ago
Larry, this is the 3rd time I've watched & commented, but YT has not posted. SOOO great show, but I won't add anymore in case they don't post this'n. Mary
mcurren2004 2 years ago
For Extant Frodo:
If I recall correctly, in the 70's and 80's, we were seeing around 250 murdes/yr in jails/prisons/escape, but our management is much better, now.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
There are journals that have more up-to-date information of escapes (I know it's only one of the things you talk about here) but those journals require a monetary subscription. I don't have the resources to subscribe. If you could prove that a significant number of people escaped from prison and committed murders, you might strengthen your claim that living convicts present a greater risk. I still could not agree with you that state execution is either just or a deterrent.
Largo64 2 years ago
I find the death penalty particularly repugnant now that we seem to be on the verge of boosting peoples lifespans to nearly indefinite scales. What would the effect of the state renouncing the death penalty on this account have on deterring murder? Is it that we expect that killing only takes away a couple dozen years of a persons eternal afterlife that seems to justify state sanctioned murder? What if the state took the position that post mortum life was fiction for weak minds stopped killing?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Largo:
Most data you want is free, from reputable locations, on the internet. No expenditure required. Just look
dudleysharp 2 years ago
for Extant Frodo:
as of 2005, 144 out of the 3254 death row inmates had committed their capital murders in prison or after escape. Nearly 800 of the capital murders were committed while criminals were on parole or probation.
To extrapolate, that would mean 354 out of the total of 8000, sent to death row since 1973, committed their capital murder(s) in prison or after escape.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Would you please cite where this information came from? I'm not doubting you here, but when I tried to find information on prison escapes, as I believe I told you, the most recent report was from about 1999. It said, as I also admitted to you, that there were over a thousand escapes in one year. But it also said the vast majority of those were walk-aways from minimum security places.
Largo64 2 years ago
Sure.
go to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Capital Punishment report for 2005, table 8, I believe,
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I perused the Bureau of Justice Statistics, several articles, and could find nothing on escapes. The tables on recidivism showed some small number of new crimes of people released after murder sentences, but the nature of those crimes was not stated. If you think I'm snowing you I'll PM you the links to the studies I went to - the studies YOU directed me to.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo:
It's exactly where I said it was. Look harder. Do your own research.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
more escapees who murder
search for
"Death penalty sought for Putnam County Jail escapees"
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Thanks, Dudley, but several articles I looked up say only that these two men escaped from a county jail, not a high-security lockup. Also there was no mention in any news story of what they were in jail for. Your contention has been that escapees convicted of murder will likely murder again. The bad reportage is not your fault, but this doesn't, at least so far, illustrate your point.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo, i have provided links where murderers escaped & murdered, again.
One was, for sure, a capital murderer, who was given life when the death penalty was optional.
He escaped and murdered 2 more folks.
That's two more than we have proof for an innocent executed since 1900.
Why don't you research all of the potential death penalty cases whereby death wasn't given & the murderer harmed or murdered again, in prison, after escape or after release?
dudleysharp 2 years ago
You provided the above story about two men who escaped from a county jail and killed someone. Nothing in the article you linked nor in several others I found myself said that they were in jail for murder or for that matter, why they were incarcerated in the first place. This is getting tiresome, and most people have already stopped commenting. You think it's just to execute persons in custody. I don't. Let's leave it at that until the next video, which will be on methods of execution.
Largo64 2 years ago
@dudleysharp why dont you go the fuck back to a anti-peath penalty protestor
VampiresBiteHard666 1 year ago
Largo:
I accuse you of dishinesty because you so misrepresent my positions, as well as your own. You say your only issue is not killing people and not about innocents.yet the whole foundation for these videos is my paper on innocence and your attempt to discredit it.
Come on.
It is an absolute truism that living murderers are more likely to harm and murder, again, yet you dispute that!
So, me calling you dishonest, after repeatedly reviewing these issues is understandable.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I refuted you with your own words, quoted exactly as you wrote them. I have been careful to disagree with your ideas only and not to attack you personally. You have not shown the same courtesy to me. This "debate between us is now over, since you have departed from ideas and resorted to attacks only. It's too bad. But you just can't tolerate disagreement.
You are free to make further comments expressing your point of view. But if you resort to ad hominem again you will be blocked.
Largo64 2 years ago
Not once did you refute me with my own words.
Your "refutatiobns" were based only upon your twisting, misreading, misundersatnding of what I wrote.
When "quoting" or paraphrasing me, you would change only enough meaning and words to say what you wanted my wrods to mean or thoguht they meant.
I know what I write and know what I mean, Clearly you have no clue.
How about this, quote me exactly as I write and in context and start from the beginning. You will see how wong you are.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Larry, you are confusing points.
No one disputes that an actual innocent found guilty is a bad result. All systems convict some actual innocents.
However, my point was that Krone was long released from death row, prior to his being freed from jail because of actual innocence. I was being clear and accurate.
My additonal point was that actual innocents are more at risk of being sentenced to jail and dying while serving under that sentnece than it is likely an innocent will be executed.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I know you are sincere, Dudley. I don't know how to express to you, though, that, while statistically you may be able to prove that killing murderers removes any possibility of recidivism, it is still the calculated act of a government against an individual who may, after all, be innocent. I don't care how remote you think that possibility is, even you cannot insist that it will ever be zero.
For the state to take even one life wrongly is taking one life too many. What if that one were yours?
Largo64 2 years ago
Larry:
No one needs to prove, staistically, that executing murderers removes any possibility of them murdering again.
It is a truism, always true, without any exceptions.
I have never denied an innocent could be executed. Have you missed my constant point?
Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
It is less likely one of my loved ones will die, if we retain the death penalty.
It is more likely one of my loved ones will die, if we abandon the death penalty.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I do get your point. But statistics don't justify the official killing of even one innocent person. You still cannot prove that no innocent will be executed.
The state is not responsible for crimes not yet committed. You wouldn't want to live where the state could profile certain people and execute them because of the probability that they may commit murder in the future. But that is what you are asking the state to do to people who are already in custody and no longer a threat to society.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo, you have misread or twisted everything.
I have never stated nor implied nor thought
1) "that statistics justify the official killing of one innocent person."
2) that no innocent has been executed.
3) that government should execute people who might commit murder in the future.
You are using a horrible debate tactic, by attacking what I have not said.
Stop it.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I never stated the government was responsible for crimes not committed.
Government does, however, have, a duty to responsibly evaluate criminals and their risk to the public, when the government is considering the voluntary release of criminals into probation, parole and other early release programs.
Yet, over and over, again, they get it wrong, and many innocents are murdered and harmed because of government irresponsibility.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I haven't twisted anything. Your words:
"I HAVE NEVER DENIED AN INNOCENT COULD BE EXECUTED.
It is less likely one of my loved ones will die, if we retain the death penalty. Clearly It is more likely one of my loved ones will die, if we abandon the death penalty."
You don't deny that an innocent could be executed, therefore there IS for you an acceptable number of wrongful executions in order to protect innocents from those already convicted and incarcerated.
No twist. It's what you said.
Largo64 2 years ago
You said that I said "No innocents had been executed"
Keep to topic.
I have never said that. You made it up. Stop it.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
A quote from your article, Innocence Issues - - The Death Penalty, "Of all the world's social and governmental institutions, that do put innocents at risk, I am aware of only one, the US death penalty, that has no proof of an innocent killed since 1900."
As I said before, "no proof" is just wiggle words. You did indicate that no innocent had been executed, even though you have had to admit that some innocents had been convicted and might have been executed if not for DNA evidence after trial.
Largo64 2 years ago
"No proof" is not wiggle room. I think credible evidence is important, you call it wiggle room.
Those are your poor standards.
I have nvere stated not implied no innocents have been executed. You make that up, as you so often do. Stop making up what you think I mean.
I have always admitted that innocents have been executed. I have never denied it.
I also find that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
And, there is no proof of an innocent executed since 1900.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"And, there is no proof of an innocent executed since 1900."
Much can be taken from inference. If, as you say, there is no proof that any innocent person has been executed since 1900, there IS proof that, using DNA evidence AFTER someone was already on death row, persons were released that might have been executed. That they were released is not the point. That most of the time since 1900 nobody ever heard of DNA IS the point. It is LIKELY that many others died who would have been saved by DNA.
Largo64 2 years ago
Given that it is likely that, lacking DNA evidence for most of the 20th century, not just a few persons MUST have been executed wrongly. Whether you agree with the DPIC's numbers or not, it is clear that some people have been convicted and sentenced to death wrongly. In the face of that evidence, for you to insist that there is "no proof" of a wrongful execution in more than a century is both cynical and dishonest. You, sir, are the dishonest one. Since you won't argue the facts, we are done.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo, we are all aware of that.
For example, the proof is overwhellming and un refuted that many innocents have been murdered by those who have murdered before,
As we know that a huge percentage of murders are unsolved, we can speculated that murderers murder, again, much more often than we have proof for.
Again, more support for the death penalty saving more innocent lives.
Proof/evidence helps lead us to probabilities. Informed speculation should use all three.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"I have never stated nor implied nor thought:
2) that no innocent has been executed. "
You stated in the article that I first quoted that there was no proof that any innocent person had been executed in the US since 1900. "Proof" is your wiggle word, but you certainly did imply that there were no mistakes.
Largo64 2 years ago
you twist everything.
I have no acceptable number of innocent executed and never have.
I have the reality that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty and that innocents are more protected with the death penalty.
Stop twisting it to mean what you want. It is dishonest.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
You stated that the DPIC's numbers amounted to 0.2% of persons actually exonerated. That is not zero. Then you proceed to say that the death penalty is acceptable to you. That is not stating an actual number, but it IS saying that something above zero is acceptable. You justify it by saying that people are more at risk without it. You have accepted that some actual number above zero as better than a speculative number of persons "at risk" without the penalty. I twisted nothing. You did.
Largo64 2 years ago
No, that is not what I said.
I say 0.3% is the likely percentage of those actual innocents discovered and released from death row.
We all know that 0.3% is not zero.
Here is where you, constantly screw up. I don't say the number is acceptable.
All sanctions have innocents found guilty, I don't say that's acceptable. It is what it is.
I say the death penalty protects more innocents than does a life sentence. I say geting rid of the death penalty puts more innocents at risk.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"I have never stated nor implied nor thought 3) that government should execute people who might commit murder in the future."
You not only implied, but stated clearly that government should execute people already in custody because in the remote chance that they should escape they were likely to commit more murders. What is that if not killing to prevent future murders? Do you not comprehend the actual meaning of the words you use?
I have made nothing up. I've called you on your own words.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo, clearly, you don't understand an argument of truth as opposed to an argument for policy.
Obvioulsy, executed murderers can't harm, again.
This is part of my obvious argument that innocents are more protected by the death penalty.
Remember, you are challenging my essay? I have NEVER stated that is a reason why we should execute. That is quite clear.
But, it is one of the reason how the death penalty is a better protector of innocents.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
My position protects more innocents. Yours sacrifices more innocents.
I don't support the death penalty because it protects more innocents. I support the death penalty because it is just. It is a secondary and important outcome of the death penalty that it does protect more innocents.
Understand? Based upon all your previous repsonses, sadly, you likely don't and will just twist, again.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"It is a secondary and important outcome of the death penalty that it does protect more innocents. "
how many innocents are murdered by prisoners?
How does the removing the death penalty sacrifice more innocents?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
EFrodo:
Do a search forn
"The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents"
dudleysharp 2 years ago
An interesting read. Do you have any statistics of people who have committed murder, served time and turned around to become model citizens?
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
No, but if you find them, send them to me, please.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
"Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty."
That is speculation on your part. But again, to kill someone already incarcerated is unnecessary. That parson can hurt no innocent again.
Please don't repeat the escape or "clerical error" arguments. Those just sound desperate.
My main point has always been that innocents will be executed. Your argument allows that there is some acceptable number for that risk. Mine is that the only acceptable number of victims of the state is zero.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo:
I gave you the link to escaped lifers who murdered, again.
There have been case of clerical release, which I have not documented, but are available with a search.
There is an overwhelming abundance of evidence that priosners harm many in jail and after escape or release.
I am not, at all, desperate. You have just sunk into being disourteous, rude and, now, dishonest.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I will concede that an escapee is possibly more dangerous than he was before capture. I will even concede the clerical error. I have no doubt that violent people in prison remain violent and dangerous. That's what COs are trained to handle.
I don't think I've been discourteous or rude. You don't like what I've had to say, so I suppose you may think so. Accusing me of dishonesty is unfair, as I have said nothing I don't believe. You don't agree, but you have no reason to accuse me.
Largo64 2 years ago
Hardly stunning, Larry.
We all know that people found legally gulty can be actually innocent
and that
We all know that those found not guilty can be actually guilty.
This is a public policy debate not a review of constitutional parameters.
The DPIC is making a false claim.
I have never stated, implied or thought that it is OK to execute innocents. The 17 likley actual innocents were released from death row.
Ray Krone was an excellent example. He was an innocent released.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Ray Krone was released on evidence produced after TWO separate juries found him guilty WRONGLY. How can that possibly be a good illustration of your point. It proves that juries make mistakes, and that some people can be killed because of those mistakes. Krone was released. But the jury system and the "reasonable doubt" standard of proof had nothing to do with his receiving justice.
Largo64 2 years ago
Larry:
or some reason, you are confusing
1) Innocents senteced to death row and released
with
2) innocents executed.
They are very different. Please stop confusing the two, in specific reference to my writings.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
No confusion. Innocents released from death row don't get to be in your plus column. They were found guilty by juries in the system I think needs to be changed. If there were no death penalty, no innocents COULD be executed. The point is simple but you insist on obfuscation.
Largo64 2 years ago
Larry:
Please don't act this way. It is not a plus or minus column. It is an accuracy column.
No obfuscation, at all. Quite the opposite, I am trying to be both clear and accurate.
Innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
My choice is to execute murderers and thus protect more innocents.
Your choice is to end the execution of murderers and thusly put more innocents at risk.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
I apologize for using the word "obfuscation." I see that there is nothing deliberately misleading about your argument. I just don't agree with it.
As to the DPIC, I am not ready to say that they either are being deliberately deceptive, even though you appear to think so. There is a high degree of passion on both sides of this debate, and anyone might get carried away.
Largo64 2 years ago
The DPIC knows exactly what they are doing and it has been verified, often. They have redefined exonerated and innocent to increase the numbers.
I have never seen, known or heard of them, every, attenpting to clarify and be honest about the numbers of actiual innocents with the now 133 eonerated.
Of course it is deliberatedly deceptive. Decpetion, by definition, is deliberate.
dudleysharp 2 years ago
do a search for
"Troy Davis: Both sides need to be told"
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Troy Davis: Both sides need to be told
Dudley Sharp, contact info below
Anyone interested in justice will demand a fair, thorough look at both sides of this or any case. Here is the side that the pro Troy Davis faction is, intentionally, not presenting.
contd
dudleysharp 2 years ago
Interesting topic.
I found you through Larry.
I am your new subscriber.
Moomay
moomay11649 2 years ago
Even if there are problems with the courts, the chief executive officer, either a governor or President, can always commute the sentence of or pardon a convict, assuming what you say is true. Why hasn't that happened with the case you first talked about?
Matur1n 2 years ago
I wrote to Governor Sonny Purdue of Georgia, but it may have been a waste of time. Someone told me that in Georgia, the ability to commute a sentence lies with a board similar to a parole board. You would have to convince several people that they should admit that the state made a mistake. You might not be surprised to know that many people would rather let a person die than admit that they were wrong.
Largo64 2 years ago
I guess my point is just that, even if there are procedural problems in his criminal court case, there is an extra-judicial route to correct the problem, assuming the injustice is so obvious. In most states that is with the governor, in Georgia it is with the Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Matur1n 2 years ago
I understood you. But my point was that boards like that are loath to admit that the state has made a mistake. I am not at all confident that Davis' sentence will be commuted. Some of those people just like the surge of power they get from killing other human beings legally.
Largo64 2 years ago
this is a very important topic, i am convinced that leaving behind death penalty / capital punishment is equal to progress. it is a necessary step on the way to a more humane society.
and only a few rogue nations do death penalty anyway. the united states are so far behind when it comes to a variety of human rights issues, obama really should start to do something about it, i dont understand why he now that he is in office somehow lost interest in these issues.
kurtilein3 2 years ago
You should have a TV show!!!
frontfootforward 2 years ago
For those against the death penalty in ANY case, SHOCK this facebook group!
Put "execute all pedophiles" into the facebook search bar.
Help debate for logical and reasonable punishment and treatment instead of using the government as a tool of revenge!
bigevasive 2 years ago
Over 600 members? Wow! here are a couple of groups I won't be joining! Pedophiles are sick and dangerous, and should certainly be removed from society permanently. But kill them? I think some of our society is pretty bloodthirsty. For such people I guess it's a good thing that there are legal ways to feed their blood lust.
Largo64 2 years ago
Actually there are lots of people in that group that aren't concerned with legality at all. They feel they should be allowed to kill people themselves. Also, if you go onto that group and argue the facts with them they will label you a pedophile and call for your execution as well.
bigevasive 2 years ago
In reference to your point about pedophiles being permanently removed from society, it's kind of hard to argue for that when the estimated rate of recidivism among pedophiles is only 12.7% no? Some should be certainly, but all of them?
bigevasive 2 years ago
Another numbers game. If you had kids would you wan one who was released as "safe" to move next door to you?
Largo64 2 years ago
Well I wouldn't want a former drug dealer or a formerbank robber living next door to me and my kids either but that doesn't mean that I think they should be permanently removed from society.
bigevasive 2 years ago
"Pedophile" is a label greatly used these days - unfortunately, it's greatly misused. We apply this term with abandon to anyone accused of relations with anyone under eighteen. For example, that label was applied to Mark Foley. Problem is, there's no evidence that he's a pedophile - just a sleaze-bag.
Hopefully, you're using the label correctly - applying to someone who has a compulsive attraction to prepubescent children. I think it provides cover to real pedophiles to do otherwise.
47f0 2 years ago
I would have said the same thing, and not that long ago. Because there are no doubt people who deserve to be killed I have vacillated on this issue over the years. I completely understand the sense of retribution that comes from seeing a truly evil person like a Ted Bundy put to death. But in the long run, I think we pay too high a price to avenge ourselves, when protection could be achieved by simply removing and holding such people permanently. And we would then never kill anyone wrongly.
Largo64 2 years ago
"I think we pay too high a price to avenge ourselves,"
Well said my man. I agree 100%
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Without justice there is no liberty. Whats the value of a life if we take it so lightly in our own system? I am off to part 2, fantastic work, 5 stars
erkd1 2 years ago
That is exactly why I am against the death penalty. I would be for it in certain circumstances (i.e. torturers, war crimes etc.) if there was no possibility of innocents being convicted, but that is impossible.
ONLY 32?! WTF?! If even one single innocent person is killed by the state that is one too many!
PheenixTears420 2 years ago
Uh... you don't know much about the law because the driver is always just as guilty as the passenger, the law rules that it is the driver's responsibility to know who and what is getting in their car. For example, police pull you over and find drugs in your friend's bag that you didn't know he had. You are just as guilty as him. Happens a lot. I don't want to live in a country were the driver can just say he didn't know and get away with being "the getaway driver" every time.
ndyt 2 years ago
We're talking here about changing the law. Do you really think that if you are pulled over and the cops find drugs on a friend of yours that you didn't know he had, that you are actually just as guilt as your friend? I hope you enjoy your jail time. I do know the law. I just think guilt by association is wrong.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo64, it is possession , anything inside your car is yours. And anyone should know that possession is nine tenths of the law or do you want to change that too?
ndyt 2 years ago
Even if you were right (you're not) you do not possess the people in your car, do you? If the law isn't fair it needs to be changed. It used to be that if you happened to be in a house in which anyone was busted for possession of an illegal substance, whether you knew about it or not, you could go to jail. Was that fair? Of course not. It's also now not legal.
Largo64 2 years ago
Largo64, you dont own the guy that just robbed a bank but you are in possession of the money he just stole if it is in your car. So, you think that when people are in possession of stolen property they should now just say they didn't know where it came from and get away with it? Might as well free everyone in jail.
ndyt 2 years ago
Too many big words
specious,culpable..and something else.
Thank you for making this video, your thought processes .
I enjoyed this video....I am gonna skip the next video, because I really don't want to hear about
...inhumane killings
DorothyDandrich 2 years ago
Get a dictionary! Available at all good bookstores. Bookstore = "a store that sells books". You get the idea :-)
specious: looking good at first sight, but plausibly deceptive, i.e. pretending (or seeming) to be fair but actually a lie, a trick.
culpable: worthy of blame, blameworthy, at fault and to blame.
BTW I take your points Larry but I also will skip part 2. Sorry but it's hard to get really interested in something that (I hope) will never affect me directly :-)
KrisBlueNZ 2 years ago