U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:02 PM
 
9,577 posts, read 7,613,794 times
Reputation: 12066

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Which would be wrong. It's up to a jury to not find someone guilty if the case wasn't proven within a reasonable doubt. Many are convicted by a plethora of circumstantial evidence.



Which is where our system does fail us in some cases. You are right that the system is set up pretty good. There are a few things I would change but the failure comes in when the rules and laws are not upheld. Two examples.

The case of David Westerfield is my biggest beef.

David Westerfield - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is supposed to be illegal for anyone in a trial to lie, including the lawyers. Westerfields lawyers lied in court. Nothing was done to them.

Then while not a trial, Lloyd Blankfein lied his ass off while under oath in from of a Congressional investigation. Indeed it's a tough argument to make that since Congress lies to us all the time that we shouldn't be able to lie in return but our laws have to be above that.

Proposed AIG Haircuts: Somebody's Lying [Goldman Sachs Group Inc, American International Group Inc] - Seeking Alpha

While we do have a pretty good system it is not always equally applied. Martha Stewart goes to prison for a relatively minor lie but Lloyd Blankfein has been richly rewarded for his.



IMO the only legitimate argument against the death penalty is that if it's wrong to kill someone, it's wrong to kill someone.
The end.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2014, 06:17 PM
 
Location: NJ
18,668 posts, read 18,082,578 times
Reputation: 7284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velvet Jones View Post
Another example of p*ss poor job by the prosecution jury and low IQ jurors. If some had their way this guy would have been dead for years. While I generally don't have sympathy for murders, you need to actually make sure you have the right person.

Ryan Ferguson's parents 'feel vindicated' about thrown-out conviction - TODAY.com
In order to be comfortable with the DP, I'd favor automatic national lifetime bans and removal of all degrees/certs of any prosecutor , DA, etc involved in multiple cases where a DP sentence was granted, and than overturned (exempting cases overturned on technicalities).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 09:10 PM
 
22,284 posts, read 12,955,131 times
Reputation: 12914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun View Post
Indeed. Perhaps even dead forever.

And you're right. The simple fact that no legal system is flawless should be enough to make people think twice about capital punishment. That and the cost.
Yet, we allow abortion when no one is certain when a fetus becomes a human being.

But criminals we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to.

What a FUBAR world we live in.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 01:35 AM
 
Location: SoCal
5,902 posts, read 4,962,357 times
Reputation: 1930
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
1. Yet, we allow abortion when no one is certain when a fetus becomes a human being.

2. But criminals we are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to.

3. What a FUBAR world we live in.
1. Not quite--the debate over the moral justifiability of abortion if a bit more complex than this. It's about personhood (rather than humanity--and No, the two are not the same) and about whose rights should take precedence.

2. I myself lean in opposition to abortion and oppose the death penalty except on demand/request.

3. FUBAR? Fvcked Up Beyond All Reason?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 06:56 AM
 
18 posts, read 4,964 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
No he admitted to it. Then in court his lawyers went through a list of people who they claimed could have done it including once again dragging her own mothers name through more mud.

They knew there was only one person who did it that none of these others could have done it. Of course lawyers will defend this and as I noted its one area where I would change our laws.

I would make it illegal to defend someone as innocent that you knew did it. Westerfields lawyers lied in court. None of the others mentioned could have done it as they knew he did it.
I gave evidence to support my view; you have given none.

Why do you believe, and with such absolute certainty, that a) Westerfield admitted to it, and b) his lawyers knew he did it?

You’ll have to refresh my memory, but who did his lawyers claim could have done it? I can’t think of anyone, except perhaps some unnamed and unknown stranger at the bar that evening who had witnessed the behavior of Danielle’s mother and her two girlfriends.

The perpetrator, whether Westerfield or someone else, would not have had free access to Danielle had the side garage door of the van Dam home not been left unlocked, and had the lock on the door between the garage and the house not been reversed - both of which were because of her parents’ activities. If nothing else, this was a salutary warning to parents of young children.

I don’t believe that his lawyers defended him as "innocent"; they defended him as "not guilty" - there is a difference. A defense lawyer’s job is to make the state prove its case, and that’s what they were trying to do. That’s the system. Maybe the system needs changing, but the point is that his lawyers didn’t break the present rules. I asked you to at least give some examples of lies they told, but you have failed to do so.

Prosecutors are also lawyers. Would you make it illegal for them to prosecute someone when they knew there was proof of the suspect’s innocence?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Location: In the desert
3,958 posts, read 2,356,482 times
Reputation: 2385
I only believe in the death penalty after every single lead is exhausted & forensics have proven beyond a doubt that the accused is guilty. People lie or are mistaken.
Any member of the bar that lies or withholds evidence to alter the outcome in their favor should be prosecuted & disbarred immediately....Defense attorney or prosecutor alike.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 07:23 AM
 
79,582 posts, read 37,564,836 times
Reputation: 16230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragnet View Post
I gave evidence to support my view; you have given none.
Of course I did. They knew he did it. He admitted he did it. If they knew he did it they knew none of the other possibilities they presented were actually possible.

Quote:
Why do you believe, and with such absolute certainty, that a) Westerfield admitted to it, and b) his lawyers knew he did it?
The plea agreement was already all but done. He was going to avoid the death penalty to tell where her body was. The prosecution doesn't go here unless they have assurances from the defense that he would provide the info. Luckily the body was found before all the T's were crossed. With that there was no need for a plea agreement.

Quote:
You’ll have to refresh my memory, but who did his lawyers claim could have done it? I can’t think of anyone, except perhaps some unnamed and unknown stranger at the bar that evening who had witnessed the behavior of Danielle’s mother and her two girlfriends.
They didn't say her mother did it but it was her actions that likely allowed it to happen. They knew that was a lie.

Quote:
The perpetrator, whether Westerfield or someone else, would not have had free access to Danielle had the side garage door of the van Dam home not been left unlocked, and had the lock on the door between the garage and the house not been reversed - both of which were because of her parents’ activities. If nothing else, this was a salutary warning to parents of young children.

I don’t believe that his lawyers defended him as "innocent"; they defended him as "not guilty" - there is a difference. A defense lawyer’s job is to make the state prove its case, and that’s what they were trying to do. That’s the system. Maybe the system needs changing, but the point is that his lawyers didn’t break the present rules. I asked you to at least give some examples of lies they told, but you have failed to do so.

Prosecutors are also lawyers. Would you make it illegal for them to prosecute someone when they knew there was proof of the suspect’s innocence?
I agree that it's the prosecutions job to prove guilt. The defense can't be allowed to present what they know to be lies to stop that from happening though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 01:13 AM
 
18 posts, read 4,964 times
Reputation: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Of course I did. They knew he did it. He admitted he did it. If they knew he did it they knew none of the other possibilities they presented were actually possible.



The plea agreement was already all but done. He was going to avoid the death penalty to tell where her body was. The prosecution doesn't go here unless they have assurances from the defense that he would provide the info. Luckily the body was found before all the T's were crossed. With that there was no need for a plea agreement.



They didn't say her mother did it but it was her actions that likely allowed it to happen. They knew that was a lie.



I agree that it's the prosecutions job to prove guilt. The defense can't be allowed to present what they know to be lies to stop that from happening though.

How do you know Westerfield admitted he did it? Did he say he admitted doing it? Did his lawyers say he admitted it? Did the prosecutor say he admitted it?

How do you know the plea agreement was already all but done? Did he say so? Did his lawyers say so? Did the prosecutor say so? Are you saying that the prosecution never offer a deal to a suspect? Danielle’s mother said she and Danielle’s father asked them to. And even after the body was found, there was still considerable incentive for the prosecution to accept a plea: for a start, it would have given them a guaranteed conviction (I have pointed out how weak their case was), it would have saved the state a considerable sum of money (over a million dollars), and would have saved Danielle’s parents considerable embarrassment (their lifestyle being made public).

I have already explained why her mother’s (and father’s) actions did allow the kidnapping to happen: the unlocked doors.


The bottom line is that, unless you can prove Westerfield admitted guilt, you can’t say that the defense lied.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 02:53 PM
 
22,284 posts, read 12,955,131 times
Reputation: 12914
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110 View Post
1. Not quite--the debate over the moral justifiability of abortion if a bit more complex than this. It's about personhood (rather than humanity--and No, the two are not the same) and about whose rights should take precedence.

2. I myself lean in opposition to abortion and oppose the death penalty except on demand/request.

3. FUBAR? Fvcked Up Beyond All Reason?

You got FUBAR right except for the last word that is "recognition" LOL

Your view I think is pretty consistent at least, you seem willing to want to error on the side of caution in both circumstances which is a position you can defend.

Myself? I think the moment a fetus is conceived it's not up to us to decide whether it's human or not. It's beyond us at that point.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 6,789,902 times
Reputation: 8318
Capital punishment should be carried out within 30 days to avoid the decades convicts spend on death row waiting for their day - if anyone in the state penal system has the cajones to actually follow through.
It's anti-PC to execute one for murdering a building full of people in the eyes of too many. It must be far better to pay for their room and board for the remainder of their lives and provide medical care - Obamacare? - to prolong their lives and time on death row.

The irony is stifling.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top