The Death Penalty

[Devon Lake]

what the fuck?

*Sigh* When you hold a trial, you need to hold it FOR something. Thus, someone is charged with a crime and the trial is used to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if that person committed the crime they were charged with or not. Now, people are going to have to be charged with crimes they didn’t commit, because before the trial you’re not sure whether the person has committed the crime or not (Thus the point of a trial.) and you can’t discriminate and only charge guilty people.

hence the ankle braclet or at least holding them somewhere other than in jail

And how is this ankle bracelet supposed to work if I cut my foot off as I said? They going to track down my lobbed off appendage and put that on trial? Between the punishment for murder and adjusting to a prosthetic foot, I’d have to pick the foot. As for being held somewhere else, generally people will consider anywhere they’re being held jail. Hotels are nice, but I wouldn’t want to be forced to stay in one over the course of a lengthy trial; I mean jumping on the bed, watching TV, using the pool, those will only hold you so long. That’s why jury duty sucks you see. If being in a prison during a trial is to much for you, chances are even if you’re in an Arabian pleasure palace straight out of 1001 Nights you’re still going to be miffed about having your freedom of mobility and such taken away.

i was talking about little things that don't warrant a huge investigation like speeding and the like

I see, so on a discussion regarding crimes serious enough for some people to call for capitol punishment you decided to bring up such piddly offences as speeding tickets, not tell anyone, and expect us all to know what you’re talking about? Sounds to me like you’ve merely stumbled into the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. In any case, it would cost a shit load of money if every speeder we wanted to catch needed to be caught on tape; too much considering that traffic tickets are rarely challenged in court.

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

First of all, that’s hardly being caught red handed. Second of all, DNA would only ever be circumstantial evidence in most cases. Third, not everyone’s DNA is on file. Fourth, most given crime scenes would be contaminated by the DNA of people entirely unrelated to the incident because the funny thing is that people are everywhere. Fifth, if people charged with serious crimes are held in jail, they may very well go about destroying the actually damning evidence. Seventh, what does finding a few of my dead skin cells and hairs on a corpse really prove? Eighth, if I’m found standing over a butchered corpse with blood everywhere and that’s not enough for me to be charged with anything, what the hell good is DNA evidence going to do? Ninth, a moment ago you were just saying that all crimes should be caught on police video recorders as indisputable proof, so again you’ve committed the “No True Scotsman fallacy”.

You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the “lot of work” you’re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion.

[/quote] if they can't give things back they can be forced to work for it and the proceeds go to the person they robbed[/quote]

As I said, most robbers aren’t materially well off; in many cases, they’re probably unemployed. If you force them to pay up for their crimes, you know what they’re going to do? Steal some more! You could give the person a job, but considering all the law abiding people out of work, it’s a tad unfair to be giving our jobs out to the robbers. Sure, robbers are often made to pay back their victims in addition to fines and jail, but in a lot of cases it’s just not feasible.

[/quote] it wouldn't be rape if they took pleasure in it, there a drastic measures you can go to so as to ensure they wouldn't, but i'd be breaking the rules to explain them[/quote]

Well ya, that’s the point, you couldn’t rape them back because anything you could give them wouldn’t bring rape. Say you just picked up a victim impact statement and tired to inflict that back on the criminal. If some teenage girl has suffered the indignity of having her virginity stolen from her, been brutally raped and psychologically scared for life by a big horrible brute, how do you pay that back? I don’t think a pain like that could be compared to any physical pain, and how can you inflict shame on someone who gets their jollies from rape? What are you going to do, have an animal rape them? First of all, again I’ll bet some rapists would enjoy it, and second of all that would be punishing the animal. Go medieval on their anus? Physical torture really isn’t rape.

would you honestly rather go to jail? hell if i were caught doing something like that and had to give up a coat or face jail time i'd give up the damn coat

Holy crap, are you even listening to what I’m saying? That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer, not the shop lifter. I wasn’t concerned with the loss of the robber, I was concerned with the horrible loss of the shopkeeper in implementing your eye for an eye policy.

i was talking about burglery, not petty theft

In that case it’s an even worse idea. You think a burglar having a bit of his shit stolen is really going to deter him? For that to be any sort of loss, he’d have to be caught more than half the time.

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

*Sigh* When you hold a trial, you need to hold it FOR something. Thus, someone is charged with a crime and the trial is used to determine beyond a reasonable doubt if that person committed the crime they were charged with or not. Now, people are going to have to be charged with crimes they didn’t commit, because before the trial you’re not sure whether the person has committed the crime or not (Thus the point of a trial.) and you can’t discriminate and only charge guilty people.

so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

And how is this ankle bracelet supposed to work if I cut my foot off as I said? They going to track down my lobbed off appendage and put that on trial? Between the punishment for murder and adjusting to a prosthetic foot, I’d have to pick the foot. As for being held somewhere else, generally people will consider anywhere they’re being held jail. Hotels are nice, but I wouldn’t want to be forced to stay in one over the course of a lengthy trial; I mean jumping on the bed, watching TV, using the pool, those will only hold you so long. That’s why jury duty sucks you see. If being in a prison during a trial is to much for you, chances are even if you’re in an Arabian pleasure palace straight out of 1001 Nights you’re still going to be miffed about having your freedom of mobility and such taken away.

no but if you did that then holding you in jail would be reasonable since you commited a crime in doing so. also is it just me or shouldn't you cut off the ankle braclet instead of you're foot?

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I see, so on a discussion regarding crimes serious enough for some people to call for capitol punishment you decided to bring up such piddly offences as speeding tickets, not tell anyone, and expect us all to know what you’re talking about? Sounds to me like you’ve merely stumbled into the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy. In any case, it would cost a shit load of money if every speeder we wanted to catch needed to be caught on tape; too much considering that traffic tickets are rarely challenged in court.

i had to cover all my bases so someone wouldn't say, "yeah well how are we going to enforce speed limit laws then?" didn't i?

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Second of all, DNA would only ever be circumstantial evidence in most cases. Third, not everyone’s DNA is on file.

second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. combined with other forensic evidence it wouldn't be circumstantial. third by the time their on trail you would have to take their DNA

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Fourth, most given crime scenes would be contaminated by the DNA of people entirely unrelated to the incident because the funny thing is that people are everywhere.

DNA doesn't contaminate anything, and it doesn't erase other DNA. it's just more for detectives to wade through, nothing else

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Fifth, if people charged with serious crimes are held in jail, they may very well go about destroying the actually damning evidence.

okay like said before you can't completely destroy evidence but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Seventh, what does finding a few of my dead skin cells and hairs on a corpse really prove?

that you were either in physical contact with or standing over the person at some point, but forensics is more than just DNA

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the “lot of work” you’re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion.

okay once again:

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

microscopic peaces of your clothing(containing oil from your skin, thus dna evidence) and skin wither and fall to the ground constantly. it's one of many reasons your clothes deterriorate over time. everything you do has a very minute influence on the invirnment around it. you just can't completelycover it up

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

As I said, most robbers aren’t materially well off; in many cases, they’re probably unemployed. If you force them to pay up for their crimes, you know what they’re going to do? Steal some more! You could give the person a job, but considering all the law abiding people out of work, it’s a tad unfair to be giving our jobs out to the robbers. Sure, robbers are often made to pay back their victims in addition to fines and jail, but in a lot of cases it’s just not feasible.

if they won't stop and you can't correct them because they just steal more to make up their loss then prison time is more than ok. but i'd much rather give them a chance first and only resort to locking them up when they decide never to learn from their mistakes

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Go medieval on their anus? Physical torture really isn’t rape.

on the contrary rape is considered by many to be a form of physical torture

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Holy crap, are you even listening to what I’m saying? That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer, not the shop lifter. I wasn’t concerned with the loss of the robber, I was concerned with the horrible loss of the shopkeeper in implementing your eye for an eye policy.

so what do you do? take 30 cents from someone who stole a $140 coat, put that person in jail? either way i see that as wrong when, the 30 cent thing being obvious as to why. but why lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings. and if he can't he cn do commutiy service until it's paid off

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

In that case it’s an even worse idea. You think a burglar having a bit of his shit stolen is really going to deter him? For that to be any sort of loss, he’d have to be caught more than half the time.

let's put it this way, every time he' caught he has to give back what he stole and then he has to invite people into his house to steal everything from it. so id he does it again he'll lose all his belongings again. not point in stealing if he can't keep anything, even if it is less than half he time he's caught he won't keep any of it, because those times that he is caught he loses it all

[Raerlynn]

Let me throw my hat in this ring by saying:

I approve the death penalty. Simple and clean. We need to come up with a more...practical...method of performing it. That being said, as far as eye for an eye, bah. Penalties need to simply be a bit more severe than being socially ostracized for a period of time. An old Arabian penalty for theft was the loss of a hand. I think that would be a deterrent to prevent thieves.

[FunnyLooking]

<An old Arabian penalty for theft was the loss of a hand. I think that would be a deterrent to prevent thieves.>

It sure would, but it's an incentive for crime (can't get jobs), cruel and unusual, a permanent disfigurement (if they better themselves it doesn't matter), and doesn't solve nearly anything.

<hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible.>

Did you not read my post before? It's NOT possible because there is always a possibility that either: something human went wrong, magic happened, or the circumstances happened in a certain way. Practicality states that 100% ignores very small possibilities. Just because something is incredibly unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. That's why we use Reasonable Doubt.

According to 100%, declaring yourself guilty isn't enough proof.

Or what about cases that are just tough to call? If I try to wrestle a gun away from person A so they don't kill person B, but end up doing it anyway. There is no way to know 100% who was trying to kill who.

<second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime>

So, if you happen to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime, that's 100%? That's not even close.

<so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?>

She's suggesting that we DON'T know beforehand (because you CAN'T know beforehand) and accuse people to find out if they did do it. You're suggesting we know beforehand, then accuse them, THEN convict them.

[Devon Lake]

so you're saying we have to know beforehand and charge alittle of both?

I wish I could just say “no” and then quote myself and say, “That’s what I said”. Yet, that would be lazy. I said that beforehand we only need reasonable and probably grounds, in other words, a logical belief that this person may have committed a given crime. That’s what you need to make a charge. Determining certainty of whether a person has committed a crime comes out at trial, but, the person is still innocent until proven guilty.

no but if you did that then holding you in jail would be reasonable since you commited a crime in doing so. also is it just me or shouldn't you cut off the ankle braclet instead of you're foot?

Again, how would they find the guy if he doesn’t have the ankle bracelet on?

i had to cover all my bases so someone wouldn't say, "yeah well how are we going to enforce speed limit laws then?" didn't i?

I see, and it was our duty to infer with our psychic powers that you were talking about traffic crime and nothing on topic?

second, forensics isn't just DNA and they can determine how old the (skin tissue, blood, whatever) is to place you at the scene of the crime at the time of the crime. combined with other forensic evidence it wouldn't be circumstantial. third by the time their on trail you would have to take their DNA

Skin and blood and sweat are just the raw materials used to gather DNA. Blood type and that sort of thing can only show that half the population didn’t commit the crime or something. As for bullet wound analysis and look and splatter and that sort of thing, that more gives you an idea of HOW the crime was committed, which is useful to know, but it’s not usually going to pinpoint the killer. In any case, there is no way to get a date from dead flakes of skin. A dead flake of skin is a wad of decomposing proteins, not a Swiss timepiece. And DNA only proves who the DNA came from, other forensic evidence won’t help it prove much more than that.

DNA doesn't contaminate anything, and it doesn't erase other DNA. it's just more for detectives to wade through, nothing else

Ok, fun fact time! That little ever so thin (If you’re not a slob) layer of grey crap in your house, the stuff we all know and love as dust, is actually composed mostly of dead human skin cells with a bit of bug poop. You’d die of old age before you sifted through all the microscopic flakes of it on a single high shelf. I suppose you could try people for things six generations after they’ve happened, but they’d already be dead, and nothing productive would come of it. In any case, how are they supposed to conclude, from all the individual samples of DNA, whose the killer? If you find the DNA of 100 different people at a murder scene, that just gives you 100 different suspects, and that’s a whole lot to go through. That’s why contamination is bad.

okay like said before you can't completely destroy evidence but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

I see. So me getting a chance to burn bloodied clothes and bury bodies mean nothing to you? You can’t undo a chemical change; fire could solve a good lot of your evidence woes. In any case, a lot of damning evidence isn’t at the scene of the crimes. Say one were to make a video of their brutal rape and bring it home. Such tapes are pretty damning evidence, as was the case with Paul Bernardo, and fuck if I’m going to see Bernardo go free because people thought staying in jail when he’s accused of being a serial killer/rapist would be overkill.

that you were either in physical contact with or standing over the person at some point, but forensics is more than just DNA

Contact and looming over some guy aren’t evidence of murder. Furthermore, forensics still won’t help in a lot of cases. It can show I was around, it can show how the crime was committed, but there’s not a whole lot there that can be used to establish much guilt. Again, if I just shoot you and file the gun barrel or burn it and swim out into the sea at a portion of the coast in the middle of nowhere and dive down and bury it under a rock and a lot of sand, how are you going to prove 100% that I did anything?

okay once again.

You obviously didn’t read what Funny Looking said, so I’ll paraphrase it somehow. Even if someone were caught on tape committing a rape, peed on the carpet afterwards, and cut off all his victims hair for a trophy which was later captured by police, and a vaginal swab was taken of the victim, that wouldn’t be “100%” proof. I mean, he didn’t do it! It was his long lost twin brother who erased and evidence of ever existing! Or wait, someone set him up; it was really a women with a strap on dressed as him that did the rape who happened to be a the Physician at the local Sperm Bank and managed to force masturbate the accused and sneak the goo into the victom afterwards! The urine was also planted, and so was the victims hair. So there you go, you can never prove anything beyond all doubt, no matter how hard you try and how fantastic the forensics.

[quote] Quote:

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac
hence it IS possible. it would require a lot of work, but it's possible. about the only thing they can't prove is how many breaths you took, and for all i know they just may be able to prove that as well. forensic science is extremly advanced and can in fact prove anything given the time

Quote:
[\quote]

Ugh, I don’t think that saying “Okay once again” and posting the VERY PARAGRAPH I WAS RESPONDING TO is much of an argument. Let me simplify what you just did.

You: X is true!
Me: No, your argument has flaws Y, Z.
You: Oh ya, well X is true!

Not much of a defense is it?

if they won't stop and you can't correct them because they just steal more to make up their loss then prison time is more than ok. but i'd much rather give them a chance first and only resort to locking them up when they decide never to learn from their mistakes

They already had the chance when they decided to be a criminal in the first place. In any case, I doubt a lot of robbers could pay the fines anyway, so you’d really just be making their probably already situation, the cause of their crime, even worse.

on the contrary rape is considered by many to be a form of physical torture

Oh sure it’s physical torture, but the physical pain of being porked alone really isn’t why rape is despicable. Chances are your average beating would be more painful physically. Rape is despicable and hated because it’s emotional torture, because it causes shame and an emotional scare of abuse that can never go away. I’d like to see you find a method to repay that.

[quote] so what do you do? take 30 cents from someone who stole a $140 coat, put that person in jail? either way i see that as wrong when, the 30 cent thing being obvious as to why. but why lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings. and if he can't he cn do commutiy service until it's paid off[quote]

I have no idea where you got the thirty cents thing from. It sounds to me like you’re arguing against things I never even said. The reason why we “lock someone up when you can just tell him to give back what he stole plus the equivilant of his own belongings” is because as I illustrated in that very paragraph you obviously didn’t read, AGAIN, it would be entirely unfeasible because the shopkeepers could never recoup how much they’d loose from people who got away, and shop keeping would still be profitable to criminals. Hell, the criminal would make more money for the coat than the retailer because he wouldn’t have to pay the wholesale fee. The shop lifter caught as a whole should have to pay enough to make up for all the losses of the shopkeeper plus 25% for inconveniences, and another fee towards the state to pay for all legal costs of prosecuting them with another 25% inconvenience fee.

let's put it this way, every time he' caught he has to give back what he stole and then he has to invite people into his house to steal everything from it. so id he does it again he'll lose all his belongings again. not point in stealing if he can't keep anything, even if it is less than half he time he's caught he won't keep any of it, because those times that he is caught he loses it all

Won’t help if he sells the stuff he steals to pay for crack and whores. Besides, what if the guy realizes he’ll be convicted and smashes all his good shit up to piss off his victims? The fact that victims are stealing from their burglars also means that many families will be compensated far better than others. An affluent family that had all it’s best stuff stolen might end up only being compensated by some losers slimy porn rags, a soiled mattress, a light bulb and a pile of garbage while a family that had much less nice stuff stolen gets to steal from some eccentric billionaire’s palace. I must admit though, I sort of like this plan now sheerly for the comic novelty of it; you’d get people trying to trick other people into robbing their house so that they could rob THEIR house. That’d make a great cartoon… Are you going to use that gag, because if not it’s mine!

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I wish I could just say “no” and then quote myself and say, “That’s what I said”. Yet, that would be lazy. I said that beforehand we only need reasonable and probably grounds, in other words, a logical belief that this person may have committed a given crime. That’s what you need to make a charge. Determining certainty of whether a person has committed a crime comes out at trial, but, the person is still innocent until proven guilty.

for search warrants yes, not for throwing someone in the slammer

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Again, how would they find the guy if he doesn’t have the ankle bracelet on?

how did they find him in the first place? there's a reason it's called the long arm of the law

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I see, and it was our duty to infer with our psychic powers that you were talking about traffic crime and nothing on topic?

well i wouldn't possibly expect murder to be caught like that as such so it's not much of a stretch

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Skin and blood and sweat are just the raw materials used to gather DNA. Blood type and that sort of thing can only show that half the population didn’t commit the crime or something. As for bullet wound analysis and look and splatter and that sort of thing, that more gives you an idea of HOW the crime was committed, which is useful to know, but it’s not usually going to pinpoint the killer. In any case, there is no way to get a date from dead flakes of skin. A dead flake of skin is a wad of decomposing proteins, not a Swiss timepiece. And DNA only proves who the DNA came from, other forensic evidence won’t help it prove much more than that.

like everything it deteriorates over time(or rather decays is more like it), they can determine the time by how much decay it has

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Ok, fun fact time! That little ever so thin (If you’re not a slob) layer of grey crap in your house, the stuff we all know and love as dust, is actually composed mostly of dead human skin cells with a bit of bug poop. You’d die of old age before you sifted through all the microscopic flakes of it on a single high shelf. I suppose you could try people for things six generations after they’ve happened, but they’d already be dead, and nothing productive would come of it. In any case, how are they supposed to conclude, from all the individual samples of DNA, whose the killer? If you find the DNA of 100 different people at a murder scene, that just gives you 100 different suspects, and that’s a whole lot to go through. That’s why contamination is bad.

no it's much more effecient than that. they basically gather a bunch and use a computer to sift through, maybe not so much 10 years ago but today they can certainly do it

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I see. So me getting a chance to burn bloodied clothes and bury bodies mean nothing to you? You can’t undo a chemical change; fire could solve a good lot of your evidence woes. In any case, a lot of damning evidence isn’t at the scene of the crimes. Say one were to make a video of their brutal rape and bring it home. Such tapes are pretty damning evidence, as was the case with Paul Bernardo, and fuck if I’m going to see Bernardo go free because people thought staying in jail when he’s accused of being a serial killer/rapist would be overkill.

Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac

but scenes crime scenes are investigated directly after the crime happens it's pretty irrelevant if they do go back and try to dispose of it since the police would have already seen whatever evidence their going to destroy anyway

go ahead, try and dispose of evidence that's already in the hands of the cops

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Contact and looming over some guy aren’t evidence of murder. Furthermore, forensics still won’t help in a lot of cases. It can show I was around, it can show how the crime was committed, but there’s not a whole lot there that can be used to establish much guilt. Again, if I just shoot you and file the gun barrel or burn it and swim out into the sea at a portion of the coast in the middle of nowhere and dive down and bury it under a rock and a lot of sand, how are you going to prove 100% that I did anything?

with forensic science of course done at the scene of the crime, as explained already

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

You obviously didn’t read what Funny Looking said, so I’ll paraphrase it somehow. Even if someone were caught on tape committing a rape, peed on the carpet afterwards, and cut off all his victims hair for a trophy which was later captured by police, and a vaginal swab was taken of the victim, that wouldn’t be “100%” proof. I mean, he didn’t do it! It was his long lost twin brother who erased and evidence of ever existing! Or wait, someone set him up; it was really a women with a strap on dressed as him that did the rape who happened to be a the Physician at the local Sperm Bank and managed to force masturbate the accused and sneak the goo into the victom afterwards! The urine was also planted, and so was the victims hair. So there you go, you can never prove anything beyond all doubt, no matter how hard you try and how fantastic the forensics.

and somehow spread out that "dust"(mentioned about) that at the scene of the crime? even though the forensics disprove it? the indenticle twin thing twin thing does make it rough, but there are ways around it(type of clothing fragment, dead skin from scars the other doesn't have, etc.)

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Ugh, I don’t think that saying “Okay once again” and posting the VERY PARAGRAPH I WAS RESPONDING TO is much of an argument. Let me simplify what you just did.

You: X is true!
Me: No, your argument has flaws Y, Z.
You: Oh ya, well X is true!

Not much of a defense is it?.

okay how exactly is saying:

"You can have all the evidence in the world (As Funny Looking pointed out.) and it could still never prove 100% that you committed a given crime. Besides that, the “lot of work” you’re talking about is what makes it unfeasible because it would require so much work as for society to collapse under the exertion."

saying no it has flaws Y and Z? i stated that it's very advanced(hence efficient and AND can prove everything needed) and you denied it

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

They already had the chance when they decided to be a criminal in the first place. In any case, I doubt a lot of robbers could pay the fines anyway, so you’d really just be making their probably already situation, the cause of their crime, even worse

if they steal enough that they can't work for it then prison time is appropriat. but if they can work for it it's an excellent alternative

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Oh sure it’s physical torture, but the physical pain of being porked alone really isn’t why rape is despicable. Chances are your average beating would be more painful physically. Rape is despicable and hated because it’s emotional torture, because it causes shame and an emotional scare of abuse that can never go away. I’d like to see you find a method to repay that.

i can only imagine a drill in that manner would cause extreme emotional torture

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

I have no idea where you got the thirty cents thing from. It sounds to me like you’re arguing against things I never even said.

actually you did say it:

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

That entire paragraph was from the point of view of the retailer

so it sounded like you're saying we should take the theif's equivelant of the coat

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

AGAIN, it would be entirely unfeasible because the shopkeepers could never recoup how much they’d loose from people who got away, and shop keeping would still be profitable to criminals. Hell, the criminal would make more money for the coat than the retailer because he wouldn’t have to pay the wholesale fee. The shop lifter caught as a whole should have to pay enough to make up for all the losses of the shopkeeper plus 25% for inconveniences, and another fee towards the state to pay for all legal costs of prosecuting them with another 25% inconvenience fee.

that's not far from what i'm saying should happen anyway, i fail to see a real point in that

Originally Posted by Devon Lake

Won’t help if he sells the stuff he steals to pay for crack and whores. Besides, what if the guy realizes he’ll be convicted and smashes all his good shit up to piss off his victims? The fact that victims are stealing from their burglars also means that many families will be compensated far better than others. An affluent family that had all it’s best stuff stolen might end up only being compensated by some losers slimy porn rags, a soiled mattress, a light bulb and a pile of garbage while a family that had much less nice stuff stolen gets to steal from some eccentric billionaire’s palace. I must admit though, I sort of like this plan now sheerly for the comic novelty of it; you’d get people trying to trick other people into robbing their house so that they could rob THEIR house. That’d make a great cartoon… Are you going to use that gag, because if not it’s mine!

well obviously he's not complying if he's doing that, in which case locking him up would be okay

[Krylo]

Alright... I'm sick of watching you two butt heads with neither making headway, so I'm going to try and explain this.

Anarchy: You can NOT prove anything 100% Forensic scientists are not robots. They make mistakes. DNA degradation/decay is not an exact science. Depending on situations it may decay far faster or far slower than normal, and all it proves either way is that you were there. Bits of fiber from your clothing also only proves that you touched the victim, not that you drove a knife into him. There's a reason that there aren't many convictions without either eye witnesses or a murder weapon... if they don't find the murder weapon with the killer's DNA/Fingerprints etc. on it, everything they find at the crime scene is circumstantial. Just because someone was there when a person died doesn't mean that they killed them. Or they'd have to find the victim's blood on the clothing of the person who killed them... which the killer, if he's smart, would just burn. ALSO the cops NEVER get to a crime scene as soon as the crime happens, and the killer is there WHILE the crime is happening. If I were to kill someone, and then torch the room before leaving, it's pretty safe to assume I'd be destroying the evidence before the cops could get there unless they're psychic and have super powers.

That's flaw Y in your arguement.

Now besides all that, let's say you COULD prove something 100% (which you can't as seen above, but just for arguement's sake). The amount of time it would take to sift through evidence, and you'd be leaving the killer out on the run would be ridiculous. In the time that you're investigating one murder s/he would kill 2 or 3 other people. And that's assuming you pump a lot of money into forsenics labs, which would, as Devon said, cause a huge drain which would make all sorts of problems for the economy. Not every police station has access to good forensics technology (most don't actually), and there's a reason for that. That reason being that they can't afford it because the money to buy that, and keep the education system running, and keep road work going, and keep the sewers working, and make sure there are police offers to use it, just doesn't exist.

That's flaw Z.

There... now if Anarchy STILL doesn't understand the logical fallacies in his arguement, I suggest we stop trying to convince him otherwise. It's going nowhere.

[FunnyLooking]

<saying no it has flaws Y and Z? i stated that it's very advanced(hence efficient and AND can prove everything needed) and you denied it>

This is where I just get the feeling you're ignoring me. Not to mention youi just said "Everything needed" and because 100% means we need everything, are you saying they can prove everything related? The point was that there's at least a glimmer of chance that something else happened, no matter what the case is. The chances are totally unreasonable however, which is why we use REASONABLE doubt. If there was NO doubt, then you have to cover completely unreasonable possibilities.

What if a person was convinced he did a crime he didn't? He pleads guilty when he actually isn't. That means pleading guilty can't prove 100%.

<go ahead, try and dispose of evidence that's already in the hands of the cops>

They destroy the evidence AT the scene of the crime, obviously, during the crime. I mean, if the cops are standing right there at the crime, that's plausible, but crimes aren't committed in plain view of the cops.

<no it's much more effecient than that. they basically gather a bunch and use a computer to sift through, maybe not so much 10 years ago but today they can certainly do it>

You seem to put pretty much all your reliance on Forensics. While admittedly I don't know the details, explain to me if we could prove people were guilty 100% then why don't we do it? I mean, let's be realistic here. If someone killed a guy, we'd try to get forensics to prove him guilty. Yet guilty people still go free, and innocents still get punished. If we could declare guilt without a trial, I'm sure we would do it, but we can't.




Ahhh geez... Krylo goes and posts a better argument. No fair...

Hey, too make this a better discussion (it's already a damned good one for the most part by the way) could you guys start possibley posting articles that referance the sciency stuff you are saying? It would be helpful. Also, to remain semi-on topic, I more or less agree with the death penelty. Though some minor changes would be nice.

[Mashirosen]

(Slightly O/T: for those interested in the facts about forensic science, including the terrible fragility of forensic evidence, I really recommend Death's Acre by William M. Bass, the forensic anthropologist who founded the Body Farm. It's definitely not for the squeamish, but it's fascinating stuff if you can handle it. I can't but I read it anyway.)