-
DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
Pair who plied two 14-year-old girls with alcohol and amphetamines before engaging in
- Thread starter Jabberwocky
- Start date
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 14,705
Probably. But it's still not certain. There are certain cases of wrongful execution, just none that I know of in the US. Like I said, there are close calls and probablys, but no absolute certainties. Which is important because it's the certainties that inspire change not the probablys.
You don't have to have faith in the judicial system. But I'd like to again point out that some of your examples had nothing to do with the judicial system. Namely the cops shooting that guy.
My point was that I think the judicial system is the least corrupt of the three branches and usually get it right.
As appalling and unacceptable a mistake as even a plausible wrongful execution is. Given how many cases they deal with every year even that isn't enough for me to say I have no faith in it.
It's for this reason I think we should do away with the death penalty. And I never disagreed that they sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes very wrong. But my point was always simply that I think they get it right more than enough of the time for me to not make assumptions.
Theres lots of things in government I consider so corrupt and incompetent that I'll have little faith in it even with little evidence. All I'm saying is why I consider the judicial branch somewhat of an exception.
My biggest problem with the American judicial system is that I don't think such positions like a DA should be elected positions. I think it promotes corruption by making such positions political and causing the people in them to behave like politicians. Much of the problems we have including the ones we are right now discussion come from this sort of thing. And it's why they can be so stubborn to accept their mistakes.
You don't have to have faith in the judicial system. But I'd like to again point out that some of your examples had nothing to do with the judicial system. Namely the cops shooting that guy.
My point was that I think the judicial system is the least corrupt of the three branches and usually get it right.
As appalling and unacceptable a mistake as even a plausible wrongful execution is. Given how many cases they deal with every year even that isn't enough for me to say I have no faith in it.
It's for this reason I think we should do away with the death penalty. And I never disagreed that they sometimes get it wrong. Sometimes very wrong. But my point was always simply that I think they get it right more than enough of the time for me to not make assumptions.
Theres lots of things in government I consider so corrupt and incompetent that I'll have little faith in it even with little evidence. All I'm saying is why I consider the judicial branch somewhat of an exception.
My biggest problem with the American judicial system is that I don't think such positions like a DA should be elected positions. I think it promotes corruption by making such positions political and causing the people in them to behave like politicians. Much of the problems we have including the ones we are right now discussion come from this sort of thing. And it's why they can be so stubborn to accept their mistakes.
Tubbs
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2017
- Messages
- 9,406
I can accept your point, it is the lesser evil. My personal experiences along with that of others makes it hard for me to trust them. But I also live in a very corrupt place, I'm sure other places are better off in this regard.
I accept your views and actually tend to agree with you on a Lot of issues, I don't truly disagree with you on this. I'm lucky to live in an area where the death penalty is outlawed.
I accept your views and actually tend to agree with you on a Lot of issues, I don't truly disagree with you on this. I'm lucky to live in an area where the death penalty is outlawed.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 14,705
I appreciate that. And I understand corruption exists. I've been rereading my earlier posts. I said that I hadn't seen any cases of absolute corruption. I'm not sure what was going through my head when I wrote that cause it's probably not true. Depending a bit on your definition of corruption. I have seen cases where the evidence the convicted person was innocent was overwhelming and those involved conspired to keep the person incarcerated rather than admit the mistake. Which I would certainly call corrupt.
Thing is I used to support the death penalty. I still do believe some peoples crimes are so bad that they deserve to be out to death for it. But over time I've seen too many close calls and near misses and, as you pointed out, cases where we don't know for sure but it's entirely plausible. So some time ago I changed my mind and decided that at the very least I can't support capital punishment while the system is the way it is.
To support it now, at the very least I would want a new burden or proof. Currently the highest is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Which requires that a reasonable person wouldn't doubt that it is the truth.
If nothing else I'd want an additional higher standard of proof before the death penalty could be used. Perhaps something like like proof beyond conceivable doubt. Where no reasonable person could conceive of a way the defendant could be innocent.
Today with forensics and DNA such a standard is probably possible. But for now I don't accept that out standards are sufficient to be able to justify capital punishment. The stakes are too high and the standards too low. I'm not entirely happy about such standards being used for life in prison either but at least there is the possibility for that to be discovered and some kind of compensation offered where a mistake has been made.
It's still not good enough, not really. But it's a lot better than after they're dead
One of the reasons I'm interested if we have ever definitely without any doubt put an innocent person to death is because I kinda feel like the day that happens will be a day when one little additional piece of the countries innocence will die with it.
I know that's a strange thing to say what with all the horrible mistakes we've already made, but at least for now there's perhaps at least a slim chance that executing an innocent person isn't one of them. There are other countries that have. As I recall the UK is one.
Unfortunately it'll probably be that day that the death penalty dies with it. Hence why I said probablys don't cause change, only definitelys.
.
Its always the fucking way. We never take action until it's too late. Positive change is always born from someone's death. We never do what we clearly should have done before it's too late.
Thing is I used to support the death penalty. I still do believe some peoples crimes are so bad that they deserve to be out to death for it. But over time I've seen too many close calls and near misses and, as you pointed out, cases where we don't know for sure but it's entirely plausible. So some time ago I changed my mind and decided that at the very least I can't support capital punishment while the system is the way it is.
To support it now, at the very least I would want a new burden or proof. Currently the highest is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Which requires that a reasonable person wouldn't doubt that it is the truth.
If nothing else I'd want an additional higher standard of proof before the death penalty could be used. Perhaps something like like proof beyond conceivable doubt. Where no reasonable person could conceive of a way the defendant could be innocent.
Today with forensics and DNA such a standard is probably possible. But for now I don't accept that out standards are sufficient to be able to justify capital punishment. The stakes are too high and the standards too low. I'm not entirely happy about such standards being used for life in prison either but at least there is the possibility for that to be discovered and some kind of compensation offered where a mistake has been made.
It's still not good enough, not really. But it's a lot better than after they're dead
One of the reasons I'm interested if we have ever definitely without any doubt put an innocent person to death is because I kinda feel like the day that happens will be a day when one little additional piece of the countries innocence will die with it.
I know that's a strange thing to say what with all the horrible mistakes we've already made, but at least for now there's perhaps at least a slim chance that executing an innocent person isn't one of them. There are other countries that have. As I recall the UK is one.
Unfortunately it'll probably be that day that the death penalty dies with it. Hence why I said probablys don't cause change, only definitelys.
.
Its always the fucking way. We never take action until it's too late. Positive change is always born from someone's death. We never do what we clearly should have done before it's too late.
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 19,591
14 yo girls lie to their parents all the time. Where exactly was the friends sister who lived there during this? How did the 2 blokes just happen to turn up there with alcohol and drugs?
Surely an older sibling would be more willing to keep their younger sisters 14yo friends away from creeps.
Somethings a little off here.
Surely an older sibling would be more willing to keep their younger sisters 14yo friends away from creeps.
Somethings a little off here.
Runningfox
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2017
- Messages
- 697
In America the law is that Regardless of age, Consent does not exist if the "victim " (they are only a victim if they complain or press charges , states the law) is under the influence of any Substance which affects decision making, lowers inhibition or can cause intoxication
So theoretically anyone who has sexual contact w anyone who is intoxicated, had better have Full Trust that they won't be accused of misconduct at a later date.
And here though I believe it may vary slightly state by state, Consent simply can't be given by a minor. Regardless of substance use.
zephyr
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 30, 2005
- Messages
- 19,591
Yeah but theres nothing about how there was the connection befween the girls and those guys in the first place. Aquaintances of the older sister of a friend of theirs?
Its written like it was a full on party but its more like just those girls and they were just being idiots in swimmers with a few drinks. Where was the older girl? Was she even there?
The guys should have been jailed for sure but surely the tenant should have had an eye on the girls or theres something been covered up like her own involvement
Its written like it was a full on party but its more like just those girls and they were just being idiots in swimmers with a few drinks. Where was the older girl? Was she even there?
The guys should have been jailed for sure but surely the tenant should have had an eye on the girls or theres something been covered up like her own involvement