You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 06:48:32 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?  (Read 2675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #100 on: July 04, 2014, 05:27:17 PM »
Yeah, guys... please be civil.

Also, remember that being uncivil can get you banned. You don't want to be banned, believe me.  :-(

Offline consortium11

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #101 on: July 04, 2014, 05:42:50 PM »
I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to kill innocents. You'd rather kill a dozen innocents, then not kill one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to imprison innocents. You'd rather imprison a dozen innocents, then not imprison one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.

And yes, I know... imprisonment is reversible, the death penalty is not. Although it sort of isn't. Yes, someone later found innocent can be released from prison... but they don't get their years behind bars back. We recently saw the death of Gerry Conlon, infamously wrongly convicted as part of the Guildford Four. Is spending 14 years in prison, then since release suffering two nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and becoming addicted to drink and drugs "reversible" even with a 500,000 compensation payment?

If we're going to take the "innocent people may be sentenced to capital punishment, therefore the death penalty is wrong" line then surely the exact same line must be taken to all custodial punishments as well? Yes, dying may be worse than spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit... but spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit isn't exactly OK is it? I'd say it's still pretty damn wrong. To not take that approach actually strikes me as pretty offensive... we can't have capital punishment because it may (and quite likely will) lead to innocent people being subjected to it but we should keep custodial sentences even though innocent people may (and almost certainly will) be subjected to it. Why is the line drawn at death and not imprisonment? Or at least imprisonment for say life? Or 20 years+? Or 10 years+? Whatever was done to try to rectify Gerry Conlon's situation once he was released, nothing can give him back 14 years of his life. To act as if custodial sentences are reversible and thus it's sort of OK to have them strikes me as exceptionally trite if you're using that line of attack against the death penalty.

None of that should be taken as a defence of capital punishment. I'm against it. But the "there's no certainty, thus you'd be willing to harm innocents" argument doesn't hold up unless one is also willing to drop pretty much all custodial (or at least serious custodial) sentences as well.

Offline Zakharra

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #102 on: July 04, 2014, 06:05:55 PM »
I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to imprison innocents. You'd rather imprison a dozen innocents, then not imprison one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.

And yes, I know... imprisonment is reversible, the death penalty is not. Although it sort of isn't. Yes, someone later found innocent can be released from prison... but they don't get their years behind bars back. We recently saw the death of Gerry Conlon, infamously wrongly convicted as part of the Guildford Four. Is spending 14 years in prison, then since release suffering two nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and becoming addicted to drink and drugs "reversible" even with a 500,000 compensation payment?

If we're going to take the "innocent people may be sentenced to capital punishment, therefore the death penalty is wrong" line then surely the exact same line must be taken to all custodial punishments as well? Yes, dying may be worse than spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit... but spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit isn't exactly OK is it? I'd say it's still pretty damn wrong. To not take that approach actually strikes me as pretty offensive... we can't have capital punishment because it may (and quite likely will) lead to innocent people being subjected to it but we should keep custodial sentences even though innocent people may (and almost certainly will) be subjected to it. Why is the line drawn at death and not imprisonment? Or at least imprisonment for say life? Or 20 years+? Or 10 years+? Whatever was done to try to rectify Gerry Conlon's situation once he was released, nothing can give him back 14 years of his life. To act as if custodial sentences are reversible and thus it's sort of OK to have them strikes me as exceptionally trite if you're using that line of attack against the death penalty.

None of that should be taken as a defence of capital punishment. I'm against it. But the "there's no certainty, thus you'd be willing to harm innocents" argument doesn't hold up unless one is also willing to drop pretty much all custodial (or at least serious custodial) sentences as well.

 No court is ever perfect. No one is arguing that. But we who support the death penalty are saying that only those whose guilt is unquestioned (ie. caught in the act, it's caught on vid and there are plenty of witnesses and such) and are convicted of heinous crimes such as murder and such, -should- be killed. There's no reason to keep them alive for years or decades at great expense to the public.  I know you will bring up 'what about those wrongly convicted' line. Please -look- at the conditions we're saying the death penalty is fine. We would have someone put to death if they were caught red handed killing someone on TV. You would rather imprison him forever because you think he might have been wrongly convicted. There's a big difference there. Yes, we know some might be wrongly convicted, but you're ignoring that some people who do heinous acts of murder are rightfully convicted and sentenced and those people -do- get what they deserve. 

 I'm not the type to spare ninety nine undeniably guilty murderers to save one innocent. Everything comes at a cost, sometimes the cost is high, other times it's lower. This has the potential to be a high price, but one that is reasonable.


Offline consortium11

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #103 on: July 04, 2014, 06:10:06 PM »
No court is ever perfect. No one is arguing that. But we who support the death penalty are saying that only those whose guilt is unquestioned (ie. caught in the act, it's caught on vid and there are plenty of witnesses and such) and are convicted of heinous crimes such as murder and such, -should- be killed. There's no reason to keep them alive for years or decades at great expense to the public.  I know you will bring up 'what about those wrongly convicted' line. Please -look- at the conditions we're saying the death penalty is fine. We would have someone put to death if they were caught red handed killing someone on TV. You would rather imprison him forever because you think he might have been wrongly convicted. There's a big difference there. Yes, we know some might be wrongly convicted, but you're ignoring that some people who do heinous acts of murder are rightfully convicted and sentenced and those people -do- get what they deserve. 

 I'm not the type to spare ninety nine undeniably guilty murderers to save one innocent. Everything comes at a cost, sometimes the cost is high, other times it's lower. This has the potential to be a high price, but one that is reasonable.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be directed at me... the vast majority of my post was actually arguing against the "well, you might sentence an innocent to death" approach.

Offline Passion and Desire

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #104 on: July 04, 2014, 06:14:52 PM »
There is a HUGE difference in my saying "if you are a mass murdering fuck you deserve for your peers to judge you unworthy of living with the rest of us"
But that's not what you're saying. You're saying: "If you are a mass murdering fuck you deserve to die just because I deem it so." You're appointing yourself as the single instance deciding over someone else's life. Not the legislative body of a government. Not the judge or jury of a court. Only you. And - in my personal opinion (see what I did there?) - that puts you on the same level as those you want to punish by death.

no matter how much you decide to insult us Americans
Oh wow, that really struck a nerve.  ::)

Do you want to deny that Paul Singer and his vulture fond are willing to drive Argentina into national bankcrupty for their own personal profit, ignoring and refuting any sort of compromise? Do you want to deny that Keith B. Alexander made false statements in a congressional hearing about the extend of the NSA's spying on people all over the world? Do you want to deny that the USA still run the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where people are imprisoned without any hope for a fair trial, but instead being subject to whatever treatment deemed fit no matter how cruel or inhuman?

There's nothing insulting in stating these facts, and asking why you don't want to see those responsible for that mess being put to death, despite all the misery and pain they've caused.

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.
That position isn't weak at all. No nation should readily dish out irreversible punishment. Especially not a nation where political, financial, economical, and military interests are so easily and so densely intermingled like in the USA.

But let's formulate it a bit differently:
Quote
Any $crime should be punished by $irreversibleSentence.

So far we have seen the argument for $crime = "murder" and $irreversibleSentence = "execution". How about we look at the situation for $crime = "rape" and $irreversibleSentence = "castration"? Or how about $crime = "theft" and $irreversibleSentence = "chopping off right hand"? Why is one form of irreversible punishment okay, but others are not? Why is the risk of killing an innocent okay, but castrating an innocent, or chopping off an innocent's hand is considered "barbaric"?

Yes, a person unjustly imprisoned won't get back the years he spent in jail. But he can get back his freedom, and be compensated for the wrong sentence. Can a person who was unjustly executed be returned to life and compensated for their death? Rather not. Could a person that was unjustly castrated be given back their fertility? "We're really sorry about ripping out your ovaries. Nothing personal. Here's a Starbuck's voucher. Good luck with that family planning thing!"

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #105 on: July 04, 2014, 06:17:40 PM »
Again - stop trying to muddy the waters Passion. This has NOTHING to do with the United States political position and it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop. Now.

Second - rape? By Gods yes castrate the fuckers. And I say that as a survivor of gang rape.

Offline Passion and Desire

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #106 on: July 04, 2014, 06:39:12 PM »
Second - rape? By Gods yes castrate the fuckers.
2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

Offline consortium11

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #107 on: July 04, 2014, 06:43:26 PM »
That position isn't weak at all. No nation should readily dish out irreversible punishment. Especially not a nation where political, financial, economical, and military interests are so easily and so densely intermingled like in the USA.

But let's formulate it a bit differently:
So far we have seen the argument for $crime = "murder" and $irreversibleSentence = "execution". How about we look at the situation for $crime = "rape" and $irreversibleSentence = "castration"? Or how about $crime = "theft" and $irreversibleSentence = "chopping off right hand"? Why is one form of irreversible punishment okay, but others are not? Why is the risk of killing an innocent okay, but castrating an innocent, or chopping off an innocent's hand is considered "barbaric"?

1) I'm against the death penalty, as mentioned in my post. My issue is with your argument, not your position. If you consider the death penalty wrong because you consider it barbaric then that's a rather different argument to the death penalty wrong because innocent people might be subjected to it... and thus has little to do with my own argument.

Following the first line of reasoning in a hypothetical world where guilt or innocence could be proven with 100% certainty the death penalty would still be wrong. Following the second line it would not. They are two separate arguments.

2) The US does actually have (chemical) castration as a punishment in several states.

Yes, a person unjustly imprisoned won't get back the years he spent in jail. But he can get back his freedom, and be compensated for the wrong sentence. Can a person who was unjustly executed be returned to life and compensated for their death? Rather not. Could a person that was unjustly castrated be given back their fertility? "We're really sorry about ripping out your ovaries. Nothing personal. Here's a Starbuck's voucher. Good luck with that family planning thing!"

This was what I was talking about when I mentioned that the approach you've taken comes across as somewhere between trite and offensive when applied to wrongful convictions which only led to a custodial sentence. To take your final statement...

"We're really sorry about wrongfully imprisoning you for 14 years (along with your father who died in prison). Nothing personal. Here's a cheque fr 500,000. Good luck with not having nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and not getting addicted to drink and drugs."

Or, to use another real life example...

"We're really sorry about wrongfully imprisoning you for three and a bit years for supposedly killing your children. Nothing personal. Here's some compensation (but only after we really fight you to not have to pay it). Good luck with not suffering from severe psychological issues and alcohol addiction so bad that you drink yourself to death within four years of being released."

In fact, in either of those cases, can it really be said that the innocent ever actually got their freedom back? They may have been let out of prison but they were haunted by their unjust imprisonment all the same... and in both cases that likely (and in Sally Clark's case almost certainly) led to their eventual deaths.

As I said in my original post, being thrown in prison for a crime you didn't commit is less serious than being executed for a crime you didn't commit. But we're talking minor degrees in the pretty damn awful scale here. Gerry Cooney spent 14 years in jail. Sally Clark may have "only" spent three and a bit but as a former solicitor and an alleged child killer those years were as hellish as they could be. They never got those years back and they were never the same people when they came out.

If the key argument is that innocent people might be punished then why isn't spending 14 years in prison serious enough to mean that custodial sentences should be removed entirely or at least limited (and considering what happened to Sally Clark that limit would likely have to be less than three years)?


Offline Zakharra

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #108 on: July 04, 2014, 07:51:23 PM »
2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

 There you go again, Passion. You're deliberately muddying the waters. You automatically take the side of, if one innocent is hurt by a sentencing, that NO person should ever be given a harsh sentence. Yes there are some cases of false rape charges, but to automatically assume that IO meant -all- rape convictions should be castrated, is very misguided of you. I am assuming she likely meant those cases that have been proven to be true. IE with cameras/vid and such (too many people now film their crimes because it's the 'cool thing to do'. You automatically seem to think that every case will never be 100% provable as guilty. Your constant ignoring that some cases -are- provable that the convicted is 100% guilty is getting annoying. 

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #109 on: July 04, 2014, 08:34:15 PM »
If a person is convicted of rape by infallible proof - DNA testing, the assclowns bragging about and posting the shit online, etc - then yes. Castrate them.

And I will say again - personal opinions are just that. Personal. Trying to muddy the waters and insult those with differing opinions isnt going to change their opinions. Or win you any friends.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #110 on: July 04, 2014, 09:15:41 PM »
2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

Excuse you. Hold up. Yes, you're right. 8% of all REPORTED rape accusations are false. However, and most of these facts can be found on this article with sources attached, 54% of rapes are not reported and 97% of rapists are never incarcerated. That's just a few of the abysmal statistics on rape.

In addition to this, your formula, previously stated is flawed.

Murder and Rape are crimes against living people involving permanently damaging (physically or psychologically) a person. Petty theft or even grand larceny are material, involving money. A person can sacrifice that many hours of work to repay back the family. You can't do that with rape or murder. You just can't.

Offline Passion and Desire

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #111 on: July 05, 2014, 04:08:50 AM »
[...] but to automatically assume that IO meant -all- rape convictions should be castrated, is very misguided of you.
Excuse me? "By Gods yes castrate the fuckers." How the fuck does that not mean what it says?

I am assuming she likely meant those cases that have been proven to be true. [...]
"Assuming." "Likely meant." You're shifting goalposts and you know it. You're deliberatly interpreting what she could have meant just to match your opinion, while ignoring what she actually said.

Also, what do you mean with "proven to be true"? You're implying that a conviction is not enough proof. Well, what do you consider "proven to be true" then?

What about the case of Stanley Wrice? What about the cases of Alan Northrop and Larry Davis? What about the case of James Eugene Grissom? Weren't those cases "proven to be true" at some point as well?



If a person is convicted of rape by infallible proof - DNA testing, the assclowns bragging about and posting the shit online, etc - then yes. Castrate them.
Do you realize how utterly nonsensical your statement is? Should a person be convicted based on anything but infallible proof? How would that go? "Well, you were charged with rape, but we can't really prove anything. We'll only stick you in prison for a couple of decades instead of lopping off your balls. Consider yourself lucky!"

That's not how any civilized jurisdiction should work. Either you can be proven guilty, or you have to be considered innocent. "In dubio pro reo" has to be the defining principle of any civilized jurisdiction, not some primal lust for revenge. An offender always has to be proven guilty, they must never have to prove their innocence!

Yes, a penal code should protect the society from offenders, should teach the offenders a lesson, and - to some extent - punish the offenders to satisfy the victim's desire for revenge. However, it also should allow for resocialization; simply locking everyone away for decades without any chance to return to a "normal" life is not the solution. You just don't want people coming out of prison knowing nothing but crime, and immediately fall back into it because they have no perspective to get a normal job and have a normal life after serving their time. The same goes for irreversible sentences, like castration. That can never be undone, and completely takes away any chance for a normal life afterwards.



Murder and Rape are crimes against living people involving permanently damaging (physically or psychologically) a person. Petty theft or even grand larceny are material, involving money. A person can sacrifice that many hours of work to repay back the family. You can't do that with rape or murder. You just can't.
How about stealing someone's pension fund, damning them to spend the last few decades of their lives in complete poverty, perhaps even homelessness? How about stealing someone's savings for their childrens' education, damning those to a life of missed opportunities and low-wage jobs? How about stealing someone's car, causing them to lose their job, and subsequently their home?

Poverty can also greatly damage a person. Look at the misery caused by the financial crisis in Greece, and tell me again it's just "money:"
Quote
[...] In spring last year a 77-year-old retired pharmacist shot himself in the head in the central square of Athens, leaving a note saying that he could not bear the idea of "scavenging in dustbins for food and becoming a burden to my child..." [...]
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 04:16:50 AM by Passion and Desire »

Offline BeorningTopic starter

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #112 on: July 05, 2014, 04:49:07 AM »
I'd like to agree with Passion that the whole idea of "being convicted with infallible proof" is some misunderstanding. In modern sentencing, every conviction should be considered to have been done with infallible proof. If there are reasonable doubts concerning the guilt, then the defendant isn't sentenced!

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #113 on: July 05, 2014, 06:44:05 AM »
Yes, a penal code should protect the society from offenders, should teach the offenders a lesson, and - to some extent - punish the offenders to satisfy the victim's desire for revenge. However, it also should allow for resocialization; simply locking everyone away for decades without any chance to return to a "normal" life is not the solution. You just don't want people coming out of prison knowing nothing but crime, and immediately fall back into it because they have no perspective to get a normal job and have a normal life after serving their time. The same goes for irreversible sentences, like castration. That can never be undone, and completely takes away any chance for a normal life afterwards.

NO. The assholes who raped me should NEVER have a chance at a "normal" life. They took away things from me that I'll never get back - normalcy being one of them. Why in the ever loving FUCK should they get to have a normal life after taking normalcy away from me? Where is the fucking fairness in that shit? They deserve to be castrated. And before you disrespect me yet again - why not ask me how I want the castration done? Hm? Instead of just assuming.

I am officially bowing out of this topic before I say something particularly nasty to Passion. I have said it more than once - these are personal opinions that are being attacked. If respect cannot be shown to the people participating then I have nothing left to say.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2014, 06:48:26 AM by Iniquitous Opheliac »

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #114 on: July 05, 2014, 07:17:44 AM »
I am not jumping into this debate again. I feel most things political anymore illustrate how vehement we become with someone of an opposing view and thus why the political system has become toxic.

But consortium11 even though we often have opposing views your posts are always thoughtful and well written and I often get your point again even if I may not concur. It is always a pleasure to read you. I wanted to say that in a public format and offer kudos where they are deserved.

~R~

Offline consortium11

Re: Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?
« Reply #115 on: July 05, 2014, 08:18:51 AM »
I am not jumping into this debate again. I feel most things political anymore illustrate how vehement we become with someone of an opposing view and thus why the political system has become toxic.

Indeed... I think this topic is worth looking at again.

At best debates should be a way to better express and formulate ideas while informing yourself of other views and taking on constructive criticism. At worst they should be intellectual sparring where you put an idea out there and defend it while trying to break down others... but any bloody noses are unintentional.

This is not The Bad and the Ugly where one can rant freely without being criticised (at least in theory). This is a sub-forum where if you put an argument or idea out there it will most likely be criticised. Accusing someone of attacking a personal opinion isn't a defence... by posting it here you're asking for it to be critiqued. But while attacking personal opinions is fine (and frankly is it possible to conceive of opinions that aren't personal?) attacking people is not. I've engaged in some fairly rigorous debates on here... but the key is to debate the idea, not the person. If I think someone's idea doesn't value human life I'll say so (similar to how I've said in this topic that I think people have been dismissive of the incredibly serious impact that custodial sentences for wrongful convictions can have) but I won't take the next step of saying they don't value human life.

But consortium11 even though we often have opposing views your posts are always thoughtful and well written and I often get your point again even if I may not concur. It is always a pleasure to read you. I wanted to say that in a public format and offer kudos where they are deserved.

~R~

Much appreciated.