A 67 day Murder sentence

[Johnd]

There are steps that can be taken to make sure it doesn't happen, DNA, accountability of prosecution: no "railroading" and the term "without a shadow of a doubt" to be really applied, the jury wouldn't be at fault, the "accuser" would be, so it's up to the prosecution team to understand that they're at "jeopardy" too. It'll keep proceedings honest and fair, giving the accused a "fair shake" if you will. Sloppy, uncaring, un-ethical and lastly unprofessional police officers, prosecutors and judges send people to their deaths or jail. No one should be above or shielded from the law.

That totally sidesteps the point strat. People are wrongly convicted, and some will continue to be wrongly convicted...after all, it is an imperfect system run by imperfect people in an imperfect world (not "Utopia").

So the question you so casually sidestepped remains: How does one "renumerate" those wrongly convicted murderers that have already been put to death?

 

[stratman]

If you mean now as of today, you can't. The system in place now only allows for monetary payment to family. My point is for an overhaul of the sytem, with a new system in place the chances of the innocent being falsely accused, prosecuted and executed will be nil, no one wants the same fate as the accused. After all, you said there is no such thing as justice, right

 

[Johnd]

'Remunerate'.

Yeah, John. How do we bring 'justice' to this person? Ain't no justice, you say? Then you say have to say, "Oops."

Ahhh, the day after today. Running a spellcheck on me, are we? Please tell me you have something more substantial than that to bring to the table. If you notice, I used the caveman's spelling, and generally used it in quotation marks...because it is "his" term. But thanks for the spelling lesson. BTW, I have noticed a couple of other typos in my posts (over the past month): I generally try to be deliberate with these things.

Coincidentally, I never properly thanked your acknowledgement of my correcting your misspelling of the term "hominem" (as used in ad hominem). So thank you. It was a begrudgingly advanced capitulation, but a capitulation nonetheless. So thank you. Your acknowledgement was not missed by me.

Hominum, as you repeatedly misused (despite my private pm's to you), has a whole other meaning than simply "man" if one googles it. As I have previously declared, there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle Tomorrow...nothing at all.

Anyway, good heads up for those unfamiliar with the correct spelling of the term "remuneration" (he is a caveman after all ). Or for that matter the term hominum as you have used it.

But back to the point. Is there any remuneration for those unjustly put to death for murder?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Sorry for the delay folks; the old dear wouldn't stop talking on the phone!

Read post 11, bottom paragraph.

By the same token, when the state puts an innocent person in jail, that person has to be re numerated for the rest of their life...

Money, the typical form of renumeration's not much use to you when you're dead.

How would you deal with this situation...Or how would you avoid it?

I don't believe in the death sentence. It may work out more cost effective than jailing a person for life and for many it no doubt grants them the feeling that justice has been served; an eye for an eye etc. And, as Racquetman once noted, it's not possible for you, I or any other here to say we wouldn't feel just the same were we to find ourselves in the same circumstances.

I don't have all the answers. It's simply my opinion that the death sentence guarantees that innocents will die. It gives me a sense of horror (try to imagine yourself in that situation).

...lets not forget false witnesses, they're at jeopardy too, since their false testimony might lead to prosecution.

Bearing false witness is already a criminal offence.

 

[stratman]

Yes being a false witness is a criminal offense, but imagine that you'll be liable to the same punishment as the wrongly accused.

 

[stratman]

Ahhh, the day after today. Running a spellcheck on me, are we? Please tell me you have something more substantial than that to bring to the table. If you notice, I used the caveman's spelling, and generally used it in quotation marks...because it is "his" term. But thanks for the spelling lesson. BTW, I have noticed a couple of other typos in my posts (over the past month): I generally try to be deliberate with these things.

Coincidentally, I never properly thanked your acknowledgement of my correcting your misspelling of the term "hominem" (as used in ad hominem). So thank you. It was a begrudgingly advanced capitulation, but a capitulation nonetheless. So thank you. Your acknowledgement was not missed by me.

Hominum, as you repeatedly misused (despite my private pm's to you), has a whole other meaning than simply "man" if one googles it. As I have previously declared, there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle Tomorrow...nothing at all.

Anyway, good heads up for those unfamiliar with the correct spelling of the term "remuneration" (he is a caveman after all ). Or for that matter the term hominum as you have used it.

But back to the point. Is there any remuneration for those unjustly put to death for murder?

Sorry John, I tend not to use spell check to keep sharp, yes renumeration was a typo, sorry if it ruffled you, I promise I'll start using spell check whenever I post to you. After all this isn't one my "elite" school papers to hand in!

 

[Johnd]

Oh and lets not forget false witnesses, they're at jeopardy too, since their false testimony might lead to prosecution.

Speaking of which, a Milwaukee Police Officer was indicted in federal court and just plead guilty to falsely claiming to be a US citizen. Esperanza Unida Milwaukee has jumped to his defense, saying he has been doing good things over the past five years...he's been a good cop.

Being the prudent, well-reasoned, well-educated deep thinkers that we are here in the big city, people have asked what's the harm?

I'll keep it simple:
1) His oath is worthless. He obtained his job under false pretenses. He's been living a lie for five years.
2) Every single case in which he testified will have to be closely scrutinized, and perhaps re-tried. He comitted perjury under oath every time he testified as a witness. From every felony down to every parking citation. Every time.

Do the math. I just think it preposterous that so many are willing to jump into the pool before looking.

 

[Tomorrow]

Ahhh, the day after today. Running a spellcheck on me, are we? Please tell me you have something more substantial than that to bring to the table. If you notice, I used the caveman's spelling, and generally used it in quotation marks...because it is "his" term. But thanks for the spelling lesson. BTW, I have noticed a couple of other typos in my posts (over the past month): I generally try to be deliberate with these things.

Coincidentally, I never properly thanked your acknowledgement of my correcting your misspelling of the term "hominem" (as used in ad hominem). So thank you. It was a begrudgingly advanced capitulation, but a capitulation nonetheless. So thank you. Your acknowledgement was not missed by me.

Hominum, as you repeatedly misused (despite my private pm's to you), has a whole other meaning than simply "man" if one googles it. As I have previously declared, there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle Tomorrow...nothing at all.

Anyway, good heads up for those unfamiliar with the correct spelling of the term "remuneration" (he is a caveman after all ). Or for that matter the term hominum as you have used it.

But back to the point. Is there any remuneration for those unjustly put to death for murder?

You are an excitable fellow, lol.

 

[Johnd]

Sorry John, I tend not to use spell check to keep sharp, yes renumeration was a typo, sorry if it ruffled you, I promise I'll start using spell check whenever I post to you. After all this isn't one my "elite" school papers to hand in!

You owe me absolutely no apology stratman. I am not the spelling bee police. I was letting it go until the day after today blew a gasket. I then explained why I was using the term. Carry on.

 

[Johnd]

You are an excitable fellow, lol.

Well, everyone's got an opinion. You ought to see me on a bad day. You gotta admit though, whether it's yesterday, today, or Tomorrow, hominum was pretty funny.

 

[stratman]

Wow, I just noticed, I don't get a "thanks" button, I think I'm trouble!

 

[Tomorrow]

Well, everyone's got an opinion. You ought to see me on a bad day. You gotta admit though, whether it's yesterday, today, or Tomorrow, hominum was pretty funny.

It was? You also seem to have a strange sense of humor.

 

[Johnd]

It was? You also seem to have a strange sense of humor.

Yes. I find your pseudo-interminable defense of a plainly wrong position funny. As well as the chicklets you send. Btw: I think that's an inappropriate use of a thank you button.

 

[jonnythan]

I'm sure it's been pointed out, but the person in question was not convicted of murder; therefore, she served no sentence for murder.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes. I find your pseudo-interminable defense of a plainly wrong postition funny. As well as the chicklets you send. Btw: I think that's an inappropriate use of a thank you button.

My posts defend plainly wrong postition (I'm sorry...I don't know what that means), and my posts and chiclets are funny? My use of the thank you button is inappropriate?

Gosh, I'm gonna have to go tell my mommy that you have put me on a path to wisdom and correctness.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yes. I find your pseudo-interminable defense of a plainly wrong postition funny. As well as the chicklets you send. Btw: I think that's an inappropriate use of a thank you button.

LOL, maybe this is a little like kissing a snake, then. (Be gentle to all creatures, John.) I was going to tell you that I agree with your position on the "legal system" (no justice)....and then you go tell me I defend wrong (somethings). Gosh, I hope I'm right this time.

 

[Johnd]

My posts defend plainly wrong postition (I'm sorry...I don't know what that means)

It is not "defend plainly wrong position".

It is "defense of a plainly wrong position."

 

[Tomorrow]

It is not "defend plainly wrong position".

It is "defense of a plainly wrong position."

OH...position. I thought you knew a word that wasn't familiar to me.

 

[Johnd]

LOL, maybe this is a little like kissing a snake, then. (Be gentle to all creatures, John.) I was going to tell you that I agree with your position on the "legal system" (no justice)....and then you go tell me I defend wrong (somethings). Gosh, I hope I'm right this time.

No Tomorrow. The indefensible position that you were so adamantly adhering to was the misappropriation of the term hominum, as in ad hominem. Ultimately, you capitulated. Begrudgingly capitulated, but, nevertheless, capitulated. For that I thank you.

Now you can go ahead and tell me ("I was going to tell you that I agree with your position on the "legal system" (no justice)...."). Come on, it won't hurt that much.

 

[Tomorrow]

No Tomorrow. The indefensible position that you were so adamantly adhering to was the misappropriation of the term hominum, as in ad hominem. Ultimately, you capitulated. Begrudgingly capitulated, but, nevertheless, capitulated. For that I thank you.

Now you can go ahead and tell me ("I was going to tell you that I agree with your position on the "legal system" (no justice)...."). Come on, it won't hurt that much.

I thought I just did. Lemme go back and look.
Yep. It's there. I did. Go figure.

But gosh....now you're aligned with a dope who doesn't know proper Latin, who supports unsupportable positions, and who otherwise is an ignorant user of fresh air.