4 ms·

> I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is

by slibhb 2y ago

> I believe the right message (and far less viral message), is the government has not shown enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is warranted. The jury makes that determination after being locked in a room and forced to hear both sides and all the evidence. How much of the evidence are you aware of? What The Innocence Project posted? This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state.

SadTrombone 2y ago
The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Think they might have an idea of the available evidence? The previous governor had begun an inquiry into the matter but the new governor shut that board down and blocked any and all attempts to halt the execution.
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  No, a prosecutor at no point argued that this guy was not guilty. Nobody argued that, except dishonest activists who lied to you. All prosecutor offered was commuting the death penalty to life without parole. In addition, I don’t see how a random prosecutor’s opinion is relevant. If this was the original prosecutor who prosecuted the case, then it would have some evidentiary value. In this case, this is just some guy with zero connection to the original case. Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served?
  - komali2 2y ago
    The exact words of the person you're replying to were > The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Nobody claimed the prosecutor argued he's not guilty. > Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served? Because he's correct. The State doesn't have enough evidence to justify execution. Justice isn't being served by executing this man.
    - hdlothia 2y ago
      The victim's family do not believe in the death penalty, I have not seen anywhere that they doubt his guilt.
iwontberude 2y ago
> This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty Who even argues in favor of it? What studies shows that the death penalty is effective? Who has done cost benefit analysis for civic life to have the government executing people generally speaking? So many truthy arguments on behalf of the death penalty.
- WheatMillington 2y ago
  I oppose the death penalty, but social policies should not be based on the outcome of cost/benefit analysis. If they were, executions would be used far more, on much less serious crimes, given rates of recidivism and revictimisation amongst certain crime types.
  - komali2 2y ago
    Cost benefit analysis wouldn't shake out in favor o execution on serious crimes due to add on effects. Cost benefit analysis and evidence based policy making would lead to a restorative justice system.
    - telotortium 2y ago
      Rehabilitation has not been shown to work regularly in practice, particularly for criminals with long criminal histories (such as Marcellus Williams). The primary benefit of incarceration is incapacitation - keeping repeat criminals off the streets. Personally, I would make prison conditions less harsh, as long as we could guarantee that repeat criminals would stay in prison until they reach the age at which aggression has declined enough that they’re unlikely to impulsively commit crimes. That might have to be 50+ years old. Then they should be released with a UBI. Most people who would get sent to prison for decades after a life of crime were never suitable employees in the first place, and they’ll be even less so after prison. However, they should have enough money to live a life of dignity after prison, and if they can keep a job, they should keep all that money too.
      - mandmandam 2y ago
nemothekid 2y ago
>How much of the evidence are you aware of? I'm aware of the evidence - the lack of direct evidence is why I'm arguing against the death penalty. Again, I don't think the guy should be set free as it's credible he committed the murder. I'm against the state generally, and especially when there's no direct evidence, executing a defendant. >This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. > That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state. Again, call me a "small government" freak, but I think the cases in when the state should be allowed to execute someone is vanishingly small. I don't think anyone should live in a state that is allowed to execute someone based entirely on testimony.

by slibhb 2y ago

SadTrombone 2y ago

The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Think they might have an idea of the available evidence? The previous governor had begun an inquiry into the matter but the new governor shut that board down and blocked any and all attempts to halt the execution.

xyzzyz 2y ago
No, a prosecutor at no point argued that this guy was not guilty. Nobody argued that, except dishonest activists who lied to you. All prosecutor offered was commuting the death penalty to life without parole. In addition, I don’t see how a random prosecutor’s opinion is relevant. If this was the original prosecutor who prosecuted the case, then it would have some evidentiary value. In this case, this is just some guy with zero connection to the original case. Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served?
- komali2 2y ago
  The exact words of the person you're replying to were > The prosecutor's office and the victim's family both pushed to stop the execution due to reasonable doubt. Nobody claimed the prosecutor argued he's not guilty. > Why should we care what he believes, over opinion of hundreds of prosecutors in this country who are happy that the justice has finally been served? Because he's correct. The State doesn't have enough evidence to justify execution. Justice isn't being served by executing this man.
  - hdlothia 2y ago
    The victim's family do not believe in the death penalty, I have not seen anywhere that they doubt his guilt.

iwontberude 2y ago

> This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty Who even argues in favor of it? What studies shows that the death penalty is effective? Who has done cost benefit analysis for civic life to have the government executing people generally speaking? So many truthy arguments on behalf of the death penalty.

WheatMillington 2y ago
I oppose the death penalty, but social policies should not be based on the outcome of cost/benefit analysis. If they were, executions would be used far more, on much less serious crimes, given rates of recidivism and revictimisation amongst certain crime types.
- komali2 2y ago
  Cost benefit analysis wouldn't shake out in favor o execution on serious crimes due to add on effects. Cost benefit analysis and evidence based policy making would lead to a restorative justice system.
  - telotortium 2y ago
    Rehabilitation has not been shown to work regularly in practice, particularly for criminals with long criminal histories (such as Marcellus Williams). The primary benefit of incarceration is incapacitation - keeping repeat criminals off the streets. Personally, I would make prison conditions less harsh, as long as we could guarantee that repeat criminals would stay in prison until they reach the age at which aggression has declined enough that they’re unlikely to impulsively commit crimes. That might have to be 50+ years old. Then they should be released with a UBI. Most people who would get sent to prison for decades after a life of crime were never suitable employees in the first place, and they’ll be even less so after prison. However, they should have enough money to live a life of dignity after prison, and if they can keep a job, they should keep all that money too.
    - mandmandam 2y ago

nemothekid 2y ago

>How much of the evidence are you aware of? I'm aware of the evidence - the lack of direct evidence is why I'm arguing against the death penalty. Again, I don't think the guy should be set free as it's credible he committed the murder. I'm against the state generally, and especially when there's no direct evidence, executing a defendant. >This thread is full of people who are anti-death penalty who don't think some guy should be executed. > That's hardly a surprise, but it has nothing to do with the evidence presented by the state. Again, call me a "small government" freak, but I think the cases in when the state should be allowed to execute someone is vanishingly small. I don't think anyone should live in a state that is allowed to execute someone based entirely on testimony.