Should Reggie Clemons be executed? - Page 2

Dancing David · 23rd August 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by swright777

No. I just think that anyone who would rape and murder people should get to know what it feels like.

That is not part of the US judicial system and given its failings, the chances that you will do this to innocent people in not negligible.

swright777 · 23rd August 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Are you Christian?

No. I'm Steve.

ETA: I have a great-nephew named Christian. He just turned 3.

swright777 · 23rd August 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

That is not part of the US judicial system and given its failings, the chances that you will do this to innocent people in not negligible.

I'm not saying that the government could/would do this. It's what I think should happen to rapist, murderers, and especially rapist-murderers.

I wouldn't want someone with my views handing out the punishment though.

halides1 · 23rd August 2012, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I agree, but that's not how the legal system works unfortunately. Once the guilty verdict has been handed down it becomes a case of guilty until proven innocent beyond all doubt. The fact that the prosecutor told the jury that they could convict even if they had reasonable doubt is horendous and should have given him a new trial by itself, but as others have said, the legal system almost always refuses to admit when it makes a mistake.

I agree; the appeals system is not designed to examine actual innocence, IMO: "The presumption of regularity is a convicted felon’s worse nightmare. An accused is innocent until proven guilty-but only before trial. Once convicted, the presumption of innocence is replaced with the presumption of guilt. Reviewing courts assume that the underlying proceeding was conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with the law. The jury’s verdict is near sacrosanct and rarely disturbed on appeal or in any subsequent proceeding. The problem is that sometimes juries make mistakes. Lies are sometimes believed; the truth, likewise, is occasionally obscured or ignored. The appellate courts are not designed to correct this type of error and will rarely substitute their judgment with that of the jury’s. Unfortunately, when errors of this sort are made, the wrongfully convicted have little recourse."

However, I should clarify that I did not quote the prosecutor's exact words, but rather interpreted them in my previous comment. The import of what he said was still wrong, namely to pretend that a guilty verdict was anything other than huge in its significance. My apologies if my comment was unclear.

JJM 777 · 23rd August 2012, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

not sure how a pro-death penalty person would decide

Quoting the article:
> no supporting forensic evidence

No evidence. No death penalty. No penalty at all.

Ryokan · 23rd August 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by swright777

I'm not saying that the government could/would do this. It's what I think should happen to rapist, murderers, and especially rapist-murderers.

I wouldn't want someone with my views handing out the punishment though.

So the government shouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it... So who should do it then?

I think only someone with your views would be willing to rape another human being.

swright777 · 23rd August 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

So the government shouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it... So who should do it then?

I think only someone with your views would be willing to rape another human being.

I think only someone with views way different than mine would be willing to rape another human being. There are thousands, possibly millions, of rapists in the world. I doubt that even one of them agrees with my view that rapists should be raped in return.

And how many murderers do you think agree with me when I say that they should be executed for their crime?

Just because I think he deserves it doesn't mean that I would do it. Well, maybe the execution.

Ryokan · 23rd August 2012, 10:44 AM

Surely only someone who is ok with rape would be volunteering for your rape squad.

Ok, so you're standing there ready to execute them. Who's doing the raping?

swright777 · 23rd August 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Surely only someone who is ok with rape would be volunteering for your rape squad.

Ok, so you're standing there ready to execute them. Who's doing the raping?

Surely that volunteer would not be me. I'm not ok with rape. I think it is one of the worst things someone could possibly do.

The rape(s) could have taken place hours or days before the execution. Notice that I said he should be raped if possible. Maybe the victims' parents could find someone to do it. Maybe nobody would do it. Hell, use a log splitter. Two birds one stone. Maybe make others think twice before committing a crime so heinous.

Rolfe · 23rd August 2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel

Are you Christian?

I don't think he is.

I am, for the record. I refer you to my previous comment.

Rolfe.

Multivac · 31st August 2012, 12:36 AM

Originally Posted by Seismosaurus

Nobody should be executed for any crime.

Completely agree

Soapy Sam · 31st August 2012, 01:15 PM

At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to
A single murderer.
A multiple murderer.
A mass murderer.
Adolf Hitler.
Should they all get life?

Matthew Best · 1st September 2012, 12:56 AM

21 years? (See another thread for more on this.)

Or: I don't know exactly, but if they actually committed the crime, then they should definitely get a higher sentence than those who probably didn't commit the crime.

PhantomWolf · 1st September 2012, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to
A single murderer.
A multiple murderer.
A mass murderer.
Adolf Hitler.
Should they all get life?

A single murderer. Life with 12-20 years before Parole considered

A multiple murderer. Life with 18-25 years before Parole considered

A mass murderer. Life with Preventative Detention

Adolf Hitler. Life with Preventative Detention in Solitary.

Seismosaurus · 1st September 2012, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to
A single murderer.
A multiple murderer.
A mass murderer.
Adolf Hitler.
Should they all get life?

These things should be dependent on the nature and details of the crime. Personally I think judges should have quite broad discretion in sentencing; I'm against the idea of mandated sentences.

If we're talking about cold blooded, premeditated murder - the kind of thing you see on Columbo where somebody plots out a crime in detail and it's about as cold blooded as possible? Then I'd lean towards a sentence that would put that person in prison for a very, very long time indeed, and their release would be conditional on demonstrating a degree of rehabilitation.

For a person who has performed several - or many - such murders, lifelong imprisonment seems reasonable to me. And that would include Hitler.

Beerina · 1st September 2012, 07:14 PM

Keep in mind the reason for life sentences without parole is as a reaction to ever-growing leniency, which culminated in the 1970s with horror stories like some guy, IIRC, in California getting out in only 7 years.

Same thing which lead to the 3 strikes rule, which, as I recall, was itself a compromise between some who wanted it even fewer, and others who didn't want it at all, or a higher number.

triforcharity · 2nd September 2012, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by shemp

Am I the only person who glanced at the headline and read it as "Should Roger Clemens be executed?"

That I would support.

I couldn't agree more.

More on topic though.....

I think there should be the death penalty for certain people who commit such heinous crimes. Jeffery Dahmer is one. Mark Dean Schwab is another.

There are plenty of others.

I typically feel that if you molest a child and kill them afterwards, you deserve the death penalty. Same as raping and killing a woman (or man).

And public servants too. Police officers, firefighters, medics, etc.

Naddig74 · 2nd September 2012, 05:53 AM

TL;DR but didn't need to in order to conclude:

No, he should not.

kedo1981 · 2nd September 2012, 06:50 AM

If we had a perfect legal system
That tried all people fairly and without bias
and a perfect way to determine who was guilty by unbiased scientific investigation
I would execute all those who commit any violent crime, assault, rape, child abuse, of course murder.
But we don't and we never will
so stop all executions.
However this guy sounds like he participated in these girls deaths so let him rot.

Soapy Sam · 2nd September 2012, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by kedo1981

If we had a perfect legal system
That tried all people fairly and without bias
and a perfect way to determine who was guilty by unbiased scientific investigation
I would execute all those who commit any violent crime, assault, rape, child abuse, of course murder.
But we don't and we never will
so stop all executions.
However this guy sounds like he participated in these girls deaths so let him rot.

I'm greatly in favour of improving the efficiency of our legal systems. (If airline pilots made as many mistakes as lawyers, judges and juries, I doubt any of us would ever board an aircraft).

But.
None of our systems is perfect. American and British military forces kill innocent people every year. Pull them home and disband.
Mistakes by drivers in America alone equate to the casualty rates of minor wars. Scrap all the cars.

If a system is imperfect, we have two choices. Shut it down or improve it.

If we cannot trust our legal system to get the right man, what difference does it make if we jail him for life or kill him? His life is ruined either way.

Execution may be immoral.
Life imprisonment certainly is.

chillzero · 2nd September 2012, 11:50 AM

Because life imprisonment is reversible in the face of new evidence?

Soapy Sam · 2nd September 2012, 12:50 PM

Not after twenty years it isn't.

Hi, Chill!

triforcharity · 2nd September 2012, 05:14 PM

Based upon my further research, it seems like this guy got the short end of the nightstick so to speak. He was apparently beaten into confessing, as were some of his co-defendants.

I think the guy deserves a new trial all together. It appears to me, from my research, that the guy was railroaded. Is it possible he is guilty? Sure.

Could he be completely innocent? Doubtful, but possible.

I say do it the right way, and give the guy a new trial all together.

23rd August 2012, 04:16 AM	#41
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,902	Originally Posted by swright777 No. I just think that anyone who would rape and murder people should get to know what it feels like. That is not part of the US judicial system and given its failings, the chances that you will do this to innocent people in not negligible.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

23rd August 2012, 05:51 AM	#42
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 602	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel Are you Christian? No. I'm Steve. ETA: I have a great-nephew named Christian. He just turned 3.
	Last edited by swright777; 23rd August 2012 at 06:13 AM.

23rd August 2012, 06:34 AM	#44
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,591	regularity Originally Posted by PhantomWolf I agree, but that's not how the legal system works unfortunately. Once the guilty verdict has been handed down it becomes a case of guilty until proven innocent beyond all doubt. The fact that the prosecutor told the jury that they could convict even if they had reasonable doubt is horendous and should have given him a new trial by itself, but as others have said, the legal system almost always refuses to admit when it makes a mistake. I agree; the appeals system is not designed to examine actual innocence, IMO: "The presumption of regularity is a convicted felon’s worse nightmare. An accused is innocent until proven guilty-but only before trial. Once convicted, the presumption of innocence is replaced with the presumption of guilt. Reviewing courts assume that the underlying proceeding was conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with the law. The jury’s verdict is near sacrosanct and rarely disturbed on appeal or in any subsequent proceeding. The problem is that sometimes juries make mistakes. Lies are sometimes believed; the truth, likewise, is occasionally obscured or ignored. The appellate courts are not designed to correct this type of error and will rarely substitute their judgment with that of the jury’s. Unfortunately, when errors of this sort are made, the wrongfully convicted have little recourse." However, I should clarify that I did not quote the prosecutor's exact words, but rather interpreted them in my previous comment. The import of what he said was still wrong, namely to pretend that a guilty verdict was anything other than huge in its significance. My apologies if my comment was unclear.
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,591	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

23rd August 2012, 11:48 AM	#50
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,405	Originally Posted by UNLoVedRebel Are you Christian? I don't think he is. I am, for the record. I refer you to my previous comment. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

31st August 2012, 12:36 AM	#51
Multivac Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,001	Originally Posted by Seismosaurus Nobody should be executed for any crime. Completely agree
Multivac Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,001

23rd August 2012, 06:11 AM	#43
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 602	Originally Posted by Dancing David That is not part of the US judicial system and given its failings, the chances that you will do this to innocent people in not negligible. I'm not saying that the government could/would do this. It's what I think should happen to rapist, murderers, and especially rapist-murderers. I wouldn't want someone with my views handing out the punishment though.

23rd August 2012, 07:50 AM	#45
JJM 777 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Finland Posts: 3,175	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha not sure how a pro-death penalty person would decide Quoting the article: > no supporting forensic evidence No evidence. No death penalty. No penalty at all.

23rd August 2012, 09:44 AM	#46
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,282	Originally Posted by swright777 I'm not saying that the government could/would do this. It's what I think should happen to rapist, murderers, and especially rapist-murderers. I wouldn't want someone with my views handing out the punishment though. So the government shouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it... So who should do it then? I think only someone with your views would be willing to rape another human being.

23rd August 2012, 10:26 AM	#47
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 602	Originally Posted by Ryokan So the government shouldn't do it, and you wouldn't do it... So who should do it then? I think only someone with your views would be willing to rape another human being. I think only someone with views way different than mine would be willing to rape another human being. There are thousands, possibly millions, of rapists in the world. I doubt that even one of them agrees with my view that rapists should be raped in return. And how many murderers do you think agree with me when I say that they should be executed for their crime? Just because I think he deserves it doesn't mean that I would do it. Well, maybe the execution.

23rd August 2012, 10:44 AM	#48
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,282	Surely only someone who is ok with rape would be volunteering for your rape squad. Ok, so you're standing there ready to execute them. Who's doing the raping?

23rd August 2012, 11:03 AM	#49
swright777 Muse Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 602	Originally Posted by Ryokan Surely only someone who is ok with rape would be volunteering for your rape squad. Ok, so you're standing there ready to execute them. Who's doing the raping? Surely that volunteer would not be me. I'm not ok with rape. I think it is one of the worst things someone could possibly do. The rape(s) could have taken place hours or days before the execution. Notice that I said he should be raped if possible. Maybe the victims' parents could find someone to do it. Maybe nobody would do it. Hell, use a log splitter. Two birds one stone. Maybe make others think twice before committing a crime so heinous.

31st August 2012, 01:15 PM	#52
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905	At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to A single murderer. A multiple murderer. A mass murderer. Adolf Hitler. Should they all get life?
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905

1st September 2012, 12:56 AM	#53
Matthew Best Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 4,177	21 years? (See another thread for more on this.) Or: I don't know exactly, but if they actually committed the crime, then they should definitely get a higher sentence than those who probably didn't commit the crime.

1st September 2012, 04:28 AM	#54
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 10,004	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to A single murderer. A multiple murderer. A mass murderer. Adolf Hitler. Should they all get life? A single murderer. Life with 12-20 years before Parole considered A multiple murderer. Life with 18-25 years before Parole considered A mass murderer. Life with Preventative Detention Adolf Hitler. Life with Preventative Detention in Solitary.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics. Last edited by PhantomWolf; 1st September 2012 at 04:30 AM.

1st September 2012, 06:36 PM	#55
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,566	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam At the risk of Godwinning the entire thread, if nobody should ever be executed for a crime , what sentences should have been handed down to A single murderer. A multiple murderer. A mass murderer. Adolf Hitler. Should they all get life? These things should be dependent on the nature and details of the crime. Personally I think judges should have quite broad discretion in sentencing; I'm against the idea of mandated sentences. If we're talking about cold blooded, premeditated murder - the kind of thing you see on Columbo where somebody plots out a crime in detail and it's about as cold blooded as possible? Then I'd lean towards a sentence that would put that person in prison for a very, very long time indeed, and their release would be conditional on demonstrating a degree of rehabilitation. For a person who has performed several - or many - such murders, lifelong imprisonment seems reasonable to me. And that would include Hitler.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

1st September 2012, 07:14 PM	#56
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Keep in mind the reason for life sentences without parole is as a reaction to ever-growing leniency, which culminated in the 1970s with horror stories like some guy, IIRC, in California getting out in only 7 years. Same thing which lead to the 3 strikes rule, which, as I recall, was itself a compromise between some who wanted it even fewer, and others who didn't want it at all, or a higher number.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

2nd September 2012, 05:52 AM	#57
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,607	Originally Posted by shemp Am I the only person who glanced at the headline and read it as "Should Roger Clemens be executed?" That I would support. I couldn't agree more. More on topic though..... I think there should be the death penalty for certain people who commit such heinous crimes. Jeffery Dahmer is one. Mark Dean Schwab is another. There are plenty of others. I typically feel that if you molest a child and kill them afterwards, you deserve the death penalty. Same as raping and killing a woman (or man). And public servants too. Police officers, firefighters, medics, etc.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

2nd September 2012, 05:53 AM	#58
Naddig74 Has a Rucksack Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Heading For the Hills Posts: 1,639	TL;DR but didn't need to in order to conclude: No, he should not.
	__________________ Those who live in glass houses should not drink their own urine. - Cuddles

2nd September 2012, 06:50 AM	#59
kedo1981 Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: ohio Posts: 2,103	If we had a perfect legal system That tried all people fairly and without bias and a perfect way to determine who was guilty by unbiased scientific investigation I would execute all those who commit any violent crime, assault, rape, child abuse, of course murder. But we don't and we never will so stop all executions. However this guy sounds like he participated in these girls deaths so let him rot.
	__________________ "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21) I readily admit I don’t know enough to say for sure that there is no God. But I do know enough so say that anyone who claims to know the mind and will of a being such as God is a liar. I have no problem with Jesus, but his fan club sucks!

2nd September 2012, 11:35 AM	#60
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905	Originally Posted by kedo1981 If we had a perfect legal system That tried all people fairly and without bias and a perfect way to determine who was guilty by unbiased scientific investigation I would execute all those who commit any violent crime, assault, rape, child abuse, of course murder. But we don't and we never will so stop all executions. However this guy sounds like he participated in these girls deaths so let him rot. I'm greatly in favour of improving the efficiency of our legal systems. (If airline pilots made as many mistakes as lawyers, judges and juries, I doubt any of us would ever board an aircraft). But. None of our systems is perfect. American and British military forces kill innocent people every year. Pull them home and disband. Mistakes by drivers in America alone equate to the casualty rates of minor wars. Scrap all the cars. If a system is imperfect, we have two choices. Shut it down or improve it. If we cannot trust our legal system to get the right man, what difference does it make if we jail him for life or kill him? His life is ruined either way. Execution may be immoral. Life imprisonment certainly is.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905

2nd September 2012, 11:50 AM	#61
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,267	Because life imprisonment is reversible in the face of new evidence?

2nd September 2012, 12:50 PM	#62
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905	Not after twenty years it isn't. Hi, Chill!
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,905

2nd September 2012, 05:14 PM	#63
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,607	Based upon my further research, it seems like this guy got the short end of the nightstick so to speak. He was apparently beaten into confessing, as were some of his co-defendants. I think the guy deserves a new trial all together. It appears to me, from my research, that the guy was railroaded. Is it possible he is guilty? Sure. Could he be completely innocent? Doubtful, but possible. I say do it the right way, and give the guy a new trial all together.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity