Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Texas to execute another probably innocent man
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
If you say so, mcgruff. :P

It's obvious. If you had evidence you would have revealed it by now. You don't have it. But you are so enthralled by death sentences that you can't just admit that this guy really is probably innocent. You can't even admit that he really was convicted on his words alone even though it's obvious and the prosecution implicitly admitted as much. Bad form, BK.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
If you say so, mcgruff. :P

It's obvious. If you had evidence you would have revealed it by now. You don't have it. But you are so enthralled by death sentences that you can't just admit that this guy really is probably innocent. You can't even admit that he really was convicted on his words alone even though it's obvious and the prosecution implicitly admitted as much. Bad form, BK.

Your ass is showing. I'm trying not to see it. You posted a misleading article which presented a one-sided analysis of the situation and didn't tell about half the story, in the interest of. You've tried hard not to admit it, engaging in various mental gymnastics, but it's true, and pointing it out is not "bad form". :?
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
Your ass is showing. I'm trying not to see it. You posted a misleading article which presented a one-sided analysis of the situation and didn't tell about half the story, in the interest of. You've tried hard not to admit it, engaging in various mental gymnastics, but it's true, and pointing it out is not "bad form". :?

That would all be well and good except for one thing: it isn't true. I've read the statements he made to police. They do not concur with crime scene evidence that only the perpetrator could have known, in spite of the fact that the he was coached by police. (He couldn't sketch the crime scene on his own, for instance. The police had to draw the sketch.) And there is not any evidence to link this man to the crime except his statements to the police. It's actually shocking that he was ever convicted, given the total absence of evidence except his putative confession. Well it isn't so shocking that he was convicted the first time, since he was represented by the infamous "sleeping defense attorney," but the second conviction is shocking. Also shocking is the way you are closing your eyes to the plain facts to support your stance on death sentences, even though in the past you have said you would support the death sentence even if innocent people were executed.
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
Meh. I'm arguing about capital punishment with a German. This can't end well so I am going to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry but your arguments made no sense whatsoever, It looked like you sort of scanned over it and then jabbed at the first thing that came to mind.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because everyone that seems to be against the death penalty is arguing extremely poorly. Personally I'm neutral on the subject, but arguments that poor are just sad.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Your ass is showing. I'm trying not to see it. You posted a misleading article which presented a one-sided analysis of the situation and didn't tell about half the story, in the interest of. You've tried hard not to admit it, engaging in various mental gymnastics, but it's true, and pointing it out is not "bad form". :?

That would all be well and good except for one thing: it isn't true. I've read the statements he made to police. They do not concur with crime scene evidence that only the perpetrator could have known, in spite of the fact that the he was coached by police. (He couldn't sketch the crime scene on his own, for instance. The police had to draw the sketch.) And there is not any evidence to link this man to the crime except his statements to the police. It's actually shocking that he was ever convicted, given the total absence of evidence except his putative confession. Well it isn't so shocking that he was convicted the first time, since he was represented by the infamous "sleeping defense attorney," but the second conviction is shocking. Also shocking is the way you are closing your eyes to the plain facts to support your stance on death sentences, even though in the past you have said you would support the death sentence even if innocent people were executed.

The appeals court review mentioned that many of his statements did concur with the crime scene evidence (and that many others did not). You say "they" do not concur, which I must assume means "all" of them. As I recall, there were about a half-dozen points of conjunction (for example, knowing that the wallets were taken from the shooting victims, and the fact that several of the wallets were turned in after being found on the route he described as their route of egress.

The article left out virtually all the information that would indicate guilt (such as the fact that he received a second trial with new representation, a new jury and a different judge, and was still convicted), and included virtually all the information that would indicate innocence, exaggerating most of it (such as referring to the fact that his sworn statements matched the crime scene in key ways as "his own false words"), and then miraculously disagreed with the two juries, who listened to both sides of the case and all the evidence in excruciating detail, declaring him "probably innocent". It was a one-sided, biased article. End of story.

Oh, and what exactly do you think my "stance" on the death penalty is? That everyone accused of a capital crime should be executed? I don't want innocent people executed any more than you do. I just don't happen to agree that something like a 0.05% probability of it happening would justify stopping capital punishment. My objection to your OP has nothing to do with that stance. It has only to do with the fact that it cited a very misleading article.

Also, I realize that your objection to the death penalty stems in large part from the fact that it's done by the state. You've stated before that you'd be in favor of individual citizens both killing in their own self-defense and killing in retribution (such as when a family member gets murdered). I'd rather it not be the state as well. But I don't think it's feasible, and I think that with trial-by-jury, our separate but equal branches of government, and our system of checks and balances, what we have is reasonably acceptable. What would you propose as an alternative that puts it more in the hands of the people yet simultaneously achieves a better (or at least equal) standard of fairness?

And on that point, if you read the appeals court review, it essentially boiled down to them upholding the findings of the jury with respect to the credibility of evidence and testimony. This was a decision made by the people, not the state. And, it was made twice.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sikpuppy
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jun 2012
Posts: 34
Location: Central Coast, NSW

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
sikpuppy wrote:
Meh. I'm arguing about capital punishment with a German. This can't end well so I am going to agree to disagree.
I'm sorry but your arguments made no sense whatsoever, It looked like you sort of scanned over it and then jabbed at the first thing that came to mind.

I'm just playing devil's advocate because everyone that seems to be against the death penalty is arguing extremely poorly. Personally I'm neutral on the subject, but arguments that poor are just sad.

I wasn't arguing one way or the other for or against. I felt the way you appear to: that your arguments were the ones that were not clear. I was trying to force clarity from you and failed. I hoped you would rearrange your words in an order that presented whatever it was you were trying to say more coherently. I will self flagellate later for my part in that failure. Over to you.

Devil's advocate is tantamount to trolling when it comes to forums, in my not so humble opinion, especially if someone on the forum mistakes an approach like that for a straightforward presentation of ones opinions. I don't have a problem with that either, since I am guilty of devil's advocate reasoning for the most part. I just thought I'd point that out, in case it was something you thought slipped through the net.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dmitchell
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 May 2003
Posts: 1159
Location: Austin, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BoneKracker wrote:
The appeals court review mentioned that many of his statements did concur with the crime scene evidence (and that many others did not). You say "they" do not concur, which I must assume means "all" of them. As I recall, there were about a half-dozen points of conjunction (for example, knowing that the wallets were taken from the shooting victims, and the fact that several of the wallets were turned in after being found on the route he described as their route of egress.

That the wallets were taken is not something "only the perpetrator" could have known, and unless you provide a supporting quote that Soffar described the route of egress before it was shown to him by the police, I'm calling bullshit on that too. (Although I do give you credit for using the word egress.)

With respect to wallets, see paragraph 16:
Quote:
The news media reported widely on the police investigation and reported all pertinent details as they became available from the police. For example, as early as the day after the shootings, the press reported that the bowling alley had been burglarized the night before, that four victims were shot in the head, execution style, with the males being shot in the left side of the backs of their heads, and the female shot in the cheek, that wallets were found close by, and that money was taken from the register.

Moreover, Soffar claimed the wallets were taken after the shooting, but the witness said they were taken before. With respect to the route of egress, see paragraph 48:
Quote:
According to his state habeas testimony, Clawson observed Schultz hand Soffar a piece of paper and ask him to draw a map of the bowling alley. Soffar drew a rectangle, but was unable to provide much detail. After that, Clawson stated that Schultz and Soffar both participated in marking the finer details of the building. His recollection was that Shultz added the details regarding the turnaround between the inbound and outbound lanes of the highway and the fact that there were two entrances to the bowling alley, and that Soffar had no knowledge of either the turnaround or the fact that each side of the highway was a one-way feeder-type road. Clawson also stated that Soffar was apparently unable to properly identify which side of the Northwest Freeway the bowling alley was on, and that Schultz drew the control counter on the diagram for him. It was Clawson's opinion that Soffar had no knowledge of the bowling alley's location because he was completely unable to draw the map.


BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, and what exactly do you think my "stance" on the death penalty is?

Roughly, that every argument you've ever heard opposing the death penalty is stupid and probably every person who opposes it is stupid too ("no rational person," etc). My own view is that there is nothing wrong with killing in self defense when necessary, but the ethical status of executions is questionable and even if it turns out to be ethical, there are good reasons not to do it.

Also, I think it is hilarious that you and R are arguing over a table with made up numbers in it. :lol:
_________________
Your argument is invalid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1569
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
The appeals court review mentioned that many of his statements did concur with the crime scene evidence (and that many others did not). You say "they" do not concur, which I must assume means "all" of them. As I recall, there were about a half-dozen points of conjunction (for example, knowing that the wallets were taken from the shooting victims, and the fact that several of the wallets were turned in after being found on the route he described as their route of egress.

That the wallets were taken is not something "only the perpetrator" could have known, and unless you provide a supporting quote that Soffar described the route of egress before it was shown to him by the police, I'm calling bullshit on that too. (Although I do give you credit for using the word egress.)

With respect to wallets, see paragraph 16:
Quote:
The news media reported widely on the police investigation and reported all pertinent details as they became available from the police. For example, as early as the day after the shootings, the press reported that the bowling alley had been burglarized the night before, that four victims were shot in the head, execution style, with the males being shot in the left side of the backs of their heads, and the female shot in the cheek, that wallets were found close by, and that money was taken from the register.

Moreover, Soffar claimed the wallets were taken after the shooting, but the witness said they were taken before. With respect to the route of egress, see paragraph 48:
Quote:
According to his state habeas testimony, Clawson observed Schultz hand Soffar a piece of paper and ask him to draw a map of the bowling alley. Soffar drew a rectangle, but was unable to provide much detail. After that, Clawson stated that Schultz and Soffar both participated in marking the finer details of the building. His recollection was that Shultz added the details regarding the turnaround between the inbound and outbound lanes of the highway and the fact that there were two entrances to the bowling alley, and that Soffar had no knowledge of either the turnaround or the fact that each side of the highway was a one-way feeder-type road. Clawson also stated that Soffar was apparently unable to properly identify which side of the Northwest Freeway the bowling alley was on, and that Schultz drew the control counter on the diagram for him. It was Clawson's opinion that Soffar had no knowledge of the bowling alley's location because he was completely unable to draw the map.

You haven't provided a link here so I don't know where you got this. I read the appeals court's full document. As I said, I do recall information he gave that was inconsistent with the forensic evidence and other information that was consistent. The document also states why the court upheld the jury's conviction and the sentence.

I'm not interested in debating the court's decision. My only point was that you posted a biased and one-sided article. I stand by that view. If you disagree, then you disagree. Just take it as a data point that BoneKracker thinks you posted a biased and one-sided article, and that you have become an anti-death-penalty zealot, and move on with your life. I'm sure nothing significant in hanging in the balance over BoneKracker's opinion on this.

dmitchell wrote:
BoneKracker wrote:
Oh, and what exactly do you think my "stance" on the death penalty is?

Roughly, that every argument you've ever heard opposing the death penalty is stupid and probably every person who opposes it is stupid too ("no rational person," etc). My own view is that there is nothing wrong with killing in self defense when necessary, but the ethical status of executions is questionable and even if it turns out to be ethical, there are good reasons not to do it.

Maybe I used some hypoerbole in trying to demonstrate that I find the arguments I've heard illogical. I don't think anybody is "stupid" for opposing the death penalty. Misguided and unaware that they're wrong, yes. Stupid, not on this account.

I respect your opinion, which doesn't seem to me to be extreme enough to warrant what appears to be extremist behavior (posting biased and one-sided articles about cases and getting upset if somebody points it out).

dmitchell wrote:
Also, I think it is hilarious that you and R are arguing over a table with made up numbers in it. :lol:

So do I. :lol:

He's the one who wanted to do that. I had already said those things weren't easily quantifiable and that it was highly subjective. The only value it will have will be to clarify our perceptions of the relative magnitudes of the problems of one alternative versus the other.
_________________
"The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive, and judiciary in the same hands...may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
--James Madison, Federalist 46
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
maybe, but it's still less secure, which was the point of the statement. getting hit by lightning and dying is a statistically insignificant risk and people are still afraid of it. hell, winning the lottery is even less likely than getting hit by lightning and dying and people still line up each time the jackpot is high.


Keep in mind you are advocating killing people, and if probability of escapes is what you have then you are in trouble. Think of it is 0. People really don't escape from prison that often AT ALL, so we shouldn't make policy around it. Generally, it's a bad idea to make policy on low probability events.

I am not afraid of lightning and I don't buy lottery tickets. I play the odds. people are notorious for being poor with statistics and probabilities. don't use that as an argument to kill people.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mdeininger
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Emerald Isles, overlooking Dublin's docklands

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sikpuppy wrote:
I wasn't arguing one way or the other for or against. I felt the way you appear to: that your arguments were the ones that were not clear. I was trying to force clarity from you and failed. I hoped you would rearrange your words in an order that presented whatever it was you were trying to say more coherently. I will self flagellate later for my part in that failure. Over to you.
well i was trying to be as precise as possible, but it's kinda hard with being utterly unable to concentrate (still bleeding from my ass lol). i'm sorry if that caused confusion. although i was pretty sure that most of the points came across clearly. ah well.

sikpuppy wrote:
Devil's advocate is tantamount to trolling when it comes to forums, in my not so humble opinion, especially if someone on the forum mistakes an approach like that for a straightforward presentation of ones opinions. I don't have a problem with that either, since I am guilty of devil's advocate reasoning for the most part. I just thought I'd point that out, in case it was something you thought slipped through the net.
indeed it does typically look like trolling. but then without that things get quite boring after page 1.

juniper wrote:
Keep in mind you are advocating killing people, and if probability of escapes is what you have then you are in trouble. Think of it is 0. People really don't escape from prison that often AT ALL, so we shouldn't make policy around it. Generally, it's a bad idea to make policy on low probability events.
it's not just prison breaks though (although see the stats below). prison breaks were just the simplest example to point out that the probability of someone, who actually did something that would warrant the death penalty, doing something to harm society is higher than zero if they are not in fact sentenced to death. the chances for that particular event are extremely slim but not yet negligible. it's not zero and there's no reason to pretend it were.

something else in that vein would be them attacking other inmates or guards, which for those cases is anything but unlikely. in fact it's extremely likely. next thing you know that guy kills someone who's in prison for something completely harmless like tax fraud or treason.

oh and you're again using the conclusion - that "killing people" is a bad thing to do as a punishment - as a premise for your argument. that still doesn't work.

juniper wrote:
I am not afraid of lightning and I don't buy lottery tickets. I play the odds. people are notorious for being poor with statistics and probabilities. don't use that as an argument to kill people.
actually these probabilities lead to quite some interesting other conclusions. i had a quick look at the statistics, and it turns out that the number of fatalities due to being hit by lightning and the average number of executions are roughly in the same ballpark (both between 25 and 50 p.a.) whereas the number of violent crimes p.a. in the same area is typically around 1.3 to 1.4 million. incidentally the number of people that escape from prison each year is around 1500 (your bureau of justice keeps those statistics for ya if you're interested in more exact stats although they're slacking a bit when it comes to prison breaks).

this tells us two things (calculating pessimistically): only about 0.03571% of people committing violent crimes get the death penalty (assuming there's a 1:10 perp-to-violent-crime ratio), meaning it's almost unbelievably unlikely that anyone innocent ever gets sent to the chair (or whatever), and by extension the bar for doing something that gets the death penalty is extremely high. and also it's actually a lot more likely that someone escapes from prison than that they get the death penalty.

oh yeah that's not exactly an argument in favour or against anything, i just found those numbers to be rather interesting...
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland

( Twitter | Blog | GitHub )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
juniper
l33t
l33t


Joined: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 759
Location: EU

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mdeininger wrote:
it's not just prison breaks though (although see the stats below). prison breaks were just the simplest example to point out that the probability of someone, who actually did something that would warrant the death penalty, doing something to harm society is higher than zero if they are not in fact sentenced to death. the chances for that particular event are extremely slim but not yet negligible. it's not zero and there's no reason to pretend it were.


it is essentially 0. Do let me know of cases where someone would have gotten the death penalty in another state, escaped and killed. it doesn't happen that often.

Quote:

something else in that vein would be them attacking other inmates or guards, which for those cases is anything but unlikely. in fact it's extremely likely. next thing you know that guy kills someone who's in prison for something completely harmless like tax fraud or treason.


sure, but it's not only death row inmates.

Quote:

oh and you're again using the conclusion - that "killing people" is a bad thing to do as a punishment - as a premise for your argument. that still doesn't work.


killing people is always bad. but the question is does it outweigh the bad in certain cases.

Quote:

actually these probabilities lead to quite some interesting other conclusions. i had a quick look at the statistics, and it turns out that the number of fatalities due to being hit by lightning and the average number of executions are roughly in the same ballpark (both between 25 and 50 p.a.) whereas the number of violent crimes p.a. in the same area is typically around 1.3 to 1.4 million. incidentally the number of people that escape from prison each year is around 1500 (your bureau of justice keeps those statistics for ya if you're interested in more exact stats although they're slacking a bit when it comes to prison breaks).

this tells us two things (calculating pessimistically): only about 0.03571% of people committing violent crimes get the death penalty (assuming there's a 1:10 perp-to-violent-crime ratio), meaning it's almost unbelievably unlikely that anyone innocent ever gets sent to the chair (or whatever), and by extension the bar for doing something that gets the death penalty is extremely high. and also it's actually a lot more likely that someone escapes from prison than that they get the death penalty.

oh yeah that's not exactly an argument in favour or against anything, i just found those numbers to be rather interesting...


you are aggregating stats when you shouldn't. I don't know where you think I live, but I don't know what that 1500 applies to. But, it likely doesn't apply to murderers as they are in maximum security prisons. thus, that 1500 probably applies to all prisoners, many of whom aren't violent offenders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Page 5 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum