Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Karla Faye Tucker | Can the Death Penalty be Applied Fairly?" video.

In a big way, yes.
2
That there are so many people who think a money calculation should apply here tells me that this society is hopeless. Part and parcel of allowing the extremely wealthy to buy their own laws. After all, they "do so much good." Utlilitarianism isn't an ethical system, by the way. Pseudo ethics. It could justify scapegoating, if the "benefit" to the majority is great enough and the scapegoated is only one person. It could also justify racism if the racial minority is small enough, and not too grossly discriminated against, provided the vast majority "benefits." You just "add up the numbers." Pfft!
1
False. American talking points by people who don't read French. The offender is committed to a mental hospital for the criminally culpable forever. He's not walking anywhere except hospital grounds.
1
BTW, did you believe this because we're so used to perverse logic? Other places usually have less of that. Not always, but often enough to raise skepticism when you read something like this. You actually thought this guy was walking around? Huh. Consider whether anti-French bias is a factor.
1
As long as there is a death penalty, factually innocent will be put to death. No system of justice is perfect enough to always get this one right. None.
1
@mandywhorwal642 Putting an innocent person to death is a mistake that can NEVER be allowed. No one can support it unless they firmly believe it could never happen to them or to someone they love, which is proof that it is radically unethical. (See, e.g., Rawls)
1
@mandywhorwal642 Not just possible. It has happened.
1
@mandywhorwal642 Not at all. Death is definitive, permitting no exoneration of a living being, and no opportunity ever to live free. I'm not minimizing prison, but to say the same argument applies to imprisonment is specious. Or, let's agree there isn't a real difference, contrary to my position. Then why have a death penalty at all? Why not err on the side of caution?
1
@mandywhorwal642 DNA evidence in forensics has existed for nearly 40 YEARS, and has been in common use since the late '90s. We have had wrongful convictions since then, and recently overturned convictions as well. Did you ever see the Frontline documentary The Confessions, involving four innocent U.S. sailors? I suggest you watch that. A convicted person can be factually innocent, and the Supreme Court has said so. The burden of proof has changed (and shifted to him to prove innocence), not the reality. Being pronounced "guilty" is not a magic word that alters the reality of past events.
1
@mandywhorwal642 I didn't say that was the standard. The standard for conviction is beyond reasonable doubt. That is not an impossible standard. We were talking about punishment, definitive versus giving hope to the factually innocent. Watch that documentary.
1
@mandywhorwal642 Let's say someone who has committed a murder "deserves to die." How does that give the state the right to execute them? I'm serious. They are singularly inept at determining who is a murderer, and at executing murderers, and have proven themselves inept in both not just sporadically, but systematically. Your question is theoretical. Even if you're right, that has nothing to do with the issue. Why do you think all other developed countries have ended capital punishment? Not because they think someone who, say, tortured a baby to death, or shot some 70 young people in cold blood, should get a "second chance." Nor are they wimps, nor are they stupid. U.K. ended the death penalty after executing the husband of a woman murdered by a serial killer, after that serial killer testified against the husband. That did it for U.K. Watch that documentary on the four sailors, the "Norfolk Four." Then come back.
1
@mandywhorwal642 Ah. An animal comparison! I see. The only question left is, why did I bother?
1
Do you have examples? Because habeas corpus has been drastically curtailed since the 1990s. The timeline you assert simply does not happen for the factually innocent without immense effort, and even fails despite that effort -- much less for the unequivocally guilty.
1
Also, a trial can be full of errors, most of which will be deemed harmless. It is very unusual for errors to have constitutional implications. Verdicts have been upheld where a defense attorney failed to do obvious research, debriefing of eye witnesses, etc., or where he briefly dozed off during a "routine" part of the trial.
1
I can't figure out how some people become a cause celebre. Had she not committed her crimes, would she be a YouTube star, a motivational speaker, or an influencer today?
1
Faith shouldn't matter. Privileging one set of beliefs over another in deciding who gets the ultimate punishment is worse than a violation of the First Amendment. It is essentially totalitarian.
1
Complete agreement about the death penalty, and this analysis.
1
The public must be protected against the risk that murderers pose. Innocent people have to be given priority. Life in prison achieves that goal.
1
In our state, 13 factually innocent people were on death row, including a farmer who came home to find both of his parents murdered (it was later established that meth dealers did it). Not one, not three, not five -- thirteen. As long as there IS a death penalty, the state will put to death someone who is either completely innocent, or not deserving of death. The state shouldn't have that power.
1