Thread: getting away with murder

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Texas has an unfortunate history of executing the mentally ill and minor offenders. Also, anyone who's familiar with the criminal justice systems knows eyewitness testimony can be extremely unreliable. It's also amenable to manipulation (the 3 witnesses can all be lying or merely mistaken). The recent advances in criminal forensics (ie DNA testing) had demonstrated how flawed witness-based evidence can be. There are plenty of documented instances where people have been sentenced to life in prison or even received the death penalty only to be subsequently exonerated when DNA testing became available. In other words-they were innocent from the get go. Texas is hardly this Country's crown jewel when it comes to dispensing justice..

agree to disagree. I see nothing unfortunate about it. is it the perfect system? no, it's the worst justice system in the country, except for all the others

also, does being mentally ill somehow excuse you from culpability? i say no. the social contract theory says that crime must be punished... less for the sake of revenge and more for the sake of upholding an orderly society. your mental state really has nothing to do with that. if you are a danger to society, society may act in self defense regardless of your IQ. just my 2c.

Originally Posted by jockeys

agree to disagree. I see nothing unfortunate about it. is it the perfect system? no, it's the worst justice system in the country, except for all the others

also, does being mentally ill somehow excuse you from culpability? i say no. the social contract theory says that crime must be punished... less for the sake of revenge and more for the sake of upholding an orderly society. your mental state really has nothing to do with that. if you are a danger to society, society may act in self defense regardless of your IQ. just my 2c.

If Texas has the worst criminal justice systems in the country except for all the others, God help us. Texas has the highest level of executions of all states. You don't seem to be too bothered by the fact they execute the mentally ill and in some cases, the very young. I do.
As to your question about whether mental illness excuses culpability--you're asking the wrong question. There are a host of mental illnesses that are nowhere severe enough to raise the question of whether the actor was mentally capable of appreciating the moral wrongness of his actions. A garden variety case of mild depression or anxiety does not constitute the type of mental illness that qualifies as "criminally insane". The social contract theory you mentioned has no application to those who are bona fide criminally insane. I've found that most folks aren't really familiar with what constitutes criminal insanity. Like I've mentioned in other posts, the criminal insanity defense is extremely difficult to prove and is quite rare in application. The judge or jury must really be convinced the actor was so mentally sick he or she lacked the capaciity to understand what they did. Kind of like if a week old baby happened to pull the trigger on a gun, killing someone in the process. Society recognizes that infant had lacked the capacity to understand his actions, and no one in their right mind would advocate applying the death penalty or life in prision with no chance of parole in that instance. Same idea as to the criminally insane. I have no problem putting them into an insitution where they cannot visit any further harm on society; but putting them to death or in prison for life is not what a civilized society does.
A criminally insane person, just like the week old baby, is not commiting a crime, since they lack the capacity to act out of criminal intent. Hence, there is no "social contract" crime to be punished. Contrary to what you said, your mental state has everything to do with it. That's exactly what society punishes-morally cognizant and morally culpable conduct. Not the actions of the mentally incompetent.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

The recent advances in criminal forensics (ie DNA testing) had demonstrated how flawed witness-based evidence can be. There are plenty of documented instances where people have been sentenced to life in prison or even received the death penalty only to be subsequently exonerated when DNA testing became available.

Excuse me, but how in hell can DNA evidence prove someone is innocent? All it can do is prove some kind of connection between a person and a place.

It cannot prove a person was not in a given place.
It cannot prove a person did not do something.

You are right that witnesses are unreliable. But so is faulty logic applied to DNA results.

Personally I have grave doubts about the reliability of DNA evidence. There is an assumption that all the "bands" shown in the result are independent, and that you can apply probability formulae as such. What if those bands aren't independent? We are all human after all, and DNA patterns are a blueprint, they have to follow some basic pattern in order to create a human being. All those one in 50 million probabilities they throw out to support their reliability would be completely bogus. I've never seen proof that DNA evidence is as reliable as they claim, yet we are all supposed to accept that it is infallible.

Also DNA testing has become incredibly sensitive. The tiniest amount of material can be tested. We are already past the point where a dead skin cell or hair can fall off, be blown across a city and land at a crime scene, then be used to "prove" a connection. Sooner or later someone will be found guilty of a crime because of this assumption that DNA evidence is infallible, maybe it has happened already.

Sorry, I guess.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

If Texas has the worst criminal justice systems in the country except for all the others, God help us. Texas has the highest level of executions of all states. You don't seem to be too bothered by the fact they execute the mentally ill and in some cases, the very young. I do.

A criminally insane person, just like the week old baby, is not commiting a crime, since they lack the capacity to act out of criminal intent. Hence, there is no "social contract" crime to be punished. Contrary to what you said, your mental state has everything to do with it. That's exactly what society punishes-morally cognizant and morally culpable conduct. Not the actions of the mentally incompetent.

The difference is a baby grows up and becomes an adult. An insane person is permanently broken. If they are that broken, they're really not of any use to society anymore, are they?

Besides, the most important part of a punishment is that other people can see it and be warned. It's a post-facto deterrent to other would-be criminals. Society is saying "look out, here's what happens when you threaten my well-being and innocent people" by executing violent felons. The mental state of the felon is completely irrelevant here. It's a warning either way.

As I said before, it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by jockeys

If they are that broken, they're really not of any use to society anymore, are they?

This could easily happen to you or a member of your family, for instance brain damage is common in car accidents, many disease and cancers also result in such damage. I take it that you fully accept that in the event of you being broken you are no longer of any value to society and should be disposed of (same applies to a family member of yous). Or do such rules only apply to others?

Originally Posted by Trev1960

This could easily happen to you or a member of your family, for instance brain damage is common in car accidents, many disease and cancers also result in such damage. I take it that you fully accept that in the event of you being broken you are no longer of any value to society and should be disposed of (same applies to a family member of yous). Or do such rules only apply to others?

if I become brain damaged AND THEN COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY then yes, go ahead and give me a ride in old sparky. or anyone in my family. hell, I'd throw the switch myself, and feel confident that my family would do the same for me.

don't really care how messed up people are as long as they behave. i never said being sick in the head was grounds for execution... you have to qualify the normal way, I just don't think people who are sick in the head should be exempted IF THEY COMMIT an execution-worthy crime.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

Excuse me, but how in hell can DNA evidence prove someone is innocent? All it can do is prove some kind of connection between a person and a place.

It cannot prove a person was not in a given place.
It cannot prove a person did not do something.

You are right that witnesses are unreliable. But so is faulty logic applied to DNA results.

Personally I have grave doubts about the reliability of DNA evidence. There is an assumption that all the "bands" shown in the result are independent, and that you can apply probability formulae as such. What if those bands aren't independent? We are all human after all, and DNA patterns are a blueprint, they have to follow some basic pattern in order to create a human being. All those one in 50 million probabilities they throw out to support their reliability would be completely bogus. I've never seen proof that DNA evidence is as reliable as they claim, yet we are all supposed to accept that it is infallible.

Also DNA testing has become incredibly sensitive. The tiniest amount of material can be tested. We are already past the point where a dead skin cell or hair can fall off, be blown across a city and land at a crime scene, then be used to "prove" a connection. Sooner or later someone will be found guilty of a crime because of this assumption that DNA evidence is infallible, maybe it has happened already.

Sorry, I guess.

Easy. DNA evidence is routinely used to rule out the possibility of the accused being the perpetrator. Example: woman gets raped and murdered. Someone identifies the accused as the perpetrator. Based on the witness ID (and possibly other circumstantial evidence) the accused is convicted and sentenced. DNA testing wasn't available at the time. Sperm and blood samples taken from the victim are now subject to DNA testing, and show no match to the convicted guy. In other words-the sperm and blood didn't come from the guy sitting on death row. This scenario has played out far too many times. Google "Project Innocence" for a host of examples. The DNA acts to exonerate the accused who was accused based on forensic evidence that can now be shown not to have come from the accused. As far as your point about the alleged unreliability of DNA testing--this issue has already been argued in the courts and I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that does not recognize the scientific reliability and dependability of DNA testing. Ir's far, far more accurate than the old blood sample testing that the courts relied upon for decades.

Originally Posted by jockeys

if I become brain damaged AND THEN COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY then yes, go ahead and give me a ride in old sparky. or anyone in my family. hell, I'd throw the switch myself, and feel confident that my family would do the same for me.

don't really care how messed up people are as long as they behave. i never said being sick in the head was grounds for execution... you have to qualify the normal way, I just don't think people who are sick in the head should be exempted IF THEY COMMIT an execution-worthy crime.

Let me ask you this: a 30 year man with no history of any health problems is driving down the road when he suddenly suffers a serious stroke. He loses consciousness, his vehicle spins out of control, and he strikes an oncoming car head on, killing the other driver.
What legal sanctions, if any, would you apply to the stroke victim under these circumstance?

Originally Posted by jockeys

if I become brain damaged AND THEN COMMIT A VIOLENT FELONY then yes, go ahead and give me a ride in old sparky. or anyone in my family. hell, I'd throw the switch myself, and feel confident that my family would do the same for me.

don't really care how messed up people are as long as they behave. i never said being sick in the head was grounds for execution... you have to qualify the normal way, I just don't think people who are sick in the head should be exempted IF THEY COMMIT an execution-worthy crime.

One other point about your above-post: brain damage is not the legal equivalent of the concept of criminal insanity. Someone can sustain brain damage and, for example, lose a portion of their fine motor skills; or have a diminished ability to recall recent events; etc. Being found criminally insane is a narrow, very severe diagnosis. You might want to research how criminal insanity is legally defined, as you'd see that it includes being incapable of distinguishing between what is right and what is wrong. That is far, far different that the simple concept of brain damage. Our criminal justice system is predicated on punishing morally culpable conduct-not the rote actions of persons who lack the cognitive capacity to understand what they are doing. Yes-they made need to be institutionalized for their own safety as well as the safety of society at large. But our criminal justice system does not hold them criminally liable for purposes of imposing punitive sanctions-that is reserved for those who do bad things and have the mental capacity to understand the badness of what they did.

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Let me ask you this: a 30 year man with no history of any health problems is driving down the road when he suddenly suffers a serious stroke. He loses consciousness, his vehicle spins out of control, and he strikes an oncoming car head on, killing the other driver.
What legal sanctions, if any, would you apply to the stroke victim under these circumstance?

none, apart from the civil consequence that his insurance would have to pay out to the other driver's family. what you are describing is an accident, not a crime.