GOP DebateFollow

It's a very real issue. And you focused on what is literally the least important part of the whole problem.

The problem is that people are coerced into taking deals rather than facing the fair trial their rights guarantee them. A bargain is a way for prosecutors to avoid the risk of them getting off.

NINETY-FOUR percent of all cases are settled via guilty plea rather than a trial. That's an absurd number. Our system was based around the idea of trial under a jury of your peers and the ability to not be forced to testify against yourself.

Allowing a system in which a prosecutor will up your charges to the point where incriminating yourself and sacrificing your right to a fair trial is fundamentally opposed to those principles.

But that's only one small (and relatively uncommon) type of case. The vast majority of cases involve low-income peoples up for some stupid charge like disorderly conduct or drug possession. They don't have the funds to hire their own lawyer, and public defenders are so overworked that they can't really do much for their clients.

So they largely end up accepting plea deals (even when innocent), because they just don't have the resources to go to trial and attempt to prove their innocence. And because our systems essentially target them, doing so is much harder than it should be, even if they refuse a plea bargain.

Idiggory, do you have any actual data, or are you going to just continue to pull numbers out of your ***?

Capital punishment argument aside, another debate tonight... this one hosted by the Florida Tea Party!

"Governor Perry... Mr Obama: supreme socialist or king communist?"

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 1:41pm by Jophiel

Darjeeling

Your argument only works if one assumes that both abortion and the death penalty are viewed identically by the people in question. That seems like an extremely unlikely and unfair assumption to make given that most people making it *also* don't treat the two identically. There are a whole hell of a lot of people who oppose the death penalty but support the right to abort. If we apply the same assumption to them, aren't they being just as inconsistent and/or hypocritical?

No. It's exactly the point. This is about judging one group by a very different standard than you judge others by. What do you think people are doing when they assume that it's hypocritical for one group to oppose abortion but not the death penalty, while not making the same assumption of another group which opposes the death penalty but supports abortion rights? In one case, they are allowing for the likelihood that the group in question does not view those two things identically, but fail to make that allowance in the other.


Which kinda seems unfair, don't you agree?

Edited, Sep 12th 2011 2:45pm by gbaji

No. There's a key difference. People who oppose abortion do so because they believe it is murder. Those who support abortion do so (generally) because they don't recognize the personhood of a fetus, and so it is not murder.

No one opposes the idea that a convict is a person. It's still murder. Whether or not you think it's okay is a separate question.

Yes. So you recognize that what one person views as murder may not be viewed the same by another person? Great! You're half way there.



Has it occurred to you that someone else might not see execution as murder? It's the same kind of distinction, just for a different reason. Some might not see abortion as murder because the fetus isn't a person. Others might see execution as murder because the death is the result of a sentence in accordance with our legal system and resulting from actions performed by the person in question.




This is all about whether we "think it's ok". We normally call a killing "murder" based on it *not* being "ok". If you kill someone in self defense, do we call that murder? If not, then we must accept that it's not just that someone is killed, but *why* that person is killed, and even to some degree whether said person deserved it, or the circumstances required it.

Can you at least acknowledge that those who support the death penalty do *not* consider it murder? It's exactly the same as those who support abortion rights not considering abortion murder. My point is that it's bizarre to accept one person or groups definition of murder in one case, but not in the other. You're free to disagree with either or both, but you can't say that the person you disagree with is being inconsistent. By his own definitions, his positions are consistent.

I get gbaji's point, but damned if he didn't make it in the stupidest possible way.

Because it's starting to matter and is no longer merely a technicality, you both should be aware that murder is specifically the unlawful killing of a person. If it is legal to do so, as in both abortion and execution, then it's not murder.

You're both using the word connotative to mean "bad killing" which is just mucking up your argument. Legal executions are definitely not murder and definitely are killings.

Just to reiterate, no we fudging don't, not if we're not morons.

and those wrongfully convicted? When they are killed is that not murder? Personally I feel a 25 cent bullet is better than paying 60K+ a year for most serious offenders (child rape, and murder mostly). But at least I can recognize the validity of the counter argument, hell I even agree with it. Its a hard choice to kill someone, even harder if they didn't 100% do it.