41 replies [Last post]
Joined: 01/06/2004
Posts: 10
Second Amendment

I now know why other folks do not run for office. The hate mongers are out in force across the net. I have been called the "nuttiest candidate," a hick, etc. I have been awarded the most "gratuitous use of 9/11" award. Not one person who has launched a personal attack against me has had an argument about my policy beliefs. If being for God and Country, Strong National Defense and Lower Taxes, and being against Gay Marriage is nutty, then I guess I am.
When I say I am a strong constitutionalist I mean I will defend their right to attack me as I will defend your right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Besides the "sticks and stones" stuff from the folks that are afraid of my pro-America platform, the campaign is going great. I am receiving support from everywhere I speak and the checks are coming in.
BUT, I need more help. If you can contribute some, please do.

Thank you, God Bless, and happy hunting,
Wayland Smalley
http://www.waylandsmalley.com

[ This Message was edited by: Wayland Smalley for Congress on 2004-02-15 21:11 ]

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Second Amendment

Mismary, good link on Joyce Gilchrist. I had never heard of her, but it appears to be a good example of how relying on science only moves faith from witnesses to the those conducting the lab tests. By the way, it appears she was fired at some point.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-02-15 21:55 ]

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1583
Second Amendment

I agree Mismary, great reading.

Perhaps I need to clearify myself a bit.
It was I who stated "kill the killers and mabe the child molesters but be absolutely certain first". I still stand by that belief.
However we can NEVER be "absolutely certain" that someone commits any crime be it murder or simple battery. You would have to personally witness the crime to be certain and then you would be excluded from being a juror to sit in judgement of the accused.
Our constitution states that the accused has the right to a jury trial of no less than 12 of their peers, all of whom can have no knowledge of the crime until someone presents their case to them. Herein lies the problem.

DNA evidence can not ID a suspect 100% absolute certain. All DNA can do is eliminate a suspect with 100% certainty, which as noted in the above links happens often.
If there is a match in DNA chances are great that the suspect is the provider of the DNA sample but not absolutely certain as there could be anywhere from 1 to over 100 people on the planet with the exact DNA strand that was tested.
That being said I believe that would be close enough for me as long as there were other forms of evidence to collaberate the DNA evidence.

You cant say that the evidence is not good enough to kill someone convicted of a capital crime but its good enough to commit them to a lifetime of prison. That would be rediculous.
Fingerprints and DNA are the best we have. Releying on witnesss' memories and observations is a very risky venture. I coach a Girls Fastpitch Softball Tournament Team and sometimes I am surprised at what I see on the video tape of the game in that it doesn't match my memory of what I saw during the game. We always win with countless errors by the players with perfect coaching in my mind !! :smile:

You have to draw a line somewhere and say that this type of evidence is acceptable to convict, and yes, kill in the event of a capital crime or its not enough for a conviction period and turn em loose. Either they are guilty and deserve the prescribed punishment or they are not guilty,there are no in-betweens.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Second Amendment

Well with the death penalty, your either for it or against, and we could go round and round for a long time. The system makes too many mistakes, imo, and should not have the ability to wield the ultimate verdict.

This recent case is relevant.

Offline
Moderator
Location: Florida,USA
Joined: 08/21/2003
Posts: 1583
Second Amendment

Quote from above link:

"A prosecutor wins when justice is done, not when there's a conviction,"

This is absolutely true.

Quote from above link:

"The state Senate approved a death penalty moratorium bill last year, but the bill was never taken up by the state House."

I would be for this also. Give all who want it a DNA test and free those that are not matched.

This story could sway either way. It could mean that an innocent man was wrongly convicted or it may just be that a murder was released on a technicality. One of those 3 people killed Mr. Jenkins, thats a fact.
Mr. Jenkins is still Dead and his wife is still a widow.

Let me state for the record that I am not for the whole sell killing of everyone convicted of a crime. I would not even think of killing someone that doesn't deserve it.
I do believe that if someone is convicted of a capital crime then there can be no arguement that there isn't enough evidence to kill them but its enough to sentence them to life in prison. The evidence says they're Guilty or they're not guilty. It dont say guilty enough for this but not guilty enough for that.

I agree with you Bitmasher, you are either for the Death Penalty or you're not and I dont believe that there is any convincing anyone to change their views unless the unthinkable happens to them.

bitmasher's picture
Offline
Moderator
Location: Colorado
Joined: 02/27/2002
Posts: 2973
Second Amendment

Yeah just for the record, it honestly bothers me to argue against capitial punishment. I'm not the sort that would tell a survivor that they were wrong to ask for or want death to the convicted.

I realize that by saying "no death sentence", your letting a lot of people that are 100% guilty (even by their own admission) live out their lives even though they have commited terrible crimes and frankly should be capped. It is really disgusting how depraved some of these individuals can be and I'm in no way trying to argue that these truly guilty folks deserve life. But it is unfortunately a byproduct of a no-death-sentence stance.

I do believe that if someone is convicted of a capital crime then there can be no arguement that there isn't enough evidence to kill them but its enough to sentence them to life in prison. The evidence says they're Guilty or they're not guilty. It dont say guilty enough for this but not guilty enough for that.

That is the heart of the issue. In the above linked case there was enough evidence to hand down the death sentence at the time of the first trial. The problem was (and shame on the prosecution) that the evidence was faulty. The point was that there was insufficient evidence to convict at all (or worse that they had the wrong guy), but if he had been rushed off to the injection room there would have been no take back. The point of "no death sentence" is that hopefully in time if a mistake has been made in the crimial justice system, that it will be found and the convicted can be given back what remains of their life. An imperfect solution for an imperfect world.

The evidence says they're Guilty or they're not guilty.

That is exactly right if we assume the evidence and those presenting it are perfect and accurate. In the case above the jury was lead to believe the evidence was perfect, but it was not.

[ This Message was edited by: bitmasher on 2004-02-21 22:02 ]

Offline
Location: Oklahoma
Joined: 11/02/2002
Posts: 33
Second Amendment

Only one question for you from a fellow Oklahoman. Where do you stand on the "chickenfights" in Oklahoma?
Powder

Offline
Location: Pennsylvania
Joined: 10/28/2003
Posts: 1647
Second Amendment

Hey Powder......Where do you stand on that issue?

Offline
Location: Oklahoma
Joined: 11/02/2002
Posts: 33
Second Amendment

I support cockfighting 110%! It generates over $100,000,000.00 into the Oklahoma economy every year. Oklahoma is running a 600 billion dollar deficit so why in the world would anyone want to do away with that type of revenue? I mean we can't afford to pay our teachers, care for the elderly, or medical expenses for children as it is what is going to happen to the state when the fights aren't bringing in that kind of money?

Quicksilver's picture
Offline
Location: Colorado
Joined: 05/03/2003
Posts: 239
Second Amendment

Powderburn, $100 million generated by cockfighting?

Oklahoma is running a $600 billion dollar deficit?

I'm a little confused.

Are you actually trying to say that this $100 million is brought into Oklahoma from outside sources, and can be directly linked to an increase in teachers salaries, decrease in medical expenses, and an overall improvement of elderly care?

Give me a break, your beloved cockfighting was outlawed in Oklahoma three years after the territory became a state in 1907 and then reinstated by an incompetent judge, "Based on the fact that chickens are not animals." I think it's time for you to give up the fight and lay off the ditch weed..

[ This Message was edited by: Quicksilver on 2004-02-25 13:22 ]

Related Forum Threads You Might Like