Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Another one bites the dust...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/20/vi ... lling-men/

CCFan wrote:Perhaps I should have worded my response as "DA's and Ambulance Chasers" did more to bring about the emphasis on "scientific" advances. I'm not arguing the fact of its origins, but if prosecutors and defense lawyers alike didn't put on the dog and pony show, it wouldn't have the emphasis that it has today, and thus the "creation" of this field wouldn't have taken off like it did. It is a cat-and-mouse back-and-forth, and to your point:

Couple of notes. Government attorney's yes, defense attorney's no. Forensics gets a lot more people in jail, not out. That CA report noted that one of the primary reasons for wrongful convictions was the defense attorney's inability to counter the forensic "evidence." This is partially because until recently (SCOTUS ruling IRRC) , you couldn't put the "scientists" on the stand to be questioned. The forensic "evidence" was treated like other pieces of evidence. They find a handgun with "your" prints on it. To the average juror, questioning the uniqueness and validity of the fingerprint and/or the lab that did it makes you look like a douche. It's like questioning the word of a LEO for a speeding ticket, there is a built in assumption that a LEO doesn't lie. You're not going to win.

CCFan wrote:

Gunderwood wrote:The problem is, they assumed the results were unique. I.e. if their test matched, you must be guilty.

I'm not so sure they even assumed the results were indicative of a sure-fire answer. Their job is to convince a judge/jury, and what better way to prove their case than to provide a test with predictable outcome which proves the subjects guilt (or innocence)? A lawyer I know has said "I wouldn't put anyone on the stand unless I already knew what they were going to say before they said it". I'm not arguing that it's not rooted in the history you quoted, but if the pressure is on from above to ensure a conviction, what better way than putting an "expert" on the stand?

I thought their job was to protect and serve? I thought they were public servants who were suppose to find the truth? You are correct though. Government attorney's get into that job so they have a future career as a politician. Conviction rate is all that matters.

CCFan wrote:As an aside, if I have a 10 point "method" you are to follow when testing for an outcome but only 8 points are valid points to arrive at a verifiable, statistically accurate and repeatable outcome suitable for scientific basis, you could have testing errors in 100% of the tests, but that doesn't mean the results aren't valid... As Mark Twain popularized a common saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The process exists so that the results can be trusted. In all types of forensics this is vital. Things like chain of custody matter. If the lab can't even follow simple processes to insure the validity of the results, which most of them are qualified to create themselves, how can anyone come to any conclusion about the evidence? Of course the results may still be valid, but no one knows if they are or aren't anymore.

Twain was wrong. Statistics don't lie, statisticians do.

As a Det. Sergeant I was an expert witness for the superior court system in the state of N.J. in firearms,prostitution and drug's. I always trained my people to look at all the evidence as if they were on trial and to try and disprove the evidence with as much work as they had to take to get the evidence.Even with great evidence I have seen so called expert witnesses and Lab people that could not be put on the stand because they could not face a jury and still talk without chokeing up and come off as dumbasses. I have seen the chain of evidence get so screwed up that a Homicide suspect walked.

As far as the statistics go you are correct. Statisticians can make statistics say anything they want given enough time.
Bill

Another article I need to dig up - I saw a "report" that showed that you can "statistically" meed all of the FDA guidelines for nutrition by eating hot dogs & peanutbutter.

Of course, it was like 40 dogs & a couple of jars of PB.....

KaosDad wrote:Another article I need to dig up - I saw a "report" that showed that you can "statistically" meed all of the FDA guidelines for nutrition by eating hot dogs & peanutbutter.

Of course, it was like 40 dogs & a couple of jars of PB.....

How is that statistics? Simple arithmetic.

Besides, we all know how valuable government guidance on clipping your toenails is. Why should this be any different?

Some will dismiss solid statistics that prove 1-3% of all citizens executed were innocent, so our government has executed 12-36 inmates since 1976 who were "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt".

How does this happen? Mistakes, emotion, and bias.

To knowingly dismiss the killing of innocent men and woman raises a substantial moral dilemma.

This is why no republic should ever execute is own citizens.

zephyp wrote:

wbtrunx wrote:I'm for the death penalty, but would like to remind all that it is for justice, not revenge.
I mention this because you say lethal injection isn't punishment. The criminal is dead. That's a pretty good punishment!

The death penalty is not there for us to torture(shots that would not kill, letting them suffocate while hanging, improper function of electricity, etc) the guy because he committed a violent crime/crime of passion. As you said, it's there for punishment and preventative measures. Torturing a guy for torturing someone just because a jury votes "yay" doesn't make it any more humane. Yes, the person may have acted like a mindless animal, but that does not give us
the right act like animals back. From the perspective I'm at, it's just going down to their level, however organized we might make it. Doing so is
us reacting to their crime emotionally/passionately, just like their crime may have been. The death penalty is just that, a penalty.
A penalty I feel that needs to be handled rationally and objectively for the sole purpose of justice, not revenge.

Though, I would vote for the guillotine. It's quick, humane, and makes a strong impression.

Keep in mind, just like your editorial, this is simply how I feel on the matter.

Well, lets not forget that the purpose of the death penalty is twofold:

(1) Remove the offensive vermin from society and

(2) As a deterrent so other vermin get the message.

Criminals in this country know the liberals love to coddle them to death (pun intended). If they hear and read stories about their buddies frying in the electric chair or their eyes popping out or crapping themselves when they get hung then they might think twice about committing their next crime. I dont necessarily believe in an eye for an eye but if we gonna kill evil doers then lets at least get some mileage out of it.

Btw, Cody -- A+ Great article. Who cares if it was a little late.

Nice reply unfortunately your deterrent effect to others is not backed by scientific data. Do you think the kid that bashed in that young girl's head at UVA thought before he killed her? Most murders are still crimes of passion, meaning they don't think. For professional murderers and Psychopaths the death penalty is not a deterrent either. To the former they just extra care to leave no witnesses, and to the latter they are emotionless and in many cases welcome death.

Finally, what about those who are sentenced to death and are ultimately found innocent for one reason or another. Should we just accept that a certain percentage of innocent people being executed is the cost of doing business.

Jim

rugdoc wrote:Some will dismiss solid statistics that prove 1-3% of all citizens executed were innocent, so our government has executed 12-36 inmates since 1976 who were "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt".

How does this happen? Mistakes, emotion, and bias.

To knowingly dismiss the killing of innocent men and woman raises a substantial moral dilemma.

This is why no republic should ever execute is own citizens.

I have to agree with you all the while my gut tells me that some murderers should be put to death. But I'm also aware that my motive is revenge not justice, and that's why the State exists as a check against my visceral urges.

When you see the number of people who have languished on death row for years then are found not guilty it's almost impossible to argue that we have not executed the innocent, that's enough for me to say no to Capital Punishment.

Jim

The Death Penalty is nothing more than sending a DEFECT PRODUCT back to the MANUFACTUR.
Sgt. Bill
Det. Sergeant Retired
Atlantic City N.J.
Police Department

Just think of it as Retroactive Abortion!

gatlingun6 wrote:

rugdoc wrote:Some will dismiss solid statistics that prove 1-3% of all citizens executed were innocent, so our government has executed 12-36 inmates since 1976 who were "guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt".

How does this happen? Mistakes, emotion, and bias.

To knowingly dismiss the killing of innocent men and woman raises a substantial moral dilemma.

This is why no republic should ever execute is own citizens.

I have to agree with you all the while my gut tells me that some murderers should be put to death. But I'm also aware that my motive is revenge not justice, and that's why the State exists as a check against my visceral urges.

When you see the number of people who have languished on death row for years then are found not guilty it's almost impossible to argue that we have not executed the innocent, that's enough for me to say no to Capital Punishment.

Jim

The death penalty has been around since the earliest forms of government. Hammurabi's Law Code had penalties of death, and while those might have been for much lighter things it still shows that the idea of "an eye for an eye" has worked for well over 3 THOUSAND years. Who are we to change a system that is not broken? A so called "Enlightened Society"? I think not. While we may be more sophisticated the only people who think that they are more Enlightened than his peers in the one standing in the left wing.

A government killing innocent citizens is clearly broken in the most fundamental way.