Crime Thread

DogtownBnR · PostJun 12, 2009#6262009-06-12T18:14+00:00

INSIDE JOB???????????????????? Shocking, sort of....

If anything good can be taken from this news, at least it was not a random act.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

innov8ion · PostJun 12, 2009#6272009-06-12T18:18+00:00

^ Did Hornbuckle, the insider, have a criminal record? Did Maggie O'Brien's perform a background check?

juiceinkirkwood · PostJun 12, 2009#6282009-06-12T18:25+00:00

I was told long before I moved here that it was a socio-economical question, where someone went to high school, that is. The fortunate thing for me, as a transplant, is I don't know the difference in how much money someone has no matter what answer they give, with an exception of SLUH.

DogtownBnR · PostJun 12, 2009#6292009-06-12T18:31+00:00

^Not sure, but the guy has 3 kids and his wife, of course, is proclaiming his innocence. I know that the bar changed ownership in recent years. This employee came with the bar, I'd assume. Gotta look out for his boyz, in need of some jack..who cares if his 'friends' get hurt in the process.

Thing that s*cks is that daddy is going to prison and his 3 kids will grow up in East STL with no daddy, criminals in the making if things go like they could.

krykel · PostJun 12, 2009#6302009-06-12T18:44+00:00

DOGTOWNB&R wrote:INSIDE JOB???????????????????? Shocking, sort of.... If anything good can be taken from this news, at least it was not a random act.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

Looking at the pictures of these guys makes me sick to my stomach.

DogtownBnR · PostJun 12, 2009#6312009-06-12T18:56+00:00

^Makes that whole eye for an eye thing seem so much more logical. They didn't value an innocent man's life, why should the State.

Like I said in a previous post, to the KILLERS, "anotha dead motha F'r" Just makes me sick too! :hell:

urbanpioneer · PostJun 12, 2009#6322009-06-12T20:01+00:00

^ I once saw a bumper sticker that put it his way:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

Alex Ihnen · PostJun 12, 2009#6332009-06-12T20:09+00:00

tge-atw · PostJun 12, 2009#6342009-06-12T20:29+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:^ I once saw a bumper sticker that put it his way:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

We don't kill them to prove that killing is wrong. We kill them to punish them.

DogtownBnR · PostJun 12, 2009#6352009-06-12T20:54+00:00

We don't kill them to prove that killing is wrong. We kill them to punish them

Why do that when we can use taxpayer money to feed, house, clothe and allow them to continue their criminal activity behind bars...?

Then, when they get out even more hardened, they can take another young man's life away, a man with his whole life ahead of him, lost. Unfortunately, our system is not designed to rehab people, it actually makes them worse, in many cases.

^Good point

urbanpioneer · PostJun 12, 2009#6362009-06-12T21:10+00:00

TGE-ATW wrote:
UrbanPioneer wrote:^ I once saw a bumper sticker that put it his way:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

We don't kill them to prove that killing is wrong. We kill them to punish them.

But why is it that we punish them? Because they killed someone and killing is wrong.

And since killing someone is wrong (hence punishing someone for doing it), why does the state do the same?

So it's wrong for one person to kill another, but it's OK if the state does it?

the count · PostJun 12, 2009#6372009-06-12T21:11+00:00

Concerning capital punishment we're in "good company":

Capital Punishment by Nation

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 12, 2009#6382009-06-12T21:14+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:
TGE-ATW wrote:
UrbanPioneer wrote:^ I once saw a bumper sticker that put it his way:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

We don't kill them to prove that killing is wrong. We kill them to punish them.

But why is it that we punish them? Because they killed someone and killing is wrong.

And since killing someone is wrong (hence punishing someone for doing it), why does the state do the same?

So it's wrong for one person to kill another, but it's OK if the state does it?

Killing isn't wrong. Murder is.

Otherwise we'd put soldiers in prison.

urbanpioneer · PostJun 12, 2009#6392009-06-12T21:18+00:00

^ Touche. Well played sir.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 12, 2009#6402009-06-12T21:19+00:00

UrbanPioneer wrote:^ Yeah, the only other 1st world countries that use the death penalty are Japan and South Korea. Among the democratized, industrialized nations, we are in a small minority.

So?

urbanpioneer · PostJun 12, 2009#6412009-06-12T21:23+00:00

^ Hey, no fair. I took that comment back.

the count · PostJun 12, 2009#6422009-06-12T21:31+00:00

The problem with the death penalty is that it's irreversible. Our criminal justice system is far from perfect and will never be.

Time and again, people that have already been put to death or people 10, 20+ years on death row are exonerated by DNA or new evidence.

That makes the death penalty undesirable and immoral. And that's why most civilized nations have abolished it.

tge-atw · PostJun 12, 2009#6432009-06-12T21:38+00:00

Yeah yeah, it also usually costs more money to execute somebody than it does to just lock em up. I say so what. It is definitely not for everyone, but I fully support it in certain cases. For any of you who are concerned about the death penalty being applied in this case, don't be. These stupid pieces of sh*t will be in jail for a long time, but they won't get executed. They will come out as angry old (ish) men and resume their place as a burden on society.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 13, 2009#6442009-06-13T03:02+00:00

The Count wrote:Time and again, people that have already been put to death...are exonerated by DNA or new evidence.

Can you point to a single occurrence of this?

streetsabby · PostJun 13, 2009#6452009-06-13T08:36+00:00

TGE-ATW wrote:
UrbanPioneer wrote:^ I once saw a bumper sticker that put it his way:

"Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?"

We don't kill them to prove that killing is wrong. We kill them to punish them.

How are we punishing a dead person?

the count · PostJun 13, 2009#6462009-06-13T15:17+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

The Count wrote:

Time and again, people that have already been put to death...are exonerated by DNA or new evidence.

Can you point to a single occurrence of this?

Good point, CS.

Northwestern University wrote the following:

EXECUTING THE INNOCENT

Proponents of the death penalty have asserted that it has not been proven that an innocent person has been executed in the United States since the death penalty was restored in the mid-1970s following Furman v. Georgia. That is true only according to the proponents' definition of innocence.

They define an innocent person as someone whose innocence has been officially established, either by a court or admission by the prosecutor. Under that operative definition, innocence has never been established because the criminal justice process officially ends with execution. There simply is no process for post-execution exoneration.

However, at least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. While innocence has not been proven in any specific case, there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent.

Since you modified my sentence for your question, let me put it up again:

Time and again, people that have already been put to death or people 10, 20+ years on death row are exonerated by DNA or new evidence.

The Death Penalty Information Center keeps an "Innocence List" which names incarcerated people who have been exonerated since 1973. There are 119 to date.

The sources:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfu ... ginnocent/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=17

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 13, 2009#6472009-06-13T16:14+00:00

The Count wrote:
They define an innocent person as someone whose innocence has been officially established, either by a court or admission by the prosecutor. Under that operative definition, innocence has never been established because the criminal justice process officially ends with execution. There simply is no process for post-execution exoneration.

There you go. Therefore, it is impossible to make the claim that innocent people have been executed.

The Count wrote:However, at least 39 executions have been carried out in the United States in face of compelling evidence of innocence or serious doubt about guilt. While innocence has not been proven in any specific case, there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent.

Reasonable doubt <> innocence.

the count · PostJun 13, 2009#6482009-06-13T18:04+00:00

There you go. Therefore, it is impossible to make the claim that innocent people have been executed.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is impossible to make the claim that no innocent people have been executed.

Reasonable doubt<>innocence.

That's not what I wrote:

there is no reasonable doubt that some of the executed prisoners were innocent.

No reasonable doubt <> Reasonable doubt. It's actually the opposite.

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 13, 2009#6492009-06-13T18:23+00:00

The Count wrote:
There you go. Therefore, it is impossible to make the claim that innocent people have been executed.

On the contrary, I would argue that it is impossible to make the claim that no innocent people have been executed.

Ok, so name one.

the count · PostJun 13, 2009#6502009-06-13T18:40+00:00

No.

There are 39 names in the article that I quoted for your convenience. If you're interested in the names I suggest you read it.

I am sure we will not agree on this issue anytime soon. That's fine.

And herein lies the problem. Human designed systems are never infallible. In the Criminal Justice system mistakes have been made, are being made and will be made in the future. Laws are open to interpretation.

But when you're dead, you're dead. No interpretation possible.

Crime Thread

Choose Display Mode