Not to mention your abhorrent dishonesty.
LOL…says the pot to the kettle. The unfortunate fact is unlike you I have been very honest.
The study that is cited in that article, Joe. Why have you not read it?
And you know this how? You don’t. You are being dishonest again. Two, as has been repeatedly explained to you, whither I read the actual studies or not, it really isn’t relevant. Can you disprove or discredit anything written in the articles that have been discussed here? Can you disprove anything the renowned economists and Nobel laureate have said about the studies and the death penalty? Thus far you haven’t been able to disprove a single thing.
You keep referring to this study in that CBS article, but you haven't even read the study. I have provided you with the name of the study and its authors, and where it was published and when. I have requested multiple times now, that you show some proof of having read it. Because had you read it, you would have found that its authors cited extreme caution for positions for the death penalty because of the issues with the criminal justice system and the discrimination that exists with it. I have asked you to account for your praising the system's alleged ability to weed out judicial errors and it allegedly removing innocent people from death row when removing anyone from death row counters the find
And you are still to provide the conclusion of the study you are relying on in that CBS news study.
Well actually, I have referred to two articles published by 3 very credible sources. You have published the name and when and where it was published? I suggest you read the CBS and AP article I referenced. It included the names of the authors and publication date and referenced additional studies which validate their conclusions.
If you have provided all you claim, now is the time to show it. But unless you can prove the referenced articles have misrepresented the original studies, something you have yet to do, your efforts are obfuscation. What you did do was link to a paper written by a nonprofit group which rendered an opinion largely based on their opinions. They would have preferred different assumptions. That doesn’t invalidate the original studies. These studies have certainly raised the hair on the backs of folks like you who are opposed to capital punishment. As demonstrated by you and those like you, these studies have generated vehement visceral opposition…kind of like telling the emperor he has no clothes on.
Are you unable to read the study? Do you even know what it is called? Is the reason you are refusing to cite the actual study and its conclusion because the conclusion advises extreme caution in regards to the death penalty because of how it is not applied equally and because of the injustice that remains entrenched within the system?
You are referring to paper written by the nonprofit group. That isn’t the original study…oops. That paper was critique of the studies I referenced. The authors of that paper didn’t like the assumptions used in modeling. That is an opinion based on opinion. They found no errors in the data of the referenced studies. Further, you need to read the conclusion of that paper. They recommended more study no policy changes. While the nonprofit paper you referenced is critical of the referenced studies, and they don't like the assumptions made and used in the modeling. It doesn’t invalidate the studies.
Do you know what "enacted" means when it comes to Statutes, Joe?
Oh, more ad hominem.
And this is relevant how? As previously pointed out to you, just because a statute exists, it doesn’t make it law, because statutes are constrained by legal interpretations. It’s one reason why I chose not to be a lawyer. With Republican domination of state legislatures, putting blatantly illegal laws on the books and fighting the inevitable court challenges has become a cottage industry for lawyers. The city I live in has laws on the books which are in clear violation of state and federal law. So as I told you in my last post, citing statue as you have done is misleading and wrong. Citing a statute without legal context is pretty meaningless and often outright misleading and wrong.
And are you aware that
Kennedy v. Louisiana is only in regards to child rape and that it did not remove the death penalty for crimes against the State, such as treason and espionage. Oops indeed.
LOL, why yes I am familiar with Kennedy v. Louisiana, it was the case I had in mind when I made my last post debunking your claim that people could be executed for rape. Had my keyboard not been malfunctioning, I probably would have included it in my last post.
Did you not read or understand my last post? I referenced Coker v. Georgia in which the Supreme Court found the death penalty for rape juvenile or adult as excessive and unconstitutional.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coker_v._Georgia Coker v. Georgia, 433
U.S.584 (1977), held that the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbade the
death penalty for the crime of
rape.
"Kennedy case[
edit]
Kennedy v. Louisiana was a decision by the
Louisiana Supreme Court that resulted in
United States Supreme Court litigation which expanded the
Coker decision.
“On May 22, 2007, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that it is constitutional to impose the death penalty for rape where the rape victim is a child.
[31] Ruling on an appeal brought in the case of defendant Patrick Kennedy, Justice Jeffrey Victory wrote for the court that the Louisiana law allowing the imposition of the death penalty under those circumstances was consistent with
Coker because an aggravating circumstance—the age of the victim—justified the death penalty.
The case was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 (
Kennedy v. Louisiana), thus expanding
Coker to say that the death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve murder or crimes against the State.”
So the bottom line is your assertion and reference of a bill was wrong for all the reasons previously cited. Contrary to your original assertion capital punishment isn’t a remedy for rape. That is indeed an “oops” and a big one for someone who is supposed to be a lawyer. Just because a statute exists, it doesn’t make it the law of the land. Legal context is everything. And contrary to your assertion people are not executed or even sentenced to death for rape in this country because the Supreme Court has ruled that kind of punishment as excessive and a violation of the 8th Amendment.
Ermm.. Legal statutes are laws. Courts then interpret those laws and look at things like precedents to do so. If the Supreme Court finds that a law is unconstitutional, for example, then this "interpretation" can "override" a statute of a section of the statute..
Isn’t that what I said in my last post? Isn’t that why I said you were wrong to cite statue without understanding the legal context? Because if you had, you would know your citing a “bill” without legal context was either blatantly ignorant or disingenuous. Contrary to your original assertion rapists do not suffer capital punishment in the USA.
One more thing, statues can be overruled by any criminal court...not just the Supreme Court. Any criminal court can find and overturn statute, but the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. That's one reason why an appeals process exists. And when any court overrules a statute, the statute remains on the books. It just becomes unenforceable. So your citation of unenforceable statute as evidence people are executed for crimes other than capital murder is either a demonstration of ignorance or deception.
And your comment was that it is only available for "murder". It is not. Correction of your repeated mistakes within context.. Oops indeed for you.
And where is the evidence for that conclusion exactly? Show me one person since 2000 who has been executed for something other than murder? You can’t. Show me someone sitting on death row who has been convicted of anything but capital murder? You can’t. I suggest you go back and read my last post again.
Just because there are laws on the books which allow for capital punishment for certain crimes it doesn’t make those laws legal as has been repeatedly explained to you here. There are many illegal laws on the books, as pointed out Republicans have made a cottage industry out of enacting blatantly illegal laws. That’s one reason we have an independent judiciary. That’s why we have a Supreme Court. That's one reason why we have an appeals process.