Supreme court decides you have no right to prove your innocence

[belme1201]

Yes$, dollar$ are alway$ an important thing to con$ider in any policy. The fact$ say that capital puni$hment is more expen$ive than pri$son $entence$. That alone $hould $uffice to put an end to the debate about whether or not capital puni$hment is moral or not.

Al$o, using dollar $ign$ in place of the letter 's' i$ fucking retarded.

Ah, the ever-wise 3D has passed judgment. It was just a touch of license for which I $ay I'm very $orry, Your Honor.
(I made no mention of the death penalty, nor do I think it was part of the SCOTUS case being discussed....Your Honor.)

I'll stay with license if I so choose, you can stay with childish vulgarity if it pleases you.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Ah, the ever-wise 3D has passed judgment. It was just a touch of license for which I $ay I'm very $orry, Your Honor.
(I made no mention of the death penalty, nor do I think it was part of the SCOTUS case being discussed....Your Honor.)

I'll stay with license if I so choose, you can stay with childish vulgarity if it pleases you.

What fucking vulgarity?!? Anyway, this court rulez that you may continue to freely use your license. Drive safely.

 

[Damocles]

Rubbish? Nonsense! Your second sentence is the "deception" since it is not what I said.
Re-imburse what to a man who has nothing in the first place? Does every innocent man have the money to pay for DNA tests and then, happily, be repaid when he's found innocent? Or are the testers billing only the guilty? I don't think a truly guilty prisoner would care much about not being billed should a test he requested only verify his guilt, his having taken a chance on a faulty test. Where would those funds come from, an ATM in the prison canteen taken from his bank account?
In your formula, is the request for DNA testing in itself prima facie evidence that the petitioning prisoner is innocent and the guilty need not apply?
I'll repeat, a man who has not had the benefit during trial of every tool available to him, then or now, should be entitled to the use that tool if his innocence is at stake. A guilty prisoner is imprisoned, as in this case, not "implicated". I couldn't care less if a guilty prisoner obtained a test and was proven guilty, thus costing the state, as long as any erroneously imprisoned innocent man was proven innocent by the test.
It is guilt or innocence I am concerned with, not $$$. I$n't that alway$ the difference in our politic$?

You stated that it would be the same as a pay for freedom program and that is total rubbish.

This would not make it so you paid for the outcome as you suggest. It's silly to suggest it would. It's a total disregard of reality for a silly scaremongering idiocy.

That man would have the tool available, and so would those who had the tool available during trial but chose not to use it.

 

[belme1201]

You stated that it would be the same as a pay for freedom program and that is total rubbish.

This would not make it so you paid for the outcome as you suggest. It's silly to suggest it would. It's a total disregard of reality for a silly scaremongering idiocy.

That man would have the tool available, and so would those who had the tool available during trial but chose not to use it.

You forgot to mention your odd method of payment by imprisoned men, innocent or guilty, most of whom came from poverty.
The only cost comparison I made was to pothole repair. I said nothing about one "program" or another nor do I care if any "program" is involved. Justice, what I'm talking about, is not a program.
I feel the cost to our society for the incarceration of an innocent man is a far greater penalty than the dollar cost of making potentially penalty changing tests available to imprisoned men. It's simple and it's a difference in our values. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are yours and you can have them. As human beings they seem to miss the mark with regularity, including this case. I believe that's the gist of the thread.

 

[Damocles]

You forgot to mention your odd method of payment by imprisoned men, innocent or guilty, most of whom came from poverty.
The only cost comparison I made was to pothole repair. I said nothing about one "program" or another nor do I care if any "program" is involved. Justice, what I'm talking about, is not a program.
I feel the cost to our society for the incarceration of an innocent man is a far greater penalty than the dollar cost of making potentially penalty changing tests available to imprisoned men. It's simple and it's a difference in our values. Scalia, Roberts, and Alito are yours and you can have them. As human beings they seem to miss the mark with regularity, including this case. I believe that's the gist of the thread.

Again, it incentivizes the activity correctly. Even in prison they make some money (although IMO it is slave wages and incentivizes businesses to utilize this cheap domestic labor, this would incentivize fixing that as well, prisons should not be a source of the cheapest of slave labor) and with limited resources those that know such testing would implicate themselves would not effort towards continued testing. Those with the best cases would get the .orgs that currently work towards this goal to pay for testing and they would be reimbursed for a successful effort, incentivizing again IMO in the right direction.

 

[belme1201]

Again, it incentivizes the activity correctly. Even in prison they make some money (although IMO it is slave wages and incentivizes businesses to utilize this cheap domestic labor, this would incentivize fixing that as well, prisons should not be a source of the cheapest of slave labor) and with limited resources those that know such testing would implicate themselves would not effort towards continued testing. Those with the best cases would get the .orgs that currently work towards this goal to pay for testing and they would be reimbursed for a successful effort, incentivizing again IMO in the right direction.

I think a man's freedom would be all the incentive he needs. Who would care, innocent or guilty, if the bill was on the way?
.orgs? Are they suddenly an automatic source of funds for prisoners in order to right a faulty justice system made so by a Stone Age Court?

 

[Damocles]

I think a man's freedom would be all the incentive he needs. Who would care, innocent or guilty, if the bill was on the way?
.orgs? Are they suddenly an automatic source of funds for prisoners in order to right a faulty justice system made so by a Stone Age Court?

This is silliness. If you know DNA testing will simply implicate you what incentive would you have to spend the little you get on that?
That idea simply ignores human nature. Yet, they still could if they wished, no skin off my nose it isn't like those who implicate themselves will be reimbursed. It certainly would incentivize the innocent, and they would be reimbursed.

As for the .orgs, there are several who do exactly that and it was why I mention them. If a non-profit or another citizen wants to spend their money, and it exonerates the prisoner, they too will be reimbursed, the funds can be used for the next guy.