AP: Hundreds of officers lose licenses over sex misconduct

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**curran12**

So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.

**LethalShade**

Well, is an unborn child even a child to begin with ?

**Crystal-Maze**

Grey Templar wrote:
Crystal-Maze wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Well, if the penalty is death and he just decides to kill his victims doesn't that make it more likely that he'll get caught? And victimize less people overall?

We are basically choosing between 2 terrible options. Is it better that he victimize 10 women, and kill some of them, or it better that he victimize 30 but they all remain alive? I'm gonna say less victims is better. After all, if the punishment is less severe he might think he can get away with it more.

After seeing what you have to say about the importance of life on some of the abortion threads, I am completely stunned (but not at all shocked) to see that you support the death penalty -even where it results in more dead victims-.

The level of cognitive dissonance at play here is staggering.

Its not cognitive dissonance. Its very logical actually.

An unborn child has committed no crime, unless we consider inconveniencing someone just by existing to be a crime(someone who 99% of the time had total control over the baby being conceived)

Someone who has done something so awful, such as rape or murder, has however committed a crime. They have proven they must be removed from society, death is sometimes the only appropriate punishment.

I was focusing on the 'and kill some of them' bit of your statement. Those innocent rape victims you appear to be figuring as acceptable loss in catching and killing rapists. What happened to the sanctity of their life and the duty of the state to protect them?

Also, I want some referencing on that 99% stat.

**CptJake**

Crystal-Maze wrote:

I was focusing on the 'and kill some of them' bit of your statement. Those innocent rape victims you appear to be figuring as acceptable loss in catching and killing rapists. What happened to the sanctity of their life and the duty of the state to protect them?

Also, I want some referencing on that 99% stat.

Duty of the state? Really? I suggest if you truly believe it is up to the gov't to protect folks from violent crime such as rape you must be pretty damned disappointed with their utter failure to do so.

**kronk**

Please.

Average time spent on death row is 200 months, or 16.7 years. Plenty of time to prove innocence with your dozen appeals before execution.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

**Co'tor Shas**

The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.

**cincydooley**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.

Got those numbers in your back pocket?

**kronk**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.

There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.

Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.

You are correct on the costs, however. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

That's the only reason I'd consider dropping it. My fiscal nature is clashing with my "kill the fether" instinct.

Touche, sir.

**Co'tor Shas**

kronk wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.

There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.

Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.

You are correct on the costs, however. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

That's the only reason I'd consider dropping it. My fiscal nature is clashing with my "kill the fether" instinct.

Touche, sir.

Well, yeah, 95% of what I say is opinion. I believe we don't need it, so I say we don't need it.

**kronk**

My opinion is keep it.

Also, get rid of Taco Bell. That gak is nasty!

Again, if costs keep rising like they are, I might be convinced to gak-can it.

**A Town Called Malus**

kronk wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
The chance it still there. And there's no reason it needs to be. We really don't need capital punishment. Life w/o parole works fine. And (IIRC) it's cheaper in the long run.

There is also a chance that I'll win the lottery while getting oral from Celine Dion.

Your opinion is that we don't need it and that life W/O parole works fine. My opinion differs from yours. Don't confuse opinions with facts, please.

You are correct on the costs, however. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

That's the only reason I'd consider dropping it. My fiscal nature is clashing with my "kill the fether" instinct.

Touche, sir.

It actually isn't an opinion that life without parole works just as well as the death penalty. In both cases the convicted person is removed from the general population, preventing repeat offending. The death penalty, however, is more expensive. The only other possible reason beyond petty vengeance to keep it is if you think it acts as a deterrent, which lots of studies have found is not the case.

So it is no more effective at protecting the general population than life without parole, despite the bigger cost.

**Ouze**

curran12 wrote:
So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.

This is the exact argument he has made.

**kronk**

Ouze wrote:
curran12 wrote:
So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.

This is the exact argument he has made.

<--- Is pro-choice, before you get out the pitchforks.

In the above example, one gets no say in the matter while the other has 16.7 years of appeals time to get the verdict over-turned.

How many times in the last 50 years has a person been executed by the state but was innocent.

**curran12**

Not sure about a raw count, but a study of death row inmates in 2014 puts it around 4% that are wrongfully there.

http://time.com/79572/more-innocent-people-on-death-row-than-estimated-study/

**d-usa**

To get back on topic:

Jury selection starts today for the OKC officer's trial.

**Vaktathi**

kronk wrote:
Please.

Average time spent on death row is 200 months, or 16.7 years. Plenty of time to prove innocence with your dozen appeals before execution.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

The possibility is still there. It's also astounding how vigorously prosecutor's offices fight to keep these cases on death row even when presented with overwhelming evidence that the person could not have committed the crime.

We also don't really have data on how many innocent people were executed because nobody in the penal, judicial, or prosecutorial systems have any desire to research such information, it has basically no upside for them to support such.

**Ouze**

kronk wrote:
Ouze wrote:
curran12 wrote:
So it is unacceptable to kill a child who has committed no crime, but "regrettable" (not enough to prevent it) to kill an adult who has committed no crime.

This is the exact argument he has made.

<--- Is pro-choice, before you get out the pitchforks.

In the above example, one gets no say in the matter while the other has 16.7 years of appeals time to get the verdict over-turned.

Well, it's just not in the case of people who are arrested and executed by the state (which is OK even if innocent, sometimes). One of the hypothetical "acceptable losses" arguments made (in this thread) was it was better to have 10 rape victims (with some of them dead), then have 30 rape victims with none of them dead. Or something crazy like that.

I mean, it's just a porthole into lunacy.

d-usa wrote:
To get back on topic:

Jury selection starts today for the OKC officer's trial.

Well, I hope justice prevails.

**d-usa**

Update on the Oklahoma City portion of the story:

Jury: Former Oklahoma City police officer found guilty on 18 counts

OKLAHOMA CITY – After listening to several weeks of testimony and four days of deliberating, a jury has found a former Oklahoma City police officer accused of sex crimes guilty on 18 counts.

Daniel Holtzclaw is accused of sexually assaulting 13 women while on duty as an Oklahoma City police officer.

In August 2014, the state charged Holtzclaw with 36 felony counts of rape, sexual battery, indecent exposure and forcible oral sodomy after the 13 women came forward, claiming the officer assaulted them while they were in custody or inside his police car.

In all, the jury heard 13 accusers’ stories of assault.

Throughout the trial, state prosecutors talked about skin cells found inside and outside Holtzclaw’s pants, around the zipper area.

As detectives spoke with various accusers in their investigation, they explained to the jury they took DNA samples, trying to find a match to those skin cells.

Prosecutors say that match ultimately came from a then 17-year-old girl, who testified she was raped by the former officer outside her mother’s home.

Forensic analysts discussed how there was more DNA found near the zipper as well, but not enough to find a second full match.

The state rested its case Wednesday, Dec. 2, just before 3 p.m.

The first and only witness up for the defense was the former girlfriend of Holtzclaw.

The woman testified that Holtzclaw regularly read her Bible scriptures. She said that in a year of dating, she had never noticed any odd or sexually aggressive behavior.

Early on in the investigation, detectives discussed how Holtzclaw claimed he had tried to have sex with his former girlfriend, hours after he was accused of assaulting a woman.

That accuser was the first to come forward to police in the summer of last year.

The former girlfriend has denied this sexual attempt ever took place, but testified she had taken a sleeping aid hours before, and it’s possible she simply doesn’t remember this sexual encounter.

After calling just one witness, the defense rested its case, despite listing 74 witnesses.

Holtzclaw waived his right to testify.

Jurors heard closing arguments Monday, Dec. 7.

After four days of deliberating, the jury found Holtzclaw guilty on 18 counts.

They recommend he be sentenced to a total of 263 years

**Co'tor Shas**

Good. Almost 300 years sounds about right.

**A Town Called Malus**

Wow, the defences argument was that he had read some excerpts of the bible out loud?

Brilliant. How could that have ever failed?

**Dreadclaw69**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Wow, the defences argument was that he had read some excerpts of the bible out loud?

Because America is a Christian country run by old white Christian men, and the religious right runs everything

**Mr. Burning**

So the defence was Lionel Hutz?

No! Money Down!!?!

**Ouze**

If so, at least his pizza was free.

**curran12**

Well, can't be too hard on the attorney. I mean, put yourself in his shoes, this is the case you're handed. Overwhelming evidence of extreme misconduct that seemed to grow daily.

What the heck do you do other than throw the Hail Mary (pun intended)?