There are certainly some cases where there is no doubt as to who did it, but in any case where something other than emperical evidence is used, I beleive that the benefit of the doubt must be given.
This was a moving tale about a man out of his time.
No matter where you go, there you are!
[deleted]
A problem today is imposing current judicial knowledge on events in the 19th century and before; it just can't be done.
Ten years earlier and Horn would have been lynched--guilty or innocent.
Saying that this movie is a reason to oppose the death penalty is like saying that violent movies are the reason for crime in the first place.
[deleted]
Someone shot the kid with the same type gun as Horn used and blamed the killing on him
So surely whoever did this was the greatest shooter on earth, seeing how Tom even admitted firing a 4.96 (?) that distance and hitting would be the greatest shot he ever took, even admitting the gun he used has a trajectory like a rainbow.
If Little Red Riding Hood shows up with a bazooka an a bad attitude I expect you to chin the bitch
"If Little Red Riding Hood shows up with a bazooka an a bad attitude I expect you to chin the bitch "
I'll beg your forgiveness now, McGrory, but I might have to borrow your signature for a certain period of time in the near future. :)
A man out of his time? That's a bit of a stretch.
Somehow I seriously doubt that the Association would go through all the trouble of murdering an innocent boy just to frame Horn when they just could have told him that his services were no longer required, gave him some severance pay and sent him packing.
Horn's services as a "cattle detective" are controversial and circumspect to begin with. For all intents and purposes he was nothing more than a mercenary. An ex-military man being paid for doing work that skirts the law and is usually illegal. Since Horn wore no badge and apparently was not deputized he was not a "law man", more of a vigilante.
More than likely Horn intentionally set out to kill this person not realizing that in fact a case of mistaken identity. From such a distance that wouldn't be too surprising. Even given this scenario Horn would still be guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder.
Now given the fact that this story is apparently told by a close friend of his it's naturally going to be told in a slant that favors Horn and paints him as an innocent man being worked over by "the man". So of course just about everyone that watches this movie feels bad for Horn, hates the Association for setting him up and the justice system for letting him down and finding him guilty. The fact that Horn is portrayed by the late, great Steve McQueen is a testament to that, practically no one is going to not feel sorry for him and his plight.
As for the whole death penalty deal, the fact that he was found guilty and hanging was a common form of capital punishment at the time and he was lucky that he wasn't just lynched by the townspeople for the killing of a boy, guilty or not. He was given a trial where he pretty much refused to say anything in his own defense an he did try to escape from jail to avoid his fate, something innocent men usually do not do. The only other option for the times would have been to send him to a prison where he would have done hard, physical, back breaking labor for the rest of his life. Which given the state of prisons, local and federal, were nowhere near the what they are today and his age, his life span in such an environment would have been a few years at most and he would have died a slow, painful, agonizing death.
Which do you think is better?
Et interrogabat eum quod tibi nomen est et dicit ei Legio nomen mihi est quia multi sumus
Dear Sir:
What does the latin at the bottom mean in English?
Thank You
[email protected]
It is from the Bible. The Book of Mark 5:9
The translation differs depending on which version of the Bible you use, but the rough translation is:
And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
Et interrogabat eum quod tibi nomen est et dicit ei Legio nomen mihi est quia multi sumus
he did try to escape from jail to avoid his fate, something innocent men usually do not do.
He wasn't part of a legal posse and was not a sworn lawman. When he killed the 6 cattle rustlers that was 1st degree murder.
I know if I was innocent and they framed me and were going to murder me... I'd escape if I could. Whats's to lose if they are going to murder you anyway?
[deleted]
The death penalty should be expanded to include moralists...Oh *beep* moral people are the ones who organize and enforce the death penalty and odds are that they're not going to kill themselves. A shame really, the world would improve so much if they did.
At that time and up into the 1930's you caught a rustler on the place and shot him, it was legal. Just haul the carcass in to the sheriff's office fill out some form of report.
I know here in the state I live in you can legally kill anything that "molests" your livestock. (and molest as in bothers in any way referring to wild/neighbor's dogs, coyotes and rustlers)
lynching's weren't that common either, Horn's crime was in 1901 he was tried in 1903 which was unusual in that time.
I say we return to a speedier trial/execution time line spending years on death row is a waste of money.
Isn't the reason people spend years on death row because they have a right to appeal? Dealing with the courts can take a lot of time.
Just my opinion on the death penalty: I have nothing against capital punishment for those who with out a doubt committed a terrible crime. The problem is we people are known to make mistakes, and since it's people that sentence and act on it, the death penalty is inherently flawed. I'm sure statistically we get it right over 90% of the time, but of course there's no way to prove or disprove any of those speculations. The evidence can fall in favor of somebody being guilty, but that poor innocent person takes the heat for a mistake (even one made in good faith). I personally like the idea of life in prison. It may be a waste of money keeping certain scumbags alive, but I personally like the thought of somebody being forever institutionalized, having to sit there with their thoughts for the rest of their lives. Dark holes and cold spam sandwiches with toilet water to drink would be ideal, but we live in the 21st century. Just my two cents on the death penalty agree or disagree doesn't matter :)
"You keep calling me Walter. I don't like you," -Rorschach
The good thing about a death sentence is that it doesn't take as long as a death paragraph.
share:D
death paragraph = life sentence.
i'm not the world's greatest humanitarian, but in the spirit of the golden rule, the rankings of best to worst are:
1. dying peacefully in my sleep
2. well- planned suicide
3. quick and relatively painless violent death/execution
4. rotting in a jail cell for decades until i die any number of ways.
a life sentence is pretty damn cruel, esp. for the innocent.
"Ugh! I don't like this." --Ambrose Bierce
a life sentence is pretty damn cruel, esp. for the innocent.
Nations are not Christian or non-Christian. The USA is a secular, representative republic, not an individual. If a majority of citizens in the individual states desire to have a death penalty on the books, and vote for it, then the states that want a death penalty can have one. Jesus doesn't have a say in it one way or the other. He is not a citizen of the USA, and cannot vote here. What He preached was intended for individual people to hear and heed, not nations. Are we clear about this now? Besides, as a victim of the death penalty, I don't expect that Jesus can be considered impartial, in spite of His resurrection. Selah.
p.s. The death penalty may or may not act as a deterrent to other people committing murder, but it absolutely IS a deterrent to repeat offenses by the same killer, and that's a big reason to use it.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
Individual people make up nations, so I'm sure what he preached was just as relevant for the morality that should be instilled within our laws. Death penalty is frankly an outdated and barbaric system that has no place in what should be a 21st century mindset.
Let's see:
1) it's more expensive
2) Is cruel and unusual punishment
3) it's just as easy to put someone for life without parole than on death row
Are we clear about this now?
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.
1) It's more expensive
This is a correctable issue- once the last legitimate appeal is finished, carry out the sentence, instead of dragging it out for years, or decades, with bullsh!t appeals. Besides, the way many prisoners serving life "game" the system, with groundless appeals and lawsuits, I question if the death penalty really is more expensive.
2) Is cruel and unusual punishment
There are plenty of painless means to end someone's life. Maybe we could put Dr. Kevorkian in charge of doing the executions. After all, his methods are dignified and painless, right? More to the point, the punishment suits the crime.
3) It's just as easy to put someone for life without parole than on death row
And when a prisoner in for life without parole kills another prisoner or a guard, we'll just give him ANOTHER life sentence without parole- BIG deterrent there, eh? There are prisoners serving life without parole that have committed multiple murders while behind bars. Didn't you know that? How would you suggest they be dealt with?
The death penalty isn't a panacea, but it has a place in our criminal justice system. And if a majority of the citizens want it, it should be considered for murders with special circumstances.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
1) Appeals are a right. Can you really blame someone for fighting for their lives? It just goes to show that the Justice System is not able to accommodate capital punishment.
2) It's cruel because people sometimes literally wait years for their deaths, which is akin to psychological torture. It is sick, and barbaric. I wonder about your mental health.
3) "BIG deterrent there, eh? " - this argument goes both ways. The prisons need reforming, the justice system needs reforming. Everything needs reforming. Prisons right now are just privatized labor camps designed to suck money from the poor and disadvantaged. Maybe if we didn't treat them like animals they wouldn't be murdering guards and inmates? Common sense?
Look, I know the answers aren't easy, but the answers are out there. We just have to build a better future for ourselves.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.
So, "Appeals are a right", and "It's cruel because people sometimes literally wait years for their deaths"? This is like a young man murdering his parents, and then asking the judge for leniency because he's an orphan. The appeals are the cause of the delay. I've heard stupidity defined as holding two mutually contradictory ideas at the same time. I finally understand what that means.
BTW, you never directly addressed my question- how would you deal with an inmate serving life without parole who kills a guard or another inmate? You can wave an airy hand and say, "the prisons need reform", but that's a lame dodge and you know it. Please answer my question. Also, explain and give examples of how "prisons right now are just privatized labor camps designed to suck money from the poor and disadvantaged". Exactly what does that mean? Be specific.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
No, first id like you to find me statistics on inmates killing other inmates and guards. To convince me that there is so e epidemic that only the death penalty can solve. Otherwise that is just a very weak strawman.
Being a prison guard is a dangerous job. It's a price we have to pay in order to live in a safe society.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.
I thought you'd chicken out and refuse to support your ridiculous assertions. Thanks for living down to my expectations.
p.s.- welcome to my ignore list. See ya never.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae
I oppose the death sentence because the government does not own our lives, therefore cannot morally take them, except in actual heat of self-defense.
Giving governments a pass on moral restrictions is why psycho politicians are attracted to run it. Yes, psychos, because in my opinion, only a psycho wants power over others' lives and property.