Yeah yeah, I see what you mean: 'People who commit murder are nothing more than malfunctioning machines. And we shouldn't throw away (kill) then because they didn't work perfectly.'
I don't think so.
You see, I beleive people are MORE than just machines. One example: Machines have no minds of their own. People do.
So, while I will not throw away an imperfect machine/process simply because it is imperfect, I most certainly WILL kill a person who has freely made up their mind to hurt and kill others. It's not the same thing AT ALL.
There can be an accident, that causes misinformation that is used to incorrectly determine a verdict that leads to a Death penalty.
I say that execution was accidental. It's ultimate cause was the accident.
If you don't want the subject to die, don't push the button. It's as simple as that, why can't you get it through your head?
I understand that perfectly. But If I am presented with evidence that 'the subject' is a danger to Society, I would push that button. If the evidence later turns out to be wrong, then it is because of that wrong information that 'the subject' died. If the wrong information was accidental, then the death was an accident. If the wrong information was deliberate, then the death was murder.
Would people become lab techs if they knew one mistake could lead to their death?,/i>
If they follow the proper procedures, they would have nothing to worry about.
A bridge you designed ends up failing? Death penalty.
If people end up dying in the collapse, and the collapse was a direct result of your screwing up, then YES- trial for murder, possible Death Penalty. What's so wrong about that?
Food poisoning kills a customer? Kill the entire kitchen staff.
Not the entire staff- just those responsible for the poisoning. If they violated safety rules, they are responsible.
If what I've read is correct America doesn't even let the 'darkies' vote any more in federal elections
Where the heck you you get this from? All citizens are allowed to vote.
they are still the higher majority in gaols.
There are 2 solutions to that puzzle: 1) Minorities commit more crimes or 2) Minorities are unfairly targeted by the System
Guess which one the minorities beleive.
I strongly support the removal of the death penalty simply because I never want to be in a situation where I'm wrongfully accused by the state who wants to see me dead.
Okay, first- if 'the state' wants you dead, you'll be dead. "Shot trying to escape", etc. 2) Is life imprisonment that much better? Nevermind- It is, they way things are run today. Prisoners get free room and board, cable TV, internet access, and can sue at the drop of a hat. (I can't be bothered to google for it, but I remember a case where an inmate sued because his hot dog was cold. This suit was paid for - both sides- by our tax dollars.) C)My whole point was, that now that we have better testing and analysis techniques, now that the Internet exists, etc, that people are much less likely to be convicted wrongly to begin with. Look at the Duke rape case- one of the accused was getting money from an ATM at the time he was supposedly participating in the assault. That was an alibi that couldn't exist in the 70's.
You're both saying that the current system is inacceptible, and that you accept it.
It is not acceptable as a final product, but it is acceptable as a work-in-progress.
Did you ever build any type of mechanical or electronic device? Did it work perfectly the first time? Almost certainly not, unless it was extremely simple. But did you throw it away because it didn't work perfectly? Of course not.
The Death Penalty has flaws. Innocent people get put to death. And (a lot more, imho) guilty people go free. But that doesn't mean we should throw it away.
Let's say a lab tech screws up a DNA sample analysis by accident. Instead of showing a.09% match, they get a 90% match. They testify to that in court, resulting in a jury finding the accused guilty of murder. The accused gets put to death.
There- an accident that lead to someone getting the death penalty.
You're comparing accidents to deliberately putting people to death
No. I am comparing two systems (traffic and Justice) that, theoretically, would be best if they had no accidents. People get killed by cars accidently, and people get the Death Penalty accidently (ie: a mistake is made in analyzing evidence, leading to a guilty verdict). People also get hit by cars on purpose (ie: murder), and people also get the Death Penalty on purpose (ie: Racist cop plants gun in black man's car to frame him for murder).
The death penalty is wrong because an imperfect system shouldn't be put in control of life and death when criminals can just as easily be separated from society and possibly rehabilitated in other ways.
1) Very little "rehabilitation" takes place in prisons.
2) Keeping someone locked up is quite expensive.
3) The "imperfect system" IS "put in control of life and death" all the time. Every time a murderer is given 5-10 years, then released 'for good behavior' in 4. That murderer goes right back out on the streets, while their victim- surprise- is still DEAD.
If you can come up with an idea that both 1) keeps the violent away from the rest of society and 2) doesn't cost $40,000 per person, I'm all ears.
Actually, I have such a system. It's called 'kill the murderers'.
"Oh, well, that CAN'T be a bomb, I can SEE it," while they walk in with a wheelbarrow full of C-4.
Now you are mixing-and-matching my points. I said that if it was a real bomb, it would have been bigger. And here you go talking about a "wheelbarrow" full of C-4. Of course anything THAT size would be (and should be) suspicious. But not a circuit board on a tee shirt (or are you claiming her rack was 'wheelbarrow sized', and should have drawn suspicion??)
Further, such a person could be providing a diversion so that another person could make it through security
Then it's a really bad idea to send the guys with guns to take her down, no? If they're leaving the gates wide open so someone else could just walk thru. (And if they're not, then what's you point?)
a handful of plastique could kill a few people
So can a steak knife. So can a cane. So can a pillow. So can a razor blade. So can my bare hands. So can...
Like it or not, it's her fault for being a fucking idiot and not considering the climate of an airport after 9-11.
So, you are seriously saying that we all have to be extremely careful not to do or say ANYTHING that, if properly mis-interperated by those in charge, could be the least little bit suspicious, otherwise we deserve what we get??
If that's true, then you ought to be expecting feds bursting thru your door at any time, with all your talk about "wheelbarrow[s] full of C-4." and "plastique could kill a few people" and "fucking nuclear bomb[s]". I mean, that kinda talk could be mis-interperated....
Please, for the record, if you could tell us how many accidental killings at the hands of society would be acceptable
0%.
Of course, I think we all would say the same about getting hit by a truck- we would want a 0% chance of that happening every time we stapped out into the crosswalk.
Yet, in 2001, 4,882 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes. 78,000 pedestrians were injured in traffic crashes that year. Does that stop you from walking acoss the street?
Nothing is perfect. As to what the 'acceptable' failure rate is, I'd say 0%. That's what we need to shoot for. But we shouldn't ban all cars nationwide simply because a few thousand people get killed, and a few tens of thousand get injured.
And we shouldn't ban the Death Penalty because a few people get put to death wrongly. Or even a few tens of people.
that the greatest number of these convictions took place during the eighties, more than a third of them happened after...meaning 2/3 happened in the time frame I mentioned. Thanks for proving my point. I win a cheeto.
I still don't buy your original claim that the criminal justice system is near infallible.
That's good, because I never made that claim. But I think that, IF everyone involved in Death Penalty cases were held to stricter standards (like, if they falsify or ignore evidence or make a preventable mistake, they get put to death themselves), then the System would be much closer to 'infallible'.
I thought you said the important metric was the year of conviction.
My point about the year of conviction (which I though was clear, but I now see was not) is twofold:
1) Minorities were not afforded the respect they have now, meaning a black man might be convicted of a rape/murder in a southern state (where many of those exonerations happened, BTW) based upon mostly circumstancial evidence, mixed with a big dose of racism. This is, in my opinion, less likely to happen now, than 30+ years ago. 2) In the 70's and 80's there were fewer resources open to law enforcement. There was no real Internet, no DNA tests, and a lot of evidence gathering and analysis techniques were not yet invented. Therefore, it's possible that an innocent person could be convicted by accident, due to lack of exculpatory evidence. This would mean, as new techs are developed and used in original trials, then the rate of people being found guilty wrongly would fall, thus leading to fewer people being exonerated years later.
If she had wanted to blow anything or anyone up, she:
1) Would not have worn the bomb visibly. 2) Would have had a much bigger one (like in a backpack or purse) 3) Would not have approached an airport employee (who she could reasonably assume would be on the lookout for bombs) like she did.
Therefore, she did not have a bomb....And guess what? After they made a huge deal of it, guns pointed, etc, it turns out... get ready for this shocker... she actually did not have a bomb.
In 1976, I don't think they had DNA testing. We do now. in 1976, minorities were not treated as well as they are now. (Note how the vast majority of exonerees are Black or Latino.) Also, they list exonerees by the year the were exonerated, NOT the yaer they were originally found guilty. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most of them were found guily in the 70's and 80's.
Let's not talk of ancient history here: What number of people whe were put to death in the last 5 years have been Exonerated?
When it does, I think they should find out WHY the verdict was wrong. Did a cop not do his job right? Withhold evidence? Did a lab tech screw up an analysis? Did the Prosecutor ignore an alibi? Then they hold THAT person for trial- charge: Murder.
Think about it: would a cop try to frame someone for murder if they knew they would be put to death if the frame-up was discovered?? Would a prosecutor ignore evidence if they kney they would end up getting the death penalty??
"An Emerson College junior, drawn to Fenway Park to toast the first Red Sox pennant in 18 years, was killed yesterday, shot in the eye by a projectile fired by police..."
When that goes to trial, you simply tell them it was under duress. No defense lawyer in the world could drop that ball if you confessed while screaming in pain as movie-villain told you what to say
Of course they won't be using the device on you while they are filming. They'll use it on you for a while, then turn it off and explain your choices: Confess (and sound sincere), or they'll use it on you for another few hours.
You expect the Orbitz scheduling program to give you a valid schedule.,/i>
SHeesh, read the whole page, including the letter orbitz sent him:
Orbitz displays flight schedules and itineraries obtained directly from the airlines. Each itinerary that we sell meets airline requirements for appropriate "minimum connection times", including the flights purchased by Maddox.
In other words: It Was A Valid Schedule. At least according to the airlines Orbitz got the info from.
it depended on the customer paying for transportation between stops without informing the customer of that fact.
Every single online 'travel agency' site I've ever seen CLEARLY shows you which flight you will be be on from city to city. If it doesn't show a flight from city A to city B, then I'd assume that *I* would be responsible for that leg of the trip. Duh.
they had incompetent management that not only failed the customer, but failed every kind of public relations by excusing the inexcusable and releasing the customer's private information,
WHAT private information? The fact that, 3 years earlier, his flight left at 12:45 and not 12:00? That's the only 'new' info I see in their letter.
Think 'election tampering is a FEDERAL crime, so call the Feds'. Think 'call the press.'. Think 'don't elect the guy this time'. Think 'move out of town'. Think... for yourself. Sheesh.
That doesn't work if they are the feds. Nor is it likely to work very well if you are in a town of 5000 or less, and those making the threat are the local police.
It also won't work if mind-reading aliens are trying to influence the election.
There are always scenarios in which 'it won't work'. If your local government is that bad, then I suggest you leave.
You can not have a reciept showing how an individual voted.
Well, you CAN, but I agree it would be a bad idea.
If reciepts are provided that show how an individual voted, then they could trade their vote for favorable treatment by their employer, politician, etc.
There are actually two issues here:
A) Employees who "trade their vote for favorable treatment by their employer" and B) Employers who threaten their employees into voting a certain way, as verified by their receipt.
Both can be solved by making the receipts NOT have any information that links it to a particular person. If a receipt simply shows that 'a vote was cast for X', but does not say WHO voted for X, then there is no way an employer would pay an employee for a vote, since they cannot verify that it is their employees vote.
It's real simple: the voter makes his selection using, say, a voting machine. Voting machine spits out paper ballot and shows it to voter. Voter examines ballot to make sure ballot is good. If ballot is good, voter tells machine to accept the ballot and machine drops ballot into sealed box. If not, voter tells machine to reject the ballot and machine allows user to re-select candidates.,/i>
Do the same basic thing, but make the ballot print out on a '2-ply' receipt paper. The 'journal' copy gets wound up on a spool locked inside the printer, the 'receipt' copy is taken by the voter. Need a recount? Take the spool of 'journal' paper, and feed it thru a scanner that scans it. (Votes would be printed in human- and machine-readable formats. It's trivial to manually read a barcode to make sure the two match.)
If I wanted to force you to vote for a candidate I like I only need to ask for your receipt.
And if I wanted to get you locked up for 10 years, I could call the cops. Election tampering is a serious crime.
Besides, the receipt obviously would have no information on it that ties it to a particular person. So, I I could show "A" receipt, but you have NO WAY to verify if it is "MY" receipt.
"Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, and I'll pay you $10!" "Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, or you might suffer an 'accident' in the near future."
Easily answered with "Threaten me like that, and I'll bring the Feds to your door for Election Tampering".
once verified, the ballot drops into a secure ballot box and serves as the permanent record of your vote. No name, no identifying information is on the ballot, and NO RECEIPT.
Also NO PROOF if your vote was changed. If I have a receipt (obviously without my name or other identifying info on it) with a unique (random) number on it, then I can look up that number at 'www.electionresults.gov' and verify that the vote shown is correct. In fact, I can DL the entire Database, and count the votes myself if I wish. But I cannot tie any of those results to a particular person.
So, use a machine to mark a piece of paper that just gets fed into another machine?
Why not just have the first machine send the results to the second directly? Or simply eliminate the second machine altogether, and have the first one print a 'receipt' for the voter to look at?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah yeah, I see what you mean: 'People who commit murder are nothing more than malfunctioning machines. And we shouldn't throw away (kill) then because they didn't work perfectly.'
I don't think so.
You see, I beleive people are MORE than just machines. One example: Machines have no minds of their own. People do.
So, while I will not throw away an imperfect machine/process simply because it is imperfect, I most certainly WILL kill a person who has freely made up their mind to hurt and kill others. It's not the same thing AT ALL.
You seem to be the one confused.
There can be an accident, that causes misinformation that is used to incorrectly determine a verdict that leads to a Death penalty.
I say that execution was accidental. It's ultimate cause was the accident.
If you don't want the subject to die, don't push the button. It's as simple as that, why can't you get it through your head?
I understand that perfectly. But If I am presented with evidence that 'the subject' is a danger to Society, I would push that button. If the evidence later turns out to be wrong, then it is because of that wrong information that 'the subject' died. If the wrong information was accidental, then the death was an accident. If the wrong information was deliberate, then the death was murder.
Would people become lab techs if they knew one mistake could lead to their death? ,/i>
If they follow the proper procedures, they would have nothing to worry about.
A bridge you designed ends up failing? Death penalty.
If people end up dying in the collapse, and the collapse was a direct result of your screwing up, then YES- trial for murder, possible Death Penalty. What's so wrong about that?
Food poisoning kills a customer? Kill the entire kitchen staff.
Not the entire staff- just those responsible for the poisoning. If they violated safety rules, they are responsible.
If what I've read is correct America doesn't even let the 'darkies' vote any more in federal elections
Where the heck you you get this from? All citizens are allowed to vote.
they are still the higher majority in gaols.
There are 2 solutions to that puzzle:
1) Minorities commit more crimes
or
2) Minorities are unfairly targeted by the System
Guess which one the minorities beleive.
I strongly support the removal of the death penalty simply because I never want to be in a situation where I'm wrongfully accused by the state who wants to see me dead.
Okay, first- if 'the state' wants you dead, you'll be dead. "Shot trying to escape", etc.
2) Is life imprisonment that much better? Nevermind- It is, they way things are run today. Prisoners get free room and board, cable TV, internet access, and can sue at the drop of a hat. (I can't be bothered to google for it, but I remember a case where an inmate sued because his hot dog was cold. This suit was paid for - both sides- by our tax dollars.)
C)My whole point was, that now that we have better testing and analysis techniques, now that the Internet exists, etc, that people are much less likely to be convicted wrongly to begin with. Look at the Duke rape case- one of the accused was getting money from an ATM at the time he was supposedly participating in the assault. That was an alibi that couldn't exist in the 70's.
You're both saying that the current system is inacceptible, and that you accept it.
It is not acceptable as a final product, but it is acceptable as a work-in-progress.
Did you ever build any type of mechanical or electronic device? Did it work perfectly the first time? Almost certainly not, unless it was extremely simple. But did you throw it away because it didn't work perfectly? Of course not.
The Death Penalty has flaws. Innocent people get put to death. And (a lot more, imho) guilty people go free. But that doesn't mean we should throw it away.
You do not get the death penalty by "accident".
.09% match, they get a 90% match. They testify to that in court, resulting in a jury finding the accused guilty of murder. The accused gets put to death.
It is certainly possible. A trivial example:
Let's say a lab tech screws up a DNA sample analysis by accident. Instead of showing a
There- an accident that lead to someone getting the death penalty.
Sheesh.
You're comparing accidents to deliberately putting people to death
No. I am comparing two systems (traffic and Justice) that, theoretically, would be best if they had no accidents. People get killed by cars accidently, and people get the Death Penalty accidently (ie: a mistake is made in analyzing evidence, leading to a guilty verdict). People also get hit by cars on purpose (ie: murder), and people also get the Death Penalty on purpose (ie: Racist cop plants gun in black man's car to frame him for murder).
The death penalty is wrong because an imperfect system shouldn't be put in control of life and death when criminals can just as easily be separated from society and possibly rehabilitated in other ways.
1) Very little "rehabilitation" takes place in prisons.
2) Keeping someone locked up is quite expensive.
3) The "imperfect system" IS "put in control of life and death" all the time. Every time a murderer is given 5-10 years, then released 'for good behavior' in 4. That murderer goes right back out on the streets, while their victim- surprise- is still DEAD.
If you can come up with an idea that both 1) keeps the violent away from the rest of society and 2) doesn't cost $40,000 per person, I'm all ears.
Actually, I have such a system. It's called 'kill the murderers'.
"Oh, well, that CAN'T be a bomb, I can SEE it," while they walk in with a wheelbarrow full of C-4.
Now you are mixing-and-matching my points. I said that if it was a real bomb, it would have been bigger. And here you go talking about a "wheelbarrow" full of C-4. Of course anything THAT size would be (and should be) suspicious. But not a circuit board on a tee shirt (or are you claiming her rack was 'wheelbarrow sized', and should have drawn suspicion??)
Further, such a person could be providing a diversion so that another person could make it through security
Then it's a really bad idea to send the guys with guns to take her down, no? If they're leaving the gates wide open so someone else could just walk thru. (And if they're not, then what's you point?)
a handful of plastique could kill a few people
So can a steak knife. So can a cane. So can a pillow. So can a razor blade. So can my bare hands. So can...
Like it or not, it's her fault for being a fucking idiot and not considering the climate of an airport after 9-11.
So, you are seriously saying that we all have to be extremely careful not to do or say ANYTHING that, if properly mis-interperated by those in charge, could be the least little bit suspicious, otherwise we deserve what we get??
If that's true, then you ought to be expecting feds bursting thru your door at any time, with all your talk about "wheelbarrow[s] full of C-4." and "plastique could kill a few people" and "fucking nuclear bomb[s]". I mean, that kinda talk could be mis-interperated....
Please, for the record, if you could tell us how many accidental killings at the hands of society would be acceptable
0%.
Of course, I think we all would say the same about getting hit by a truck- we would want a 0% chance of that happening every time we stapped out into the crosswalk.
Yet, in 2001, 4,882 pedestrians were killed in traffic crashes. 78,000 pedestrians were injured in traffic crashes that year. Does that stop you from walking acoss the street?
Nothing is perfect. As to what the 'acceptable' failure rate is, I'd say 0%. That's what we need to shoot for. But we shouldn't ban all cars nationwide simply because a few thousand people get killed, and a few tens of thousand get injured.
And we shouldn't ban the Death Penalty because a few people get put to death wrongly. Or even a few tens of people.
that the greatest number of these convictions took place during the eighties, more than a third of them happened after ...meaning 2/3 happened in the time frame I mentioned. Thanks for proving my point. I win a cheeto.
I still don't buy your original claim that the criminal justice system is near infallible.
That's good, because I never made that claim. But I think that, IF everyone involved in Death Penalty cases were held to stricter standards (like, if they falsify or ignore evidence or make a preventable mistake, they get put to death themselves), then the System would be much closer to 'infallible'.
I thought you said the important metric was the year of conviction.
My point about the year of conviction (which I though was clear, but I now see was not) is twofold:
1) Minorities were not afforded the respect they have now, meaning a black man might be convicted of a rape/murder in a southern state (where many of those exonerations happened, BTW) based upon mostly circumstancial evidence, mixed with a big dose of racism. This is, in my opinion, less likely to happen now, than 30+ years ago.
2) In the 70's and 80's there were fewer resources open to law enforcement. There was no real Internet, no DNA tests, and a lot of evidence gathering and analysis techniques were not yet invented. Therefore, it's possible that an innocent person could be convicted by accident, due to lack of exculpatory evidence. This would mean, as new techs are developed and used in original trials, then the rate of people being found guilty wrongly would fall, thus leading to fewer people being exonerated years later.
I trust that was sufficiently clear.
If she had wanted to blow anything or anyone up, she:
...And guess what? After they made a huge deal of it, guns pointed, etc, it turns out... get ready for this shocker... she actually did not have a bomb.
1) Would not have worn the bomb visibly.
2) Would have had a much bigger one (like in a backpack or purse)
3) Would not have approached an airport employee (who she could reasonably assume would be on the lookout for bombs) like she did.
Therefore, she did not have a bomb.
Who would have thought?
These figures are since 1976.
In 1976, I don't think they had DNA testing. We do now.
in 1976, minorities were not treated as well as they are now. (Note how the vast majority of exonerees are Black or Latino.)
Also, they list exonerees by the year the were exonerated, NOT the yaer they were originally found guilty. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that most of them were found guily in the 70's and 80's.
Let's not talk of ancient history here: What number of people whe were put to death in the last 5 years have been Exonerated?
She wasn't trying to get on a plane, you moron. She was meeting someone who was arriving.
What if the verdict was wrong? what then?
Rarely happens.
When it does, I think they should find out WHY the verdict was wrong. Did a cop not do his job right? Withhold evidence? Did a lab tech screw up an analysis? Did the Prosecutor ignore an alibi? Then they hold THAT person for trial- charge: Murder.
Think about it: would a cop try to frame someone for murder if they knew they would be put to death if the frame-up was discovered?? Would a prosecutor ignore evidence if they kney they would end up getting the death penalty??
Really??
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/articles/2004/10/22/postgame_police_projectile_kills_an_emerson_student/
"An Emerson College junior, drawn to Fenway Park to toast the first Red Sox pennant in 18 years, was killed yesterday, shot in the eye by a projectile fired by police..."
When that goes to trial, you simply tell them it was under duress.
No defense lawyer in the world could drop that ball if you confessed while screaming in pain as movie-villain told you what to say
Of course they won't be using the device on you while they are filming. They'll use it on you for a while, then turn it off and explain your choices: Confess (and sound sincere), or they'll use it on you for another few hours.
Rinse, repeat.
SHeesh, read the whole page, including the letter orbitz sent him:
In other words: It Was A Valid Schedule. At least according to the airlines Orbitz got the info from.
it depended on the customer paying for transportation between stops without informing the customer of that fact.
Every single online 'travel agency' site I've ever seen CLEARLY shows you which flight you will be be on from city to city. If it doesn't show a flight from city A to city B, then I'd assume that *I* would be responsible for that leg of the trip. Duh.
they had incompetent management that not only failed the customer, but failed every kind of public relations by excusing the inexcusable and releasing the customer's private information,
WHAT private information? The fact that, 3 years earlier, his flight left at 12:45 and not 12:00? That's the only 'new' info I see in their letter.
Think 'corrupt local incumbent sheriff'
Think 'election tampering is a FEDERAL crime, so call the Feds'.
Think 'call the press.'.
Think 'don't elect the guy this time'.
Think 'move out of town'.
Think... for yourself. Sheesh.
That doesn't work if they are the feds. Nor is it likely to work very well if you are in a town of 5000 or less, and those making the threat are the local police.
It also won't work if mind-reading aliens are trying to influence the election.
There are always scenarios in which 'it won't work'. If your local government is that bad, then I suggest you leave.
You can not have a reciept showing how an individual voted.
Well, you CAN, but I agree it would be a bad idea.
If reciepts are provided that show how an individual voted, then they could trade their vote for favorable treatment by their employer, politician, etc.
There are actually two issues here:
A) Employees who "trade their vote for favorable treatment by their employer"
and
B) Employers who threaten their employees into voting a certain way, as verified by their receipt.
Both can be solved by making the receipts NOT have any information that links it to a particular person. If a receipt simply shows that 'a vote was cast for X', but does not say WHO voted for X, then there is no way an employer would pay an employee for a vote, since they cannot verify that it is their employees vote.
It's real simple: the voter makes his selection using, say, a voting machine. Voting machine spits out paper ballot and shows it to voter. Voter examines ballot to make sure ballot is good. If ballot is good, voter tells machine to accept the ballot and machine drops ballot into sealed box. If not, voter tells machine to reject the ballot and machine allows user to re-select candidates. ,/i>
Do the same basic thing, but make the ballot print out on a '2-ply' receipt paper. The 'journal' copy gets wound up on a spool locked inside the printer, the 'receipt' copy is taken by the voter. Need a recount? Take the spool of 'journal' paper, and feed it thru a scanner that scans it. (Votes would be printed in human- and machine-readable formats. It's trivial to manually read a barcode to make sure the two match.)
If I wanted to force you to vote for a candidate I like I only need to ask for your receipt.
And if I wanted to get you locked up for 10 years, I could call the cops. Election tampering is a serious crime.
Besides, the receipt obviously would have no information on it that ties it to a particular person. So, I I could show "A" receipt, but you have NO WAY to verify if it is "MY" receipt.
"Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, and I'll pay you $10!" "Bring me a vote for Candidate XXX, or you might suffer an 'accident' in the near future."
Easily answered with "Threaten me like that, and I'll bring the Feds to your door for Election Tampering".
once verified, the ballot drops into a secure ballot box and serves as the permanent record of your vote. No name, no identifying information is on the ballot, and NO RECEIPT.
Also NO PROOF if your vote was changed. If I have a receipt (obviously without my name or other identifying info on it) with a unique (random) number on it, then I can look up that number at 'www.electionresults.gov' and verify that the vote shown is correct. In fact, I can DL the entire Database, and count the votes myself if I wish. But I cannot tie any of those results to a particular person.
So, use a machine to mark a piece of paper that just gets fed into another machine?
Why not just have the first machine send the results to the second directly? Or simply eliminate the second machine altogether, and have the first one print a 'receipt' for the voter to look at?