RE: The death penalty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Owner59 -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 8:16:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR

If convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole, I say 'fry 'em'! Why should they be a burden to the taxpayers?


This isn't a valid argument because it costs more to "fry 'em!" than to imprison them for life. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty


Yes, it is a valid argument...the cost "frying 'em" is a failure of the legal system.

If a person is convicted, then sentenced to death, then immediately taken and fried...it'd cost a lot less than imprisoning them for life.


And frying the wrong person is also a failure of the legal system.

But for the blood thirsty,a few innocents put to death is no big deal.



marie2 -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 8:25:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many are arguing that capital punishment sometimes kill innocents…I think there is irrefutable evidence that this is correct and the application of this law needs to be changed to protect the innocent.

But what if the laws can be changed to where only the absolute guilty, those with multiple eyewitnesses…overwhelming evidence…caught the act criminals…could be considered for capital punishment… would you still be against its use?

If the crime were committed against someone you loved would that change your way of thinking.

If a loved one were killed by a paroled murder that in the original trial had absolute guilt… would you still think Capital Punishment was not a deterrent to murder?

In you mind is there no crime deserving of death?

Butch



For me, yes, I'd be all for it, if there was a way that we could be 100% sure of guilt.   But since the system (defense attys, prosecutors, judges, expert witnesses etc) is corrupt, it's nearly impossible to know 100% if someone is guilty.  Even in a case where someone pleads guilty, we can't know if they weren't coerced into a plea bargain.



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 8:34:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marie2

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many are arguing that capital punishment sometimes kill innocents…I think there is irrefutable evidence that this is correct and the application of this law needs to be changed to protect the innocent.

But what if the laws can be changed to where only the absolute guilty, those with multiple eyewitnesses…overwhelming evidence…caught the act criminals…could be considered for capital punishment… would you still be against its use?

If the crime were committed against someone you loved would that change your way of thinking.

If a loved one were killed by a paroled murder that in the original trial had absolute guilt… would you still think Capital Punishment was not a deterrent to murder?

In you mind is there no crime deserving of death?

Butch



For me, yes, I'd be all for it, if there was a way that we could be 100% sure of guilt.   But since the system (defense attys, prosecutors, judges, expert witnesses etc) is corrupt, it's nearly impossible to know 100% if someone is guilty.  Even in a case where someone pleads guilty, we can't know if they weren't coerced into a plea bargain.



But you can be sure in some instances...many murders have been captured in the act... on camera...witnessed by millions on television.

Take for instance the guy that went down the line of commuters on the subway shooting and killing then captured by security and passengers.

There are many murders where there is no doubt.

Butch



stella41b -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 10:40:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

SNIP
Do you people arguing for the death penalty have any first hand experience of how the system works or is it all based on TV and movies?


Sam


i wish i had no first hand experience with it and it was based just on tv shows.

i could ask the same of those rallying against it.  have you buried a family member, had the parent of the convicted murderer come up to you and hug you as they walk away from the child they did everything to save and had them admit their son deserved to die?

i agree it is an emotional issue, but most things in life are, to some extent.


I've lost two relatives who were both murdered in Glasgow. One was my grandmother's sister who was beaten to death with a table leg for the sum of three pounds and fifty pence. The youths were caught and sentenced to life imprisonment and all I have is a sense of relief that they were caught and brought to justice.

Also I have been sexually assaulted by a convicted paedophile here in London (whilst I was staying in a homeless night shelter) who managed to get infected with HIV. This happened to me (and three other women in the night shelter) in 2006. Nobody at the night shelter checked nor knew that he had absconded from his safe address under the Sex Offenders Registry but the police were looking for him and arrested him.

I am still the main prosecution witness as consent was never given and the police wanted him sent down for life, due to the fact that the woman he assaulted after me infected him with HIV and also for the fact that he is a repeat offender. He was held on remand for seven months before being brought to trial in London early in 2007. He entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution who withdrew my charge against him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and this charge is held 'on licence' against him. He pleaded guilty to the assaults on the other two women and for absconding from his safe address for which he received 12 months imprisonment. However having spent time on remand he was able to walk free from court.

Should he reoffend my charge against him will be taken into account and now additionally, with him being infected with HIV this adds to it 'with intent to kill' which means a longer sentence. But the thing is, the authorities have made it possible for him to reoffend, and with this infect someone with HIV.

I have considered the option of seeking him out myself and taking him out. If I could somehow manage to get a plea of diminihed responsibility accepted and with remission and parole my sentence might not be more than five years. This is not taking into account the additional argument that I would be preventing a far worse crime from taking place. Of course I am not planning to murder anyone, this was just something I took under consideration after the trial.

But you know when I stop and think about it I don't think there is any way or any possible reason for me to wish loss and bereavement on an innocent person such as the member of a family of a killer or one of their relatives or close friends. Why should I? It's not going to bring my dead relatives back, nor is it going to change anything.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 10:49:02 AM)

I didn't check the date of the review I posted earlier. So can we agree on 36 as the number? My point was that the 130+ number seems to mix those that were exonerated, with those that got off on technicalities. It also appears that the percentage used by some is the inflated 130+ number in ratio to execution doen, not just cases tried. To me it inflates the number as well. I will admit it appears difficult to get some objective research as the groups doing it seem to be either pro death or anti death.

Also, I didn't check each of the cases you listed, I am taking it on face value. Were all of those exonerations? Were any of those pardons or failure to refile?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Have all been proven completely innocent of the charges that put them on death row since 1995. I'm sure many of the 55 people acquitted and released from death row between 1973 and 1995 are also truly innocent but 36 already is more than the 32 you claim.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 10:57:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many are arguing that capital punishment sometimes kill innocents…I think there is irrefutable evidence that this is correct and the application of this law needs to be changed to protect the innocent.


I am a big believer the system needs to be changed, and a temporary suspension of executions until that change occurs is also something I would support. Now realistically do I believe that change will occur? No. Why? Because we the people are horrible at holding our elected officials accountable. We are often too busy just cheerleading party rhetoric.

quote:


But what if the laws can be changed to where only the absolute guilty, those with multiple eyewitnesses…overwhelming evidence…caught the act criminals…could be considered for capital punishment… would you still be against its use?


Absolute is not a word I would use, but if the system made it so that only those with very solid evidence, and not just DNA evidence, were executed I believe it would become better.

quote:


If the crime were committed against someone you loved would that change your way of thinking.


It would bring emotion into it, and things like this need to be objective as possible.

quote:


If a loved one were killed by a paroled murder that in the original trial had absolute guilt… would you still think Capital Punishment was not a deterrent to murder?


This same arguement can be used for LWOP.

quote:


In you mind is there no crime deserving of death?

Butch



There are several types of murder and other crimes that constitute to me an individual that has legally lost their rights, which include life and liberty.



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 11:10:05 AM)

We seem to agree...I am for capital punishment but only if the laws are made more stringent when CP can be used. I will also not hold my breath while waiting.

The second offense murders are not an emotional ploy. A significant portion of paroled murders will kill again and a smaller portion serving life sentences kill in prison. They could not do so from 6 feet under.

Emotion should never be left out of this discussion because we would be ignoring the wants and needs of the very people injured most by a murder. Even the court recognizes this by statements before sentencing.

Butch



janiebelle -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 11:25:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

~fast reply~

i have resisted posting to this thread for this long....and i dont expect anyone to agree with me, but....

my aunt was murdered by 2 teenaged boys, as she sat washing clothes and having coffee and watching regis and kathie lee in her own kitchen....one confessed and there was way more than enough evidence to convict them both.  they both got 2 life sentences.

i wish we could have taken them to the town square right after the convictions, and shot them in the fucking head.  check with any victims rights agency, and you will find there are many many more families of murder victims who feel the same way.  i dont give a damn if they had bad childhoods, were made fun of or were born evil. the fact that they are still stealin oxygen from this earth and my aunt is dead makes me sick to my stomach.

take old cases and review them.....make sure a person is guilty.  but once it is proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, their right to breathe my air should cease to exist.


Excellent point.  In my Utopia, the convicted would be handed to the family of the victims for just that if they chose.
It's just not the place of the state to kill its own citizens.



janiebelle -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 11:31:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"but an armed citizen in the vicinity stands a much better chance of "taking out the garbage".


As well,a much better chance of shooting yourself or a loved one in your family by accident.


Read the John Lott study.  Interesting findings there, especially for a man who set out to endorse your thesis.
I live in a heavily armed community.  Gun "accidents" are just not statistically significant reason to not keep a gun.
If you don't want to, fine.
But if you are proficient and prepared, it's a great safety tool.
j



JstAnotherSub -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 12:02:53 PM)

stella, you are a kinder gentler soul than i am.....and thats ok with me....id prefer the stealers of life be dead them selves...asap...



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 1:31:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR

I'd like to see how many of the liberals here who oppose the death penalty would change their minds if some nut-job came into your life and intentionally took out someone very close to you (a child, parent, spouse, etc.) just because it gave them a thrill. Would you still open your arms and forgive them and say that's all right you still deserve to live? Or would you want them snuffed out as quickly as they did your loved one?



I'd want them to die a slow, horrible, painful death - preferably at my own hands. Which is precisely why your  argument is so completely and irreparably flawed. The justice system in a civilized society is specifically designed to keep personal vengeance out of the process.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 1:41:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

People keeping posting the 130+ as found innocent, when in fact only 32 of them were exonerated of the crime. The others either got off on legal loopholes and were not retried on the same charge, or prosecutors decided to not retry them. Only those exonerated would be actually innocent, meaning they actually were in no way involved. The others were kicked back for various other reasons, and may or may not have been involved. In many of those instances those inmates were not released as they were also found guilty of other charges related to the crime (this being one of the reasons stated by some prosecutors as why they did not retry the case).


A couple of thinsg here. First of all, am I misreading you or are you arguing that while the execution of 130 innocent people may be excessive, the execution of only 32 might not be so bad? And second, I'd argue that a lot of what you're calling "legal loopholes" here probably fall into the category of  what I'd call "Constitutional protections." I couldn't grab hold of that argument too firmly without knowing the details of the specific "loopholes", but I feel safe in assuming that would largely be the case.



TheHeretic -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 1:51:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raechard

 I'd incarcerate the whole population if the whole population were dangerous criminals.



       LOL.  That's mighty tyrannical of you, Rae!  What a utopia you are willing to build... [8|]

     



Raechard -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:02:45 PM)

Well I'd still be outside the prison walls.[:D]



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:05:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Many are arguing that capital punishment sometimes kill innocents…I think there is irrefutable evidence that this is correct and the application of this law needs to be changed to protect the innocent.

But what if the laws can be changed to where only the absolute guilty, those with multiple eyewitnesses…overwhelming evidence…caught the act criminals…could be considered for capital punishment… would you still be against its use?


Yes, for at least two reasons. First of all, there is no such thing as an absolutely perfect, infallible system of determining guilt. It's impossible. You could cherry-pick a few examples of where such an absolute determination can be made, and in most of those cases I'd agree that there's no question you got the right guy, but for every one you cherry-pick I could find a hundred where it can't  apply.

So who decides where this standard of infallibility applies, and where it doesn't? Some human being. And there goes your infallibility and your absolute objectivity right there, right out the window.

And second, even if it were technically possible it would be unconstitutional. You can't have different degrees of guilt. Under our system of justice, you're either guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or you're not guilty. There's no category in between for "we're almost positive you're guilty, but we might be wrong, so we're hedging our bets just in case we fucked up."


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsubIf the crime were committed against someone you loved would that change your way of thinking.



Probably not. I hope i never find out for sure.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
If a loved one were killed by a paroled murder that in the original trial had absolute guilt… would you still think Capital Punishment was not a deterrent to murder?


Depends on the circumstances. Way too many possible variables in your hypothetical.



quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
In you mind is there no crime deserving of death?



In my mind there are many, many crimes deserving of death. But that's not the issue. The issue is not whether someone deserves to die; it's whether the state has the right to take their life. In a society that purports to be civilized, I do not believe that it does.



quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
But you can be sure in some instances...many murders have been captured in the act... on camera...witnessed by millions on television.

....

There are many murders where there is no doubt.





How many? Expressed as a percentage? I think you'd find that the number of murders where the  identity of the killer is absolutely, 100% certain is quite small. Far too small from which to hang a substantive argument. I've been on juries before, I worked many years in a public service position that dealt primarily with crime and judicial issues, and i can tell you categorically that in almost every crime, there is always some grey area. It's just not cut and dried like the script of some TV show.



Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:06:01 PM)

FR

Here's one for ya. I just got through talking to someone who did twenty years for attempted murder. One day in the shower the cieling tiles fell on his head. These people get free medical care and room and board charged to the taxpayers. Yet he won a $40,000 lawsuit against the institution and put the money in his commisary. He said he almost lived like a King. Via bribes and other tactics he got whatever he wanted, pot, booze, any kind of drug, even Women. He came up before the parole board and got flopped, which is the term for denied parole. When they let you out it is called paid. They told him straight out that he would have a better chance if he had killed the guy.

He would get out earlier if had killed the guy ? Just who figured this system out ? This is not bullshit, and I can't see any logic behind it, can you ?

T



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:10:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
He would get out earlier if had killed the guy ? Just who figured this system out ? This is not bullshit, and I can't see any logic behind it, can you ?


Sounds like bullshit to me. The guy's an ex-con, a punk, and if he survived 20 years in the can he's a lying, manipulating con artist as well. Sounds like the stuff of which urban legends are made.



Raechard -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:14:55 PM)

Yep this is probably a clear case of misconception being 9/10ths of the law.



Termyn8or -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:26:53 PM)

Fine then. but I see no reason for him to make it up.

T



kdsub -> RE: The death penalty (5/3/2009 2:26:59 PM)

The only way I would be for CP is with irrefutable evidence... the percentage is not important to me...should it be to you?

Now I do understand your position on what is civilized and what is not… it is an honest position… The rest of your arguments hold no weight if proper safeguards in the laws governing CP are installed.

To address your only valid argument…what is civilized and what is not….well it is up the civilization would you not say?

Butch



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875