|
On September 22 2011 19:30 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 19:10 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:58 LEGIONzomg wrote:
"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."
This comes back around to a more common saying "Do onto other as you would want them to do to you." Sounds pretty Reasonable to me. I disagree, those statements don't have the same meaning. Matching the style of the second, the first one could be paraphrased as "Do onto others as they have done to you." Sounds quite different to me. Exactly. Do onto others as they have done to you and Do onto other as you would want them to do to you go hand and hand. Don't wont to be killed?(Do onto others as you would want them to do to you.) Then don't kill people.(Do onto others as they have done to you.) All though "Do onto others as they have done to you." is where people go wrong and their mindset is completely wrong.
Do onto others as they have done to you. --> downward spiral
Do onto others as you would want them to do to you. --> upward spiral
|
On September 22 2011 19:45 LEGIONzomg wrote:
As a matter of fact the court actually CHOOSES Jurors from a series of safety precautions to keep the Jury non Bias. Defending such you can call a hearing if you feel that the Witness(es) are corrupted if you have Valid Proof via Cross-examination or any other encounter. This is especially true in a Criminal Case and not a Civil Case.
I think with the same precaution a jury can be chosen that so it is biased in the end.
Unless a jury isn't really chosen randomly, there's always a greater risk for bias, in my opinion. Especially if the the decision which juror to keep and which not is made by the lawyers, whose main concern is winning the case and carrying out justice.
|
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK!
|
On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 18:54 DrF33lg00d wrote:
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
You are aware that this comes into account in other aspects of the System where we sentence people to Psych Wards or rehabilitation and they end up committing the same crime AGAIN. Granted yes SOME people turn around but the fact of the matter unless its MAJORITY better then nothing with ever replace something. I don't see you down grading to another computer only because you like the Dinosaur cursor and your High Tech High Performance computer doesn't have it. When people get put into Jail that's Tax Dollars we pay from convicted Murders to live off us so actually unless the murderer is making 2x what we pay in taxes he/she is actually taking away from the Families of the people he/she murdered again. I wasn't talking about rehabilitation but about a form of compensation or reparation. Again, I think justice should be more constructive. While I think rehabilitation is a good idea, it's often implemented in futile ways. I'm not sure I did understand your computer analogy. Show nested quote +As far as your Comment towards Punishment being something the person learns from, the Death Penalty teaches everyone "HEY If you do this you will die for it." Everyone is accountable for their own doings and we don't need to Babysit the person. Hangings were done in public because it was a sign for other what will happen to the next person also. While that seems to make sense at first, it might be a little short sighted. Determent / deterrence (not sure which is the correct term here) doesn't work that way. The possibility of being executed some time down the road doesn't prevent a person with immediate needs comitting crimes. A drug addict knows that he might be sentenced to death for killing someone for their money. But when he craves for a shot he needs the money NOW and he hasn't a clear mind. Every smoker knows they have a high risk of getting cancer when they are older, but they need a cigarette now. Oh, and apart from making people aware of consequences for certain crimes, public executions where mostly exciting spectacles for the crowd with a lot of cheering going on. It was more like a party than an occasion for thinking about morality. Show nested quote +On the other hand I do completely agree with you on the being liable for convicting innocent people but it will never happen. Judges that convict people for things don't act upon their intuition or gut feelings they act upon a Jury and/or Evidence given. There will always be the way to fall back and go "Well the Evidence seemed accurate in my opinion so I convicted him." and it will always be an acceptable answer.
Just saying, it would be nice if it was changed. Coming back to the "hitting someone with a car" analogy, the person behind the wheel could also say "Well, the street was clear, there whas no sign of any person..." Still, they will have to make up for the accident.
I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid.
Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case.
Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
|
On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK!
Thank you for this lol. Also I don't think there was any lack of evidence when he was Convicted originally. The only problem is once Convicted of the crime you do have to prove your innocence if you want the penalty to be changed. We are innocent til proven guilty but the words change around to guilty til proven innocent once you're proven Guilty.
|
On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK!
I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences?
|
On September 22 2011 19:56 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:45 LEGIONzomg wrote:
As a matter of fact the court actually CHOOSES Jurors from a series of safety precautions to keep the Jury non Bias. Defending such you can call a hearing if you feel that the Witness(es) are corrupted if you have Valid Proof via Cross-examination or any other encounter. This is especially true in a Criminal Case and not a Civil Case. I think with the same precaution a jury can be chosen that so it is biased in the end. Unless a jury isn't really chosen randomly, there's always a greater risk for bias, in my opinion. Especially if the the decision which juror to keep and which not is made by the lawyers, whose main concern is winning the case and carrying out justice.
The Lawyers don't have any say so in the Original Jury selection. I agree that yes it's probably IMPOSSIBLE to get a completely non bias jury but also a Jury cannot convict someone of something unless its everyone doing it I'm pretty sure unless this was changed.
I do know that if you are a victim of the occasion that's being presented that you are unable to serve on the jury for the reasoning of your Bias and also it gives another reason for the Defense to prove your opinion to be Biased and claim a Miss Trial(aka a rape victim, or anyone related to one, cant serve on a rapist Jury.)
|
Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
|
On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences?
The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING.
Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate..
Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo.
|
On September 22 2011 20:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 18:54 DrF33lg00d wrote:
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
You are aware that this comes into account in other aspects of the System where we sentence people to Psych Wards or rehabilitation and they end up committing the same crime AGAIN. Granted yes SOME people turn around but the fact of the matter unless its MAJORITY better then nothing with ever replace something. I don't see you down grading to another computer only because you like the Dinosaur cursor and your High Tech High Performance computer doesn't have it. When people get put into Jail that's Tax Dollars we pay from convicted Murders to live off us so actually unless the murderer is making 2x what we pay in taxes he/she is actually taking away from the Families of the people he/she murdered again. I wasn't talking about rehabilitation but about a form of compensation or reparation. Again, I think justice should be more constructive. While I think rehabilitation is a good idea, it's often implemented in futile ways. I'm not sure I did understand your computer analogy. As far as your Comment towards Punishment being something the person learns from, the Death Penalty teaches everyone "HEY If you do this you will die for it." Everyone is accountable for their own doings and we don't need to Babysit the person. Hangings were done in public because it was a sign for other what will happen to the next person also. While that seems to make sense at first, it might be a little short sighted. Determent / deterrence (not sure which is the correct term here) doesn't work that way. The possibility of being executed some time down the road doesn't prevent a person with immediate needs comitting crimes. A drug addict knows that he might be sentenced to death for killing someone for their money. But when he craves for a shot he needs the money NOW and he hasn't a clear mind. Every smoker knows they have a high risk of getting cancer when they are older, but they need a cigarette now. Oh, and apart from making people aware of consequences for certain crimes, public executions where mostly exciting spectacles for the crowd with a lot of cheering going on. It was more like a party than an occasion for thinking about morality. On the other hand I do completely agree with you on the being liable for convicting innocent people but it will never happen. Judges that convict people for things don't act upon their intuition or gut feelings they act upon a Jury and/or Evidence given. There will always be the way to fall back and go "Well the Evidence seemed accurate in my opinion so I convicted him." and it will always be an acceptable answer.
Just saying, it would be nice if it was changed. Coming back to the "hitting someone with a car" analogy, the person behind the wheel could also say "Well, the street was clear, there whas no sign of any person..." Still, they will have to make up for the accident. I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid. Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case.
Yes, I can think of situations where that worked, but I can also think of situations where it didn't or the realization came too late. People seldomly act conscious when they are doing wrong things. We're still not evolved far enough, I guess. I'm sure in the far future society will have found ways to educate its people in a much more reasonable way, a way that actually works.
Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
Yes, you are absolutely right!
|
On September 22 2011 20:09 inermis wrote:
Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
They had evidence on him to convict him of murder. The linked article isn't fully accurate but then again nothing really can be. Once he was convicted of the crime 7 out of the 9 came back saying someone else claimed to be the killer or that they recant their testimonies. Only problem is that if the "other killer" doesn't come forth with actual evidence then the Court can just imply that the 7 eye witnesses that changed their testimonies or recanted either got pressured to do so or maybe it's actually true. We can't go on gut instinct or else the system would be bad.
|
On September 22 2011 20:09 inermis wrote:
Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
I think it was all but three who retracted testimonies...not 100%, but still...I think they're just hell bent on not being "wrong", no matter how morally wrong it is. It seems like they want to hold onto the original guilty verdict and use that as a way to bypass the "innocent until proven guilty." This way they can say they already have found him guilty, so they don't need to assume he's innocent.
I'm not up to par 100% with the details of the case, but something is amiss, whether it's because he's innocent or they fucked up or something else is going on, but it's just fishy to me that they're keeping him inprisoned when every time I see something new about the case, he looks more and more innocent. It's almost like they want him to die by execution so that he's out of their hair, so to speak.
I wish I could say "Oh they just want to be sure before letting him go" but they could take him off death row, house arrest, life in jail, something...but they're really shoving execution forward in this.
On September 22 2011 20:16 LEGIONzomg wrote:
They had evidence on him to convict him of murder. The linked article isn't fully accurate but then again nothing really can be. Once he was convicted of the crime 7 out of the 9 came back saying someone else claimed to be the killer or that they recant their testimonies. Only problem is that if the "other killer" doesn't come forth with actual evidence then the Court can just imply that the 7 eye witnesses that changed their testimonies or recanted either got pressured to do so or maybe it's actually true. We can't go on gut instinct or else the system would be bad.
Agreed, even though my post sounds like I completely disagree rofl. I'm so tired, now is such a bad time to try and convey any thoughts.
but I'll do it anyways!! \o/
I think deep down, this is what my gut feeling actually agrees with the most - that the court can't just take those testimonies as true and shrug off the rest of the case...the witness' testimonies were either wrong in convicting him, or they are wrong now about their changes. Why? Who knows - but the point is that those testimonies are now impossibly hard to decipher and convict upon. LEGION is right - it wouldn't be the first time that a convicted person, or someone they know, has pressured someone into changing a testimony.
|
On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo.
Get them a job in prison where they make tshirts or do the laundry for hospitals or something, so they can get money from, only to spend the money on food.
Make the prison their life and get them do get some work done while they get no profit out of it, they just do it to survive.
It's actually done in many prisons and it works fine, we should elaborate this system.
|
On September 22 2011 20:13 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 18:54 DrF33lg00d wrote:
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
You are aware that this comes into account in other aspects of the System where we sentence people to Psych Wards or rehabilitation and they end up committing the same crime AGAIN. Granted yes SOME people turn around but the fact of the matter unless its MAJORITY better then nothing with ever replace something. I don't see you down grading to another computer only because you like the Dinosaur cursor and your High Tech High Performance computer doesn't have it. When people get put into Jail that's Tax Dollars we pay from convicted Murders to live off us so actually unless the murderer is making 2x what we pay in taxes he/she is actually taking away from the Families of the people he/she murdered again. I wasn't talking about rehabilitation but about a form of compensation or reparation. Again, I think justice should be more constructive. While I think rehabilitation is a good idea, it's often implemented in futile ways. I'm not sure I did understand your computer analogy. As far as your Comment towards Punishment being something the person learns from, the Death Penalty teaches everyone "HEY If you do this you will die for it." Everyone is accountable for their own doings and we don't need to Babysit the person. Hangings were done in public because it was a sign for other what will happen to the next person also. While that seems to make sense at first, it might be a little short sighted. Determent / deterrence (not sure which is the correct term here) doesn't work that way. The possibility of being executed some time down the road doesn't prevent a person with immediate needs comitting crimes. A drug addict knows that he might be sentenced to death for killing someone for their money. But when he craves for a shot he needs the money NOW and he hasn't a clear mind. Every smoker knows they have a high risk of getting cancer when they are older, but they need a cigarette now. Oh, and apart from making people aware of consequences for certain crimes, public executions where mostly exciting spectacles for the crowd with a lot of cheering going on. It was more like a party than an occasion for thinking about morality. On the other hand I do completely agree with you on the being liable for convicting innocent people but it will never happen. Judges that convict people for things don't act upon their intuition or gut feelings they act upon a Jury and/or Evidence given. There will always be the way to fall back and go "Well the Evidence seemed accurate in my opinion so I convicted him." and it will always be an acceptable answer.
Just saying, it would be nice if it was changed. Coming back to the "hitting someone with a car" analogy, the person behind the wheel could also say "Well, the street was clear, there whas no sign of any person..." Still, they will have to make up for the accident. I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid. Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case. Yes, I can think of situations where that worked, but I can also think of situations where it didn't or the realization came too late. People seldomly act conscious when they are doing wrong things. We're still not evolved far enough, I guess. I'm sure in the far future society will have found ways to educate its people in a much more reasonable way, a way that actually works. Show nested quote +Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
Yes, you are absolutely right!
I know what you mean. I know when personally Myself did not register something until it was too late. Only problem is that if it was something Severe enough I caught on almost instantly that NOPE not doing that lol. As a system we've got to go with what's Majority and not worry about "Well there was this one time.." stuff. Its not right sometimes but if it's 8 of 10 that's close to perfect. It sounds wrong but I'd rather convict a murderer that was innocent and THEN prove him innocent then to just go with a gut instinct and let someone out only to kill again.
Also I think we should sooo make up a law for people not having the knowledge they needed 
|
On September 22 2011 20:19 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo. Get them a job in prison where they make tshirts or do the laundry for hospitals or something, so they can get money from, only to spend the money on food. Make the prison their life and get them do get some work done while they get no profit out of it, they just do it to survive. It's actually done in many prisons and it works fine, we should elaborate this system.
I would be ok with that honestly but like I said in some states that would mean for us to pay NO taxes the prisoner would have to have a job that made him $130 a day. That's an 8 hours a day job paying $16.25 an hour. That's exceptionally higher then Minimum wage.
|
Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone?
|
On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo.
Yes, it is. I guess most people don't make that amount a day. But I think the infrastructure that is needed to imprison people just costs so much. I'm sure there are ways to make that much cheaper...
But if I think about it...if prisoners make more money than they cost, society will have a major inscentive to have a lot of prisoners...legal slaves. Isn't there a kind of prison industry in the US already? People might get imprisoned just for anything... Aah, mankind is just too fucked up. : (
|
On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote:
Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone?
I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death.
|
I read alot about this guy on CNN while eating breakfast this morning. I think he is guilty as sin. Obviously our legal system does as well since he has ben denied 4 times and it went all the way to the supreme court. Now, as for our legal system, it can be absolutely retarded at times but the evidence here is strong. The only reason that anyone claims it is not is because they are grasping at straws. He shot someone else before the police officer he killed and the shells from both scenes matched in a ballistics report. Hard to refute that.... they are trying to claim that evidence was mishandled due to what bag the shells were in.
I'm not here to argue but I personally think he got what he deserved. And I completely DISAGREE with the OP in saying that it should be noted that he is black. That fact has nothing to do with anything here. If people really want to abolish things like the death penalty, then they have to stop using prejudice and racial differences as a tool in situations where it is truly not a factor.
|
On September 22 2011 20:26 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote:
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo. Yes, it is. I guess most people don't make that amount a day. But I think the infrastructure that is needed to imprison people just costs so much. I'm sure there are ways to make that much cheaper... But if I think about it...if prisoners make more money than they cost, society will have a major inscentive to have a lot of prisoners...legal slaves. Isn't there a kind of prison industry in the US already? People might get imprisoned just for anything... Aah, mankind is just too fucked up. : (
Yeah some people have it to were Prisoners make License plates. Granted there's 4 levels of Prisons. a Level 4 Prison(which is murderers, serial killers and I think Child molesters) don't have this luxury of making plates. They save stuff for Level 1s and 2s. Also There are no Mixed Prisons. I'm not sure what ALL the prisons inmates are and what Level's 1,2, and 3 qualify for doing in society but I do think they keep the jobs like that for people with only minimum years not the Life in Prison people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
