|
On September 23 2011 01:19 JamesJohansen wrote:
Disclaimer: I wasn't the guy who wanted statistics, I already knew about death row expenses.
Just want to point out that this is a shitty arguement for debating against capitol punishment because the reason its so expensive is because of all the beaurocratic bullshit that goes with it. The actual process should be much cheaper.
The cost efficiency argument itself is also wrong. It is not necessarily cheaper to have death penalty. The numbers for death penalty cases are below. The racial bias in the death sentences is also apparent from those numbers.
Death Penalty Facts
I don't believe in death penalty both from a moral stand point as it festers an eye for an eye mentality and from a logical stand point as it is been shown to neither have a deterrent affect nor have a strong economic aspect. Also, the process itself is potentially ridden with bias. Compound to the fact, a death penalty sentence on an innocent man can never be reversed, I don't see any grounds justifying it.
I pointed at the statistics since he was bringing it multiple times that he does not want his tax dollars spent on keeping people in prison and that it was cheaper to have death penalty. If you can see my earlier post in the thread, I am against it for multiple reasons both from a moral and logical standpoint.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit.
Also, 99.99%? come on man.
|
On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man.
The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story.
Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis.
|
I am sick and tired of hearing things like "Oh, he was arrested because he was black, not because he did it."
I agree the guy shouldn't be executed if he was innocent, but what does the fact that he's black have to do with his innocence? NOTHING. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not he committed the crime, and so shouldn't even be up for discussion.
The only way to have a reasonable trial is to leave race out of the discussion completely, because otherwise you sway the jurors unfairly to one direction or the other. If your jurors happen to be bigots, bringing up his race just reminds them of their prejudice, and he gets cheated out of a fair trial. If your jurors aren't bigots though, bringing up his race sways jurors to think he is innocent and just the victim of racist cops, regardless of whether or not he actually DID commit the crime.
|
On September 23 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man. The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story. Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis.
Negative ghostrider. It makes 0 sense. Crime and punishment do not have direct correlations to each other. There are too many variables in the act of a "crime" that trying to claim one single thing, like a death penalty, stops it. Yes, you can claim the death penalty slowed crime down but that could also be from cultural changes, population demographics, media, and a whole slew of other things all either mixed or looked at by themselves.
Multiple states across the US have death penalties and those states all have widely varying crime rates, before and post introduction of said penalty.
|
On September 23 2011 02:47 Millitron wrote:
I am sick and tired of hearing things like "Oh, he was arrested because he was black, not because he did it."
I agree the guy shouldn't be executed if he was innocent, but what does the fact that he's black have to do with his innocence? NOTHING. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not he committed the crime, and so shouldn't even be up for discussion.
The only way to have a reasonable trial is to leave race out of the discussion completely, because otherwise you sway the jurors unfairly to one direction or the other. If your jurors happen to be bigots, bringing up his race just reminds them of their prejudice, and he gets cheated out of a fair trial. If your jurors aren't bigots though, bringing up his race sways jurors to think he is innocent and just the victim of racist cops, regardless of whether or not he actually DID commit the crime.
Man, read the story please.
We live in a country where racism accounts for some things.
There was a judge/sherriff in the news recently that was in major issues for throwing black men in jail based off nothing but racism.
**I'll try and find this article soon, sorry...a quick google on "racist sheriff" brings up a really bad series of youtube videos lol.**
And you're right about leaving it out, but the problem is no one will. The idea we have is that no one should be a bigot and we take everyone at face to assume they aren't (because I for one can't believe we still have this issue) the fact is, almost everyone is racist or bigoted and they may not even realize it.
I used to know a friend who pointed out to me how a lot of people will say something like this.
"Hey, look at that guy!"
-- "What guy my friend?"
"That black guy over there, next to the _____"
When you could use any number of other descriptors; such as body language, activities, clothing, etc. to describe the person. Like this.
"Hey, look at that guy!"
-- "What guy my friend?"
"That guy over there, with the red shirt next to the ____"
Is it racist? Yes. Is it harmful...eh, maybe not but it is still using a skin color to describe someone.
|
On September 23 2011 02:56 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man. The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story. Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis. Negative ghostrider. It makes 0 sense. Crime and punishment do not have direct correlations to each other. There are too many variables in the act of a "crime" that trying to claim one single thing, like a death penalty, stops it. Yes, you can claim the death penalty slowed crime down but that could also be from cultural changes, population demographics, media, and a whole slew of other things all either mixed or looked at by themselves. Multiple states across the US have death penalties and those states all have widely varying crime rates, before and post introduction of said penalty.
Fine.
I know people who don't hesitate to take a few grams of marijuana with them when they travel to most countries, but don't do it in Singapore because they think rationally and they know it's not worth it. So I guess punishment reduces crime when people who commit the offense think rationally.
What I was saying is that such reasoning really doesn't work with murder and other serious crimes. You don't think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't do it, because I could face death penalty, or maybe I will do it because I only face 30 years of jail" when you are in a situation of killing somebody.
Actually, psychoanalyst shows how most criminals have such an auto-destructive instinct that capital punishment only makes things worse.
|
On September 23 2011 00:25 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:15 Ansinjunger wrote:On September 23 2011 00:02 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote:
I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad." So you'd rather the blood be on your hands than another person's? That may sound commendable in some strange way, but it's certainly not what I'd prefer. Besides, what are the circumstances of "we let him go?" There are these things called life sentences. If a jury "let's him go," and he was guilty, that has more to do with incompetent police work, lack of evidence, or good old dishonest lawyers working the system, etc. It's also rather known that prison sucks. I'd hardly call it a free ride. It's simply humane not to starve people, murderers or not. If you haven't heard of Ron Williamson or read John Grisham's The Innocent Man, I highly suggest it. That particular book is non fiction and tells the story of a real person who was wrongly convicted of murder and his life was ruined after he was sent to death row. It also shows the horrors of solitary confinement. A picture of the man when he was 47 looked like he was 80 and invalid. I always thought that was a dramatization of books like A Tale of Two Cities, but it's actually possible. The book has the pictures. Blood is on your hands one way or another. If he's not convicted then why're we giving him a Life in Prison? Your statement seems to be contradicting itself but I'm probably just tired honestly so forgive me if it is just me. Humane never has a set in stone definition in peoples eyes. Something that's Humane to you might not be humane to me. Humane or not I couldn't care less. The Death Penalty is here and is not Tossed Around very highly. since 1971 there's been 1182 Death Sentences in 2010 I believe. You guys act like the Death Sentence is given for EVERYTHING. Rapist don't get the Death Sentence. Murderers get it. Murdering is Inhumane itself so I don't see people point about the Death Sentence not being humane. You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement.
Allow me to try again.
I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad."
If you'd rather make the mistake of executing an innocent man than letting a guilty one go free, you're kind of forgetting that when you execute an innocent man, a guilty one did go free. Your hypothetical quote could look like this, which is a still worse scenario: "Remember that guy that was executed for murdering you daughter? He was the wrong one. We had the real one in custody and questioned him, but we let him go due to lack of evidence. The real killer has now murdered your son. Our bad."
If I appeared to contradict myself, it's probably due to the situations you presented not adding up in the first place.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty.
I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases.
EDIT:typo
|
On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo
A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes.
|
murder is a crime no matter the colour of the uniform, including orange
|
On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes.
Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely.
EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
Interesting theory you have there, backed up by absolutely nothing.
American states without the death penalty have lower rates of homocide.
Source; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Source No. 2; http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
'Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”
The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.'
In a February 7, 1997 Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (part of U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services), from 1950-1993 child homicide rates in the U. S. tripled. CDC compared the U.S. with 25 other industrialized countries and found that "the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries." Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty
How's that deterrant argument going for you?
|
If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million.
|
On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote:
If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million.
And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ?
|
On September 23 2011 03:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely. EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be.
There are always doubts. Always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
A good movie about it.
|
death penalty should be reserved only to the most serious crimes with hard proof that points it towards the criminal with 100% certainty.
as far as i know, only "hard proof" are the witnesses and there are no physical evidences.
death penalty should not apply to him.
|
On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote:
If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ?
Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that.
|
On September 23 2011 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:48 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote:
I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely. EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be. There are always doubts. Always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)A good movie about it.
I saw the movie and it is pretty annoying as far as ideas go, actors are good that is true.
And no there are many cases where there are no doubts. If you checked real-life cases and not movie-based cases, quite often there are no doubts. Have you checked many court cases ? Murderers are often stupid, caught with murder weapons, in clothes covered in blood of the victim and surprisingly often they actually plead guilty. In such cases there are no realistic doubts.
|
On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote:
If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that.
Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
