|
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.
Manslaughter is not murder. And I am not actually opposed to death penalty, but I am opposed to vengeance playing significant role in justice system. That is why I criticized your argument.
|
Given the chain of events Davis described, I actually think he was likely the killer. I don't know, but the juries drew a reasonable conclusion.
|
On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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.
Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well.
|
On September 23 2011 04:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote: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.
Look, my point is that justice is never perfect, because we are humans.
For me that's not the point. I wouldn't advocate death penalty for Hitler himself.
|
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well.
Following what logic? Retaliation?
Great. That's really how civilized people think.
That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself.
|
On September 23 2011 03:01 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is a very warped perception of racism. This is a great example of the over-sensitivity a lot of people have developed. Racism may very well have a part in the case, as almost everybody is racist even if its just the subconscious connection of stereotypes.
Calling someone black isn't racist its an accurate descriptor, making assumptions about them because of the fact they'e black is.
|
On September 23 2011 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Following what logic? Retaliation? Great. That's really how civilized people think. That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself.
If someone kills someone close to you and spends 10years in prison do you forgive him after that, because he paid his crime to society? I really think law system is full of flaws. For example you spend more time in prison doing victimless crimes than murders etc. And why some random time in prison for murder should be justice?
And like i said earlier, dead ones wont come back, why should killers have chance to normal life again.
|
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well.
How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life.
The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge.
|
The death penalty is 100 % wrong. There really are no incidences anymore where it becomes appropriate in our society.
I read a very interesting book some time ago called "The Punitive Obsession," wherein the author outlines the evolution of the death penalty. To summarize the book, humanity has used the "death penalty" as a means of expressing its anger and outrage toward an offender. Actually the intent wasn't necessarily death, death was subsequent to the act of outrage. In other words, the intent was to make the offender suffer, with death often resulting as a consequence of the actions (which were always barbaric). Some societies have maintained the death penalty, yet go about it in the most "humanitarian" way possible (such as lethal injection). In other words, we've given up the outrage, yet we keep the act of killing. Looked at in this way it doesn't make sense.
I often hear people talk about the death penalty being justified due to the financial burden associated with caring for incarcerated criminals. Put simply; this is one of the costs of living in a more evolved society. If you live in a jungle then fine, bash him over the head with a rock and be done with it. We do not live in a jungle, however, and what people consider financial imperative can never overrule moral obligation.
Notwithstanding the argument that if killing is wrong than it should be categorically wrong to include killing in the name of "justice," but in my opinion for a society to come together as a whole and calmly agree to put a man to death is far worse than the random murder possibly during a heated moment that occurred in the first place. We need to be better than this, we need to evolve beyond this type of thing.
There is also something to be said for efforts to understand the psychology associated with these types of individuals. To put them to death is simply wasting the opportunity.
To address the article, it becomes even more of an issue when the guilt is in question. The idea that American society could be putting an innocent man to death in this day and age is almost beyond my comprehension.
I'll end by saying one more thing. I can't stand Republicans, since it's often Republicans that espouse the death penalty as being an important aspect of criminal justice, and their reasoning is that society shouldn't have to pay because some criminal didn't take responsibility for himself and did something morally reprehensible. I would argue that it's this same philosophy that is creating the problem in the first place. Saying that people should take personal responsibility and that society isn't responsible is marginalizing a large number of people and throwing them under the bus to some extent. It's these people that often end up committing violent anti-social acts, not the ones who have all the opportunities. It's a bit of a simplification, but the way it ends up playing out is that society shouldn't be held responsible for your development, and when your development goes awry and you kill someone, it's your fault and society shouldn't take responsibility for that in any way, and just get rid of you with poison. It's fundamentally not as inclusive as the view that society is partially responsible for the development of its citizens and when something goes wrong society bears some blame, and is therefore not vindicated in putting the blame 100% on someone's plate and subsequently killing them.
|
On September 23 2011 04:20 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Following what logic? Retaliation? Great. That's really how civilized people think. That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself. If someone kills someone close to you and spends 10years in prison do you forgive him after that, because he paid his crime to society? I really think law system is full of flaws. For example you spend more time in prison doing victimless crimes than murders etc. And why some random time in prison for murder should be justice? And like i said earlier, dead ones wont come back, why should killers have chance to normal life again.
Because of forgiveness?
Maximal sentence here is 23 years without possibility of getting out earlier. I think spending 23 years in jail is enough to pay your debt to society for most things I can imagine someone doing.
|
The death penalty is fine. Some people are too dangerous to even take the slight chance of allowing back into society. However, it was unjustified in this case as there was a tiny sliver of doubt. Though he probably was the killer, we should never execute someone when there is even a tiny chance that he was innocent.
|
On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge.
It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice?
Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest.
|
Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VmH1B.png) (From wikipedia)
It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States.
|
On September 23 2011 04:41 ampson wrote:
The death penalty is fine. Some people are too dangerous to even take the slight chance of allowing back into society. However, it was unjustified in this case as there was a tiny sliver of doubt. Though he probably was the killer, we should never execute someone when there is even a tiny chance that he was innocent.
You realize that he's not actually even supposed to be found guilty if there's a chance that he was innocent. It has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
|
On September 23 2011 04:43 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote: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. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge. It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice? Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest.
This logic doesn't work. Yes, killing them prevents them from committing the same crime to society ever again, but it also prevents them from helping society, or growing into someone that wouldn't do that again. It's addressing the symptom not the cause, and ignoring too much of human nature, including our capacity for growth and development. It also inherently undermines your position which is that killing is wrong. Additionally, you don't actually need to kill someone to ensure they never commit murder again. It's not that it isn't pragmatic, it's that it's illogical. For these reasons, your position isn't as inclusive as some of the others that have been suggested on this thread.
|
|
|
On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States.
Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well?
|
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well?
This is a clear strawman logical fallacy. Also, I feel like condescending to a growing global trend by referring to it as "hip" and by extension some kind of fad is a bit bizarre when the topic is fundamentally about killing people.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? I think this may honestly be the worst argument I have ever seen presented on Team Liquid.
|
On September 23 2011 05:19 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? I think this may honestly be the worst argument I have ever seen presented on Team Liquid.
I was just about to say this.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
