EPTTroy Davis, death penalty in the United States - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote: 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. Why ? Note that this is not self-evident and you have to explain it. It seems that you are the person that life is worth nothing to, as you are advocating that two lives be lost instead of just one. And not advocating death penalty does not mean that we think it is right(or even ok) to take someones life. Also just a scenario for you. Two climbers on the mountain, one accidentally releases a stone that kills the other one. You are advocating death penalty for the one that accidentally released a stone. | ||
|
FREEloss_ca
Canada603 Posts
If you are going to execute someone, there should be 100% no doubt that they are guilty of their crimes. | ||
|
Archers_bane
United States1338 Posts
| ||
|
Sabin010
United States1892 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:49 Archers_bane wrote: The Casey Anthony trial is a good example to make my point. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was released despite the same amount of weak evidence. Touching on the racial thing, I do think that given the same crime, a black man would be more likely to be guilty than a white man and a man would be more likely to be guilty than a woman. That alone should put the death penalty to question...also if you are really interested in a messed up case, look up the Ruben Cantu case. This is a sick case of the justice system being manipulated to be used for revenge purposes. There will always be extreme cases that tend to sway our mind to be critical most of the time, but I have to agree that the justice system of the U.S is better off than 99% of the world. What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case. | ||
|
RamenStyle
United States1929 Posts
However I was raised with the notion that is better to let 1,000 guilty people free than have one innocent man pay, and there comes the problem. That sometimes people are executed without being even 100% sure of its guilt. And this seems to be the case. | ||
|
JamesJohansen
United States213 Posts
On September 23 2011 07:24 RamenStyle wrote: One part of my mind supports death penalty, as I consider molesters, rapists or psycho-killers unredeemable and unfixable, and they are just plain and simple a threat to society. However I was raised with the notion that is better to let 1,000 guilty people free than have one innocent man pay, and there comes the problem. That sometimes people are executed without being even 100% sure of its guilt. And this seems to be the case. It's a cute idea, but its unrealistic. We should strive for a perfect justice system but its obviously not perfect as of right now (if ever) so we'll have to make due. This idea that capitol punishment is wrong because innocent people could die is flawed. The problem arises from prosecution, not capitol punishment. From a completely objective standpoint, incarcerating an innocent man for life is almost as heinous but carries none of the stigma (you're effectively ending his/her life and its influence). | ||
|
Cel.erity
United States4890 Posts
| ||
|
MeeMeesiko
United States40 Posts
In this particular case I think that the death penalty is not warranted; the evidence is somewhat in shambles. | ||
|
Patat0r
France142 Posts
On September 23 2011 09:48 Cel.erity wrote: Personally I support the death penalty; I believe death to be more humane and more practical than a life in prison. Personally, if I were faced with that choice, I would choose death, so I like the death penalty. Additionally, it's a lot less money for the taxpayers to spend on someone who wronged society. Are you really sure ? Capital punishment cost 2 million dollars for the society and some states just don't do it because of that. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On September 23 2011 09:55 MeeMeesiko wrote:In this particular case I think that the death penalty is not warranted; the evidence is somewhat in shambles. You realize that what you just said is basically "we shouldn't kill him since we don't know if he's guilty" right? And you say it like it's somehow not obvious. I guess leaving him in prison would have been sufficient, given the evidence being somewhat in shambles. The fact is that humanity is prone to making mistakes (oh, god, is it prone to making mistakes). Our policies should be constructed in such a way that our mistakes don't potentially cost innocent men their lives. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W2F4S.png) | ||
|
Oktyabr
Singapore2234 Posts
On September 23 2011 04:54 sevencck wrote: 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. I don't think there's anything illogical in assuming that certain people are beyond redeemable means at this point in time. Unless psychiatry is developed to the point where we can tap into everyone's inner good, turn them around and make them pay their dues back to society as you say, execution should remain an available option in the justice system. I don't know who would evaluate the likes of Osama, Behring Breivik, Timothy Mcveigh and say confidently that they ought to be allowed to remain in society for the time being because they might just abandon their idealogy some day. Various societies value this safety brought about by this option more so than that individual's life. We're just not able to undo all the hard-wiring done by nature or nurture in the present day. Troy Davis's case was a tragedy because the system was unable to prove him beyond reasonable doubt. The judicial process is in question here. | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
I swear this incident reminds me of that "Cold Case" TV show. Season 3 episode 20 or the movie "The Green Mile" + Show Spoiler + Even on the TV show , the black guy's final statement that was on death row was similar to Troy Davis: Andre, the character on the TV show, said to the victim's family "I'm sorry for your loss, but I did not kill that girl." Then he looked over to the homicide detectives and said "Prove I'm innocent." Dude that episdoe broke me.. I swear I can't watch that episode without getting teary eyed. Every time I see someone go up on death row on shitty evidence it makes me feel like the law system is failing. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On September 23 2011 11:20 Oktyabr wrote: I don't think there's anything illogical in assuming that certain people are beyond redeemable means at this point in time. Unless psychiatry is developed to the point where we can tap into everyone's inner good, turn them around and make them pay their dues back to society as you say, execution should remain an available option in the justice system. I don't know who would evaluate the likes of Osama, Behring Breivik, Timothy Mcveigh and say confidently that they ought to be allowed to remain in society for the time being because they might just abandon their idealogy some day. Various societies value this safety brought about by this option more so than that individual's life. We're just not able to undo all the hard-wiring done by nature or nurture in the present day. Troy Davis's case was a tragedy because the system was unable to prove him beyond reasonable doubt. The judicial process is in question here. Given that the entire process of human development from birth to grade school to high school to college and adulthood etc. etc. shows unequivocally that people are capable of learning/changing/developing, it's reasonable to assume that rehabilitation is possible. Our current failures do not morally invalidate efforts to continue, nor do they directly validate the death penalty, particularly in light of the numerous successes. Inner good? That sounds like quasi spiritual mysticism. The world isn't an absolutistic space where good and evil are at odds. You have human beings some of which are deeply pained and need help. Killing them doesn't help them, and whatever benefits you can conceive for humanity are negligible when you consider what we're coming together as a society to do to someone. Some of these criminals that are executed in the USA have their final moments and statements recorded and put online. Some of them have already been in jail for 10+ years and have had time to ponder and consider their actions. Their final moments are often deeply apologetic and fraught with guilt before we irreverently end their lives. Like I said the idea that killing someone is the only way to prevent them from repeat offending isn't logical because you don't reasonably need to kill someone to ensure this. Nor is it logical to denounce murder as so horrendous that a subsequent murder is the only recourse. I realize some societies continue to butcher people, and frankly they are wrong to do so. I don't mean to offend you, but as an example Singapore is wrong to do what they do. Executing people for drug related offenses is retarded. Alot of creative people have had some very important realizations through drug use. To enforce a policy that might inhibit the unfolding of the responsible human spirit by killing people is WTFwrong. And I don't care about the statistics pertaining to drug use, they're irrelevant. Whatever ends policy makers might have in their limited vision does not necessarily justify the means they employ. Stalin was able to take the USSR from zero to sixty in a very short period of time, transforming them into a super power, but his means were morally reprehensible. Finally, if even I was in favor of killing people like Hitler and Osama, criminals of this level are at such a ridiculous level of abstraction that it becomes virtually irrelevant to any reasonable discussion pertaining to the morality of execution. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of executing them either by the way, like I said, you're killing a symptom while ignoring the cause, and damaging your humanity in the process. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10499 Posts
On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote: Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't | ||
|
Archers_bane
United States1338 Posts
On September 23 2011 06:07 Sabin010 wrote: What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case. I agree with you on the OJ Simpson case. Celebrities get off the hook way to easily and the American culture constantly fails to recognize this. It's sad | ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
| ||
|
Kingkosi
United States1215 Posts
On September 23 2011 06:07 Sabin010 wrote: What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case. OJ was aquitted I believe for two reasons, first Johnny Cochran was a damn good lawyer and secondly OJ at the time had alot of money and celebrity status. | ||
| ||
