|
On September 24 2011 00:14 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. lol you think your justice sends 0,0001% innocent people only to death? You are a bit optimistic about American justice I'm afraid. Your conception of justice, I call it retaliation. Pretty much the opposite from justice. Justice is not to do to people "what they deserve". If not we would torture people for days and cut their balls and then burn them alive. Some people deserve that. But we don't do it. Just as we don't hang, or decapitate, or kill by lethal injection. Why? Because that would make us just as barbarian as the criminal themselves. I just threw out a number, i have no idea what the real numbers are. But i just dont get why people think jail for life is ok. But killing someone is a million times worse. It's almost the same thing. Sitting in a small cell for the rest of your life with other criminals is terrible. Why is the death penalty much worse. Why is the death penalty barbaric, but locking them inside a concrete cell for 70 years is ok? I think both are ok, depending on the crime they did. I dont get it. But i guess it's just a subjective question.
What do you think is worse, being put to death and ending their life right then and there, or making them live for another 50 years in a shitty cell, knowing that they are going to stay there untill they die. I don't think the death penalty should be around because it lets them off to easy. YES some people DO need to die, but why end it quickly?
|
On September 24 2011 00:14 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. lol you think your justice sends 0,0001% innocent people only to death? You are a bit optimistic about American justice I'm afraid. Your conception of justice, I call it retaliation. Pretty much the opposite from justice. Justice is not to do to people "what they deserve". If not we would torture people for days and cut their balls and then burn them alive. Some people deserve that. But we don't do it. Just as we don't hang, or decapitate, or kill by lethal injection. Why? Because that would make us just as barbarian as the criminal themselves. I just threw out a number, i have no idea what the real numbers are. But i just dont get why people think jail for life is ok. But killing someone is a million times worse. It's almost the same thing. Sitting in a small cell for the rest of your life with other criminals is terrible. Why is the death penalty much worse. Why is the death penalty barbaric, but locking them inside a concrete cell for 70 years is ok? I think both are ok, depending on the crime they did. I dont get it. But i guess it's just a subjective question.
I don't think jail for life is ok. In my country the maximum is 23 years (without possibility of getting out earlier), and for me it's a good line.
I just don't feel like a murderer, and I find the idea that my State, my community, pays people to decapitate or hang other people, whatever they have done, obscene.
|
On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote:
I love this anti-death penalty stuff, you actually believe people can be rehabilitated, which is untrue most of the time. People that commit these kinds of acts, once released from prison, return to either the same or worse circumstances than beforehand, which, if anything, force them back into that kind of behavior.
Not only that, but do you know how easy it is to talk a shrink/parole board into believing what you want them to believe? Hint: really fucking easy. It's impossible to tell when someone has been "rehabilitated" except to throw them out and hope they don't kill anyone else (and they most likely will).
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly and have it be a logistical nightmare. Yeah, I've seen that all those 9 billion appeals cause more legal fees than it takes to simply house the inmate for the rest of his life, but that's a bureaucratic issue, not a practical or ethical one.
Therefore, we need a death penalty.
Every time we execute someone, somebody makes a thread somewhere about it being a grave injustice, but let's face it: it's a necessity.
No it is not, European countries(and other first world countries) do pretty well without it. I agree with you that rehabilitation is impossible in some(maybe most) murder cases, but that does not mean death penalty the US way is the solution.
Also I would love to know how much experience do you have with psychiatric evaluations, but I would guess that none. It is not easy to make them believe what you want.
|
On September 24 2011 00:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:14 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. lol you think your justice sends 0,0001% innocent people only to death? You are a bit optimistic about American justice I'm afraid. Your conception of justice, I call it retaliation. Pretty much the opposite from justice. Justice is not to do to people "what they deserve". If not we would torture people for days and cut their balls and then burn them alive. Some people deserve that. But we don't do it. Just as we don't hang, or decapitate, or kill by lethal injection. Why? Because that would make us just as barbarian as the criminal themselves. I just threw out a number, i have no idea what the real numbers are. But i just dont get why people think jail for life is ok. But killing someone is a million times worse. It's almost the same thing. Sitting in a small cell for the rest of your life with other criminals is terrible. Why is the death penalty much worse. Why is the death penalty barbaric, but locking them inside a concrete cell for 70 years is ok? I think both are ok, depending on the crime they did. I dont get it. But i guess it's just a subjective question. I don't think jail for life is ok. In my country the maximum is 23 years (without possibility of getting out earlier), and for me it's a good line. I just don't feel like a murderer, and I find the idea that my State, my community, pays people to decapitate or hang other people, whatever they have done, obscene.
In Denmark the maximum is 16 years or something, but people still spend the rest of their life in jail, i bet they do in France as well. They just declare them insane or "not fit for society" or something like that and prolong their sentence.
You dont feel like a murderer because you dont kill people? But you do feel like a kidnapper then? Since your state is imprisoning potentially innocent people? You should feel like neither, because these people are not innocent.
|
On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them?
I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't.
A quote from the article:
"In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
|
for the most part im ok with the death penalty.
remember a couple things about it. 1 only a jury can recommend the death penalty during a sentencing hearing, 2. only a judge can make that final decision.
most "death penalty cases" don't end up in a death verdict, its usually life without parole.
also the only crime for which a death penalty can be considered is pre meditated murder. meaning the murder was planned.
now on this specific case i don't agree with the death penalty especially with the lack of evidence.
in fact, i would almost garantee he walks if he's tried in a court today.
|
I don't really mind the death penalty, but in this case I do. This man has been strapped to a chair repeatedly and then not executed, that can't be good for his mental health. At this point it just seems like he will go insane, It's more of a torture than an execution.
|
On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture.
|
On September 24 2011 00:43 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture.
Yes but in one case you have potentially a life time to overturn the verdict but I've yet to see someone rise from the dead.
|
On September 24 2011 00:46 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture. Yes but in one case you have potentially a life time to overturn the verdict but I've yet to see someone rise from the dead.
not really, you can only appeal so many times in both cases.
|
On September 24 2011 00:49 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:46 gruff wrote:On September 24 2011 00:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture. Yes but in one case you have potentially a life time to overturn the verdict but I've yet to see someone rise from the dead. not really, you can only appeal so many times in both cases.
Even after appeals are exhausted, pardons may be granted, or cases may be reopened when new evidence surfaces. This has happened hundreds of times, often for inmates on death row. Unfortunately, new evidence can only help people who are still alive though.
|
On September 24 2011 00:58 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:49 polysciguy wrote:On September 24 2011 00:46 gruff wrote:On September 24 2011 00:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture. Yes but in one case you have potentially a life time to overturn the verdict but I've yet to see someone rise from the dead. not really, you can only appeal so many times in both cases. Even after appeals are exhausted, pardons may be granted, or cases may be reopened when new evidence surfaces. This has happened hundreds of times, often for inmates on death row. Unfortunately, new evidence can only help people who are still alive though.
honestly i think that you are statistically more likely to die while awaiting your execution than to actually be executed
|
On September 24 2011 01:03 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:58 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:49 polysciguy wrote:On September 24 2011 00:46 gruff wrote:On September 24 2011 00:43 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:36 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:22 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:On September 23 2011 23:01 Mercy13 wrote:Whether or not the death penalty is appropriate when a defendant is actually guilty (which is debatable) the fact that our justice system is fallable means it should not be an option. If you are not convinced by the Troy Davis case that innocents have been executed by our state governments I urge you to read this: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grannThis article is about Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas for the crime of burning his house down while his children were inside. After the trial, it turned out that the "expert" testimony used to convict him was based on HIGHLY flawed science, and it appeared almost certain that the fire had been started accidently, possibly due to an electrical problem. Based on these cases, and many others, I have no doubt whatsoever that innocent people have been executed in this country. I can think of few greater tragedies, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. The problem i have with that is that if you're innocent and you're in jail for life, then that's almost just as bad as just being killed right? I mean, why should we not have death penalty because there is a 0.0001% chance they're innocent, but jail for life is fine? Killing and innocent man just 0.0001% of the time is unacceptable, but jailing him for life is ok? We have to accept that the judgement system is not perfect, but i dont think this should factor into whether or not we should have death penalty. I do however think that death penalty cases should be reviewed many times, to make sure no mistake was made. I also dont think it's always a question of rehabilitation, whether it is or isnt possible. Sometimes it's just about justice. Just read in the newspaper today about a guy in the 80s who tied a handicapped black guy to his pick up truck and dragged him down the road. In cases like that i dont care if he can rehabilitate perfectly, i just dont think he deserves to live. Dont know enough about this specific case with troy davis though, although it seems like there were some doubts. Dunno about all the evidence though. I do not find it "fine" that there are likely innocent people in jail for life, but the difference between those people compared to Troy Davis and Cameron Todd Willingham is that they have a chance to be released if their innocence is proven. Do you disagree that it's better for a potentially innocent person to get life in prison so that they have a chance to prove their innocence, as opposed to killing them? Well, first of all you dont kill them right away, it usually takes many many years of repeals etc etc. Usually if they are still found guilty by then there is no way they can ever be proven innocent, even if they had all the time in the world, it's over. Second of all, i bet many innocent people have died in jail, probably more than there have been killed. To me that is equally bad. I'm not really sure what you're getting at.... are you saying that the fact that it's equally bad means we might as well just execute them? I urge you to read the article I linked in my first post. That guy pretty much WAS proven innocent but he was executed before his supporters could get him freed. The bureaucrats responsible for reviewing the evidence before the execution just.... didn't. A quote from the article: "In mid-August, the noted fire scientist Craig Beyler, who was hired by the commission, completed his investigation. In a scathing report, he concluded that investigators in the Willingham case had no scientific basis for claiming that the fire was arson, ignored evidence that contradicted their theory, had no comprehension of flashover and fire dynamics, relied on discredited folklore, and failed to eliminate potential accidental or alternative causes of the fire. He said that Vasquez’s approach seemed to deny 'rational reasoning' and was more 'characteristic of mystics or psychics.' What’s more, Beyler determined that the investigation violated, as he put it to me, 'not only the standards of today but even of the time period.'”
No i'm just saying that imprisoning someone for life and killing them, there is not a huge difference, they're almost equally serious.
As i said this in this case killing him probably wasnt the right thing to do, since there should be no doubt. Havent really looked into the whole case though, which i feel you need to do to get the whole picture. Yes but in one case you have potentially a life time to overturn the verdict but I've yet to see someone rise from the dead. not really, you can only appeal so many times in both cases. Even after appeals are exhausted, pardons may be granted, or cases may be reopened when new evidence surfaces. This has happened hundreds of times, often for inmates on death row. Unfortunately, new evidence can only help people who are still alive though. honestly i think that you are statistically more likely to die while awaiting your execution than to actually be executed
So?
|
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.
So you want to spend billions and billions and billions of tax payer money that we don't have to attempt to rehabilitate people that most likely won't be upstanding citizens? Hm maybe next we could train all predator animals to be vegan
|
From the little I know of the case, it seems that there is no substantive proof of his guilt, yet there is none of his innocence. We have the motto of "innocent until proven guilty", but in a world full of lies, greed and corruption, I feel that there had to be some sort of proof provided for a grand jury, prosecutors, and the Supreme Court to all be realizing that Mr. Davis was guilty.
Now, whether or not he was, none of us can answer this, and it is foolish to take a side. My faith in the result of this case can only be based on the professionals handling the case, and that they are acting in the best interests of the laws of the United States.
Call it naive, call it blindly following what I am told... but I feel that they must have gotten it right.
And to cap this: I am a proponent to the Death Penalty. I feel that residing in a prison for the rest of your life is not a punishment worthy of remedying and proving to society that you have been punished. Removing the ability to live is the highest penalty you can receive, and it sets a strong lesson for any future criminals to think twice before they act. Those are the ONLY reasons I like it; obviously I would prefer for it to not happen, but to me, it seems as if it attempts to prevent future crimes from occurring, which are so heinous that the Death Penalty could be implemented to provide justice.
Whether or not you were innocent or guilty; may you Rest in Peace.
|
On September 24 2011 01:25 gulati wrote:
From the little I know of the case, it seems that there is no substantive proof of his guilt, yet there is none of his innocence. We have the motto of "innocent until proven guilty", but in a world full of lies, greed and corruption, I feel that there had to be some sort of proof provided for a grand jury, prosecutors, and the Supreme Court to all be realizing that Mr. Davis was guilty.
There was proof of his guilt when this case was first brought. There were 9 witnesses that claimed he was guilty. Since then, 7 of the 9 witnesses have recanted their testimony. One has said they were intimidated by the police. Another claimed the guilty party was one of the other witnesses, but they were afraid to say who. Another claimed that one of the other witnesses (who didn't recant) had confessed to the murder when he was drunk.
Unfortunately, the standard of review on appeal before the Supreme Court is very narrow. They can't consider the quality of the evidence (which is the jury's job) but whether there was procedural error or a few other very narrow exceptions.
Now, whether or not he was, none of us can answer this, and it is foolish to take a side. My faith in the result of this case can only be based on the professionals handling the case, and that they are acting in the best interests of the laws of the United States.
Call it naive, call it blindly following what I am told... but I feel that they must have gotten it right.
I am a corporate attorney who has spent significant time working pro bono in the court system. I can tell you from personal experience that even with the best intentions mistakes are made. We have a generally good system, but it is administered by humans. I do not believe that an imperfect system that has made tens of thousands of documented errors (not just including death penalty cases) should be able to take a person's life away.
And to cap this: I am a proponent to the Death Penalty. I feel that residing in a prison for the rest of your life is not a punishment worthy of remedying and proving to society that you have been punished. Removing the ability to live is the highest penalty you can receive, and it sets a strong lesson for any future criminals to think twice before they act. Those are the ONLY reasons I like it; obviously I would prefer for it to not happen, but to me, it seems as if it attempts to prevent future crimes from occurring, which are so heinous that the Death Penalty could be implemented to provide justice.
Studies have proven time and again that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for the simple reason that criminals don't believe they will be caught. Just do a quick google search and you will find them.
|
On September 24 2011 01:15 Dub_doubt 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. So you want to spend billions and billions and billions of tax payer money that we don't have to attempt to rehabilitate people that most likely won't be upstanding citizens? Hm maybe next we could train all predator animals to be vegan
Funny, I could swear rehabilitationfocused countries have better crime statistics (lower crimerates) than, say, the US. It's obviously not the only variable here but it's definently a major one if not the defining one. But I guess having 1% of your population in prison and then having them repeat offend if ever let out is a very economical idea aswell.
|
On September 23 2011 21:54 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 20:33 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 18:53 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 18:26 BlackJack wrote:On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote: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: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/W2F4S.png) Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death. Well, of course. But that doesn't change that fact. There have been black people in Georgia with death sentences that were commuted to life in prison as well. We can say that race is irrelevant to the crime as much as we want, because it's true, but statistically it's not irrelevant. It's irritating me the amount of people in this thread calling others out for playing the race card when the sad, awful truth is that it is very relevant and it's a problem. Just protesting that race shouldn't be an issue isn't helping. It shouldn't be an issue. It is. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ju4O1.png) In a 1990 report, the non-partisan U.S. General Accounting Office found "a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing, and imposition of the death penalty." The study concluded that a defendant was several times more likely to be sentenced to death if the murder victim was white. This has been confirmed by the findings of many other studies that, holding all other factors constant, the single most reliable predictor of whether someone will be sentenced to death is the race of the victim.
From initial charging decisions to plea bargaining to jury sentencing, African-Americans are treated more harshly when they are defendants, and their lives are accorded less value when they are victims. All-white or virtually all-white juries are still commonplace in many localities.
A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
A January 2003 study released by the University of Maryland concluded that race and geography are major factors in death penalty decisions. Specifically, prosecutors are more likely to seek a death sentence when the race of the victim is white and are less likely to seek a death sentence when the victim is African-American.
A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring. I wonder why the data you're citing includes all murders when we know that not all murders are capital murders that are pre-meditated or heinous. I think the person that killed Caylee Anthony should be punished more severely than the person that killed Tupac and it's not because one of them is white and the other is black. So you're saying that white people are much more likely to be the victims of heinous crimes, and that those crimes are more likely to be committed by black people? a) that is highly unlikely considering how stark the above numbers are and b) you have nothing to support that, it's just an idea that would disprove the stats from Amnesty International if they were true. You don't have any evidence that it is true...it would just suit you if it was. Anyway you missed a bit; - A report sponsored by the American Bar Association in 2007 concluded that one-third of African-American death row inmates in Philadelphia would have received sentences of life imprisonment if they had not been African-American.
According to the DOJ the majority of murders are intraracial. 94% of black victims are murdered by blacks and 84% of white victims are murdered by whites. So if people that murder blacks are given less severe punishment than the people that are receiving the less severe punishment are usually black.
Since 1974, 52% of homicides were committed by African Americans, but only 35% of the people executed were African American. 46% of homicides were committed by Caucasians and 56% of those executed were Caucasians.
I'm not saying racism doesn't exist in the legal system, because it obviously does. I'm just saying that it's not as simple as saying "this man wouldn't have been executed if he were white" as that picture implied.
|
From a purely ethical(not statistical or logical) point of view, I am against the death penalty, with no exceptions.
Can you imagine the dread that a prisoner must feel as they go to their death, presented with their last meal, are restrained as they are led into a sterile room where they know that they will be injected and die? Can any amount of prison time equal that?
While doubtless there are criminals who deserve harsher sentences than life, if the only solution is death, I find nothing satisfying about ending the life of another human, regardless of what actions they may have taken in the past.
|
I'm liberal as hell, but the 'factoid' that 7/12 witnesses recanted is nonsense - they recanted on minor, unimportant details, just so the defense could say they 'recanted', and then shoved them away so they couldn't be interviewed again.
He was guilty as fuck by all indications. I'll save my tears for someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
