|
On September 22 2011 13:05 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:36 wesbare wrote:
I believe anti-death penalty arguments do not place a high enough value on human life. I would only advocate the death penalty for someone who is clearly, beyond a shadow of doubt, guilty of murder.
I am a Christian. I believe God created man in His image, making human life unique from the rest of creation. Human life is sacred, and both Biblical and Western values speak to this (i.e. Locke's "life, liberty, and property"). There are good Bible-based arguments for circumstances which call for the death penalty. There are also Bible-based arguments against the death penalty; I believe those latter arguments poorly formed.
I believe anything less than the death penalty for unmistakable cases of murder does not uphold the value of the life that was unjustly taken by the murderous act. Proper government via a social contract with the people is designed to uphold the rights of the people. Using Locke again, the government must dutifully protect the natural rights (i.e. life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness) of its people, and the people must act reasonably toward their government, obeying its laws and paying their taxes.
Protecting the rights of the people means treating their rights, namely their right to life, with the rightful worth and value those rights deserve.
Put more succinctly, here is my mostly secular argument for the likely agnostic audience of this forum: A man's life is valuable/precious. If you murder a man, that is to intentionally take a man's life without just cause (e.g. not out of self-defense), then you forfeit your right to your own life.
As for the problem of convicting an innocent man of murder... I agree. It's a very troublesome problem. I am thankful it happens in very small percentage of cases, but I am, like the rest of you, bothered that it happens at all. No justice system is perfect in its judgements, and I can't imagine a solution to the inevitable fallibility of the Court in some instances. This doesn't make any sense. It's okay when society kills somebody, but not when people do?
Uh, yes? Just like how it's okay for society to imprison someone but not okay for someone to imprison another person. Society and law should hold some power above individual people. You're just drawing the line at an arbitrary moral point that you personally feel is right. Other people may say imprisonment is inhumane.
On the topic of this particular case, I do think that the evidence was sketchy to be able to condemn someone to death for it.
|
On September 22 2011 13:27 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 13:08 Caelyn0101 wrote:On September 22 2011 10:50 Haemonculus 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. It's less about the death penalty in general, and more that we're likely about to execute an innocent man. It's possible he is guilty, but there was never any physical evidence, and he was convicted based on eye witness accounts, whom I believe have *all* since recanted their testimony. This argument holds no value at all, you could use the same logic to say that people shouldnt drive becasue innocent children could be run down in an accident, You can't say that the death penalty is a bad idea and a broken system because they MIGHT make a mistake. Like anything mistakes can happen and the consequences can be fatal, but that's no reason in my opinion to say that its a bad system. It is a bad system because these "accidents" can be avoided with no cost. But anyway it's a bad analogy and a syllogism... You're comparing an accident with the conscious decision to end or not end someone's life.
No, When an innocent is killed via the death penalty it's not a concious decision where all parties are aware that he is innocent and they decide to kill him anyway, It's a mistake, an accident. So it's in no way a bad analogy or syllogism. The 2 are quite easily comparable. Many systems have things that can go wrong within them, not always as severe as the ultimate price death, but none the less things that can go wrong. But you can't use that flaw in the system to argue whether or not the system is morally right or wrong. It's 2 different things entirely.
|
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092111.zr.pdf
So says the Highest Court in the land. Though I can't find where the vote count is at. I will be much interested to see how the Court was split.
Something I think a few of you are forgetting is that Troy Davis had gone through every appellate process available to him. If you do some research, which means YOU have to do more than do 1 google search, you will learn about the "retracted and contradicted " testimony by some eye witnesses. All the courts his case touched seemed to think he was not innocent; even after hearing the "recanted and contradicted " testimonies in 2009.
Was he innocent of his charges? I don't know for certain. But I suspect not after reading the original case transcript. But it was never up to me to make that decision. It was for people who have spent their whole adult lives living and knowing the legal system and laws to decide.
Was he "railroaded" by the system? I do not think so. There were to many stops along the way.
Is race being used as an agent to further a cause; such as the banishment of the death penalty? Yes
Do we need the death penalty? In my opinion no. As Crosswind stated previously a lot of people in the Judicial system do not lean towards the ideal that the death penalty is a deterring factor to anyone willing to commit such a crime. Living, in the right conditions, can be much worse than death. But we have to keep in mind there can be no violating the 8th Amendment (if you don't remember it from 7th grade US Civ, look it up).
Now if you want some "lite" reading material for this case. And you want to make informed comments read the case below. Otherwise just continue talking out your ass.
This is from the 2009 US District Court of Georgia.
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Davus-Order.pdf
Is this a sad day for the United States? Of course.
Is this a sad day for the family of Troy Davis? Without a doubt
Is this a sad day for the family of Mark MacPhail? Most certainly
|
I don't understand. He gets the death penalty for killing a person?
I understand it was a cop, and it may have been brutal (I didn't follow the case, so I have no idea). But in general, doesn't someone have to do ALOT more than just kill someone to get the death penalty. And especially with all the supposed reasonable doubt (not having a gun, and finally getting the ballistics refuted), how the heck did this thing ever go through?
If this man was innocent, it was a major fail on our system.
Again, I don't know all of the facts, but the brief reports I've read in the last few minutes seem to indicate he's innocent, or at least there's not enough evidence to even send him to jail, much less execute him.
Just emotionally speaking: They let that killer mom go, and kill this guy instead. Wow.
|
Personally I think governments don't have the right to execute humans. Also "I think it contradicts the idea of human laws."
|
On September 22 2011 15:30 jacosajh wrote:
I don't understand. He gets the death penalty for killing a person?
I understand it was a cop, and it may have been brutal (I didn't follow the case, so I have no idea). But in general, doesn't someone have to do ALOT more than just kill someone to get the death penalty. And especially with all the supposed reasonable doubt (not having a gun, and finally getting the ballistics refuted), how the heck did this thing ever go through?
If this man was innocent, it was a major fail on our system.
Again, I don't know all of the facts, but the brief reports I've read in the last few minutes seem to indicate he's innocent, or at least there's not enough evidence to even send him to jail, much less execute him.
Just emotionally speaking: They let that killer mom go, and kill this guy instead. Wow.
He got the death penalty for killing a white cop. Herpedy Derpedy.
|
On September 22 2011 15:36 LaLLsc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:30 jacosajh wrote:
I don't understand. He gets the death penalty for killing a person?
I understand it was a cop, and it may have been brutal (I didn't follow the case, so I have no idea). But in general, doesn't someone have to do ALOT more than just kill someone to get the death penalty. And especially with all the supposed reasonable doubt (not having a gun, and finally getting the ballistics refuted), how the heck did this thing ever go through?
If this man was innocent, it was a major fail on our system.
Again, I don't know all of the facts, but the brief reports I've read in the last few minutes seem to indicate he's innocent, or at least there's not enough evidence to even send him to jail, much less execute him.
Just emotionally speaking: They let that killer mom go, and kill this guy instead. Wow. He got the death penalty for killing a white cop. Herpedy Derpedy.
Fairly certain that killing any cop will land you the death penalty in states that have it.
|
Thou Shalt not kill.
Thou Shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.
And they swear on the Bible on trial.
Nietzsche was right, the last Christian died on the cross.
|
They should reform the death penalty to where you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to use it but because of the extra evidence the appeals process goes a lot faster. Reduces cost and reduces chance of an innocent being executed. Win/Win.
|
On September 22 2011 15:52 BlackJack wrote:
They should reform the death penalty to where you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to use it but because of the extra evidence the appeals process goes a lot faster. Reduces cost and reduces chance of an innocent being executed. Win/Win.
Interesting. That would require a fundamental reform of the philosophy of our justice system. Right now Guilty/Not Guilty is totally separate from sentencing. If the process of sentencing is somehow melded into the guilty/not guilty, the idea of "fairness" will be more commonplace.
Probably not a good thing though, because your idea of fairness is probably very different from mine.
|
I can't believe anybody in a civilized country still defends death penalty. We pretend to be humanistic and advanced nations and then you see that.
There is no rational argument for death penalty other than people's thirst of blood and desire for revenge. That's just gross.
Sad day for America. RIP Troy Davis.
|
I heard on the radio the guy said he was sorry for their loss but he wasn't the one who did it.
|
Taken from my brother in law who went to law school:
It looks like we will be executing another likely innocent man. When someone wins appeal and appeal at the federal level, it tells me that there is considerable doubt over someone's guilty and that the person is being denied justice for procedural reasons. The best the appeals at the federal level could do was provide this man with a hearing in state court on whether an evidentiary hearing over new exculpatory evidence should be held and surprise, a white judge from Georgia, denied a simple evidentiary hearing, finding that the evidence only provided "minimal doubt on his conviction". Minimal doubt? Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood the standard for criminal guilt was "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "beyond a reasonable and substantial doubt". If there is reasonable doubt, THE STATE HAS NOT PROVED THEIR CASE.
http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/Georgia_Clemency_Board_No_Reprieve_for_Troy_Davis_130251008.html#.TnlyrBoU9R4.facebook
|
On September 22 2011 16:04 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 15:52 BlackJack wrote:
They should reform the death penalty to where you need an extraordinary amount of evidence to use it but because of the extra evidence the appeals process goes a lot faster. Reduces cost and reduces chance of an innocent being executed. Win/Win. Interesting. That would require a fundamental reform of the philosophy of our justice system. Right now Guilty/Not Guilty is totally separate from sentencing. If the process of sentencing is somehow melded into the guilty/not guilty, the idea of "fairness" will be more commonplace. Probably not a good thing though, because your idea of fairness is probably very different from mine.
hopefully nobody will get this the wrong way....but if we take a brief look at our degenerated society, I definitely do NOT want to give some random guys who go with their gut-feeling even more power over sentences
|
Here's my 2 cents
JUSTICE and vengeance :
2 opposite concepts that seems to get united very often in USA.
Vengeance is a primar feeling that we as human feel when something wrong happened to us. Vengeance leads to hatred and crime and complete the circle of violence.
Death penality lacks morality and logic. Do they execute the executer when the trial is revealed partly untrue before or after the execution ?
Is it right to kill someone depending on who he kills ? (Directly implying some sort of human-life hierarchy) Like if you kill a cop you get executed but if you kill your neighbour, you'll go to jail.
I'm deeply against death penalty. If someone rape and murder all my family, I'll want revenge on the heat but I'll always want my country to do the right thing : justice, aka Pay attention to the guy who did the horrible things, know why he did that for and make him thinks about what he did, because if one day he can sincerely cry about that and sincerely apologize,... If the guy realised how fucked up his action was and decides to try to repair the damage he did, then why on earth would you kill him ?
"Because he's bastard psycho"
He either has psychiatrist problems, in this case, specialized hopitals can take care of his problems. Or he's someone like you and me but with a very poor education and who happened to have a fucked up life that leaded him to do bad decisions.
I saw the Luis Leroux vids on Miami's prison and all I can see is victims everywhere. Victims since their childhood (mom dead, father was a gangster, live in the street... seriously, how can you not turn bad in those conditions ? Thoses conditions should be executed, not the persons.
Death penalty is a crime in modern society.
In this case, executing someone without 100% tangible proofs is pure madness
|
On September 22 2011 17:10 Diks wrote:
Here's my 2 cents
JUSTICE and vengeance :
2 opposite concepts that seems to get united very often in USA.
Vengeance is a primar feeling that we as human feel when something wrong happened to us. Vengeance leads to hatred and crime and complete the circle of violence.
Death penality lacks morality and logic. Do they execute the executer when the trial is revealed partly untrue before or after the execution ?
Is it right to kill someone depending on who he kills ? (Directly implying some sort of human-life hierarchy) Like if you kill a cop you get executed but if you kill your neighbour, you'll go to jail.
I'm deeply against death penalty. If someone rape and murder all my family, I'll want revenge on the heat but I wan my country to do justice, aka Pay attention to the guy who did the horrible things, know why he did that for and make him thinks about what he did, because if one day he can sincerely cry about that and sincerely apologize,... If the guy realised how fucked up his action was and decides to try to repair the damage he did, then why on earth would you kill him ?
"Because he's bastard psycho"
He either has psychiatrist problems, in this case, specialized hopitals can take care of his problems. Or he's someone like you and me but with a very poor education and who happened to have a fucked up life that leaded him to do bad decisions.
I saw the Luis Leroux vids on Miami's prison and all I can see is victims everywhere. Victims since their childhood (mom dead, father was a gangster, live in the street... seriously, how can you not turn bad in those conditions ? Thoses conditions should be executed, not the persons.
Death penalty is a crime in modern society.
In this case, executing someone without 100% tangible proofs is pure madness
Yes, exactly.
Justice is supposed to be the opposite of vengeance. There is justice so that we don't follow blindly retaliation logic. Justice stops the circle of violence.
As for Troy Davis who was probably innocent, that's just a State murder.
|
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.
Edit: And to be case specific, any time it's not crystal clear beyond all doubts ever, the death penalty instantly becomes problematic. If you are to use the death penalty you better be damned sure you don't accidentally kill someone innocent. In this particular case a commute to life in prison would seem like the obvious choice.
I somewhat agree. I feel like there is a certain line that can be crossed that warrants the death penalty . If ,like you said,it is crystal clear(which in this day and age, any kind of crime committed in a developed area of the united states will be illuminated pretty quick). For example, murder is just the basic one. Manslaughter is a different thing,but to take another human beings life willingly calls for some sort of revenge. Personally, i'd rather a killer be dead then back out on the streets. Don't want to be executed? Don't murder people.I have no knowledge nor do i care about the troy davis case but i thought your point of view was interesting. Rehabilitation is always preferred when it's an option, but sometimes it just isn't an option.
|
On September 22 2011 11:50 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:46 wesbare wrote:On September 22 2011 11:38 shawster wrote:
wouldn't you say it's hypocritical to state that people don't value life enough yet someone should forfeit the right to live?
What? No. The murderer is the hypocrite. Think about it. It was his choice to murder. He didn't have to do it. He didn't have to forfeit his life as a consequence for his evil decision. But he did. So he pays the penalty for stealing the life of another. why does he have to forfeit his/her life? by making life a material object and being able to "forfeit it" doesn't seem to honour it very much. there should be a penalty but death isn't the correct one. maybe i'm more optimistic than you, but i'm one for change and i believe people can change their lives through rehabilitation. i'd love to argue with you but i don't think we will ever see eye to eye.(lol so much for optimistic)
While I generally agree that rehabilitation is a better option, there are two problems.
One: correctional facilities teach criminals how to be better criminals (via learning from other inmates) and generally do not rehabilitate anyone.
Two: Some people are truly beyond rehabilitation, serial killers and people with antisocial personality disorder simply cannot be helped or reasoned with because they no longer have this thing we call a conscience.
Obviously we can fix problem one, but research is still looking pretty bleak for #2. Everything I've learned from psychology and counseling seems to point to some people simply being beyond help.
This leaves us with a problem, what do we do with those that are beyond rehabilitation? Life imprisonment may not be good enough because should they escape they will kill or hurt people again. People with antisocial personality disorder are often extremely charismatic and manipulative allowing them to get away with murder (sometimes quite literally).
|
Why is it that people care more about punishment and revenge than they do about rehabilitation and curing obvious mental illnesses?
|
Good riddance. Glad to see this murderer get put down
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
