|
On September 22 2011 18:10 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:00 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 17:51 Serpico wrote:On September 22 2011 17:50 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 10:39 Supert0fu wrote:
...
The case brings up serious questions about the morality of the death penalty and the American legal system as a whole. I personally believe that if you have enough cases involving murder that a jury is bound to make a mistake which means that the state will kill an innocent person.
...
And tell me how many innocent people has been murdered and killers are walking free ? There are always some mistakes involved, no matter what You're doing, but that's not the reason to stop doing it. Of course, death penalty is really controversial but I for one see it simply... if You kill someone who has done You no harm with cold blood, You deserve to suffer the same. Sounds like something I'd hear a thousand years ago, when you set such low standards for justice you simply turn it into revenge. I wonder how would You see the standards of justice system if You'd lose someone close and killer would get 15 years of resocialization in nice jail cell with satellite TV on your cost.. and he's laughing You in the face. It's not important what the victim or the victims relatives think about the crime, that's why we have judges, so that people judge who are not involved and have a neutral view on the crime.
I disagree, the way laws here are written in the US with regards to sentencing discretion gives the judge ability to give however little or as much as he/she prefers. This leads to a clearly partial decision. In fact, family members can testify at sentencing to influence decisions. The judge may feel the defendant is unremoseful, and recommends full sentence. None of this is written in stone and definately left up to the judge.
|
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 feel like the death penalty may or may not be warranted in specific situations, like you are actually just a fatal threat to anyone you come in contact with or something. for the most part, i completely agree that the judiciary system is completely out of touch with reality. prisons often create worse people than the ones that were living their lives before they were given sentences.
the sad truth is that prisons have a culture unto themselves at this point. it would take maybe generations to rehabilitate the average inmate to become someone who is more productive after leaving prison than before because they truly regretted their crimes, came to recognize their wrongs and found a better solution due to prisons helping them.
the idea that american prisons do anything like that right now is pretty hilarious. they often do the complete opposite, which is to teach someone how to do the crime better by surrounding them with more experienced criminals who wear their crimes something like badges of pride when they're on the inside depending on how severe the crime is.
|
On September 22 2011 18:10 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:00 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 17:51 Serpico wrote:On September 22 2011 17:50 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 10:39 Supert0fu wrote:
...
The case brings up serious questions about the morality of the death penalty and the American legal system as a whole. I personally believe that if you have enough cases involving murder that a jury is bound to make a mistake which means that the state will kill an innocent person.
...
And tell me how many innocent people has been murdered and killers are walking free ? There are always some mistakes involved, no matter what You're doing, but that's not the reason to stop doing it. Of course, death penalty is really controversial but I for one see it simply... if You kill someone who has done You no harm with cold blood, You deserve to suffer the same. Sounds like something I'd hear a thousand years ago, when you set such low standards for justice you simply turn it into revenge. I wonder how would You see the standards of justice system if You'd lose someone close and killer would get 15 years of resocialization in nice jail cell with satellite TV on your cost.. and he's laughing You in the face. It's not important what the victim or the victims relatives think about the crime, that's why we have judges, so that people judge who are not involved and have a neutral view on the crime.
Yes, I am not saying that victim should be a 'hand of justice' but only that Judge and Jury are acting on behalf of the victim. Work of the justice system should be to do right to whom wrong had been done.
|
On September 22 2011 18:18 BlaCha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:10 BlackFlag wrote:On September 22 2011 18:00 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 17:51 Serpico wrote:On September 22 2011 17:50 BlaCha wrote:On September 22 2011 10:39 Supert0fu wrote:
...
The case brings up serious questions about the morality of the death penalty and the American legal system as a whole. I personally believe that if you have enough cases involving murder that a jury is bound to make a mistake which means that the state will kill an innocent person.
...
And tell me how many innocent people has been murdered and killers are walking free ? There are always some mistakes involved, no matter what You're doing, but that's not the reason to stop doing it. Of course, death penalty is really controversial but I for one see it simply... if You kill someone who has done You no harm with cold blood, You deserve to suffer the same. Sounds like something I'd hear a thousand years ago, when you set such low standards for justice you simply turn it into revenge. I wonder how would You see the standards of justice system if You'd lose someone close and killer would get 15 years of resocialization in nice jail cell with satellite TV on your cost.. and he's laughing You in the face. It's not important what the victim or the victims relatives think about the crime, that's why we have judges, so that people judge who are not involved and have a neutral view on the crime. Yes, I am not saying that victim should be a 'hand of justice' but only that Judge and Jury are acting on behalf of the victim. Work of the justice system should be to do right to whom wrong had been done.
Then they should somehow revive the killed person. This obviously can't be done.
So, the only thing left that "justifies" the killing of a (probably innocent) person is venegance... Which is a concept that should not be important in a modern justice system.
|
On September 22 2011 10:39 Supert0fu wrote:Hi teamliquid, I don't know if anyone has heard about Troy Davis, I searched to forums and found nothing, but basically in 1989 a jury found of guilty of killing a police officer. Troy Davis has repeatedly stated his innocence in the case, and some serious doubts about the evidence used in the case. Here's a Link outlining the basic premises of the case and his current situation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15008387Now it should be noted that Troy Davis is Black and is being held in the State of Georgia. There are many protestors outside of the jail that he is being held at. He has had 4 scheduled executions, and is currently waiting on a Supreme Court verdict on whether or not to delay the execution. The case brings up serious questions about the morality of the death penalty and the American legal system as a whole. I personally believe that if you have enough cases involving Murder that a jury is bound to make a mistake Which means that the State will Kill an innocent person. Any other thoughts on this story, I am interested to hear What non-Americans think about this case and the America legal system as a whole.
just briefly reading over the article you linked and some of your information iS wrong btw. He KILLED the man in 1989 and was CONVICTED of it in 1991. Also Doubts are not credible to non guilty. Everyone doubts something but there has to be some form of evidence towards the MurDeR. You will not get past the Federal Court with Only Eye Witnesses(to the person that stated ALL The Eye witnesses recanted the actual article states "His guilt has been questioned because seven of nine witnesses who helped convict him during the original trial have either changed their testimony or recanted." hence why it was questioned and why he was not proven innocent..) The Death Penalty (or Capital Punishment) is set in Stone for a Reason. There's nothing wrong with the Death Penalty. It does not work like OMG you stole a candy bar?! DEATH PENALTY! like you all think it does apparently. He had from 1991 - 2010 to prove himself innocent and if you ask me that is quite a long period of time.
To the person that mentioned CNN not liking the Death Penalty or whatever you SaiD.. CNN iS a Liberal News station so yes.. CNN WILL NOT LIKE THE DEATH PENALTY.
To the person that claimed a lot of African American people believe him to be innocent. Please.. Common.. Really? Lets be Honest here..Being an African American, the Majority of "Us" hate White people PERIOD because "OMG our great great great great great Grandfather was enslaved so down with the whities!" I would even go as far as saying that 6/10 Black people ELECTED Obama because *SPOILER* He's Black! So the fact that "Majority Blacks find him innocent" made me lul and if you're Black.. Stop Keeping stereotypes aLive if you WanT them to go away. It wasn't because he's Black it's because he was CONVICTED.
The Judicial System isn't Corrupt and the funny part is we have both Liberal and Conservatives in our System so that it CANNOT be Corrupt. Granted some people will be Corrupted but that doesn't make the entire system corrupt. Anyone that's Liberal and saying down with the death penalty has no credibility IMO on the subject. Of course you don't WanT them to give the Death Penalty.. The Liberal Side also doesn't care about Immigration Laws. States are aloud to be for or against the Death Penalty. My advice that I would've given Troy Davis and everyone else, Don't get convicted of MurDeR in a State FOR the Death Penalty.
|
In my opinion almost all judicial systems are based on archaich instincts, like anger, fear, desire for satisfaction, etc. The idea of punishing someone is as old as human society itself. The thing is, punishment only makes sense when the person who did something wrong, can learn from it. That means executing someone only serves to satisfy society's desire for vengeance and maybe to protect it from more crimes done by that person.
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
Also, for systems that have severe ways of punishment, there should be a rule that the people who convict criminals, like judges, the jury, etc. should always be liable for their decisions. You will think twice about sentencing someone to death because of fishy testamonials and without real proof, if you know you will have to pay, if it is found later that person was actually innocent. People should always be liable for their actions, no matter if done in good faith or not. If you hit someone with your car you might not have done it with purpose but you hurt someone and you have to make up for it. But have people who decide about and enforce law ever been held accountable personally if there was a fuck up like executing an innocent person? Not really...
|
And to everyone complaining about OMG VENGEANCE this VENGEANCE that. The Death Penalty is NOT for Vengeance. The Death Penalty refers back to the "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth." from Hammurabi. Basically this system itself is the most accurate description of the reasoning behind a Death Penalty. If you do not know what the Death Penalty is and what it can be sentenced for then Get Off the topic. Those of you that don't know what "Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth." means or where its from here's the information behind it.
While a similar saying appears twice in the Old Testament of the Bible (Deut. 19:21, Ex. 21:24), it originated in the legal code of Hammurabi, who was the sixth king of the first Amorite dynasty of Babylon. The ancient laws, carved on an 8-ft. diorite column, deal with everything from robbery to marriage. The saying is found in a passage on physical punishment and reads, "If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye." Also included in the passage are "If a son strike his father, they shall cut off his fingers" and "If one breaks a man's bone, they shall break his bone."
This comes back around to a more common saying "Do onto other as you would want them to do to you." Sounds pretty Reasonable to me.
|
On September 22 2011 18:48 LEGIONzomg wrote:
My advice that I would've given Troy Davis and everyone else, Don't get convicted of MurDeR in a State FOR the Death Penalty.
As a theoretical example, how do you suggest one avoids that if you are innocent and still a lot of witnesses are pursuaded to witness against you and you get convicted?
|
On September 22 2011 18:54 DrF33lg00d wrote:
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
You are aware that this comes into account in other aspects of the System where we sentence people to Psych Wards or rehabilitation and they end up committing the same crime AGAIN. Granted yes SOME people turn around but the fact of the matter unless its MAJORITY better then nothing with ever replace something. I don't see you down grading to another computer only because you like the Dinosaur cursor and your High Tech High Performance computer doesn't have it. When people get put into Jail that's Tax Dollars we pay from convicted Murders to live off us so actually unless the murderer is making 2x what we pay in taxes he/she is actually taking away from the Families of the people he/she murdered again. As far as your Comment towards Punishment being something the person learns from, the Death Penalty teaches everyone "HEY If you do this you will die for it." Everyone is accountable for their own doings and we don't need to Babysit the person. Hangings were done in public because it was a sign for other what will happen to the next person also.
On the other hand I do completely agree with you on the being liable for convicting innocent people but it will never happen. Judges that convict people for things don't act upon their intuition or gut feelings they act upon a Jury and/or Evidence given. There will always be the way to fall back and go "Well the Evidence seemed accurate in my opinion so I convicted him." and it will always be an acceptable answer.
|
On September 22 2011 18:58 LEGIONzomg wrote:-snip-
First, having Liberals and Conservatives together doesn't mean they can't be corrupt. Being corrupt has nothing to do with political orientation.
Second, quoting religious scripture and ancient dogma to justify capital punishment is disingenuous, seeing how Christians seem to gloss over the majority of the laws created back then.
Third, cut the crap about liberal news stations.
|
On September 22 2011 18:58 LEGIONzomg wrote:
"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."
This comes back around to a more common saying "Do onto other as you would want them to do to you." Sounds pretty Reasonable to me.
I disagree, those statements don't have the same meaning. Matching the style of the second, the first one could be paraphrased as "Do onto others as they have done to you."
Sounds quite different to me.
|
On September 22 2011 19:03 GruGloG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:48 LEGIONzomg wrote:
My advice that I would've given Troy Davis and everyone else, Don't get convicted of MurDeR in a State FOR the Death Penalty. As a theoretical example, how do you suggest one avoids that if you are innocent and still a lot of witnesses are pursuaded to witness against you and you get convicted?
You are not INSTANTLY Executed in the court room. You have a reasonable time to find SOME loop hole in a Witness being persuaded to testify. Hence why he was given 4 executions and not just one. He found something to drag out the sentence from 1991-2010. If in 19 years you can't find ANY reason you're innocent you will be executed.
Oh and btw Both sides of the court room are aloud to talk to the witness so if you HONESTLY think you're innocent and the witness was corrupt that's why you get a 2nd trial showing proof via Lie Detection or even several Psychiatrist testimonies. There are people that are paid to professionally read people's body language and be able to tell a Lie or Truth.
|
On September 22 2011 10:39 Supert0fu wrote:
The case brings up serious questions about the morality of the death penalty and the American legal system as a whole. I personally believe that if you have enough cases involving murder that a jury is bound to make a mistake which means that the state will kill an innocent person.
My view is that the death penalty is fine.
The right to punish for committed crimes have been given over from relatives, friends, individuals to the state. The state has decided - through the jury system - that 'beyond any reasonable doubt' someone is guilty.
The punishment should then fit the crime, not be based on 'but what if we were wrong, even though we were certain beyond reasonable doubt?'
To pay with your life for a planned murder doesn't seem inherently wrong to me.
Nor is it wrong to decide that, say, 20 years of jail is the right punishment ...
But I don't think that you should base your idea on what the right sentence is on the idea that you could be wrong.
Because then you are basically saying you are willing to punish the wrong person, as long as the punishment isn't as severe as he or she really deserves ...
Just seems wrong to me.
|
On September 22 2011 19:08 TOloseGT wrote:First, having Liberals and Conservatives together doesn't mean they can't be corrupt. Being corrupt has nothing to do with political orientation. Second, quoting religious scripture and ancient dogma to justify capital punishment is disingenuous, seeing how Christians seem to gloss over the majority of the laws created back then. Third, cut the crap about liberal news stations.
First, having Liberals and Conservatives on a case about a Death Penalty and then claiming it to be Corrupt DOES have something to do with it. For the system to be Corrupt it'd have to be run by one party constantly so that their are no Liberal or Conservative views just one or the other. Common sense. The act of being Corrupt is someone doing something for their own benefit and not what's right. AKA Just Death Penalty because We're conservative.
Second, when talking about Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth origins then we can go onto something else if you'd like you can research on your own the Roman and Islāmic law it also was used in. The comment about Christians is pretty retarded on the fact that OMG THAT DEFINITION IS SOOO CHRISTIAN OF YOU. GG
Third, when you bring up stuff about a Liberal News Station not liking the Death Penalty you deserve to get called out about it. Also you're apparently not accurate in your statement seeing that only ONE station was brought up not STATIONS. TyGG
|
If in 19 years you can't find ANY reason you're innocent you will be executed.
I'm not sure if you're serious or not but generally the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt. The whole innocent before proven guilty thing.
Oh and btw Both sides of the court room are aloud to talk to the witness so if you HONESTLY think you're innocent and the witness was corrupt that's why you get a 2nd trial showing proof via Lie Detection or even several Psychiatrist testimonies. There are people that are paid to professionally read people's body language and be able to tell a Lie or Truth.
That is not how court works. I don't know how you got the impression that witnesses are subject to polygraph tests or are analysed by psychiatrists to prove that they are lying but, no... just no
|
If executing a prisoner really costs more than keeping him/her imprisoned I say there is no point in maintaining the capital punishment for this sole reason.
BTW, non-US replies are so rare here :o
|
On September 22 2011 19:10 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 18:58 LEGIONzomg wrote:
"If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye."
This comes back around to a more common saying "Do onto other as you would want them to do to you." Sounds pretty Reasonable to me. I disagree, those statements don't have the same meaning. Matching the style of the second, the first one could be paraphrased as "Do onto others as they have done to you." Sounds quite different to me.
Exactly. Do onto others as they have done to you and Do onto other as you would want them to do to you go hand and hand.
Don't wont to be killed?(Do onto others as you would want them to do to you.)
Then don't kill people.(Do onto others as they have done to you.)
All though "Do onto others as they have done to you." is where people go wrong and their mindset is completely wrong.
|
Ahm.. Why does it matter in the slightest what is written in the Bible or some other text dating 1000s of years back (what does it even matter how it was 50 or 100 years ago?). Times change, we know more now.. We should use that knowledge and not behave like cavemen.
|
On September 22 2011 19:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 18:54 DrF33lg00d wrote:
In my humble opinion justice should always aim to somehow repair the damage done by criminals. Locking them up or killing them is a quick solution but it doesn't make the world any better. If someone is guilty of a crime, make sure that he has to make up for it somehow...make him work and give the money to the victims or something along that line...justice should be much less destructive.
You are aware that this comes into account in other aspects of the System where we sentence people to Psych Wards or rehabilitation and they end up committing the same crime AGAIN. Granted yes SOME people turn around but the fact of the matter unless its MAJORITY better then nothing with ever replace something. I don't see you down grading to another computer only because you like the Dinosaur cursor and your High Tech High Performance computer doesn't have it. When people get put into Jail that's Tax Dollars we pay from convicted Murders to live off us so actually unless the murderer is making 2x what we pay in taxes he/she is actually taking away from the Families of the people he/she murdered again.
I wasn't talking about rehabilitation but about a form of compensation or reparation. Again, I think justice should be more constructive. While I think rehabilitation is a good idea, it's often implemented in futile ways. I'm not sure I did understand your computer analogy.
As far as your Comment towards Punishment being something the person learns from, the Death Penalty teaches everyone "HEY If you do this you will die for it." Everyone is accountable for their own doings and we don't need to Babysit the person. Hangings were done in public because it was a sign for other what will happen to the next person also.
While that seems to make sense at first, it might be a little short sighted. Determent / deterrence (not sure which is the correct term here) doesn't work that way. The possibility of being executed some time down the road doesn't prevent a person with immediate needs comitting crimes. A drug addict knows that he might be sentenced to death for killing someone for their money. But when he craves for a shot he needs the money NOW and he hasn't a clear mind. Every smoker knows they have a high risk of getting cancer when they are older, but they need a cigarette now.
Oh, and apart from making people aware of consequences for certain crimes, public executions where mostly exciting spectacles for the crowd with a lot of cheering going on. It was more like a party than an occasion for thinking about morality.
On the other hand I do completely agree with you on the being liable for convicting innocent people but it will never happen. Judges that convict people for things don't act upon their intuition or gut feelings they act upon a Jury and/or Evidence given. There will always be the way to fall back and go "Well the Evidence seemed accurate in my opinion so I convicted him." and it will always be an acceptable answer.
Just saying, it would be nice if it was changed. Coming back to the "hitting someone with a car" analogy, the person behind the wheel could also say "Well, the street was clear, there whas no sign of any person..." Still, they will have to make up for the accident.
|
On September 22 2011 19:27 wonderwall wrote:Show nested quote + If in 19 years you can't find ANY reason you're innocent you will be executed. I'm not sure if you're serious or not but generally the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt. The whole innocent before proven guilty thing. Show nested quote +Oh and btw Both sides of the court room are aloud to talk to the witness so if you HONESTLY think you're innocent and the witness was corrupt that's why you get a 2nd trial showing proof via Lie Detection or even several Psychiatrist testimonies. There are people that are paid to professionally read people's body language and be able to tell a Lie or Truth. That is not how court works. I don't know how you got the impression that witnesses are subject to polygraph tests or are analysed by psychiatrists to prove that they are lying but, no... just no
Anyone can take stuff outta context and make a valid point on the subject by someone not seeing what else was wrote so here we go on Luling at you...
Show nested quote + If in 19 years you can't find ANY reason you're innocent you will be executed. I'm not sure if you're serious or not but generally the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt. The whole innocent before proven guilty thing.
If you're Convicted of something.. You were Proven GUILTY. Weird how that works right? It's basically in your sentence "Innocent til Proven Guilty"
Show nested quote +Oh and btw Both sides of the court room are aloud to talk to the witness so if you HONESTLY think you're innocent and the witness was corrupt that's why you get a 2nd trial showing proof via Lie Detection or even several Psychiatrist testimonies. There are people that are paid to professionally read people's body language and be able to tell a Lie or Truth. That is not how court works. I don't know how you got the impression that witnesses are subject to polygraph tests or are analysed by psychiatrists to prove that they are lying but, no... just no
As a matter of fact the court actually CHOOSES Jurors from a series of safety precautions to keep the Jury non Bias. Defending such you can call a hearing if you feel that the Witness(es) are corrupted if you have Valid Proof via Cross-examination or any other encounter. This is especially true in a Criminal Case and not a Civil Case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
