|
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-15008387
Now 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.
EDIT: The main outrage of this specific case is that 7 of the 12 key witnesses in the case RECANTED (disavowed) their claims. The lack of DNA or gun evidence also brings further doubt about the case and makes me outraged that the courts still thought that they were 100% sure he was guilty of murder. On top of that he was strapped down to a chair for 3 hours while waiting for the courts to finally conclude that he was to be executed a truly inhumane fate. It must have been a truly horrifying time for him waiting for his death...
|
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've been following this story for a while now... and it looks like it's going to end poorly...
RIP t.t
|
hi will, also broken system is broken
User was warned for this post
|
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.
|
On September 22 2011 10:50 Haemonculus 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.
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.
The OP asked about the death penalty (/US system) in general. As well as the case.
|
What can I say?
I stand against the idea of a state-enforced death penalty, but even by the State's standards, they don't have enough evidence to put this man to death.
On another note, I'd like to ask what you mean, exactly, by pointing out that "he's black and being held in Georgia." If you mean to imply that his sentence has something to do with the fact that he's black, and furthermore he's being held in a southern (implied "racist") state, then you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. As the story points out, Texas, another southern state, just put a white supremacist to death for dragging a black man behind his vehicle by a chain. We can talk about institutional racism and the moral implications it has for state-enforced capital punishment, but we've at least got be up front about it, eh? Don't beat around the bush.
EDIT: Along the same lines I'm going to put forth the theory that he's being put to death with almost zero evidence against him because it was a police officer that died, and less because of the color of his skin. The State aggressively defends its faithful acolytes, the civilian be damned.
|
He should not be killed. The death penalty is wrong.
|
On September 22 2011 10:52 SonicTitan wrote: What can I say?
I stand against the idea of a state-enforced death penalty, but even by the State's standards, they don't have enough evidence to put this man to death.
On another note, I'd like to ask what you mean, exactly, by pointing out that "he's black and being held in Georgia." If you mean to imply that his sentence has something to do with the fact that he's black, and furthermore he's being held in a southern (implied "racist") state, then you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. As the story points out, Texas, another southern state, just put a white supremacist to death for dragging a black man behind his vehicle by a chain. We can talk about institutional racism and the moral implications it has for state-enforced capital punishment, but we've at least got be up front about it, eh? Don't beat around the bush.
Many black Americans believe he was convicted, because he was black. In america a lot of people believe that police officers blame a black guy because they know that it will be easy to convict. I know in my town (in Maine) where 90% of the people are white, I see the small number of backs in our town getting pulled over more frequently than other members of our town. It is appalling that racism still is an integral part of our legal system.
|
On September 22 2011 10:57 Supert0fu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:52 SonicTitan wrote: What can I say?
I stand against the idea of a state-enforced death penalty, but even by the State's standards, they don't have enough evidence to put this man to death.
On another note, I'd like to ask what you mean, exactly, by pointing out that "he's black and being held in Georgia." If you mean to imply that his sentence has something to do with the fact that he's black, and furthermore he's being held in a southern (implied "racist") state, then you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. As the story points out, Texas, another southern state, just put a white supremacist to death for dragging a black man behind his vehicle by a chain. We can talk about institutional racism and the moral implications it has for state-enforced capital punishment, but we've at least got be up front about it, eh? Don't beat around the bush. Many black Americans believe he was convicted, because he was black. In america a lot of people believe that police officers blame a black guy because they know that it will be easy to convict. I know in my town (in Maine) where 90% of the people are white, I see the small number of backs in our town getting pulled over more frequently than other members of our town. It is appalling that racism still is an integral part of our legal system. ah, your from maine? i live in lisbon falls. how bout you?
|
If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird.
|
I'm absolutely against the death penalty, but not solely for moral reasons. When someone is convicted of murder, there are 2 options (for the most part, just to keep it simple) - life in prison or death penalty. Suppose that someone is convicted of murder, but then 5 years later there is substantial evidence that they are actually innocent (which unfortunately does happen very rarely):
A. They were sentenced to life in prison, so they can be released which of course is still in no way fully compensating for their years of wrongful imprisonment but makes the punishment at least partially "reversible."
B. They were sentenced to the death penalty, which is a completely irreversible punishment once fully carried out; there is no way for the government or anyone else to do anything to even slightly right such a wrong.
I also have moral objections to the death penalty which I won't go into here, but just from a logical viewpoint I believe life in prison is still a better punishment for murder than the death penalty.
So of course, in this specific case there being some doubt in the evidence makes the death penalty an absolutely ridiculous choice for the court to make.
|
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.
Yeah, I feel the same way. The need for revenge is really strong, especially for victims, but it seems so brutal.
|
Racism might not be the sole cause, but it is worth mentioning. Keep in mind that some counties n Georgia were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008.
|
The fact that human sacrifice is still being practiced in a number of states reinforces the stereotype many around these parts have that Americans are still culturally somewhat backward. Also, capital punishment is one of the few cases where anti-Americanism is directed not towards the government which routinely practices state-sanctioned homicide in its pseudo colonial pursuits, but towards the people who uphold these laws.
My personal sentiment is that if the people decide this is the best course of action, who are we to judge. In this country we used to summarily execute deserters during WWII; are we all not animals?
|
On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird.
It has to do with the cultures people are raised in, not even necessarily the general culture across an entire country but the several different atmospheres even just within the U.S.
Having been born in Texas, I personally don't have a problem with the death penalty, I think that what it tries to do is right.
I also know that it's right far more often that it's wrong, but every single time the death penalty is wrongly applied a tragedy beyond human comprehension occurs. As such the system should be under constant scrutiny and always try to improve.
It's definitely a flawed system, but I personally recognize what I believe is the need for such a system.
|
Statistically in i learned in personal law class that only 98.5% of people who recieve the death penalty are guilty, meaning 1.5% die for a crime they didnt commit.
|
I watched this in a critical thinking video that I cannot remember the name of, so it's not an original thought but: I believe that having a death penalty for murder will encourage the murderer to kill any and all witnesses/loose ends due to a survival instinct. With no death penalty there leaves room for compassion, empathy, and the ability for the murder to turn himself in for rehabilitation.
|
I saw this on CNN today, of all places, and the guy seems to come from a pretty rational position.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/20/prosecutor-says-he-has-no-doubt-about-troy-davis-guilt/?hpt=hp_t1
It's no secret that there is always the in-court battle, and the public relations battle, when it comes to cases like this. When its been reviewed in a court, multiple times, in an environment devoid of emotion, they've always come to the same conclusion; guilty.
I hate the death penalty, however. Ethically, I don't think its our place to decide when to end someone's life, and it's not even feasible fiscally, since the appeals process costs the state an order of magnitude more money than would be spent keeping the person under permanent detainment - offering a chance of redemption without the need for a vindictive end to their life. It's the result of a primitive way of justice, combined with fiscal irresponsibility and I can't in good conscience condone it.
|
On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird.
vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal.
anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer.
and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open
|
This isnt about the death penalty in my mind, it's more about the fact that they don't have 100% evidence that he killed him. They are about to execute a man who could in fact be innocent.
I have heard it happens all the time too, you see death row inmates from decades ago finally get released because of DNA evidence, who knows many innocent people we have executed over the years, its fucking sickening to think about.
Also, not suprising this happened in GA, makes me think racism played into it because its just way people are down here.
|
what is "death panalty" ?
User was warned for this post
|
The media is doing an absolutely fantastic job of choosing the battles and framing all of the debates in this country. Choosing the focus of discussion for the county is over half the battle.
|
On September 22 2011 11:09 Bub wrote: what is "death panalty" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offence.
|
I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty.
|
The death penalty is a sketchy argument. I do think in some cases its a good option. For instance cereal killers who are obviously guilty etc. However I have issues with the idea of simply killing someone because they killed someone else.
The entire penal system is out of whack if you ask me. A lot of people in prison in there for possesion of small amounts of marijuana or other drugs for personal use. Ya you shouldnt do drugs, but it takes like 20,000 dollars a year to keep someone in prison every year. Wasting 20k on someone who wanted to smoke a little weed after work is a huge waste of federal funds
|
John Grisham » The Confession is a great book to read on the death penalty. IMO the death penalty is just as bad as the things that those criminals do.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
So this guy is the new Mumia?
From what I've read about the case, most of the evidence for this guy's innocence comes from his friends recanting their testimony. One such recantation basically said that he wasn't sure he saw Davis shoot the cop (despite being somewhere in the ballpark of 5 feet away when the shooting happened).
Well, ok, if that's enough to constitute reasonable doubt we might as well stop convicting people of anything, ever.
PS Davis has also been convicted of shooting someone earlier that night, and what a coincidence, the bullets used for the earlier shooting match the gun used to shoot Officer MacPhail.
From the "true-more-than-not-true-in-general" Wikipedia:
On the evening of August 18, 1989, Davis briefly attended a pool party hosted by a friend. As he left with his friend Darrell Collins, the occupants of a passing car yelled obscenities at them... Michael Cooper, a passenger in the other car, was shot in the face, allegedly by Davis I believe that's the other conviction.
|
On September 22 2011 11:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty.
Plus the fact that without the Death penalty that means they have life in prison so they get to have a free meal and shelter all at taxpayers expense. Yay! I want to help a killer live by paying for his food!
edit: however on this guy I don't know if he did it or not
|
I've heard about it, its sad.
|
He still has a real chance, the Supreme Court has been debating another stay of execution since around 6:30 EST. Just keep hoping that they will make the right decision. There must be a lot of debate, as they are around two hours later than they said they would release the verdict.
|
On September 22 2011 11:05 Bonkerz wrote: Statistically in i learned in personal law class that only 98.5% of people who recieve the death penalty are guilty, meaning 1.5% die for a crime they didnt commit.
This is a good enough reason right here not to have the death penalty. Whether or not it is morally right to kill someone for their crimes should not even have to be discussed.
|
The Innocence Project is a pro bono group of lawyers that have actually saved over 250 people in the United States based on DNA testing. This, I feel, is one of the greatest arguments against the death penalty, as mistakes can and have been made, while death is permanent.
|
Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out.
|
I am ashamed to be from Georgia right now... At least this has the possibility of becoming a powerful aid in the fight to abolish the death penalty.
|
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.
Totally agree. the punishment system right now just seems so primitive, if they make them do like 9001 hours of community service instead, then they get to live, as well as give back to society
however theoretically, if they kill someone, i think they should still be killed, but that is if they know 100% (which isn't quite realistic, there's bound to be a mistake sometime) or be forced to work then be killed, or such. Basically something that will make them suffer a LOT because really, killing someone is just so... stupid, honestly
|
On September 22 2011 11:23 Iyerbeth wrote: Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out.
i don't know the us legal system very well but that's it right?
|
On September 22 2011 11:34 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:23 Iyerbeth wrote: Just been announced that the Supreme Court won't block the execution, so seems his last chance just ran out. i don't know the us legal system very well but that's it right?
Yep, that's it. He'll be dead in less than thirty minutes.
****
|
he's poking at a typo i get this all the time penalty panalty =p
|
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.
|
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.
wouldn't you say it's hypocritical to state that people don't value life enough yet someone should forfeit the right to live?
|
On the plus side, this means all the death penalty advocates on this side of my state will shut up for the next year or so.
|
Death penaltys a trick question. Not to start a debate, I agree with only in extreme, certain cases. If someone rapes and murders 8 people etc etc, then sure we can talk about it. But if one guy kills someone in a drunken brawl, then no its stupid.
Anyways Is this case certain? No Should he be killed then? No
|
As a supporter of the death penalty, I find this atrocious that our legal system has again failed us, and most importantly failed this man. With near zero physical evidence and 9 testimonies against him he was convicted and found guilty. Years later, 7 of those 9 testimonials were either changed or recanted. He does not deserve death because there is no way to be 100% certain that he murdered that poor officer. Today is a sad day in the American judicial process.
|
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.
|
Our current system doesn't work. A system based on reform and rehabilitaion instead of consequences such as death has been proven overtime to have a higher success rate, along with being more economical.
|
On September 22 2011 11:46 wesbare wrote:Show nested quote +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)
|
I just heard the Supreme Court rejected his request.. This really sucks to see. I don't know the details of the entire case but it seems to lean towards innocent over guilty. The main reason I don't know all of it is because there doesn't seem to be incriminating evidence out there.
|
The justice system in this country is SUCCHHHHHH a joke
Seems pretty clear there is a doubt at a minimum on his guilt. I just get very sad thinking how I would be if I was sitting here on TL living my life normally and all of a sudden was labeled a murderer and sent to death for something I did not do.
Maybe I think of these things to deep, but things like this make me very sad.
|
On September 22 2011 11:51 DeepBlu2 wrote: I just heard the Supreme Court rejected his request.. This really sucks to see. I don't know the details of the entire case but it seems to lean towards innocent over guilty. The main reason I don't know all of it is because there doesn't seem to be incriminating evidence out there.
I'm not sure what grounds the appeal was made to SCOTUS but there is very little they can do in this type of situation absent a glaring procedural violation. The supreme court has yet to rule that eye witness testimony is suspect in a capital case (they may get to do that this term) but frankly there was no other option for them tonight.
SCOTUS is bound by its precendent, and the language of the constitution. The elected officials in the state of Georgia suffer no such constraints, and are the ones that should be ashamed of themsevles for carrying out this travesty.
|
I am actually in favor of the death penalty, but only in extreme cases, and the evidence/case against said person better be damn solid. I don't think this case qualifies for either (from what I've seen).
Rehabilitation is a nice idea, but extremely hard to achieve. Does locking a person up for years with other violent/selfish/greedy/unstable (take your pick) seem like a likely way to "rehabilitate" someone? At what point does rehabilitation become too lenient? Crimes should be punished, for the sake of "justice," correct?
I would be more in favor of "rehabilitation" if someone has found a way to do it while still maintaining the feeling of punishment for doing something wrong. So far, I haven't seen it.
That said, I think state-sponsored execution should only be used on people who have repeatedly shown they are extremely harmful and unwilling to obey the rules of society (in some cases that might mean by murdering someone, in some cases not).
|
On September 22 2011 11:46 ranshaked wrote: As a supporter of the death penalty, I find this atrocious that our legal system has again failed us, and most importantly failed this man. With near zero physical evidence and 9 testimonies against him he was convicted and found guilty. Years later, 7 of those 9 testimonials were either changed or recanted. He does not deserve death because there is no way to be 100% certain that he murdered that poor officer. Today is a sad day in the American judicial process.
This isn't a failure of the judicial process whatsoever. Davis had his day in court and has been given numerous stays and appeals, and he's ultimately lost every single one of them. He was also convicted of shooting another man that same night, and the bullet casings matched the ones at the cop murder - that's a lot more than zero physical evidence. As for witness recanting, it happens often. My uncle is a criminal lawyer in Georgia and has had to deal with it before. Over the years, people's memories get fuzzy, they feel responsible for sentencing a man to death/prison, and they're pressured by the family of the convicted to change their stories. The fact that the witnesses didn't recant until right before his first execution date is very telling.
I don't like the death penalty, but that doesn't make Troy Davis innocent either.
|
On September 22 2011 11:58 partisan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:51 DeepBlu2 wrote: I just heard the Supreme Court rejected his request.. This really sucks to see. I don't know the details of the entire case but it seems to lean towards innocent over guilty. The main reason I don't know all of it is because there doesn't seem to be incriminating evidence out there. I'm not sure what grounds the appeal was made to SCOTUS but there is very little they can do in this type of situation absent a glaring procedural violation. The supreme court has yet to rule that eye witness testimony is suspect in a capital case (they may get to do that this term) but frankly there was no other option for them tonight. SCOTUS is bound by its precendent, and the language of the constitution. The elected officials in the state of Georgia suffer no such constraints, and are the ones that should be ashamed of themsevles for carrying out this travesty.
When they originally referred the case back to court, they could have asked for a review of "reasonable doubt" instead of proof of "actual innocence". This would have turned the parole board around, they voted 3:2 to execute him.
On September 22 2011 12:00 ShadowDrgn wrote:
This isn't a failure of the judicial process whatsoever. Davis had his day in court and has been given numerous stays and appeals, and he's ultimately lost every single one of them. He was also convicted of shooting another man that same night, and the bullet casings matched the ones at the cop murder - that's a lot more than zero physical evidence.
The prosecution dropped the bullet casing crap a decade ago because they mishandled the evidence and the procedure they used was a joke. He was convicted of the other murder based on the listed eyewitnesses and said bullet casing. They don't even have the gun so they can do casing comparison tests with a larger sample size.
Don't make shit up.
|
On September 22 2011 11:50 Syben wrote: Our current system doesn't work. A system based on reform and rehabilitaion instead of consequences such as death has been proven overtime to have a higher success rate, along with being more economical.
No one is going to disagree with reform and rehabilitation in non-murder cases. People can change with proper help. Community service is good for people. The question is whether governments are doing their job when they let people clearly guilty of murder continue to live.
Your assertion that the death penalty is less "economical" is highly questionable. See the link below:
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001000
|
On September 22 2011 12:00 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:46 ranshaked wrote: As a supporter of the death penalty, I find this atrocious that our legal system has again failed us, and most importantly failed this man. With near zero physical evidence and 9 testimonies against him he was convicted and found guilty. Years later, 7 of those 9 testimonials were either changed or recanted. He does not deserve death because there is no way to be 100% certain that he murdered that poor officer. Today is a sad day in the American judicial process. This isn't a failure of the judicial process whatsoever. Davis had his day in court and has been given numerous stays and appeals, and he's ultimately lost every single one of them. He was also convicted of shooting another man that same night, and the bullet casings matched the ones at the cop murder - that's a lot more than zero physical evidence. As for witness recanting, it happens often. My uncle is a criminal lawyer in Georgia and has had to deal with it before. Over the years, people's memories get fuzzy, they feel responsible for sentencing a man to death/prison, and they're pressured by the family of the convicted to change their stories. The fact that the witnesses didn't recant until right before his first execution date is very telling. I don't like the death penalty, but that doesn't make Troy Davis innocent either. Can you explain why multiple witnesses have come out and said the cops pressured them into signing statements that they knew were lies for fear of being arrested themselves? I say this because clearly this case was not handled appropriately by the police, or judges.
|
The issue with life in jail is that not only is our jail system so rediculously broken (and nobody wants to take the time to fix it) that it just breeds harder criminals. I would actually rather die than live in fear in a hard core jail for attempted murder where the other inmates are hardcore criminals and i'm some random guy wrongly convicted. Its like going back to the salem witch trials, except less witches more shivs. Also another issue with life in prison is that it takes up space in our jails that are already way too crowded for any kind of rehabilitation, if they still even attempt that. The thing about the death penalty is that even though very rarely someone will be innocent that is put to death, the death penalty is rarely used and has killed less people than any war has. IF you are against the death penalty you should probably hate war which seemingly among some groups of people isn't the case, but just like everyone else that is a can of worms i don't want to open.
|
As to the overall debate on if the death penalty actually serves a punitive or moral purpose in a modern society, I think Justice Steven's concurrence from Baze v. Rees is one of the better opionions I've seen from the bench in a long time.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/553/07-5439/concur2.html
|
Read the case.
On Troy Davis: By any reasonable standard you'd have to conclude he's guilty.
On Death Penalty: After having read and considered many arguments both in favor and against it, I'm mildly in favor of it.
Overall, I don't think that this is such a terrible outcome as many others here do.
|
On September 22 2011 11:15 Yuriegh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty. Plus the fact that without the Death penalty that means they have life in prison so they get to have a free meal and shelter all at taxpayers expense. Yay! I want to help a killer live by paying for his food! edit: however on this guy I don't know if he did it or not Death penalty costs more than life in prison.. just FYI
|
If the verdict of this case was determined to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", then what constitutes reasonable doubt? Seven of nine witness recantations isn't enough? /clap US "justice" system.
|
On September 22 2011 12:01 acker wrote: The prosecution dropped the bullet casing crap a decade ago because they mishandled the evidence and the procedure they used was a joke. He was convicted of the other murder based on the listed eyewitnesses and said bullet casing. They don't even have the gun so they can do casing comparison tests with a larger sample size.
Don't make shit up.
That conflicts with what the former prosecutor said in the CNN article linked above:
Davis was convicted of the first, non-fatal, shooting in Savannah's Cloverdale neighborhood that night. Lawton said there was confusion over evidence in the murder case because the shell casings from both shootings wound up in the same evidence bag.
"That confusion was subsequently resolved; it was resolved adequately at trial," he said. "Our problem, from the state's point of view, is the documents, which initially reflect the initial confusion, are still out there and are being exploited to that end."
A jury sat on this trial for weeks/months and still convicted him, and the prosecution has prevailed in every appeal. I'm willing to side with the decisions made by people who have spent years on this case over the opinions of people on the Internet.
|
Just an update, time of death has just been announced as 11:08 EDT so yeah, no more questions on what's happening.
|
RIP troy davis 11:08
Am I the only person that feels really shaky and got the goosebumps? It makes me upset and scared that this guy waited for the past 3 hours to die, strapped to a table, and then murdered. I can't imagine what was going through his head.
|
On September 22 2011 12:16 ranshaked wrote: RIP troy davis 11:08
Am I the only person that feels really shaky and got the goosebumps? It makes me upset and scared that this guy waited for the past 3 hours to die, strapped to a table, and then murdered. I can't imagine what was going through his head.
Hopefully it was "damn I wish I didn't shoot those people," at least for part of it.
|
It'll be interesting to read the court dialogues as I don't trust anything that the news media says these days (always misrepresenting information in some fashion).
If he is indeed innocent and these news sources are correct in that nearly all the witnesses have said they gave false accusations under oath, he certainly deserved to live. However if that is not the case, he rightfully died or could have remain in jail instead, whichever is less costly.
Ethically, I suppose the death penalty can be wrong, however I do remember a few years ago when I had read a research report conducted to attempt to show any correlation between states that had a death penalty and the number of violent crimes per capita. As it turned out, there were fewer violent crimes per capita within states that had a death penalty compared to those that didn't. Although perhaps the threat of a death penalty is all that is needed considering the costs to execute someone are very high.
I must ask though, do some of you really think that rehabilitation really works? I wrote an essay on recently released inmates and recidivism back in my sociology class, and found that many former inmates indeed committed a similar crime that landed them into jail to begin with. I suppose before we argue on the debate of rehabilitation and such for criminals, we should first look at our rehabilitation facilities and prison systems first.
And lol@ the dude who thinks that some states still practice human sacrifice (and lol at the notion, I'm sure it happens just as frequently in Europe, too). Sure, animal sacrifice [of domestic farm animals] can technically be allowed under a technicality, but that's it.
|
I strongly believe in the quote:
"I'd rather let 100 guilty go free, than punish 1 innocent"
And therefore, since it is not certain it's his fault he atleast deserves to live.
|
On September 22 2011 12:13 ShadowDrgn wrote: That conflicts with what the former prosecutor said in the CNN article linked above:
A jury sat on this trial for weeks/months and still convicted him, and the prosecution has prevailed in every appeal. I'm willing to side with the decisions made by people who have spent years on this case over the opinions of people on the Internet.
The former prosecutor is clearly a unbiased study on all things Troy Davis. Right? Should I quote the defense attorney and insist no physical evidence whatsoever was obtained (/sarcasm) ?
I'm going to go with the "I refuse to read up on the case and see what happened in the appeals process" to describe your train of thought. When the federal court admits that the defense's case to put a man to death isn't ironclad but insists on proof of innocence rather than proof of reasonable doubt...well, that's it.
|
According to media witnessed that were there live (they're currently talking so I'm paraphrasing) he went quietly but when asked if he had anything final statement he said he wanted to speak to the victim's family and he said it wasn't his fault, he didn't have a gun, he was sorry for their loss but he didn't take their sun. He said "I did not kill your son, father, brother, I am innocent". He encouraged those present to keep investigating and looking in to what really happened. He aked God to have mercy on those killing him.
Edit: The victims family apparently believe that he was responsible and were happy with the outcome.
|
Seems nuts that there wasnt enough doubt in the case even with 7 recantations. However, i also feel like we definitely don't know the full picture considering so many appeals where summarily and fully denied by numerous levels of the judicial system.
|
On September 22 2011 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: I strongly believe in the quote:
"I'd rather let 100 guilty go free, than punish 1 innocent"
And therefore, since it is not certain it's his fault he atleast deserves to live.
I've never liked that quote, what if those 100 men then go and kill 100 more men?
Should be something more like "I'd rather not execute 100 guilty men, than execute 1 innocent man"
|
I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die.
|
It's cases like this that remind me why I am becoming a lawyer.
|
The death penalty is revenge, not justice.
And reading the Times article today was appalling. Several times they quoted the prosecution saying "he had multiple chances to prove his innocence". Excuse me?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
RIP. Troy Davis. The man maintained his innocence to the end, and based on the circumstance of the case and trial, I'm partial to giving him the benefit of the doubt.
As for the death penalty, I'm of the school that justice is making the victim(s) whole and rehabilitation of the criminal if applicable. The death penalty doesn't fit unless the criminal believe that it is the only way to atone for the crime.
As for "I'd rather let 100 guilty go free, than punish 1 innocent," the really insidious part of convicting an innocent is that the real criminal gets off free because the justice system stops seeking out the real criminal. The evil of punishing an innocent is compounded by the effective pardoning of the guilty.
|
On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die.
Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post).
Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error).
|
If Cole publishes an "if I did it" book in the next year like Casey Anthony and Simpson, I'm going to break something.
On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote: Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post).
Please tell me that you are not a citizen of the United States. If you are, please tell me that you cannot vote and do not plan on reproducing.
|
I do feel that some crimes warrant the use of the death penalty and yet I am still opposed to the death penalty.
Although it fits certain potential crimes in reality there is too much gray area in many cases to be sure that only the guilty are being executed.
There is also inequality in the use of the death penalty. Blacks are more likely to be executed than whites for similar crimes and men are more likely than women to be executed for similar crimes.
For those reasons alone the death penalty should be abolished.
I also have a problem with the state using death as a punishment. People have a right to kill in self defense but not for revenge. If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill my family and I shoot them dead then that is fine. If they break in and kill my family and I fail to kill them I can't decide to hunt them down and kill them a week later. The person would deserve death yes, but I don't like the idea of the state being so much more powerful than the people.
And finally, let's be honest here, there are a shit ton of people, maybe even the majority of people, develop a mob mentality quite easily and just want to see someone put to death just for the sake of it. For a recent example look at the Casey Anthony trial. It is one thing to feel that she is guilty, and to think that if she is guilty then she should have been executed. Now look on youtube for some of the live reactions to the verdict, look back at the coverage of the trial...people with nothing invested in the trial, no stake in the outcome and yet they nearly salivate at the thought of the women being put to death and get enraged when she doesn't.
|
To add the opinion of a person pursuing a PHD in criminal justice: simply put, there is a strong scientific consensus amongst people who study criminal justice that the death penalty has _no_ deterrent effect. You can find it virtually anywhere - every couple of years, the Journal of Law and Criminology posts expert polls on that stuff. About 60% think there's no deterrent, 30% think that the deterrent is insignificant, and 10% think it works.
There are also a damn ton of examples of it. The New Yorker had a pretty great article about potentially the first person who may have his case over-turned posthumously - IE the state of texas will admit that it murdered a legally innocent man.
-Cross
(http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann)
|
Ruben Cantu was even more fucked up than that case. One witness, no physical evidence, botched police procedure, witness recants two years after execution. Prosecutor went directly into the anti-death penalty camp in record time.
|
On September 22 2011 12:39 macil222 wrote:
And finally, let's be honest here, there are a shit ton of people, maybe even the majority of people, develop a mob mentality quite easily and just want to see someone put to death just for the sake of it. For a recent example look at the Casey Anthony trial. It is one thing to feel that she is guilty, and to think that if she is guilty then she should have been executed. Now look on youtube for some of the live reactions to the verdict, look back at the coverage of the trial...people with nothing invested in the trial, no stake in the outcome and yet they nearly salivate at the thought of the women being put to death and get enraged when she doesn't.
Yeah, the Casey Anthony thing was one of the creepiest things thats happened in the US. People who shouldn't give a shit at all were frothing at the mouth to have some woman put to death, even though the evidence to prove she was anything more than a total loser / severely negligent was non existent.
|
I'm not convinced that Troy Davis was innocent, even though the evidence seems to be weak, and while I'm against the death penalty, I don't that matters in that case. There really seems enough doubt to at least give him another trial and stall the execution, I can't believe that they went through with the execution.
|
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.
And Christians have the mettle to argue that atheists are the ones who are the hypocrites?
|
On September 22 2011 12:36 acker wrote:If Cole publishes an "if I did it" book in the next year like Casey Anthony and Simpson, I'm going to break something. Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote: Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post).
Please tell me that you are not a citizen of the United States. If you are, please tell me that you cannot vote and do not plan on reproducing.
Great contribution, chap! What are you suggesting, a powerless state that will not try people for fear of indicting an innocent person? You realize that you, as a member of the USA, gives the courts an enormous amount of power and potential control over your life, right? Your residence is an agreement that you will follow what the State says...
|
On September 22 2011 12:00 ShadowDrgn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:46 ranshaked wrote: As a supporter of the death penalty, I find this atrocious that our legal system has again failed us, and most importantly failed this man. With near zero physical evidence and 9 testimonies against him he was convicted and found guilty. Years later, 7 of those 9 testimonials were either changed or recanted. He does not deserve death because there is no way to be 100% certain that he murdered that poor officer. Today is a sad day in the American judicial process. This isn't a failure of the judicial process whatsoever. Davis had his day in court and has been given numerous stays and appeals, and he's ultimately lost every single one of them. He was also convicted of shooting another man that same night, and the bullet casings matched the ones at the cop murder - that's a lot more than zero physical evidence. As for witness recanting, it happens often. My uncle is a criminal lawyer in Georgia and has had to deal with it before. Over the years, people's memories get fuzzy, they feel responsible for sentencing a man to death/prison, and they're pressured by the family of the convicted to change their stories. The fact that the witnesses didn't recant until right before his first execution date is very telling. I don't like the death penalty, but that doesn't make Troy Davis innocent either.
Eye witness testimony is not very reliable to begin with.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
From what I've read (I'll admit it's not much), there is reasonable doubt cast over the evidence used to convict him. There was apparently no DNA and no gun that linked Davis to the murder, and most of the witnesses testified also have recanted or changed their testimony. The 'smoking gun' as they put it seems to have been the testimonies of the witnesses (now moot), and a ballistics report which the defense contest was inaccurate. Now at this point, I can't even imagine why they would not stay the execution and look into the matter again. How can the prosecuters remain so stubborn when there is enough evidence to support that they perhaps made a mistake? Is losing face worse than an innoncent man losing his life? This case and the West Memphis Three one really makes me question the justice system over there.
|
On September 22 2011 12:50 Feartheguru 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. And Christians have the mettle to argue that atheists are the ones who are the hypocrites? Plz no religious debate: no God, no Christian, no Atheist.
I think that Georgia will have to proceed with caution. If they end up killing an innocent man, i doubt their legal system will have any merit anymore.
|
Oh, so the evidence is shaky and/or bogus, but nothing's done about it and he he is still completely guilty. Incredible...
I'm going to take a wild guess and say he's a minority, most likely black since there's been many cases historically (famous and not), where blacks are convicted of stuff they didn't do.
I will now check the news article.
EDIT: What do you know. He's black. No surprise he's in this pickle when the evidence is bad, probably completely fabricated for all we know. gg legal system.
|
[B]On September 22 2011 12:54 Telcontar wrote:
It's the problem when the defense and prosecution's cases are based upon convincing their non-professional, inexperienced peers.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error).
On this point, society should be designing a system that provides incentives to minimise prosecutor misconduct and miscarriages of justice. That the US largely affords immunity from prosecutor misconduct to prosecutors removes the negative consequences of convicting innocents and de-incentivises efforts to ascertain the innocence of the accused on the part of prosecutors. That the US largely immunises the government and judges from liability of wrongful convictions also removes incentives to pursue of truth in the courts.
The legal effective immunity of liability of judges does a great disservice to the pursuit justice and tilts the playing field inordinately towards both convictions and wrongful convictions.
|
I'm not talking about Troy Davis' case here.
I do not want to be spending a single penny to feed and sleep those rapists and murders.
Let them put to death, do you think you can stand when one of your family members was raped or killed while the criminal is still breathing and bragging about his "achievement"?
|
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? Remember, they'll be in jail for life, they cannot kill anyone else. It doesn't matter to the public one way or the other whether or not we kill or jail them for life. You are killing somebody only for the reason that society says they should die.
At the very least, you should admit that it's morally ambiguous.
May I remind you that the proper execution described in the Bible is stoning someone. And when we hear about middle eastern countries stoning people, we consider them barbaric.
|
On September 22 2011 10:50 Haemonculus 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.
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.
|
On September 22 2011 13:05 OpTicalRH wrote: I'm not talking about Troy Davis' case here.
I do not want to be spending a single penny to feed and sleep those rapists and murders.
Let them put to death, do you think you can stand when one of your family members was raped or killed while the criminal is still breathing and bragging about his "achievement"?
There then comes up the issue that often times it costs more to kill someone then life in jail: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/
|
On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error).
The difference is that it's somewhat harder to correct your mistake after you killed someone.
I actually like your choice of words, "we absolutely must". Do you think it's absolutely necessary to kill people who do wrong? Don't you think the threat of imprisonnement is enough?
Most civilized countries don't have the death penalty anymore, and as far as I can tell it's not complete chaos.
There really is no reason to have the death penalty in the first place. All it does is create tensions and unnecessary violence.
|
|
This is so disgusting. RIP Troy.
|
On September 22 2011 13:05 OpTicalRH wrote: I'm not talking about Troy Davis' case here.
I do not want to be spending a single penny to feed and sleep those rapists and murders.
Let them put to death, do you think you can stand when one of your family members was raped or killed while the criminal is still breathing and bragging about his "achievement"?
Except the only way to not spend a single penny is to not pay taxes. It costs way more $ to kill them, there have been a couple posts about this in this very thread.
If I witnessed a family member being raped or killed, and I had the chance, i would probably kill the guy/woman right there, emotions and everything would probably make anyone do things they would regret later.
If you gave me a year or so to cool off, then yes, i can say I'd rather have them sit in prison than be put to death. I am 100% against the death penalty, in all cases.
I mean, let's be honest, there are people that are in jail cause they got caught with weed a few too many times, that's whats costing you $. The entire system is dumb, my step dad's good friend from his youth got put away for life for the three strike rule. Did he do some really stupid stuff? Of course, does he deserve to go to prison for life.. Don't think so. I don't know this guy btw.
From what I can gather, Troy was probably guilty, he never was able to win anything in court, and they generally know what their doing if he lost all of those appeals, and the jury convicted him. I don't really think I care enough to look into all the details, but by no means should this guy have died today.
|
It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote: It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
he had prior felonies and 7 of the 12 jury members were black.
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote: It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
Wait... Everyone in America was calling for the head of that "damsel in distress". There was no clear evidence she was a murderer, and she was let free by jurors. Something that maybe should have happened in this case.
|
On September 22 2011 13:02 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error). On this point, society should be designing a system that provides incentives to minimise prosecutor misconduct and miscarriages of justice. That the US largely affords immunity from prosecutor misconduct to prosecutors removes the negative consequences of convicting innocents and de-incentivises efforts to ascertain the innocence of the accused on the part of prosecutors. That the US largely immunises the government and judges from liability of wrongful convictions also removes incentives to pursue of truth in the courts. The legal effective immunity of liability of judges does a great disservice to the pursuit justice and tilts the playing field inordinately towards both convictions and wrongful convictions.
I agree with you here, there needs to be some accountability for the actions taken by judges and prosecutors of innocent people, although once legal representatives can be responsible for possible misconduct in a case you'd end up with a lawsuit in just about every case where someone is put on death row or gets life. I suppose the system can be altered where a third party does the investigation of the prosecutor and judge for the case and determine if there was misconduct, but that would require a judiciary internal affairs branch to be created.
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote: It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
Good points. Uzbekistan is a paragon of justice and due process.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error).
You don't need to go around killing people to put the fear of the justice system in people. Imprisonment allows for an opportunity to correct those kinds of mistakes and give an innocent person a chance to rebuild. The death penalty does not.
There's no evidence to show that the death penalty is been even the slightest bit effective in reducing the murder rate in the US. If one is in the frame of mind of ending the life of another human being, the absolute last thing you'd be worried about at that point is punishment for that crime. Whether it was done in the heat of the moment, or calculated. Exercising the death penalty after the fact does not bring the murdered individual back.
It even costs the taxpayer more money to put somebody through death row than to detain them, with full room and board, for literally the rest of their natural born life. The fiscal argument doesn't work in it's defense, either.
|
On September 22 2011 13:08 Caelyn0101 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 22 2011 13:17 keiraknightlee wrote: It's actually really simple. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was let off the hook despite strong evidence...
Black man gets hammered by the full extent of the law, while the white damsel in distress is let free...
That's America for you...
Actually the Casey Anthony case was extremely weak on evidence nothing was incriminating. It was all based off of circumstantial evidence. It's why the jury had to let her off.
|
I'm not particularly convinced he's innocent, but I think they should be a bit more willing to at least stay an execution in light of new evidence.
The guy isn't exactly a saint, he has prior convictions involving violent crimes and such, doesn't he?
|
United States6959 Posts
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.
The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings.
|
On September 22 2011 13:12 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 12:35 Naio wrote:On September 22 2011 12:24 MilesTeg wrote: I see people saying it's not about death penalty in general, it's wrong.
The basic problem with the death penalty is that you put so much faith in the justice system that you give them the power to take human lives. Justice is made by humans, so inevitably sometimes it screws up, and things like this are bound to happen.
Institutions just shouldn't be allowed to decide that someone should die. Then honestly, neither should they have the power to convict and ruin people's lives. Mistakes will always be made, people will always intentionally do wrong. We are not a benign species, and as such some sacrifices should be made and some control should be given up to the State to attempt to make the best, safest life for the majority (I do realize that every country really doesn't give two shits about fully assisting the people with their needs, but that's for another post). Until that day that we as a species think of the whole rather than as an individual, we absolutely must allow the state to make those types of decisions, despite the fact that there is a margin of error (and lets be honest, it is a rather acceptable margin for error). The difference is that it's somewhat harder to correct your mistake after you killed someone. I actually like your choice of words, "we absolutely must". Do you think it's absolutely necessary to kill people who do wrong? Don't you think the threat of imprisonnement is enough? Most civilized countries don't have the death penalty anymore, and as far as I can tell it's not complete chaos. There really is no reason to have the death penalty in the first place. All it does is create tensions and unnecessary violence.
Not necessarily with regards to the death penalty but rather for giving the state the necessary power to be allowed to pass judgment upon another human being. Without allowing for the state to make decisions that will affect people's lives the judicial system would probably collapse.
You are right, most 1st world nations have abolished the death penalty and I think the reason it is still in the USA is on principle alone. In all honesty, I really can care less if a child molester or rapist is put to death (in fact I'd prefer it), however it is currently far more cost efficient to keep them in jail for life over executing them, so the choice for what should be done in America is obvious.
|
On September 22 2011 13:31 Stratos_speAr 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.
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. The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings.
Sort of like this. I believe the primary benefit of the death penalty has nothing to do with bringing relief back to the grieved ones, but rather, eliminate the possibility of a murderer committing the same atrocity to society again.
Is it useful as a deterrence? It probably is, to some effect, however minimal it is. People in general do think about the consequences.
|
I actually do not support the death penalty.
However, I do understand the reasoning behind the death penalty, and I think there's some stuff that people are missing about the death penalty. A government instates the death penalty to deter heinous crimes. Someone, knowing that there is a death penalty, commits a heinous crime. It's not about whether or not we want him to die. He condemned himself. We have no choice over the matter. It's like Team Liquid banning people for martyring. We can't not kill (or ban) him.
The crucial point of debate is whether or not the death penalty actually deters crime. I've been led to believe, through research conducted by one of my professors and various other sources, that it doesn't, but obviously it's very difficult to conclusively say one way or the other.
I'm also against killing people. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed. But the death penalty is not about killing people. It's about deterring crime. Theoretically, we can have the death penalty but never have to execute anyone.
About wrongful convictions: that really has nothing to do with the death penalty. It concerns the entire judicial system equally. The fact that you think a wrongful conviction resulting in death is a more grave mistake than a wrongful conviction resulting in life imprisonment doesn't mean it really is.
That might seem counterintuitive, (because obviously getting executed seems worse than living) but I would say both mistakes are equally grave and should be avoided at all costs. For example, if I had to rate the undesirability of each mistake, I would rate them both at the maximum value. And as a result, they would be equally undesirable.
|
It's actually far cheaper to leave criminals in prison for life than it is to execute them, when the cost of all the overhead that comes with a capital punishment program is considered. Without even considering the moral arguments, I'd support elimination of the death penalty for financial reasons alone.
|
Marshall Islands3404 Posts
they already ruined his life, might as well just put him out of his misery at this point. awful case in general that has gone on for twice as long as it should have
|
I don't support the death penalty for a few reasons.
1. It is economically inefficient. It's already been said, but keeping an inmate on death row is more expensive than keeping an inmate in prison.
2. Racial bias. I'm not basing that on this case alone, but on large collections of data that show a black man is more likely to get the death penalty than a white man for the same crime. That just doesn't sit well with me.
3. Ineffective. States that actively use the death penalty have no less heinous murders (what the death penalty is meant to be used for) than States that don't use the death penalty.
|
On September 22 2011 13:37 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 13:31 Stratos_speAr 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.
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. The death penalty has nothing to do with vengeance. The death penalty is about removing people from earth that just shouldn't be here - primarily, those that commit horrible atrocities against other human beings. Sort of like this. I believe the primary benefit of the death penalty has nothing to do with bringing relief back to the grieved ones, but rather, eliminate the possibility of a murderer committing the same atrocity to society again. Is it useful as a deterrence? It probably is, to some effect, however minimal it is. People in general do think about the consequences. I don't know what drives a person to kill another person, but I think in those cases, (an in most cases where people would argue the death penalty warrented) the offender is not concerned with the consequences. I'd actually argue that the death penalty is less discouraging than life in prison.
|
It just comes down to the question of whether people are willing to possibly execute a few innocent people in order to execute many more guilty people. I'm not sure who I saw say it but in my opinion "rehabilitation" is useless. Maybe not useless, but it is a well known fact that many people who are convicted of crimes end up back in jail for one reason or another. American prisons are overcrowded as they are. No reason to keep somebody locked up inside of them when they have no chance of ever getting out anyway. Also, I'm tired of hearing people pull the race card every time a minority is involved in some sort of criminal case. If it was a white person in the same situation i don't think this thread would be going anywhere fast.
|
On September 22 2011 13:39 Enervate wrote: I actually do not support the death penalty.
However, I do understand the reasoning behind the death penalty, and I think there's some stuff that people are missing about the death penalty. A government instates the death penalty to deter heinous crimes. Someone, knowing that there is a death penalty, commits a heinous crime. It's not about whether or not we want him to die. He condemned himself. We have no choice over the matter. It's like Team Liquid banning people for martyring. We can't not kill (or ban) him.
The crucial point of debate is whether or not the death penalty actually deters crime. I've been led to believe, through research conducted by one of my professors and various other sources, that it doesn't, but obviously it's very difficult to conclusively say one way or the other.
I'm also against killing people. I don't think anyone deserves to be killed. But the death penalty is not about killing people. It's about deterring crime. Theoretically, we can have the death penalty but never have to execute anyone.
About wrongful convictions: that really has nothing to do with the death penalty. It concerns the entire judicial system equally. The fact that you think a wrongful conviction resulting in death is a more grave mistake than a wrongful conviction resulting in life imprisonment doesn't mean it really is.
That might seem counterintuitive, (because obviously getting executed seems worse than living) but I would say both mistakes are equally grave and should be avoided at all costs. For example, if I had to rate the undesirability of each mistake, I would rate them both at the maximum value. And as a result, they would be equally undesirable.
I've studied the arguments and written papers about it, and I am absolutely opposed to the death penalty. As you noted, it doesn't deter crime, and the data is out there to support that claim not only for U.S. states but other countries as well. Norway is a great example, with very low crime and a very lenient justice system (another thread said the maximum sentence there is 21 years?). Wrongful convictions are also very important when talking about the death penalty. You can overturn a conviction after decades when new evidence comes to light, but you can't un-kill somebody. The first time you kill an innocent person should be the last time you ever use the death penalty. You seem to be talking about cases where the prisoner is guilty beyond any shadow of a doubt, which doesn't change my argument but the case of Troy Davis is a very different one. The case is nowhere near iron-clad, and with all but two witnesses recanting and no direct physical evidence, you can't kill a man with such little certainty. That is what is so revolting to me, there is plenty of doubt to at least hold off the execution and properly investigate.
Other than the built-in human passion for retribution, which is not justice, I don't see a credible normative argument for the death penalty. I hope this story doesn't go away; Troy Davis should be the poster boy for everything that is wrong about the death penalty.
|
When all of the evidence that convicted him has been proven to be false, then he shouldn't have been killed. But, it's to late now, I hope one day there can be a retrial in his name. RIP Troy Davis, even if you were guilty, by legal standards you should have gotten a retrial.
|
“It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.” ~ Voltaire
Pretty much sums up my views on the entire subject and hope that this starts a fight to end capital punishment here in the U.S.
|
This is just my personal opinion, but there are people that should get electrified/syringe, but most of these death penalties that has been brought up nowadays doesn't fit atleast for my standards.
|
The death penalty already exists, it's called a life sentence. They just make sure the criminal suffers a lot before he dies (at the tax payers expense).
|
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
|
On September 22 2011 13:05 OpTicalRH wrote: I'm not talking about Troy Davis' case here.
I do not want to be spending a single penny to feed and sleep those rapists and murders.
Let them put to death, do you think you can stand when one of your family members was raped or killed while the criminal is still breathing and bragging about his "achievement"?
The argument what family members might think is so irrelevant. There is a reason why the judges are supposed to be neutral otherwise we live in the middle-ages again...
So many people seem to still favor that whole eye for an eye thing.
|
I never agree with the death penalty event for the most horrible criminals. I don't mind if an "accident" happens (not in this case) in very extreme cases.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
Another appalling miscarriage of justice in my country. A while back, Justice Scalia said that if a clearly innocent man was ever executed in the US, than people would be shouting it from the rooftops, and the death penalty would presumably be removed.
Now that we've executed a demonstrably innocent man; Cameron Todd Willingham, and countless others like Troy Davis for whom there is more reasonable doubt than proof, and are about to execute another demonstrably innocent man; Larry Ray Swearingen, it's a massive scandal that we keep moving on like there's nothing wrong.
|
it makes me sad to see how many people seem to favour death penalty. its like we didnt learn anything out of our past... once again...
|
I can't believe they did it. I mean.. two 20 years old visual proof send you to death penalty ? Can't believe modern countries can still do that.
|
On September 22 2011 17:26 Odal wrote: Why is it that people care more about punishment and revenge than they do about rehabilitation and curing obvious mental illnesses?
Because murder leads to hate. Hate for being deprived of any future time with the dead individual(s). Logic goes out the window when murder occurs because it is seen as so evil and vile that it shocks people to their cores.
If by obvious mental illnesses you mean Antisocial Personality Disorder/Sociopathy/Psychopathy, then your statement about seeking a cure falls apart.
There is no cure for having no conscience. How can you help someone that understands morality, yet shows no remorse for immoral actions and seeks only selfish gain? He/she doesn't care that the person wronged had a family. This individual cares only for itself and little to nothing else.
"there is little evidence of a cure or any effective treatment for psychopathy; no medications can instill empathy, and psychopaths who undergo traditional talk therapy might become more adept at manipulating others and more likely to commit crime." - Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings". In Patrick, Christopher. Handbook of Psychopathy.
|
On September 22 2011 11:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty.
Death penalty is the easy way out if you killed a bunch of people. I would much rather be dead then sit in a prison cell 23 hours a day for 50+ years.
edit: Why do you think most terrorists or serial killers end up comitting suicide when they are about to get caught?
|
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.
|
"MacPhail was shot dead in July 1989 as he tried to help a homeless man who was being attacked in a Burger King car park."
RIP the policeman
|
On September 22 2011 17:50 BlaCha wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
You can flip this over as well. If the state doesn't execute the killers than sooner or later one of them will kill again even after going through rehabilitation.
|
On September 22 2011 17:50 BlaCha wrote:Show nested quote +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. An eye for an eye? This is a really fucked up thing to think really...
|
On September 22 2011 11:15 Yuriegh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:11 Orcasgt24 wrote: I think the death penalty is good. Some sick fuckers do not deserve to live. The penalty should be reserved for societies worst criminals. The kind of people who kill with-out remorse and abduct, rape and terrorize humans.
The person from the article is one of the people I do not think should be facing the death penalty. Plus the fact that without the Death penalty that means they have life in prison so they get to have a free meal and shelter all at taxpayers expense. Yay! I want to help a killer live by paying for his food! edit: however on this guy I don't know if he did it or not Because living in a confined space and having no freedom is appealing. -____-
|
On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. Why?
You're basing that statement on nothing but your own beliefs.
I can make the statement "No one should ever have the rights to take another's life regardless of what that person did"
How is your statement more valid than mine?
|
On September 22 2011 17:51 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 22 2011 17:52 craz3d wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You can flip this over as well. If the state doesn't execute the killers than sooner or later one of them will kill again even after going through rehabilitation.
How do you know?
|
On September 22 2011 18:00 BlaCha wrote:Show nested quote +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. I wouldnt mentally collapse and completely throw away all of my beliefs just to murder someone.
|
The execution shows me that the American Justice System and that of Iran have a lot in common. In one country you get executed because of your political opinion, in the other your skin color is enough to determine if your guilty or not. There's no evidence except some whacky "witnesses" where some say that they've been bullied by the police and 7 out of 9 revamped their statement.
And if you look at it from a neutral point of view it's true, maybe provocative but not a lie. If Troy Davis would have been white, he wouldn't be executed.
|
On September 22 2011 18:00 BlaCha wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
reasonable doubt = the man is free, wtf are they doing
|
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.
|
On September 22 2011 19:30 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
Do onto others as they have done to you. --> downward spiral Do onto others as you would want them to do to you. --> upward spiral
|
On September 22 2011 19:45 LEGIONzomg wrote: 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. I think with the same precaution a jury can be chosen that so it is biased in the end.
Unless a jury isn't really chosen randomly, there's always a greater risk for bias, in my opinion. Especially if the the decision which juror to keep and which not is made by the lawyers, whose main concern is winning the case and carrying out justice.
|
I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK!
|
On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid.
Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case.
Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
|
On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK!
Thank you for this lol. Also I don't think there was any lack of evidence when he was Convicted originally. The only problem is once Convicted of the crime you do have to prove your innocence if you want the penalty to be changed. We are innocent til proven guilty but the words change around to guilty til proven innocent once you're proven Guilty.
|
On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences?
|
On September 22 2011 19:56 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:45 LEGIONzomg wrote: 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. I think with the same precaution a jury can be chosen that so it is biased in the end. Unless a jury isn't really chosen randomly, there's always a greater risk for bias, in my opinion. Especially if the the decision which juror to keep and which not is made by the lawyers, whose main concern is winning the case and carrying out justice.
The Lawyers don't have any say so in the Original Jury selection. I agree that yes it's probably IMPOSSIBLE to get a completely non bias jury but also a Jury cannot convict someone of something unless its everyone doing it I'm pretty sure unless this was changed.
I do know that if you are a victim of the occasion that's being presented that you are unable to serve on the jury for the reasoning of your Bias and also it gives another reason for the Defense to prove your opinion to be Biased and claim a Miss Trial(aka a rape victim, or anyone related to one, cant serve on a rapist Jury.)
|
Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
|
On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences?
The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate..
Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo.
|
On September 22 2011 20:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote: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. I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid. Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case. Yes, I can think of situations where that worked, but I can also think of situations where it didn't or the realization came too late. People seldomly act conscious when they are doing wrong things. We're still not evolved far enough, I guess. I'm sure in the far future society will have found ways to educate its people in a much more reasonable way, a way that actually works.
Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
Yes, you are absolutely right!
|
On September 22 2011 20:09 inermis wrote: Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
They had evidence on him to convict him of murder. The linked article isn't fully accurate but then again nothing really can be. Once he was convicted of the crime 7 out of the 9 came back saying someone else claimed to be the killer or that they recant their testimonies. Only problem is that if the "other killer" doesn't come forth with actual evidence then the Court can just imply that the 7 eye witnesses that changed their testimonies or recanted either got pressured to do so or maybe it's actually true. We can't go on gut instinct or else the system would be bad.
|
On September 22 2011 20:09 inermis wrote: Death penalty itself is ok, much better than life in prison sentence ( at least tax payers money dont go into food etc for such people ).
Though this case is like TOTALLY wrong, correct me if i'm wrong, isnt it "allegedly innocent" until proven guilty and they didn't prove anything against this guy, no evidence whatsoever, all they had were testimonials of witnesses, and as far as i know all the witnesses that testified against him, have changed their testimonies, in other words they had NOTHING no right whatsoever to keep the man in prison, not to mention sentencing him to death.
This just proves how bad the system is, i wouldn't be able to sleep had i sentenced innocent man to death.
I think it was all but three who retracted testimonies...not 100%, but still...I think they're just hell bent on not being "wrong", no matter how morally wrong it is. It seems like they want to hold onto the original guilty verdict and use that as a way to bypass the "innocent until proven guilty." This way they can say they already have found him guilty, so they don't need to assume he's innocent.
I'm not up to par 100% with the details of the case, but something is amiss, whether it's because he's innocent or they fucked up or something else is going on, but it's just fishy to me that they're keeping him inprisoned when every time I see something new about the case, he looks more and more innocent. It's almost like they want him to die by execution so that he's out of their hair, so to speak.
I wish I could say "Oh they just want to be sure before letting him go" but they could take him off death row, house arrest, life in jail, something...but they're really shoving execution forward in this.
On September 22 2011 20:16 LEGIONzomg wrote: They had evidence on him to convict him of murder. The linked article isn't fully accurate but then again nothing really can be. Once he was convicted of the crime 7 out of the 9 came back saying someone else claimed to be the killer or that they recant their testimonies. Only problem is that if the "other killer" doesn't come forth with actual evidence then the Court can just imply that the 7 eye witnesses that changed their testimonies or recanted either got pressured to do so or maybe it's actually true. We can't go on gut instinct or else the system would be bad.
Agreed, even though my post sounds like I completely disagree rofl. I'm so tired, now is such a bad time to try and convey any thoughts.
but I'll do it anyways!! \o/
I think deep down, this is what my gut feeling actually agrees with the most - that the court can't just take those testimonies as true and shrug off the rest of the case...the witness' testimonies were either wrong in convicting him, or they are wrong now about their changes. Why? Who knows - but the point is that those testimonies are now impossibly hard to decipher and convict upon. LEGION is right - it wouldn't be the first time that a convicted person, or someone they know, has pressured someone into changing a testimony.
|
On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo.
Get them a job in prison where they make tshirts or do the laundry for hospitals or something, so they can get money from, only to spend the money on food. Make the prison their life and get them do get some work done while they get no profit out of it, they just do it to survive.
It's actually done in many prisons and it works fine, we should elaborate this system.
|
On September 22 2011 20:13 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 19:42 DrF33lg00d wrote: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. I agree with Justice needing to be more constructive but also I think that only plays a role in certain situations. If the crime committed isn't such a violent crime I do think they should find way to make these more constructive like how you were saying. It makes complete sense to me that if accused for robbing someone's house you should have to work and provide the money to the people's house you robbed until adequate amount was paid. Onto the second part: I think the better word for this situation probably is Determent. Anyways, the affect on people varies of course we cant all say that everyone will be afraid to do something because of another punishment. The same act though still runs around in adolescence. A child's reaction to another kid getting a time out can show the other child that by doing that(whatever it is) the he will also get punished for it. I'm sure you can think of a time where you seen someone do something that had a bad or even good outcome which either made you not want to do it or want to in whichever case. Yes, I can think of situations where that worked, but I can also think of situations where it didn't or the realization came too late. People seldomly act conscious when they are doing wrong things. We're still not evolved far enough, I guess. I'm sure in the far future society will have found ways to educate its people in a much more reasonable way, a way that actually works. Show nested quote +Now the Third part: I agree on it needing changing. I will also agree on saying that MAYBE people higher up are not held accountable like us civilians are. I don't see any difference between your Car Analogy and someone Falsely Convicting someone with knowledge of their Innocence. Only problem is we have no law that states you're liable for your lack of knowledge like we do for hitting someone with a car lol
Yes, you are absolutely right!
I know what you mean. I know when personally Myself did not register something until it was too late. Only problem is that if it was something Severe enough I caught on almost instantly that NOPE not doing that lol. As a system we've got to go with what's Majority and not worry about "Well there was this one time.." stuff. Its not right sometimes but if it's 8 of 10 that's close to perfect. It sounds wrong but I'd rather convict a murderer that was innocent and THEN prove him innocent then to just go with a gut instinct and let someone out only to kill again.
Also I think we should sooo make up a law for people not having the knowledge they needed
|
On September 22 2011 20:19 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo. Get them a job in prison where they make tshirts or do the laundry for hospitals or something, so they can get money from, only to spend the money on food. Make the prison their life and get them do get some work done while they get no profit out of it, they just do it to survive. It's actually done in many prisons and it works fine, we should elaborate this system.
I would be ok with that honestly but like I said in some states that would mean for us to pay NO taxes the prisoner would have to have a job that made him $130 a day. That's an 8 hours a day job paying $16.25 an hour. That's exceptionally higher then Minimum wage.
|
Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone?
|
On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo. Yes, it is. I guess most people don't make that amount a day. But I think the infrastructure that is needed to imprison people just costs so much. I'm sure there are ways to make that much cheaper...
But if I think about it...if prisoners make more money than they cost, society will have a major inscentive to have a lot of prisoners...legal slaves. Isn't there a kind of prison industry in the US already? People might get imprisoned just for anything... Aah, mankind is just too fucked up. : (
|
On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone?
I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death.
|
I read alot about this guy on CNN while eating breakfast this morning. I think he is guilty as sin. Obviously our legal system does as well since he has ben denied 4 times and it went all the way to the supreme court. Now, as for our legal system, it can be absolutely retarded at times but the evidence here is strong. The only reason that anyone claims it is not is because they are grasping at straws. He shot someone else before the police officer he killed and the shells from both scenes matched in a ballistics report. Hard to refute that.... they are trying to claim that evidence was mishandled due to what bag the shells were in.
I'm not here to argue but I personally think he got what he deserved. And I completely DISAGREE with the OP in saying that it should be noted that he is black. That fact has nothing to do with anything here. If people really want to abolish things like the death penalty, then they have to stop using prejudice and racial differences as a tool in situations where it is truly not a factor.
|
On September 22 2011 20:26 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:12 LEGIONzomg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 22 2011 20:04 DrF33lg00d wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 19:58 Detri wrote: I say the death penalty is fine.
There is no rehabilitating some people, I love the idea of everyone being good deep down, but its just not true. Some people are just bad bastards.
In extreme cases of violence, killing police and any thing to do with kids ie Ian Huntley (kidnapped raped and murdered 2 little girls), why should we as a society have to shoulder the cost of their actions (iirc it costs £22k a year to keep someone locked up). A length of rope and a trap door is all they deserve.
But if there is any doubt in the evidence, they shouldn't have been convicted in the first place, so the problem isn't with the penalty but the system.
Bring it back in the UK! I agreed, a lot of criminals cannot be rehabilitated. But isn't it better to get something useful out of such a person. Keep him in prison, but make him work or contribute in any form to society. What's punishment worth if there are no consequences? The only problem with that is that to imprison someone we have to pay for their EVERYTHING. Some states go as high as $130 per day per inmate.. Iunno about you but $130 a day is pretty retarded imo. Yes, it is. I guess most people don't make that amount a day. But I think the infrastructure that is needed to imprison people just costs so much. I'm sure there are ways to make that much cheaper... But if I think about it...if prisoners make more money than they cost, society will have a major inscentive to have a lot of prisoners...legal slaves. Isn't there a kind of prison industry in the US already? People might get imprisoned just for anything... Aah, mankind is just too fucked up. : (
Yeah some people have it to were Prisoners make License plates. Granted there's 4 levels of Prisons. a Level 4 Prison(which is murderers, serial killers and I think Child molesters) don't have this luxury of making plates. They save stuff for Level 1s and 2s. Also There are no Mixed Prisons. I'm not sure what ALL the prisons inmates are and what Level's 1,2, and 3 qualify for doing in society but I do think they keep the jobs like that for people with only minimum years not the Life in Prison people.
|
On September 22 2011 20:27 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone? I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death.
A robber should be robber, a fondler should be fondled, a stalker should be stalked.... Great idea!
|
On September 22 2011 20:27 CaptainCrush wrote: I read alot about this guy on CNN while eating breakfast this morning. I think he is guilty as sin. Obviously our legal system does as well since he has ben denied 4 times and it went all the way to the supreme court. Now, as for our legal system, it can be absolutely retarded at times but the evidence here is strong. The only reason that anyone claims it is not is because they are grasping at straws. He shot someone else before the police officer he killed and the shells from both scenes matched in a ballistics report. Hard to refute that.... they are trying to claim that evidence was mishandled due to what bag the shells were in.
I'm not here to argue but I personally think he got what he deserved. And I completely DISAGREE with the OP in saying that it should be noted that he is black. That fact has nothing to do with anything here. If people really want to abolish things like the death penalty, then they have to stop using prejudice and racial differences as a tool in situations where it is truly not a factor.
Did you read the Article linked also? I found the Article itself to be very dry with little facts at all...But I agree with the above =/
|
In my opinion, to put it bluntly, if a person has killed someone, and there is conclusive evidence, I think they should be put to death, not housed in a prison where I the tax payer am funding his rent. Yes he may be able to work some of the cost down, but not the entire sum of money.
|
On September 22 2011 20:31 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:27 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone? I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death. A robber should be robber, a fondler should be fondled, a stalker should be stalked.... Great idea!
Hells yeah. If I robbed someone and then someone came in and took everything I had I think I'd realize how much that sucked and wouldn't want that again.. As of the two other examples those don't really make sense towards the justice. There will always be one flaw in the system. Pointing them out doesn't do much..
|
On September 22 2011 20:36 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:31 nam nam wrote:On September 22 2011 20:27 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone? I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death. A robber should be robber, a fondler should be fondled, a stalker should be stalked.... Great idea! Hells yeah. If I robbed someone and then someone came in and took everything I had I think I'd realize how much that sucked and wouldn't want that again.. As of the two other examples those don't really make sense towards the justice. There will always be one flaw in the system. Pointing them out doesn't do much.. And then we´d be in Mesopotamia again, awesome.
|
I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify.
|
On September 22 2011 20:41 Slakter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:36 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:31 nam nam wrote:On September 22 2011 20:27 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone? I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death. A robber should be robber, a fondler should be fondled, a stalker should be stalked.... Great idea! Hells yeah. If I robbed someone and then someone came in and took everything I had I think I'd realize how much that sucked and wouldn't want that again.. As of the two other examples those don't really make sense towards the justice. There will always be one flaw in the system. Pointing them out doesn't do much.. And then we´d be in Mesopotamia again, awesome.
And we'd most likely have less crime.
|
On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify.
Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady...
|
I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous.
|
I'd rather people who commit first degree murder should be put to death then waste thousands of dollars trying to "rehabilitate" them. In this case scenario, arguing that racism is the cause for death is also insulting.
|
On September 22 2011 20:55 PolSC2 wrote: I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous.
Because killing someone without being 100% sure that he is guilty isn't ridiculous?
Even if you leave aside the moral non-sense that is death penalty, it remains an absurdity for the sole fact that it's not reversible, and justice cannot be 100% fail proof, which implies that any system involving death penalty will end up killing innocent people.
This case is just another unneeded proof that death penalty has nothing to do in a society that is supposed to be civilised...
On September 22 2011 21:00 rapidash88 wrote: I'd rather people who commit first degree murder should be put to death then waste thousands of dollars trying to "rehabilitate" them. In this case scenario, arguing that racism is the cause for death is also insulting.
Read the thread, keeping the guy in death-row + execution is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life...
|
On September 22 2011 10:50 Haemonculus 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.
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.
I'm not sure you understand what he means. Or maybe I don't lol, but I seem to agree with his opinion. It's not a matter of whether he's innocent or not. It's about which purpose death penalty actually serves, and if it's the right way to handle such matters. I'm not a fan of death penalty. As far as I can see most cases of murder are committed by people who have had a rough time growing up etc. and hence it's hard to blame them purely for their lack of understanding of right or wrong etc. Which leads me to what he said with rehabilitation. Is it really fair to execute a man despite of him having committed such crimes, when it can't be blamed 100% entirely on him? Maybe we treasure a human life higher here or whatever, but I believe that it's up to us to help such people "get better". We pay a craptooon of taxes here in Denmark, but if it's to help such people have a normal life they deserve it despite of what they've done.
|
On September 22 2011 21:03 BobMcJohnson wrote:Read the thread, keeping the guy in death-row + execution is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life... That's a flaw of the execution system in the US, not of execution itself.
|
I was mashing on my F5 button for like 4-5 hours straight while watching Troy Davis case get updated on CNN, CBS, BBC, and etc news websites.
I think he's guilty. I would of said he's innocent if it wasn't for the fact that this guy was supposedly seen in TWO different shooting incidents in the same day. Come on son... how you going to say you're innocent when witnesses are saying they saw you shooting at two different time frames. Once, twice, nah there isn't a 3rd time.
Sucks that he had to wait 4 hours only to find out he's getting executed anyways, but hopefully they find more information about the case that's over 20 years old (Law system fail in my book)
If they DO find information later showing that he was truly innocent... OOPS by US government. That will be hard to live down
|
On September 22 2011 11:03 Haemonculus wrote: Racism might not be the sole cause, but it is worth mentioning. Keep in mind that some counties n Georgia were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008.
the county didn't host those proms, those proms are organized and hosted by the students. the school doesn't host proms because of poor attendance when they tried to host a prom that all students could attend.
|
Bringing the costs of keeping an individual in prison as an argument is rather wrong.
If there's any doubt, be it 99,9% and not 100%, they shouldn't apply death penalty, just because it's irreversible.
|
On September 22 2011 20:55 PolSC2 wrote: I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous.
Are you a fascist, since you obviously dislike democracy and think that "the people" don't know what they want for themselves?
|
On September 22 2011 20:31 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:27 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:24 Korlinni wrote: Not all of United States has the death penalty, I live in a state that doesn't have it. The prison system along with many other systems in United States are getting out dated and need to be updated. It may seem just to some people to kill someone who killed someone, but does that just not make us as bad as the person who killed someone? I would guess you pay a lot in taxes for life in prison inmates.. I feel that honestly everyone should get the same for what they do. Rapist should be Raped. Murderers should be killed. I don't think they should be equally Violent like if the person Murdered 4 people we should torture him and keep him alive for an adequate amount of time that would resemble killing him 4 times but I do think that it should be him being put to Death. A robber should be robber, a fondler should be fondled, a stalker should be stalked.... Great idea!
Surely he would volunteer to carry out the sentece for rape & murder too. *facepalm*
|
If only one innocent person is death sentenced the system falls apart in itsself. Because... who you kill then for the death of the innocent? Cause you murdered someone innocent. The judges? The jury? The doc who pressed the buttons? Tell me who? Or is that colletaral damage serving a higher purpose? And that even happened more than a few times allready. Humans with this thinking are only satisfaction their lowest instincts of revenge.
|
On September 22 2011 21:03 BobMcJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:55 PolSC2 wrote: I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous. Because killing someone without being 100% sure that he is guilty isn't ridiculous? Even if you leave aside the moral non-sense that is death penalty, it remains an absurdity for the sole fact that it's not reversible, and justice cannot be 100% fail proof, which implies that any system involving death penalty will end up killing innocent people. This case is just another unneeded proof that death penalty has nothing to do in a society that is supposed to be civilised... Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 21:00 rapidash88 wrote: I'd rather people who commit first degree murder should be put to death then waste thousands of dollars trying to "rehabilitate" them. In this case scenario, arguing that racism is the cause for death is also insulting. Read the thread, keeping the guy in death-row + execution is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life...
EVERY Society has had a from of a Death Penalty and have remained to be called Civilized. Murder is not Civilized so the removal of someone from a society because of not being Civilized makes the society seem more Civil. They Convicted the man because they were 100% sure that he did it. He must then prove himself innocent after proven guilty and that also must be 100% sure for his sentence to get turned around.
|
On September 22 2011 21:03 BobMcJohnson wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:55 PolSC2 wrote: I'm glad they stuck to the death penalty. Changing a verdict because of the public would be completely ridiculous. Because killing someone without being 100% sure that he is guilty isn't ridiculous? Even if you leave aside the moral non-sense that is death penalty, it remains an absurdity for the sole fact that it's not reversible, and justice cannot be 100% fail proof, which implies that any system involving death penalty will end up killing innocent people. This case is just another unneeded proof that death penalty has nothing to do in a society that is supposed to be civilised... Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 21:00 rapidash88 wrote: I'd rather people who commit first degree murder should be put to death then waste thousands of dollars trying to "rehabilitate" them. In this case scenario, arguing that racism is the cause for death is also insulting. Read the thread, keeping the guy in death-row + execution is more expensive than keeping him in prison for life...
Just because it is costlier, it doesn't mean that it's the wrong choice to take. If anything, something should be looked into to make executing a criminal cheaper because it might be the right thing to do at times.
|
Last time i checked the rate of after the fact proven innocent executioned people in the USA was about 60%. One could argue the statistic isn't far because most of the errors go back to when they had no DNA tests and alot of evidence tempering happened. But then again one could argue it hasn't changed all that much since then.
|
Even if he is guilty. i think that the justice apparel doesnt recognize the fact that humans can change, can be reabilitated and that we must not take for granit the action of a person. would that be fair to missjudge somebody wrong because he went to jail before, even tho he reintegrated the society, even tho he paid the price of his acts. some people wont change though, but i dont think that's their fault. With the penetentiary system we have (based on punishment and not reabilitation), USA (and starting in canada with Harper) has Mega prison where the individuals who enter are most likely to go out worse when their time is over.
alot of convicts are imprisonned for small crimes of small impact over morality. robberies, assaults these are problems that dwels deeper in the society, in poor boroughs. they result of poverty, and therefore its poverty we gotta fix ultimately, because poverty is a culture where education might not be as valorised, where its ok to hustle to live, cause it pays more to slang crack on the corner than going to university.
here in canada, having 1 convict cost 50k/year to the state. who does wanna pay for people who at the end might come out of there even worse.
the death sentence is just the top of the iceberg, and i think its mostly used right now in the states to clear some space for the upcoming new convicts.
|
On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird.
no, killing people who kill people makes us the same as them. You do not need to kill people to serve justice I believe it is primative and immoral. By kiling that person it won't bring back anyone from the dead and it won't make you feel better, end of the day you will still be sad about losing a friend or family. your not going to be happy about your famiy/friend death by killing someone.
If anything by committing such a act you would lose a part of yourself that made you human, and you would be a little bit more like the mosnter who hurt your friend or family.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
It doesn't matter if you think he's innocent or guilty. It matters only if you're sure he's guilty. In the case of Troy Davis, I do not understand how a person could fail to have reasonable doubt.
1) Only circumstantial physical evidence connected Mr. Davis to the murder. The ballistics expert who testified admitted that he had some doubt as to even the circumstantial evidence. The murder weapon was never found. No direct evidence was ever produced that tied Mr. Davis to the crime. 2) The most compelling testimony presented in the case of Mr. Davis were the accounts of witnesses at the scene. Seven of nine have now recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits. Several of the witnesses said they felt pressured by the police, including a man who had been with Davis all evening and testified he did not even believe Davis had a gun. Three people have signed affadavits stating that the man who initially accused Davis, (and one of the two unretracted witnesses) had privately confessed to the crime. 3) Other police procedures in collecting the witness testimony have been called into question. The handling of the identification of the subject in a line-up was deeply flawed, and injected a tremendous amount of bias into the results. 4) Finally, Mr. Davis has never once wavered from his own assertion of innocence.
Since the trial, based on the new evidence, two of the original jurors have spoken out to say that they believe the trial verdict was incorrect. There can be no doubt, that were the case entirely tried again today, Mr Davis would not be convicted on the basis of just two eyewitness accounts and bare forensic evidence.
Why then, should the standards of guilt or lack of guilt in a court of law be vacated the moment the defendant is convicted? The fact that Davis was originally convicted is in no way actual evidence of his guilt.
Furthermore, I don't see how a rational person can condone the use of the death penalty as it stands in the United States. An absolute mountain of studies have proven that the administration of the death penalty in the United States is A) Deeply influenced by the race of the defendant, and above all the race of the victim. B) Deeply influenced by factors completely outside the realm of sanity, including, for example, at what time of day the trial is held.
The results of the Innocence Project and DNA testing have exonerated hundreds of people on death row already, a stunning statistic, and one that almost certainly means, simply the laws of probability, that innocent people have been executed. We also know the identity of at least one completely innocent man who was executed; Cameron Todd Willingham. The administration of the death penalty is so irreconcilably broken that I cannot fathom how a rational human being who finds the taking of human life as abhorrent could continue to condone its use.
|
I think it's just appalling that something like this can happen in a somewhat more 'civilized' country. Just imagine your at one night at the wrong time at the wrong place and BAM! just like that your 20 years waiting in prison to die and nothing you can do about it. Creepy stuff man.
|
I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
|
On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
Do you propose we should kill anyone that have killed a fellow citizen? You do know how many that would be right?
|
On September 22 2011 22:26 tree.hugger wrote: It doesn't matter if you think he's innocent or guilty. It matters only if you're sure he's guilty. In the case of Troy Davis, I do not understand how a person could fail to have reasonable doubt.
1) Only circumstantial physical evidence connected Mr. Davis to the murder. The ballistics expert who testified admitted that he had some doubt as to even the circumstantial evidence. The murder weapon was never found. No direct evidence was ever produced that tied Mr. Davis to the crime. 2) The most compelling testimony presented in the case of Mr. Davis were the accounts of witnesses at the scene. Seven of nine have now recanted their testimony in sworn affidavits. Several of the witnesses said they felt pressured by the police, including a man who had been with Davis all evening and testified he did not even believe Davis had a gun. Three people have signed affadavits stating that the man who initially accused Davis, (and one of the two unretracted witnesses) had privately confessed to the crime. 3) Other police procedures in collecting the witness testimony have been called into question. The handling of the identification of the subject in a line-up was deeply flawed, and injected a tremendous amount of bias into the results. 4) Finally, Mr. Davis has never once wavered from his own assertion of innocence.
Since the trial, based on the new evidence, two of the original jurors have spoken out to say that they believe the trial verdict was incorrect. There can be no doubt, that were the case entirely tried again today, Mr Davis would not be convicted on the basis of just two eyewitness accounts and bare forensic evidence.
Why then, should the standards of guilt or lack of guilt in a court of law be vacated the moment the defendant is convicted? The fact that Davis was originally convicted is in no way actual evidence of his guilt.
Furthermore, I don't see how a rational person can condone the use of the death penalty as it stands in the United States. An absolute mountain of studies have proven that the administration of the death penalty in the United States is A) Deeply influenced by the race of the defendant, and above all the race of the victim. B) Deeply influenced by factors completely outside the realm of sanity, including, for example, at what time of day the trial is held.
The results of the Innocence Project and DNA testing have exonerated hundreds of people on death row already, a stunning statistic, and one that almost certainly means, simply the laws of probability, that innocent people have been executed. We also know the identity of at least one completely innocent man who was executed; Cameron Todd Willingham. The administration of the death penalty is so irreconcilably broken that I cannot fathom how a rational human being who finds the taking of human life as abhorrent could continue to condone its use.
Thanks for explaining what I think better than I could. So many people fail to understand Innocence presumption in this thread, it's depressing :/
|
tbh they had to kill him
or else they have to admit how fucked upt he criminal justice system is.
Morvoer there are situations where it is right for someone to kill a fellow citizen. It is wrong for a legal system to kill though because of doubt.
|
Wrong place, wrong time, wrong colored skin. Justice is not blind in the US.
|
On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison.
And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick.
|
On September 22 2011 23:03 MrTortoise wrote: tbh they had to kill him
or else they have to admit how fucked upt he criminal justice system is.
Isn't that even more fucked up?
|
He was INNOCENT! That should have NOT happened...
|
On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady...
No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt.
People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath).
|
On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open
Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime.
People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too.
Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system.
The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time.
Sorry, I support the death penalty
|
On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime. People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too. Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system. The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time. Sorry, I support the death penalty
..So you honestly think it's okay to kill innocent people as long as most of the time the people that are killed are guilty of their crimes? Wow.
|
On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath).
Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason... Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you.
All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me.
|
Would you support it if it were you on death row knowing you are innocent? It's just an unfortunate reality after all.
|
On September 22 2011 23:45 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote:On September 22 2011 11:08 shawster wrote:On September 22 2011 10:59 Megatronn wrote: If you take the life of another person and it's not an accident you should have to give your own life. I don't why everyone thinks that's so weird. vengeance and severe punishment is seen as old and outdated. every second the world gets more progressive and liberal. anyways that's why people thinks that it's weird. whether taking someones life on purpose should end your life is a different story and heavily debated without an answer. and people are trying to use statistics and stuff to argue that when someone does someone wrong rehabilitation is a much more effective tool. anyways punishing someone to deter is seen as a really old school approach to helping society. i personally would like the US and specifically the south abolish the death penalty but that's a can of worms i don't wanna open Calling it "vengeance" is just a game of semantics. Its not any more revenge than incarcerating someone for a crime. Its punishment and it establishes a severe punishment for a severe crime. People who believe that the death penalty is too severe forget just how severe first degree murder is. The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. In functioning society, there should be strong retribution for a crime as heinous as first degree murder. And in many ways, it boils down to one's outlook on life too. Many of the more liberal and progressive types believe that such crimes can be "fixed" or rehabilitated by counseling and giving the criminal help. I personally believe that this is flawed on many levels and some people are predators by nature and must be dealt with accordingly via the judical system. The judicial system is far from perfect but its the best thing we have and has to be used while heavily scrutinized. Innocent people have been jailed and possibly executed but its an unfortunate reality of an imperfect system that has to be improved and worked on over time. Sorry, I support the death penalty ..So you honestly think it's okay to kill innocent people as long as most of the time the people that are killed are guilty of their crimes? Wow. Either you didn't read what I wrote or I wasn't clear enough.
The flaws are due to the judicial system, not execution. If it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of their crime, then I believe the death penalty can be utilized.
|
You can't seriously argue for the death penalty in cases were there remains ueven the slgihtest ncertainity. Putting an innocent person on death penalty is murder.
Now i'm against the death penalty in general but if your absolutely, 100% sure, i see how you can argue for it... If there is doubt you just can't whiteout making yourself look bad, really, really bad.
|
On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me.
..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths.
|
On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick.
Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives.
|
I think capital punishment is terrible and barbaric, and then there's the risk of killing an innocent man on top of that. Makes me very sad to see the american state killing it's own people, behaving like countries such as China, North Korea and Iran. USA is really lagging behind the rest of the western world in this regard IMO. I'm very happy EU has made abolition of death penalty a neccesity in order to join.
|
I'm generally fine with the death penalty but there were too many doubts brought up in this specific case for me to agree with it.
There should have been a re-trial or at the very least reduced to a life sentence.
|
On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives.
And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system...
|
On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. He never said that killing is wrong no matter what. His point was that on an individual level, its wrong to kill another human being for any other reason than self defense.
Rehabilitation treats committing crime like its some sort of mental disorder that can be fixed, and afterwards the criminal can go live a "normal" life. Some criminals have mental disorders which act as factors, but if you believe in free will, do you not see a problem with this ideal?
|
there are no guilty men in prison rehabilitation is a myth
|
On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths.
No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection.
I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise.
|
Capital punishment is a midevil form of punishment which doesn't belong in the western world in 2011.
|
On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason... Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me.
I like how you base your entire ideology on this issue on a faulty fact. Look at Norway, most liberal view on jailtime and is the most focused on rehabilitating in the world and guess what, they also have the lowest rates of crime and rates of people re-entering old habits after being released.
|
You give me proof he killed a cop, I'll give you a dead man in return.
That's how the system works, like it or not.
|
On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system...
Maybe we should kill everyone in the world? This would be the cheapest, there would be no costs! Never again would there be any costs! I swear, I can't take people seriously who use the argument of "cost efficency" when the topic is human life.
|
On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system...
I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad."
|
Disgusting and disgraceful. Nothing more to say about the topic.
|
I'd like to point out once again, that its unfair to harp on the death penalty simply because in rare cases, innocent men and women get punished by the judical system. This is something that needs to be blamed on the courts, the law enforcement, and others involved in prosecution.
Anyone with common sense can tell you that the death penalty (or really any punishment for that matter) should absolutely not be carried out unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt. There are issues where this doesnt happen, but for fucks sake look at all the times the system actually works and things play out this way.
What ever happened to Casey Anthony? Remember her? It wasn't beyond all reasonable doubt (And there was a fuckton of circumstantial evidence), and she got off. The system isn't a complete shitshow, it works most of the time but there are flaws just like in everything else in life.
|
On September 23 2011 00:02 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... Maybe we should kill everyone in the world? This would be the cheapest, there would be no costs! Never again would there be any costs! I swear, I can't take people seriously who use the argument of "cost efficency" when the topic is human life.
Believe it or not but a lot of things are ran by Cost Efficiency. Hence why we have Currencies and not "IOU's". If you can't stand people that argue cost efficiency then move to the Woodlands?
|
On September 23 2011 00:04 JamesJohansen wrote: I'd like to point out once again, that its unfair to harp on the death penalty simply because in rare cases, innocent men and women get punished by the judical system. This is something that needs to be blamed on the courts, the law enforcement, and others involved in prosecution.
Anyone with common sense can tell you that the death penalty (or really any punishment for that matter) should absolutely not be carried out unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt. There are issues where this doesnt happen, but for fucks sake look at all the times the system actually works and things play out this way.
What ever happened to Casey Anthony? Remember her? It wasn't beyond all reasonable doubt (And there was a fuckton of circumstantial evidence), and she got off. The system isn't a complete shitshow, it works most of the time but there are flaws just like in everything else in life.
You can't explain this to people. People don't understand that NO system is 100% Flawless. It's hard to see that when apparently we're all Perfect human beings. You can explain it over and over but everyone always has that "but but if it's a 9/10 and not a 10/10 its flawed BOOO for that 1 time"
|
On September 23 2011 00:02 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad."
So you'd rather the blood be on your hands than another person's? That may sound commendable in some strange way, but it's certainly not what I'd prefer. Besides, what are the circumstances of "we let him go?" There are these things called life sentences. If a jury "let's him go," and he was guilty, that has more to do with incompetent police work, lack of evidence, or good old dishonest lawyers working the system, etc.
It's also rather known that prison sucks. I'd hardly call it a free ride. It's simply humane not to starve people, murderers or not.
If you haven't heard of Ron Williamson or read John Grisham's The Innocent Man, I highly suggest it. That particular book is non fiction and tells the story of a real person who was wrongly convicted of murder and his life was ruined after he was sent to death row. It also shows the horrors of solitary confinement. A picture of the man when he was 47 looked like he was 80 and invalid. I always thought that was a dramatization of books like A Tale of Two Cities, but it's actually possible. The book has the pictures.
|
On September 23 2011 00:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:04 JamesJohansen wrote: I'd like to point out once again, that its unfair to harp on the death penalty simply because in rare cases, innocent men and women get punished by the judical system. This is something that needs to be blamed on the courts, the law enforcement, and others involved in prosecution.
Anyone with common sense can tell you that the death penalty (or really any punishment for that matter) should absolutely not be carried out unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt. There are issues where this doesnt happen, but for fucks sake look at all the times the system actually works and things play out this way.
What ever happened to Casey Anthony? Remember her? It wasn't beyond all reasonable doubt (And there was a fuckton of circumstantial evidence), and she got off. The system isn't a complete shitshow, it works most of the time but there are flaws just like in everything else in life. You can't explain this to people. People don't understand that NO system is 100% Flawless. It's hard to see that when apparently we're all Perfect human beings. You can explain it over and over but everyone always has that "but but if it's a 9/10 and not a 10/10 its flawed BOOO for that 1 time" But we can still try and strive for perfection, which is the opposite of what you´re doing. Once again, look at Norway.
|
On September 23 2011 00:08 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:04 JamesJohansen wrote: I'd like to point out once again, that its unfair to harp on the death penalty simply because in rare cases, innocent men and women get punished by the judical system. This is something that needs to be blamed on the courts, the law enforcement, and others involved in prosecution.
Anyone with common sense can tell you that the death penalty (or really any punishment for that matter) should absolutely not be carried out unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt. There are issues where this doesnt happen, but for fucks sake look at all the times the system actually works and things play out this way.
What ever happened to Casey Anthony? Remember her? It wasn't beyond all reasonable doubt (And there was a fuckton of circumstantial evidence), and she got off. The system isn't a complete shitshow, it works most of the time but there are flaws just like in everything else in life. You can't explain this to people. People don't understand that NO system is 100% Flawless. It's hard to see that when apparently we're all Perfect human beings. You can explain it over and over but everyone always has that "but but if it's a 9/10 and not a 10/10 its flawed BOOO for that 1 time"
I don't think we'd be even having this debate if the execution system was 9/10. 1 out of 7 people on death row get their cases exonorated and we don't even know the amount of people wrongly executed (Such as Troy Davis likely was) but a conservative guess would be another 15%.
When something as deeply profound as execution sentences is likely getting it right only 7/10 of the time it needs to be retooled or just scrapped entirely.
|
On September 23 2011 00:02 BlackFlag wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... Maybe we should kill everyone in the world? This would be the cheapest, there would be no costs! Never again would there be any costs! I swear, I can't take people seriously who use the argument of "cost efficency" when the topic is human life.
The cost efficiency argument itself is also wrong. It is not necessarily cheaper to have death penalty. The numbers for death penalty cases are below. The racial bias in the death sentences is also apparent from those numbers.
Death Penalty Facts
I don't believe in death penalty both from a moral stand point as it festers an eye for an eye mentality and from a logical stand point as it is been shown to neither have a deterrent affect nor have a strong economic aspect. Also, the process itself is potentially ridden with bias. Compound to the fact, a death penalty sentence on an innocent man can never be reversed, I don't see any grounds justifying it.
|
Death penalty, hmmm.. Yes. For the likes of Hitler, mass murderers and so on. Even if somebody killed "just" one man, he should not be sentenced to death. Why? Because what should those who killed hundreds or thousands be penalized with? I believe, being in jail for many many years is something that is far worse than death, in some cases at least. Guy who killed a child? He will get it, he will die in that jail, physically and/or psychologically.
I do believe in vengeance however, and if anybody ever struck my family, I would retaliate, even if I would get my ass kicked or beat up. Doesn't matter.
Anyway, that's if I could decide. But I accept the penalty system, I think death penalties are alright, depending on the situation. But I would never support this sentence, for this man... Evidence is not there, "eyewitnesses were there", but not anymore...(hur dur?). I don't understand the system at times (most of the times), and I surely won't ever understand how they can not see that this man doesn't deserve death penalty...'
that is all
|
On September 23 2011 00:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection. I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise.
Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than put him in prison for life. Court costs and the many rounds of appeals really add up. And I wonder who pays it since most murderers are kinda strapped for cash... oh yeah the public
|
On September 23 2011 00:15 Ansinjunger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:02 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad." So you'd rather the blood be on your hands than another person's? That may sound commendable in some strange way, but it's certainly not what I'd prefer. Besides, what are the circumstances of "we let him go?" There are these things called life sentences. If a jury "let's him go," and he was guilty, that has more to do with incompetent police work, lack of evidence, or good old dishonest lawyers working the system, etc. It's also rather known that prison sucks. I'd hardly call it a free ride. It's simply humane not to starve people, murderers or not. If you haven't heard of Ron Williamson or read John Grisham's The Innocent Man, I highly suggest it. That particular book is non fiction and tells the story of a real person who was wrongly convicted of murder and his life was ruined after he was sent to death row. It also shows the horrors of solitary confinement. A picture of the man when he was 47 looked like he was 80 and invalid. I always thought that was a dramatization of books like A Tale of Two Cities, but it's actually possible. The book has the pictures.
Blood is on your hands one way or another. If he's not convicted then why're we giving him a Life in Prison? Your statement seems to be contradicting itself but I'm probably just tired honestly so forgive me if it is just me. Humane never has a set in stone definition in peoples eyes. Something that's Humane to you might not be humane to me. Humane or not I couldn't care less. The Death Penalty is here and is not Tossed Around very highly. since 1971 there's been 1182 Death Sentences in 2010 I believe. You guys act like the Death Sentence is given for EVERYTHING. Rapist don't get the Death Sentence. Murderers get it. Murdering is Inhumane itself so I don't see people point about the Death Sentence not being humane.
You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement.
|
On September 23 2011 00:21 Geosensation wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection. I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise. Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than put him in prison for life. Court costs and the many rounds of appeals really add up. And I wonder who pays it since most murderers are kinda strapped for cash... oh yeah the public
You give me actual Statistics instead of your Hear Say and I'll listen? ktybye
|
On September 23 2011 00:26 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:21 Geosensation wrote:On September 23 2011 00:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection. I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise. Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than put him in prison for life. Court costs and the many rounds of appeals really add up. And I wonder who pays it since most murderers are kinda strapped for cash... oh yeah the public You give me actual Statistics instead of your Hear Say and I'll listen? ktybye
Are you seriously saying that the price of either solution is relevant to the discussion? We're not living in the fucking wild west anymore, you cannot set a price for a human life goddamit...
|
On September 23 2011 00:26 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:21 Geosensation wrote:On September 23 2011 00:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection. I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise. Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than put him in prison for life. Court costs and the many rounds of appeals really add up. And I wonder who pays it since most murderers are kinda strapped for cash... oh yeah the public You give me actual Statistics instead of your Hear Say and I'll listen? ktybye
It is not like you were giving statistics/sources when you were flaunting numbers in some of the previous few pages. But I will humor you and provide you with multiple studies and numbers about death penalty cost analysis. Though, I doubt you will read it and revert back to your Hammurabi's 'code of laws' argument now that you cost argument has been negated.
1. Kansas Study 2. Paper about death penalty costs 3. Comprehensive Article with multiple studies linked
In any case, I find it even sadder that you have to hide behind an alt account since you are too scared to stand up for you believe in on your main account (considering this account was made today only to post in this thread).
|
On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote: The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. ....... Sorry, I support the death penalty
You are aware of the paradox situation you are in?
|
On September 23 2011 01:03 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote: The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. ....... Sorry, I support the death penalty You are aware of the paradox situation you are in? Ok, I actually oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but this is such a common argument and so bad an argument that I have to say something. Being against murder and yet for the death penalty is no more a contradiction than being for jail as punishment yet still against kidnapping. Everything you could possibly propose as a punishment for doing something illegal is (almost by definition) something that should (and is) illegal to do normally. There's no contradiction, paradox, hypocracy, etc.
|
On September 23 2011 01:11 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:03 Nachtwind wrote:On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote: The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. ....... Sorry, I support the death penalty You are aware of the paradox situation you are in? Ok, I actually oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but this is such a common argument and so bad an argument that I have to say something. Being against murder and yet for the death penalty is no more a contradiction than being for jail as punishment yet still against kidnapping. Everything you could possibly propose as a punishment for doing something illegal is (almost by definition) something that should (and is) illegal to do normally. There's no contradiction, paradox, hypocracy, etc.
Okay... kidnapping and jail is the same you say... ok.... wait... You are complete right and i dont know why i talk with people about obvious shit in the internet.. if you US want thet death penalty. FINE.. not my problem bye
|
konadora
Singapore66060 Posts
On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged.
Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs.
Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences.
I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
|
On September 23 2011 00:45 Eternalmisfit wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:26 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 23 2011 00:21 Geosensation wrote:On September 23 2011 00:00 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 Odal wrote:On September 22 2011 23:47 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:24 dakalro wrote:On September 22 2011 20:51 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 20:46 Cheerio wrote: I think death penalty should be for doing something outrageous and where mistakes can be totally ruled out. Killing a cop under shady circumstances doesnt qualify. Shady doesn't mean innocent. Apparently he had shot someone else and Ballistics matched up with the other bullet from the cop. IF all you read was this article posted by the OP then I can see why it'd be shady... No, apparently the cops mixed up the bullets from the two shootings and placed them in the same evidence bag. And later declared they "fixed" that. There was no gun either for the cop shooting. The simple fact he kept saying he was innocent of the crime right as he was about to be murdered casts a very large doubt. People that kill once for stupid reasons don't deserve death. The psychopaths, sure, the ones that get angry or stupid can be rehabilitated (and don't tell me everyone that kills is a psychopath). Killing for any other reason then Self Defense is a STUPID Reason...Killing is against the Law you do realize this right? Killing for a stupid Reason is AGAINST THE LAW. Was the guy doing it in self defense? No? It's Illegal. Plenty of studies show that one who gets "Rehabilitated" goes back into the world and recommits the crime whatever it may be. When you're working with numbers you go with the MAJORITY not the OMG BUT SOME PEOPLE DONT?! that's not how anything works in the world.. The fact of the matter is once convicted in 19 years if you cant come up with a credible reason why you are innocent then you 1) either did it or 2) Life hates you. All of you that claim this to be because he's black make me Lul at your credibility. Wanna stop Racism? Stop claiming everything to be Racist. Easy as that. Until you people stop claim racism every time you turn around it will never change. Don't be hypocritical and claim racism because the persons black when you're claiming EVERYONE else to be racist and judging us because we're another Race. You're all Ignorant and that annoys me. ..So you proved our point? That killing is wrong no matter what? The world should push towards being able to adequately rehabilitate murderers or punish them in a way that does not cause more deaths. No your point is not proven... You're apparently reading what you want but that's cool I can't help that. A Murderer should be killed for MANY Reasons. This is stuff you will not understand until you either know someone that was murdered close to you or you realize the Statistics of the topic. You do realize to keep a Murderer in Prison for a Life Sentence in some states is $130 a day per Life inmate. So you understand this I'll spell it out.. That's a $16.25 per hour 9-5 Job. That's double Minimum Wage+. Lets say the person convicted is 50 yrs old and lives to 85. That's $1,660,750 for that ONE person to live it out. In the states of $130 per day the Lethal Injection is $8,866 per Person. The Lethal Injection is supposed to be the MOST Humane form of Capital Punishment. So if you wanna go on Humane or Inhumane would you rather get a Lethal Injection or sit in a Cell for 35 Yrs and hope you don't get Raped/Murdered. I'd choose Injection. I'd rather Kill one Person that Killed Two then Risk the chances(btw that show adequate evidence on rehabilitated Convicts end up COMMITTING the SAME Crime Over again) of them getting out and Killing Several more. Makes sense to me. I don't see how you think otherwise. Actually it is more expensive to execute someone than put him in prison for life. Court costs and the many rounds of appeals really add up. And I wonder who pays it since most murderers are kinda strapped for cash... oh yeah the public You give me actual Statistics instead of your Hear Say and I'll listen? ktybye It is not like you were giving statistics/sources when you were flaunting numbers in some of the previous few pages. But I will humor you and provide you with multiple studies and numbers about death penalty cost analysis. Though, I doubt you will read it and revert back to your Hammurabi's 'code of laws' argument now that you cost argument has been negated. 1. Kansas Study2. Paper about death penalty costs3. Comprehensive Article with multiple studies linkedIn any case, I find it even sadder that you have to hide behind an alt account since you are too scared to stand up for you believe in on your main account (considering this account was made today only to post in this thread). Disclaimer: I wasn't the guy who wanted statistics, I already knew about death row expenses.
Just want to point out that this is a shitty arguement for debating against capitol punishment because the reason its so expensive is because of all the beaurocratic bullshit that goes with it. The actual process should be much cheaper.
|
On September 23 2011 01:15 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:11 aristarchus wrote:On September 23 2011 01:03 Nachtwind wrote:On September 22 2011 23:42 JamesJohansen wrote: The act of taking another's life is a crime that deserves the most serious punishment. ....... Sorry, I support the death penalty You are aware of the paradox situation you are in? Ok, I actually oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons, but this is such a common argument and so bad an argument that I have to say something. Being against murder and yet for the death penalty is no more a contradiction than being for jail as punishment yet still against kidnapping. Everything you could possibly propose as a punishment for doing something illegal is (almost by definition) something that should (and is) illegal to do normally. There's no contradiction, paradox, hypocracy, etc. Okay... kidnapping and jail is the same you say... ok.... wait... You are complete right and i dont know why i talk with people about obvious shit in the internet.. if you US want thet death penalty. FINE.. not my problem bye How are they different? Someone forcibly removes you from wherever it is you want to be and puts you in a small room with no right to leave. If I took you and put you in my own "jail", that would be kidnapping. The only difference is that "kidnapping" is when someone just randomly does it, and "jail" is when the state does it after a (hopefully) fair trial. And we're all ok with that.
|
On September 23 2011 00:25 LEGIONzomg wrote:
You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement.
That is not by their choice though. Take any person and put them in 1 small enclosed place with a very strict and routine day for 30 years and you will not be able to adjust to life outside simply because it is so different. It is not because they "like" prison life more (although there are probably going to be a few that truly do), its just because that life has become their world and they can't change afterwards.
|
The death penalty has its place. I believe if we actually used it more often we could drop the crime rate in the U.S dramatically. It may not be "fair" for the "murderers" but it would save the life of innocent people who haven't been killed YET.
|
the death penalty is less torture and less detrimental to society than prisons. so I'm for it.
We either have to argue that prisons successfully rehabilitate (they don't when you consider people sit in there 8-25 years stewing on their same thoughts over and over like an obsessive compulsive, never getting good treatment and positive results, but being in gang wars and abused by guards, Im sure that helps them so much), or that they don't and leave us worse off for peopel that are in for most of their lives, and it would be more compassionate to kill them outright.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:36 TangJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:25 LEGIONzomg wrote:
You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement. That is not by their choice though. Take any person and put them in 1 small enclosed place with a very strict and routine day for 30 years and you will not be able to adjust to life outside simply because it is so different. It is not because they "like" prison life more (although there are probably going to be a few that truly do), its just because that life has become their world and they can't change afterwards. This is way too true. Once convicts are released from prison they're thrown out on the street and told 'Bye now, hope you have someone to help ya out'. It's no surprise that ex-cons often commit more crimes when once they get out of jail - they're in an even worse place then they were when they entered jail. Combined with the fact jails are cutting education and work-related training, and getting a job as an ex-con is near impossible, do people really wonder why ex-cons often return to the life that got them in trouble to begin with, one that usually started due to poor education and a lack of opportunity in the first place?
|
On September 23 2011 01:48 ch0sen wrote: The death penalty has its place. I believe if we actually used it more often we could drop the crime rate in the U.S dramatically. It may not be "fair" for the "murderers" but it would save the life of innocent people who haven't been killed YET. Except every single study has proven that death penalty didn't help jack shit for reducing murders. Do you feel proud of living in a place where people are getting killed by the community? I wouldn't.
|
On September 23 2011 01:53 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:36 TangJuice wrote:On September 23 2011 00:25 LEGIONzomg wrote:
You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement. That is not by their choice though. Take any person and put them in 1 small enclosed place with a very strict and routine day for 30 years and you will not be able to adjust to life outside simply because it is so different. It is not because they "like" prison life more (although there are probably going to be a few that truly do), its just because that life has become their world and they can't change afterwards. This is way too true. Once convicts are released from prison they're thrown out on the street and told 'Bye now, hope you have someone to help ya out'. It's no surprise that ex-cons often commit more crimes when once they get out of jail - they're in an even worse place then they were when they entered jail. Combined with the fact jails are cutting education and work-related training, and getting a job as an ex-con is near impossible, do people really wonder why ex-cons often return to the life that got them in trouble to begin with, one that usually started due to poor education and a lack of opportunity in the first place?
becoming a "convicted felon" is a death sentence, whether slow by being released, or fast by being killed under "death penalty" laws.
If people are considered to have paid their dues to society for what they did, they should not have to reveal their felon status to employers who will automatically deny them a job.
if people are considered to have paid their dues, they should not have to tell everyone about their past.
therefore, convicted felons, we have to say, have not paid their dues, and must suffer a long life of no job, no hope, and no future, IF they are released.
Yep, its real fair.
|
On September 23 2011 01:19 JamesJohansen wrote: Disclaimer: I wasn't the guy who wanted statistics, I already knew about death row expenses.
Just want to point out that this is a shitty arguement for debating against capitol punishment because the reason its so expensive is because of all the beaurocratic bullshit that goes with it. The actual process should be much cheaper.
The cost efficiency argument itself is also wrong. It is not necessarily cheaper to have death penalty. The numbers for death penalty cases are below. The racial bias in the death sentences is also apparent from those numbers.
Death Penalty Facts
I don't believe in death penalty both from a moral stand point as it festers an eye for an eye mentality and from a logical stand point as it is been shown to neither have a deterrent affect nor have a strong economic aspect. Also, the process itself is potentially ridden with bias. Compound to the fact, a death penalty sentence on an innocent man can never be reversed, I don't see any grounds justifying it.
I pointed at the statistics since he was bringing it multiple times that he does not want his tax dollars spent on keeping people in prison and that it was cheaper to have death penalty. If you can see my earlier post in the thread, I am against it for multiple reasons both from a moral and logical standpoint.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora 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.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man.
|
On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man. The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story.
Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis.
|
I am sick and tired of hearing things like "Oh, he was arrested because he was black, not because he did it."
I agree the guy shouldn't be executed if he was innocent, but what does the fact that he's black have to do with his innocence? NOTHING. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not he committed the crime, and so shouldn't even be up for discussion.
The only way to have a reasonable trial is to leave race out of the discussion completely, because otherwise you sway the jurors unfairly to one direction or the other. If your jurors happen to be bigots, bringing up his race just reminds them of their prejudice, and he gets cheated out of a fair trial. If your jurors aren't bigots though, bringing up his race sways jurors to think he is innocent and just the victim of racist cops, regardless of whether or not he actually DID commit the crime.
|
On September 23 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man. The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story. Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis.
Negative ghostrider. It makes 0 sense. Crime and punishment do not have direct correlations to each other. There are too many variables in the act of a "crime" that trying to claim one single thing, like a death penalty, stops it. Yes, you can claim the death penalty slowed crime down but that could also be from cultural changes, population demographics, media, and a whole slew of other things all either mixed or looked at by themselves.
Multiple states across the US have death penalties and those states all have widely varying crime rates, before and post introduction of said penalty.
|
On September 23 2011 02:47 Millitron wrote: I am sick and tired of hearing things like "Oh, he was arrested because he was black, not because he did it."
I agree the guy shouldn't be executed if he was innocent, but what does the fact that he's black have to do with his innocence? NOTHING. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not he committed the crime, and so shouldn't even be up for discussion.
The only way to have a reasonable trial is to leave race out of the discussion completely, because otherwise you sway the jurors unfairly to one direction or the other. If your jurors happen to be bigots, bringing up his race just reminds them of their prejudice, and he gets cheated out of a fair trial. If your jurors aren't bigots though, bringing up his race sways jurors to think he is innocent and just the victim of racist cops, regardless of whether or not he actually DID commit the crime.
Man, read the story please. We live in a country where racism accounts for some things. There was a judge/sherriff in the news recently that was in major issues for throwing black men in jail based off nothing but racism. **I'll try and find this article soon, sorry...a quick google on "racist sheriff" brings up a really bad series of youtube videos lol.**
And you're right about leaving it out, but the problem is no one will. The idea we have is that no one should be a bigot and we take everyone at face to assume they aren't (because I for one can't believe we still have this issue) the fact is, almost everyone is racist or bigoted and they may not even realize it.
I used to know a friend who pointed out to me how a lot of people will say something like this. "Hey, look at that guy!" -- "What guy my friend?" "That black guy over there, next to the _____"
When you could use any number of other descriptors; such as body language, activities, clothing, etc. to describe the person. Like this.
"Hey, look at that guy!" -- "What guy my friend?" "That guy over there, with the red shirt next to the ____"
Is it racist? Yes. Is it harmful...eh, maybe not but it is still using a skin color to describe someone.
|
On September 23 2011 02:56 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 02:28 TheGlassface wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. I just want to make sure you know the correlation you are drawing is total bullshit. Also, 99.99%? come on man. The fact it works with drugs makes sense. For murder, which are a completely different type of offense, it's a completely other story. Now, sorry, but I prefer having people selling marijuana than knowing you can get hanged for carrying cannabis. Negative ghostrider. It makes 0 sense. Crime and punishment do not have direct correlations to each other. There are too many variables in the act of a "crime" that trying to claim one single thing, like a death penalty, stops it. Yes, you can claim the death penalty slowed crime down but that could also be from cultural changes, population demographics, media, and a whole slew of other things all either mixed or looked at by themselves. Multiple states across the US have death penalties and those states all have widely varying crime rates, before and post introduction of said penalty. Fine.
I know people who don't hesitate to take a few grams of marijuana with them when they travel to most countries, but don't do it in Singapore because they think rationally and they know it's not worth it. So I guess punishment reduces crime when people who commit the offense think rationally.
What I was saying is that such reasoning really doesn't work with murder and other serious crimes. You don't think "Oh, maybe I shouldn't do it, because I could face death penalty, or maybe I will do it because I only face 30 years of jail" when you are in a situation of killing somebody.
Actually, psychoanalyst shows how most criminals have such an auto-destructive instinct that capital punishment only makes things worse.
|
On September 23 2011 00:25 LEGIONzomg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 00:15 Ansinjunger wrote:On September 23 2011 00:02 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:53 Velr wrote:On September 22 2011 23:50 LEGIONzomg wrote:On September 22 2011 23:09 Doppelganger wrote:On September 22 2011 22:48 IrOnKaL wrote: I feel that most people that are crazy enough to murder a fellow citizen will only end up doing it again if / when they get out of prison. And I think that it should be irrelevant what you feel about it. Furthermore, almost every person can be pushed to the brink by the circumstances and can turn into a murderer. You have nothing to base your feeling upon. There are serial killers and some killers/rapists that are bat shit crazy beyond help. That does however not mean that everyone is beyond help. Anyway in either case: a life long prison sentence should do the trick. Whether you like it or not I'm not paying for someone convicted of murderer to get a free ride through life. If you're willing to pay my portion of the taxes then I'll vote your way but that's only if you're ok with explaining your point of view to murder victims relatives. And you explain the same to the relatives of the unjustly convicted murderer that just got killed by your justice system... I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad." So you'd rather the blood be on your hands than another person's? That may sound commendable in some strange way, but it's certainly not what I'd prefer. Besides, what are the circumstances of "we let him go?" There are these things called life sentences. If a jury "let's him go," and he was guilty, that has more to do with incompetent police work, lack of evidence, or good old dishonest lawyers working the system, etc. It's also rather known that prison sucks. I'd hardly call it a free ride. It's simply humane not to starve people, murderers or not. If you haven't heard of Ron Williamson or read John Grisham's The Innocent Man, I highly suggest it. That particular book is non fiction and tells the story of a real person who was wrongly convicted of murder and his life was ruined after he was sent to death row. It also shows the horrors of solitary confinement. A picture of the man when he was 47 looked like he was 80 and invalid. I always thought that was a dramatization of books like A Tale of Two Cities, but it's actually possible. The book has the pictures. Blood is on your hands one way or another. If he's not convicted then why're we giving him a Life in Prison? Your statement seems to be contradicting itself but I'm probably just tired honestly so forgive me if it is just me. Humane never has a set in stone definition in peoples eyes. Something that's Humane to you might not be humane to me. Humane or not I couldn't care less. The Death Penalty is here and is not Tossed Around very highly. since 1971 there's been 1182 Death Sentences in 2010 I believe. You guys act like the Death Sentence is given for EVERYTHING. Rapist don't get the Death Sentence. Murderers get it. Murdering is Inhumane itself so I don't see people point about the Death Sentence not being humane. You are aware that there are studies of people admitting to getting thrown back into prison because once they're out they no longer can coupe to the life style of providing for themselves and others. So yes some people actually consider the Prison Life over the outside. Crazy as that sounds its a true statement.
Allow me to try again.
I would rather Later find out that we made a mistake and explain that then have to explain "Oh hey remember that guy that murdered your Daughter? We let him go and now he's murdered your Son.. Our Bad."
If you'd rather make the mistake of executing an innocent man than letting a guilty one go free, you're kind of forgetting that when you execute an innocent man, a guilty one did go free. Your hypothetical quote could look like this, which is a still worse scenario: "Remember that guy that was executed for murdering you daughter? He was the wrong one. We had the real one in custody and questioned him, but we let him go due to lack of evidence. The real killer has now murdered your son. Our bad."
If I appeared to contradict myself, it's probably due to the situations you presented not adding up in the first place.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora 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.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty.
I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases.
EDIT:typo
|
On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes.
|
murder is a crime no matter the colour of the uniform, including orange
|
On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely.
EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be.
|
On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora 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.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes.
Interesting theory you have there, backed up by absolutely nothing.
American states without the death penalty have lower rates of homocide.
Source; http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
Source No. 2; http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence
'Eighty-eight percent of the country’s top criminologists do not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to homicide, according to a new study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology and authored by Professor Michael Radelet, Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Traci Lacock, also at Boulder.
Similarly, 87% of the expert criminologists believe that abolition of the death penalty would not have any significant effect on murder rates. In addition, 75% of the respondents agree that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.”
The survey relied on questionnaires completed by the most pre-eminent criminologists in the country, including Fellows in the American Society of Criminology; winners of the American Society of Criminology’s prestigious Southerland Award; and recent presidents of the American Society of Criminology. Respondents were not asked for their personal opinion about the death penalty, but instead to answer on the basis of their understandings of the empirical research.'
In a February 7, 1997 Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (part of U.S Dept. of Health and Human Services), from 1950-1993 child homicide rates in the U. S. tripled. CDC compared the U.S. with 25 other industrialized countries and found that "the United States has the highest rates of childhood homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among industrialized countries." Almost all of these other industrialized countries have stopped using the death penalty
How's that deterrant argument going for you?
|
If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million.
|
On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ?
|
On September 23 2011 03:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely. EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be. There are always doubts. Always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
A good movie about it.
|
death penalty should be reserved only to the most serious crimes with hard proof that points it towards the criminal with 100% certainty.
as far as i know, only "hard proof" are the witnesses and there are no physical evidences.
death penalty should not apply to him.
|
On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that.
|
On September 23 2011 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:48 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely. EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be. There are always doubts. Always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)A good movie about it. I saw the movie and it is pretty annoying as far as ideas go, actors are good that is true.
And no there are many cases where there are no doubts. If you checked real-life cases and not movie-based cases, quite often there are no doubts. Have you checked many court cases ? Murderers are often stupid, caught with murder weapons, in clothes covered in blood of the victim and surprisingly often they actually plead guilty. In such cases there are no realistic doubts.
|
On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that.
Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter.
|
On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Manslaughter is not murder. And I am not actually opposed to death penalty, but I am opposed to vengeance playing significant role in justice system. That is why I criticized your argument.
|
Given the chain of events Davis described, I actually think he was likely the killer. I don't know, but the juries drew a reasonable conclusion.
|
On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well.
|
On September 23 2011 04:02 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:48 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:46 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 03:41 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 01:17 konadora wrote:On September 22 2011 10:48 HellRoxYa wrote: I prefer a system based on rehabilitation rather than vengance. It tends to foster a gentler society, ie. more trust between people, less violence, etc.
As such the death penalty can never be good, and the US system is bad in general as it seems to put high values on vengance. Singapore has death penalties for even the most minor of drug offenses. Simple possession of drugs above a few grams will get you hanged. Result? Singapore has been 99.99+% drug-free, with the very few passed around in nightclubs. Death penality is also given to murderers. A recent case where a few youths stabbed another to death had initially landed the criminals in death sentence, though it was reduced to 4 years in prison for rioting (lolwut?). Thing is, the people in Singapore have actually called for the sentence to be increased (despite the criminals being teens) to life imprisonment without pardon to even, yes you guessed it, death sentences. I think it does a pretty damn good job in deterring people from committing crimes. Is there actually any evidence that it is the death penalty that has this effect. In many countries there are death penalties for different crimes yet in many of them those crimes are more prevalent than in countries without death penalty. I am not completely against death penalty, but death penalty and trial by jury combined are terribly frightening system if I were an innocent person accused of murder. I think getting rid of trial by jury and elected judges and introducing reasonable judicial system similar to the one in continental Europe would help a lot in similar cases. EDIT:typo A reasonable justice system won't stop justice making mistakes. Yes, and the point is ? Of course it won't stop the mistakes, we are living in a real world. The point is it will make them less likely. EDIT: Ah, you mean that in relation to death penalty. You can make death penalty reserved for cases where there is no doubt, which is the way it should be. There are always doubts. Always. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)A good movie about it. I saw the movie and it is pretty annoying as far as ideas go, actors are good that is true. And no there are many cases where there are no doubts. If you checked real-life cases and not movie-based cases, quite often there are no doubts. Have you checked many court cases ? Murderers are often stupid, caught with murder weapons, in clothes covered in blood of the victim and surprisingly often they actually plead guilty. In such cases there are no realistic doubts. Look, my point is that justice is never perfect, because we are humans.
For me that's not the point. I wouldn't advocate death penalty for Hitler himself.
|
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Following what logic? Retaliation?
Great. That's really how civilized people think.
That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself.
|
On September 23 2011 03:01 TheGlassface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:47 Millitron wrote: I am sick and tired of hearing things like "Oh, he was arrested because he was black, not because he did it."
I agree the guy shouldn't be executed if he was innocent, but what does the fact that he's black have to do with his innocence? NOTHING. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the whether or not he committed the crime, and so shouldn't even be up for discussion.
The only way to have a reasonable trial is to leave race out of the discussion completely, because otherwise you sway the jurors unfairly to one direction or the other. If your jurors happen to be bigots, bringing up his race just reminds them of their prejudice, and he gets cheated out of a fair trial. If your jurors aren't bigots though, bringing up his race sways jurors to think he is innocent and just the victim of racist cops, regardless of whether or not he actually DID commit the crime. Man, read the story please. We live in a country where racism accounts for some things. There was a judge/sherriff in the news recently that was in major issues for throwing black men in jail based off nothing but racism. **I'll try and find this article soon, sorry...a quick google on "racist sheriff" brings up a really bad series of youtube videos lol.** And you're right about leaving it out, but the problem is no one will. The idea we have is that no one should be a bigot and we take everyone at face to assume they aren't (because I for one can't believe we still have this issue) the fact is, almost everyone is racist or bigoted and they may not even realize it. I used to know a friend who pointed out to me how a lot of people will say something like this. "Hey, look at that guy!" -- "What guy my friend?" "That black guy over there, next to the _____" When you could use any number of other descriptors; such as body language, activities, clothing, etc. to describe the person. Like this. "Hey, look at that guy!" -- "What guy my friend?" "That guy over there, with the red shirt next to the ____" Is it racist? Yes. Is it harmful...eh, maybe not but it is still using a skin color to describe someone.
This is a very warped perception of racism. This is a great example of the over-sensitivity a lot of people have developed. Racism may very well have a part in the case, as almost everybody is racist even if its just the subconscious connection of stereotypes.
Calling someone black isn't racist its an accurate descriptor, making assumptions about them because of the fact they'e black is.
|
On September 23 2011 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Following what logic? Retaliation? Great. That's really how civilized people think. That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself.
If someone kills someone close to you and spends 10years in prison do you forgive him after that, because he paid his crime to society? I really think law system is full of flaws. For example you spend more time in prison doing victimless crimes than murders etc. And why some random time in prison for murder should be justice?
And like i said earlier, dead ones wont come back, why should killers have chance to normal life again.
|
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well.
How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life.
The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge.
|
The death penalty is 100 % wrong. There really are no incidences anymore where it becomes appropriate in our society.
I read a very interesting book some time ago called "The Punitive Obsession," wherein the author outlines the evolution of the death penalty. To summarize the book, humanity has used the "death penalty" as a means of expressing its anger and outrage toward an offender. Actually the intent wasn't necessarily death, death was subsequent to the act of outrage. In other words, the intent was to make the offender suffer, with death often resulting as a consequence of the actions (which were always barbaric). Some societies have maintained the death penalty, yet go about it in the most "humanitarian" way possible (such as lethal injection). In other words, we've given up the outrage, yet we keep the act of killing. Looked at in this way it doesn't make sense.
I often hear people talk about the death penalty being justified due to the financial burden associated with caring for incarcerated criminals. Put simply; this is one of the costs of living in a more evolved society. If you live in a jungle then fine, bash him over the head with a rock and be done with it. We do not live in a jungle, however, and what people consider financial imperative can never overrule moral obligation.
Notwithstanding the argument that if killing is wrong than it should be categorically wrong to include killing in the name of "justice," but in my opinion for a society to come together as a whole and calmly agree to put a man to death is far worse than the random murder possibly during a heated moment that occurred in the first place. We need to be better than this, we need to evolve beyond this type of thing.
There is also something to be said for efforts to understand the psychology associated with these types of individuals. To put them to death is simply wasting the opportunity.
To address the article, it becomes even more of an issue when the guilt is in question. The idea that American society could be putting an innocent man to death in this day and age is almost beyond my comprehension.
I'll end by saying one more thing. I can't stand Republicans, since it's often Republicans that espouse the death penalty as being an important aspect of criminal justice, and their reasoning is that society shouldn't have to pay because some criminal didn't take responsibility for himself and did something morally reprehensible. I would argue that it's this same philosophy that is creating the problem in the first place. Saying that people should take personal responsibility and that society isn't responsible is marginalizing a large number of people and throwing them under the bus to some extent. It's these people that often end up committing violent anti-social acts, not the ones who have all the opportunities. It's a bit of a simplification, but the way it ends up playing out is that society shouldn't be held responsible for your development, and when your development goes awry and you kill someone, it's your fault and society shouldn't take responsibility for that in any way, and just get rid of you with poison. It's fundamentally not as inclusive as the view that society is partially responsible for the development of its citizens and when something goes wrong society bears some blame, and is therefore not vindicated in putting the blame 100% on someone's plate and subsequently killing them.
|
On September 23 2011 04:20 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Following what logic? Retaliation? Great. That's really how civilized people think. That's precisely because human life means something to me that I would feel ashamed to be a citizen of a country which executes people. Whatever they have done. Because, you see, I am not a murderer myself. If someone kills someone close to you and spends 10years in prison do you forgive him after that, because he paid his crime to society? I really think law system is full of flaws. For example you spend more time in prison doing victimless crimes than murders etc. And why some random time in prison for murder should be justice? And like i said earlier, dead ones wont come back, why should killers have chance to normal life again. Because of forgiveness?
Maximal sentence here is 23 years without possibility of getting out earlier. I think spending 23 years in jail is enough to pay your debt to society for most things I can imagine someone doing.
|
The death penalty is fine. Some people are too dangerous to even take the slight chance of allowing back into society. However, it was unjustified in this case as there was a tiny sliver of doubt. Though he probably was the killer, we should never execute someone when there is even a tiny chance that he was innocent.
|
On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge.
It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice?
Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest.
|
Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia)
It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States.
|
On September 23 2011 04:41 ampson wrote: The death penalty is fine. Some people are too dangerous to even take the slight chance of allowing back into society. However, it was unjustified in this case as there was a tiny sliver of doubt. Though he probably was the killer, we should never execute someone when there is even a tiny chance that he was innocent.
You realize that he's not actually even supposed to be found guilty if there's a chance that he was innocent. It has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
|
On September 23 2011 04:43 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge. It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice? Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest.
This logic doesn't work. Yes, killing them prevents them from committing the same crime to society ever again, but it also prevents them from helping society, or growing into someone that wouldn't do that again. It's addressing the symptom not the cause, and ignoring too much of human nature, including our capacity for growth and development. It also inherently undermines your position which is that killing is wrong. Additionally, you don't actually need to kill someone to ensure they never commit murder again. It's not that it isn't pragmatic, it's that it's illogical. For these reasons, your position isn't as inclusive as some of the others that have been suggested on this thread.
|
On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States.
T.T
My country tis of thee You really really depress me
|
On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well?
|
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well?
This is a clear strawman logical fallacy. Also, I feel like condescending to a growing global trend by referring to it as "hip" and by extension some kind of fad is a bit bizarre when the topic is fundamentally about killing people.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? I think this may honestly be the worst argument I have ever seen presented on Team Liquid.
|
On September 23 2011 05:19 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? I think this may honestly be the worst argument I have ever seen presented on Team Liquid. I was just about to say this. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at it.
|
I support the capital punishment for special circumstances like treason.
|
On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. Why ?
Note that this is not self-evident and you have to explain it. It seems that you are the person that life is worth nothing to, as you are advocating that two lives be lost instead of just one. And not advocating death penalty does not mean that we think it is right(or even ok) to take someones life.
Also just a scenario for you. Two climbers on the mountain, one accidentally releases a stone that kills the other one. You are advocating death penalty for the one that accidentally released a stone.
|
I personally feel the death penalty is wrong.
If you are going to execute someone, there should be 100% no doubt that they are guilty of their crimes.
|
The Casey Anthony trial is a good example to make my point. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was released despite the same amount of weak evidence. Touching on the racial thing, I do think that given the same crime, a black man would be more likely to be guilty than a white man and a man would be more likely to be guilty than a woman. That alone should put the death penalty to question...also if you are really interested in a messed up case, look up the Ruben Cantu case. This is a sick case of the justice system being manipulated to be used for revenge purposes. There will always be extreme cases that tend to sway our mind to be critical most of the time, but I have to agree that the justice system of the U.S is better off than 99% of the world.
|
On September 23 2011 05:49 Archers_bane wrote: The Casey Anthony trial is a good example to make my point. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was released despite the same amount of weak evidence. Touching on the racial thing, I do think that given the same crime, a black man would be more likely to be guilty than a white man and a man would be more likely to be guilty than a woman. That alone should put the death penalty to question...also if you are really interested in a messed up case, look up the Ruben Cantu case. This is a sick case of the justice system being manipulated to be used for revenge purposes. There will always be extreme cases that tend to sway our mind to be critical most of the time, but I have to agree that the justice system of the U.S is better off than 99% of the world. What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case.
|
One part of my mind supports death penalty, as I consider molesters, rapists or psycho-killers unredeemable and unfixable, and they are just plain and simple a threat to society.
However I was raised with the notion that is better to let 1,000 guilty people free than have one innocent man pay, and there comes the problem. That sometimes people are executed without being even 100% sure of its guilt. And this seems to be the case.
|
On September 23 2011 07:24 RamenStyle wrote: One part of my mind supports death penalty, as I consider molesters, rapists or psycho-killers unredeemable and unfixable, and they are just plain and simple a threat to society.
However I was raised with the notion that is better to let 1,000 guilty people free than have one innocent man pay, and there comes the problem. That sometimes people are executed without being even 100% sure of its guilt. And this seems to be the case. It's a cute idea, but its unrealistic. We should strive for a perfect justice system but its obviously not perfect as of right now (if ever) so we'll have to make due. This idea that capitol punishment is wrong because innocent people could die is flawed. The problem arises from prosecution, not capitol punishment.
From a completely objective standpoint, incarcerating an innocent man for life is almost as heinous but carries none of the stigma (you're effectively ending his/her life and its influence).
|
Personally I support the death penalty; I believe death to be more humane and more practical than a life in prison. Personally, if I were faced with that choice, I would choose death, so I like the death penalty. Additionally, it's a lot less money for the taxpayers to spend on someone who wronged society.
|
I support the death penalty in serious murder cases, especially when someone murders a young child or just commits really socially disgusting acts during their murders, etc. I think that denying someone else's life, especially a young and innocent one like a child's is just downright... Awful. Arguably the worst crime that a person can commit.
In this particular case I think that the death penalty is not warranted; the evidence is somewhat in shambles.
|
On September 23 2011 09:48 Cel.erity wrote: Personally I support the death penalty; I believe death to be more humane and more practical than a life in prison. Personally, if I were faced with that choice, I would choose death, so I like the death penalty. Additionally, it's a lot less money for the taxpayers to spend on someone who wronged society.
Are you really sure ? Capital punishment cost 2 million dollars for the society and some states just don't do it because of that.
|
On September 23 2011 09:55 MeeMeesiko wrote:In this particular case I think that the death penalty is not warranted; the evidence is somewhat in shambles.
You realize that what you just said is basically "we shouldn't kill him since we don't know if he's guilty" right? And you say it like it's somehow not obvious. I guess leaving him in prison would have been sufficient, given the evidence being somewhat in shambles. The fact is that humanity is prone to making mistakes (oh, god, is it prone to making mistakes). Our policies should be constructed in such a way that our mistakes don't potentially cost innocent men their lives.
|
Witnesses recanting statements are notoriously unreliable. Witnesses in general are unreliable, but the longer the time, the worse it becomes.
|
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:
|
On September 23 2011 04:54 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:43 Oktyabr wrote:On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge. It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice? Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest. This logic doesn't work. Yes, killing them prevents them from committing the same crime to society ever again, but it also prevents them from helping society, or growing into someone that wouldn't do that again. It's addressing the symptom not the cause, and ignoring too much of human nature, including our capacity for growth and development. It also inherently undermines your position which is that killing is wrong. Additionally, you don't actually need to kill someone to ensure they never commit murder again. It's not that it isn't pragmatic, it's that it's illogical. For these reasons, your position isn't as inclusive as some of the others that have been suggested on this thread.
I don't think there's anything illogical in assuming that certain people are beyond redeemable means at this point in time. Unless psychiatry is developed to the point where we can tap into everyone's inner good, turn them around and make them pay their dues back to society as you say, execution should remain an available option in the justice system.
I don't know who would evaluate the likes of Osama, Behring Breivik, Timothy Mcveigh and say confidently that they ought to be allowed to remain in society for the time being because they might just abandon their idealogy some day.
Various societies value this safety brought about by this option more so than that individual's life. We're just not able to undo all the hard-wiring done by nature or nurture in the present day.
Troy Davis's case was a tragedy because the system was unable to prove him beyond reasonable doubt. The judicial process is in question here.
|
I'm not even sure if Troy Davis is guilty or not, but I think life sentence in prison would of been better. Hell maybe someone might find more evidence about his case and find out that he is truly innocent. If that was the case they could release him from prison and apologize for all his years in prison. What does killing a person that has distorted evidence prove?
I swear this incident reminds me of that "Cold Case" TV show. Season 3 episode 20 or the movie "The Green Mile"
+ Show Spoiler +
Even on the TV show , the black guy's final statement that was on death row was similar to Troy Davis:
Andre, the character on the TV show, said to the victim's family "I'm sorry for your loss, but I did not kill that girl." Then he looked over to the homicide detectives and said "Prove I'm innocent."
Dude that episdoe broke me.. I swear I can't watch that episode without getting teary eyed. Every time I see someone go up on death row on shitty evidence it makes me feel like the law system is failing.
|
On September 23 2011 11:20 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:54 sevencck wrote:On September 23 2011 04:43 Oktyabr wrote:On September 23 2011 04:20 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 04:05 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 04:02 The KY wrote:On September 23 2011 03:59 mazqo wrote:On September 23 2011 03:53 mcc wrote:On September 23 2011 03:51 mazqo wrote: If you take a life then you should pay it by your life. Is it fair for killers/murders to spend 10 years in prison and then all is forgotten? Dead people wont get their life back and relatives wont get their loved one back. Its like stealing 100 millions and only paying back 10% and get away with 90 million. And when you use death penalty do dead people get their life back and will their relatives get their loved one back ? Obv not. But its just not fair to murders walk free after they spent small time in prison. For example in Finland manslaughter sentence is minimum of 8 years and first timers sits half of that, so you can kill a person and spend 4 years in prison. I rather have death penalty than that. Except I am fair sure you wouldn't get the death penalty for manslaughter. Yep, but i said i rather have death penalty for manslaughter. Seriously guys, is life worth nothing to you? Its the only thing we are here for. Its not right for anybody to take your life. If somebody does then his life should be taken as well. How ironic. You are the one condoning taking life. The fact is that there is no evidence that the death penalty prevents homocides. What then is the purpose? Only to satisfy the warped idea of eye-for-an-eye justice, which is not justice at all but revenge. It does. It does prevent that specific individual from being incapable of committing the same crime to his society ever again. What form of rehabilitiation can prevent someone from committing calculated murder twice? Pretty sure this pragmatism has nothing to do with vengeance. And then again I'm not covering for manslaughter and the rest. This logic doesn't work. Yes, killing them prevents them from committing the same crime to society ever again, but it also prevents them from helping society, or growing into someone that wouldn't do that again. It's addressing the symptom not the cause, and ignoring too much of human nature, including our capacity for growth and development. It also inherently undermines your position which is that killing is wrong. Additionally, you don't actually need to kill someone to ensure they never commit murder again. It's not that it isn't pragmatic, it's that it's illogical. For these reasons, your position isn't as inclusive as some of the others that have been suggested on this thread. I don't think there's anything illogical in assuming that certain people are beyond redeemable means at this point in time. Unless psychiatry is developed to the point where we can tap into everyone's inner good, turn them around and make them pay their dues back to society as you say, execution should remain an available option in the justice system. I don't know who would evaluate the likes of Osama, Behring Breivik, Timothy Mcveigh and say confidently that they ought to be allowed to remain in society for the time being because they might just abandon their idealogy some day. Various societies value this safety brought about by this option more so than that individual's life. We're just not able to undo all the hard-wiring done by nature or nurture in the present day. Troy Davis's case was a tragedy because the system was unable to prove him beyond reasonable doubt. The judicial process is in question here.
Given that the entire process of human development from birth to grade school to high school to college and adulthood etc. etc. shows unequivocally that people are capable of learning/changing/developing, it's reasonable to assume that rehabilitation is possible. Our current failures do not morally invalidate efforts to continue, nor do they directly validate the death penalty, particularly in light of the numerous successes. Inner good? That sounds like quasi spiritual mysticism. The world isn't an absolutistic space where good and evil are at odds. You have human beings some of which are deeply pained and need help. Killing them doesn't help them, and whatever benefits you can conceive for humanity are negligible when you consider what we're coming together as a society to do to someone. Some of these criminals that are executed in the USA have their final moments and statements recorded and put online. Some of them have already been in jail for 10+ years and have had time to ponder and consider their actions. Their final moments are often deeply apologetic and fraught with guilt before we irreverently end their lives.
Like I said the idea that killing someone is the only way to prevent them from repeat offending isn't logical because you don't reasonably need to kill someone to ensure this. Nor is it logical to denounce murder as so horrendous that a subsequent murder is the only recourse. I realize some societies continue to butcher people, and frankly they are wrong to do so. I don't mean to offend you, but as an example Singapore is wrong to do what they do. Executing people for drug related offenses is retarded. Alot of creative people have had some very important realizations through drug use. To enforce a policy that might inhibit the unfolding of the responsible human spirit by killing people is WTFwrong. And I don't care about the statistics pertaining to drug use, they're irrelevant. Whatever ends policy makers might have in their limited vision does not necessarily justify the means they employ. Stalin was able to take the USSR from zero to sixty in a very short period of time, transforming them into a super power, but his means were morally reprehensible.
Finally, if even I was in favor of killing people like Hitler and Osama, criminals of this level are at such a ridiculous level of abstraction that it becomes virtually irrelevant to any reasonable discussion pertaining to the morality of execution. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of executing them either by the way, like I said, you're killing a symptom while ignoring the cause, and damaging your humanity in the process.
|
On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system:
Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't
|
On September 23 2011 06:07 Sabin010 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:49 Archers_bane wrote: The Casey Anthony trial is a good example to make my point. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was released despite the same amount of weak evidence. Touching on the racial thing, I do think that given the same crime, a black man would be more likely to be guilty than a white man and a man would be more likely to be guilty than a woman. That alone should put the death penalty to question...also if you are really interested in a messed up case, look up the Ruben Cantu case. This is a sick case of the justice system being manipulated to be used for revenge purposes. There will always be extreme cases that tend to sway our mind to be critical most of the time, but I have to agree that the justice system of the U.S is better off than 99% of the world. What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case.
I agree with you on the OJ Simpson case. Celebrities get off the hook way to easily and the American culture constantly fails to recognize this. It's sad
|
The death penalty is impractical any way you look at it. It costs millions more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. There are so few executions that any impact executions have on the current prison population is negligible. there are a number of cases of people on death row who have ended up being found innocent, obviously the system isn't perfect. People just like the emotional satisfaction of knowing the person is going to be killed.
|
On September 23 2011 06:07 Sabin010 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:49 Archers_bane wrote: The Casey Anthony trial is a good example to make my point. Troy Davis was executed even on weak evidence, while Casey Anthony was released despite the same amount of weak evidence. Touching on the racial thing, I do think that given the same crime, a black man would be more likely to be guilty than a white man and a man would be more likely to be guilty than a woman. That alone should put the death penalty to question...also if you are really interested in a messed up case, look up the Ruben Cantu case. This is a sick case of the justice system being manipulated to be used for revenge purposes. There will always be extreme cases that tend to sway our mind to be critical most of the time, but I have to agree that the justice system of the U.S is better off than 99% of the world. What about the OJ Simpson case? OJ is aquitted of all charges, yet I haven't heard anything about further investigation into the murders of two individules. Mostly because it's widely believed the prosecution botched their case.
OJ was aquitted I believe for two reasons, first Johnny Cochran was a damn good lawyer and secondly OJ at the time had alot of money and celebrity status.
|
On September 23 2011 10:02 Patat0r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 09:48 Cel.erity wrote: Personally I support the death penalty; I believe death to be more humane and more practical than a life in prison. Personally, if I were faced with that choice, I would choose death, so I like the death penalty. Additionally, it's a lot less money for the taxpayers to spend on someone who wronged society. Are you really sure ? Capital punishment cost 2 million dollars for the society and some states just don't do it because of that.
Yeah, you would think just killing someone would be cheaper than supporting them for the rest of their lives in confinement but it's not. Capital punishment is extremely costly, more so than prison.
|
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: + Show Spoiler +
You also got take the fact that he "allegedly" killed a cop. (YES I said alleged.... I still don't believe he is 100% guilty) Killing a cop definitely raises a red flag against your court case.
|
I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life.
2. The reality of the justice system is that it is imperfect. It always has been, and always will be. Guilty will go free. Innocent will be punished. It continues to operate imperfectly by necessity; for the most part, the system gets it right. However, when you bring the death penalty into the equation you ultimately create a state of finality that cannot be changed. Injustice involving the death penalty cannot be undone because you have killed the (wrongully) accused.... When that DNA evidence is challenged a few years down the line, and found to be tainted evidence, which either proves the innocence of the accused or raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, there is no recompense...
3. The system of placing a person on death row is expensive and time consuming. It is expensive because there are legal costs as the numerous appeals take place, and because the accused remains in custody whilst this all takes place. The process can and often does take YEARS because the law is so concerned with not killing an innocent person that it will allow often frivolous appeals to be heard on the off chance that something of value comes from it. Most regard the cost of killing a man to be higher than keeping him imprisoned for his entire life (we lawyers are expensive fuckers, I know!).
4. Because of 3 above, it is traumatic for the victim's family, the accused, and the accused's family. The emotional cost to those involved cannot be underestimated.
5. Thinking it through, there is just as much, if not more, wrong with: a) putting an innocent person through a trial b) sentencing them for a crime they didn't commit c) allowing them numerous appeals d) stressing the involved parties with the procedure e) and ultimately killing an innocent person, effectively cutting off any opportunity for true justice to be done (the real criminal remains free, remember?)
than there is with the crime that sees them put to death.
I see no justification for the death penalty other than a barbaric and primitive sense of retribution, which I can understand but not ACCEPT when the possible cost is so much higher.
|
On September 22 2011 12:20 FiWiFaKi wrote: I strongly believe in the quote:
"I'd rather let 100 guilty go free, than punish 1 innocent"
And therefore, since it is not certain it's his fault he atleast deserves to live.
Yes! You would say that! Until those 100 guilty rape and kill 100 innocent and you're thinking to yourself, "Oh, shit. Guess we shoulda' put a cap in his ***!" That quote is stuptaculous (yay made-up words)
Seriously though, the case was sketchy and a death penalty could not be "without a reasonable doubt" as there were too many cases where the evidence from both sides would turn out to be crap. This was a "wait and see" case, that the courts rushed and made a huge wrong call on. This entire outcry could have been avoided if the courts waited for conclusive evidence and simply kept the man in prison until such evidence was brought to either free/convict the man of his sentence.
|
On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? ROFL...
I'm sorry but this is the most pathetic straw man I think I've ever seen in my life...
|
Well, just saw on google news that he was done in last night. Poor guy, hope he RIP, but its sad that his case ended this way.
|
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: There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
|
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote: I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life.
I agree with your first statement. It's true 90% of the time at least, however, I think common sense dicates that capitol punishment for smaller offences would make a perpetraitor think twice. I have no backing evidence, and no data this is pure speculation. But the earlier post claiming that drug sales are low in singapore due to the death penalty sounds fairly realistic to me. Its most certainly a far more complicated issue than that. But think about it from a personal standpoint: for selling weed, you get killed. I'd personally think twice.
What's my point? Its not a strong determent, but I think the death penalty still functions as a determent when properly applied. Its more than broken in the US though, where you can dance on death row for decades and waste tax payer dollars. It simply isn't feared here.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:2. The reality of the justice system is that it is imperfect. It always has been, and always will be. Guilty will go free. Innocent will be punished. It continues to operate imperfectly by necessity; for the most part, the system gets it right. However, when you bring the death penalty into the equation you ultimately create a state of finality that cannot be changed. Injustice involving the death penalty cannot be undone because you have killed the (wrongully) accused.... When that DNA evidence is challenged a few years down the line, and found to be tainted evidence, which either proves the innocence of the accused or raises a reasonable doubt as to their guilt, there is no recompense...
You cannot undue locking someone away for 40 years only to find theyre innocent. A simple "oops! here's some money" that is currently done does not nearly suffice. Wrongfully punishing anyone for anything is wrong. This is beyond debate.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:3. The system of placing a person on death row is expensive and time consuming. It is expensive because there are legal costs as the numerous appeals take place, and because the accused remains in custody whilst this all takes place. The process can and often does take YEARS because the law is so concerned with not killing an innocent person that it will allow often frivolous appeals to be heard on the off chance that something of value comes from it. Most regard the cost of killing a man to be higher than keeping him imprisoned for his entire life (we lawyers are expensive fuckers, I know!). the fault of that lies in the justice system, not capitol punishment.
On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote:4. Because of 3 above, it is traumatic for the victim's family, the accused, and the accused's family. The emotional cost to those involved cannot be underestimated.
5. Thinking it through, there is just as much, if not more, wrong with: a) putting an innocent person through a trial b) sentencing them for a crime they didn't commit c) allowing them numerous appeals d) stressing the involved parties with the procedure e) and ultimately killing an innocent person, effectively cutting off any opportunity for true justice to be done (the real criminal remains free, remember?)
than there is with the crime that sees them put to death.
I see no justification for the death penalty other than a barbaric and primitive sense of retribution, which I can understand but not ACCEPT when the possible cost is so much higher. It was traumatic when the accused decided to kill the victim. This is simply a way of administering justice. Not revenge. Its righteous punishment for a heinous crime. If you knowingly take the life of an innocent man in cold blood, then you forfeit your own right to live. Murder is a serious thing to do and must be dealt with accordingly. It's not a primitive Hammurabi's code either. Its a higher punishment for a higher crime. Murder is severe, and is answered with a severe punishment.
|
You cannot undue locking someone away for 40 years only to find theyre innocent. A simple "oops! here's some money" that is currently done does not nearly suffice. Wrongfully punishing anyone for anything is wrong. This is beyond debate. Of course it doesn't suffice. But it does allow them the opportunity to do something with their life. To taste freedom again. Perhaps most importantly it allows them the opportunity to be vindicated. Have you ever met a person who has been wrongly accused of a crime? Ever seen the satisfaction it can bring to see a person succeed on appeal against a conviction that should never have stood? I've never experienced it first hand of course, but I have seen it through clients, and even personally I feel fucking fantastic.. I can't imagine how good it feels for them.
If you kill the accused person and they were innocent.... the death penalty position is Woops? Sorry, but tough shit?
the fault of that lies in the justice system, not capitol punishment. Of course it is the fault of capital punishment... It is an inherent and necessary flaw in the system which is only so very necessary in death penalty scenarios because of the gravity and finality of the sentence imposed. You could not possibly be advocating a system which included both the death penalty and a shorter, tougher appeal system could you? If the American statistic of 1.5% of people sentenced to death being innocent is correct in the current system, I cannot fathom what the number would jump to if you suggest a system that does not take its time coming to a final decision. Completely unacceptable.
It was traumatic when the accused decided to kill the victim. This is simply a way of administering justice. Not revenge. Its righteous punishment for a heinous crime. If you knowingly take the life of an innocent man in cold blood, then you forfeit your own right to live. Murder is a serious thing to do and must be dealt with accordingly. It's not a primitive Hammurabi's code either. Its a higher punishment for a higher crime. Murder is severe, and is answered with a severe punishment. Umm... I suggest you go away and research the legal meaning of retribution with respect to sentencing... Because "righteous punishment for a heinous crime" fits the bill, friend. I never mentioned revenge, so I'm not sure why you mentioned it.
In fact, I'd suggest more people go away and research sentencing principles generally before entering this debate at all...
|
On September 23 2011 12:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 10:21 Nagano wrote:Not sure if this was posted already (hard to search each page for pics), but I thought this was an interesting way to highlight a significant hypocrisy in the system: Difference: One expressed remorse and the other didn't
Erm...because he protested his innocence up to the very moment of his death.
|
I just don't understand the States in the U.S. that still are killing people.
With their "God-given" Rights to kill people even without evidence, they are really behaving like third world countries.
But i think that's just a statement from a guy, that is glad to live in Europe and not in the "land of the free".
Just ridiculous...
|
On September 23 2011 18:03 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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.
|
On September 23 2011 14:01 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:06 Millitron wrote:On September 23 2011 04:45 Supert0fu wrote:Here is an interesting picture of the use of the death penalty around the world: (From wikipedia) It seems most developed countries do not use the death penalty or haven't used it in 10 years, which is a big contrast to the United States. Just because getting rid of the death penalty is the hip thing to do among developed nations doesn't mean its right. If tons of other developed nations re-instituted slavery, would it be right for us to as well? ROFL... I'm sorry but this is the most pathetic straw man I think I've ever seen in my life...
If I didn't think he was serious id find it really funny actually.
|
On September 23 2011 14:18 JamesJohansen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 13:08 Brett wrote: I'm a criminal defence lawyer. Consequently, you can probably see my opinion coming from a mile away, but here I go anyway!
Let's put the issue of the evidence to one side for a moment. None of us sat in that trial, and we're not really capable of making a fair assessment one way or the other....
I could literally write 20 pages on this topic myself, so I will spare everyone the essay and make it short and simple:
1. The death penalty is driven purely by the sentencing objective of retribution. Deterrence is not a factor. It has been shown time and time again that the type or seriousness of penalty imposed does not deter crime. What does deter crime is increasing the level of certainty of being caught. Everyone saying they support the death penalty on the basis of the protection of society or deterring further crime is deluding themselves. It is not necessary to take the life of a criminal to protect society. Life imprisonment acheives the same purpose.
As for its effectiveness in satisfying the objective of retribution... Well the bottom line is the grieving family members will continue to grieve whether the person is killed or locked up for life. I agree with your first statement. It's true 90% of the time at least, however, I think common sense dicates that capitol punishment for smaller offences would make a perpetraitor think twice. I have no backing evidence, and no data this is pure speculation. But the earlier post claiming that drug sales are low in singapore due to the death penalty sounds fairly realistic to me. Its most certainly a far more complicated issue than that. But think about it from a personal standpoint: for selling weed, you get killed. I'd personally think twice. What's my point? Its not a strong determent, but I think the death penalty still functions as a determent when properly applied. Its more than broken in the US though, where you can dance on death row for decades and waste tax payer dollars. It simply isn't feared here.
If you don't have any evidence to back it up, why argue against it (while also bring up percentages)?
Also he stated that "...increasing the level of certainty of being caught" is what deters crime. You example does not speak against this possibility. How do you know without anything to back it up that he's wrong?
|
On September 23 2011 18:17 Schwammerl wrote: I just don't understand the States in the U.S. that still are killing people.
With their "God-given" Rights to kill people even without evidence, they are really behaving like third world countries.
But i think that's just a statement from a guy, that is glad to live in Europe and not in the "land of the free".
Just ridiculous...
This country has a deep rooted culture of violence. As much as people even here are against a lot of it or even all of what happens it's not an overnight thing to stop it. Violence on all kinds of levels are just acceptable. You are bombarded by it on a constant basis here no matter where you turn and look. The media spreads the fear and the citizens watch and learn. It's almost educational with all the resources available to you here. Prisons don't work here. It's mixed population and you basically get an education in crime. That is your rehab if you get out. Then you can pursue a new avenue of crime.
|
On September 23 2011 18:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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.
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.
|
There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder?
Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person.
As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here (NSFW).
The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be.
|
On September 23 2011 18:54 overt wrote:Show nested quote + There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder? Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person. As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here. The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be. Why the fuck am I quoted here?
Did I say it was impossible? Have you read any of my other posts in this thread? Have I made a comment one way or another about whether the justice system is racist or not?
Hot tip: The answer to all of the above is no.
Really have no idea why you quoted me when launching into that tirade... If you weren't being so rabid, you'd see that I actually agree with everything you just said... EXCEPT I'm quite aware that there are other, more salient distinctions to be made between the two people in that picture other than Black/White. And it makes our anti-death penalty argument weaker when you use such SHITTY examples.
|
On September 23 2011 19:01 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:54 overt wrote: There are significant problems with polluting the discussion of appropriate sentencing with issues of evidence, and/or establishment of guilt. Don't mix them up. It's a factor in the issue of public policy regarding whether the death sentence should be an available sentencing option... But not relevant in a sentence to sentence comparison.
If two people are guilty of a crime, but one person confesses and pleads guilty thus sparing the victim, their families and the state the cost, time and distress of a trial... They deserve a lesser sentence than the other person who pleads not guilty and sends the matter to trial.
The death penalty is terrible, but that picture is not an intelligent argument against it.
So it's impossible for innocent people to be tried with murder? Sorry but plain simple facts state that blacks are a lot more likely to receive a trip down death row. The justice system in America is racist. Does that mean if Troy Davis was white he would be serving life instead? Maybe, maybe not. The picture is completely relevant because blacks are sentenced more harshly in this country especially if they kill a white person. As for deterrence, the most convincing argument that deterrence is a non-factor was from a television show. So I'll just simply link the part where they talk deterrence here. The death penalty is wrong. Morally wrong. There is no justification whatsoever for killing someone who is not an immediate threat to you. Keep murderers locked up for however long society deems fit. If that's for life, ok. If that's until they're rehabilitated then ok. As is, the primary reason we still use the death penalty is plain and simple. Vengeance. Which is not justice nor will it ever be. Why the fuck am I quoted here? Did I say it was impossible? Have you read any of my other posts in this thread? Have I made a comment one way or another about whether the justice system is racist or not? Hot tip: The answer to all of the above is no. Really have no idea why you quoted me when launching into that tirade... If you weren't being so rabid, you'd see that I actually agree with everything you just said... EXCEPT I'm quite aware that there are other, more salient distinctions to be made between the two people in that picture other than Black/White. And it makes our anti-death penalty argument weaker when you use such SHITTY examples.
Because your quote in relation to the case presumes guilt on someone whom many people felt was innocent. Meanwhile a man who was guilty and admitted to it got clemency. Which is why that picture is still relevant. The only time someone's plea should be relevant to a case is if there are hard physical facts in relation. Your quote, despite your position, was offensive because it presumes guilt of Troy Davis. Even if you didn't intend it to. It was doubly offensive that you brought up guilt and never made mention of the race issue that was being presented. Race is a factor in the United States justice system. If the second man in that picture wasn't white he likely would not have gotten clemency imo.
That's why I quoted you. I probably could have separated my post to make it more clear that I wasn't addressing you in the second part of my post. I thought it was kind of obvious though.
|
The point is this: The issue of his innocence or guilt is an entirely different consideration to his sentence. If you want to argue he was innocent. Great! Be my guest! Go through the evidence, absent any other consideration. Jurors cannot be worrying about whether they are letting a guilty person go free nor whether they are condemning an innocent one to death or life imprisonment because it obscures them from their real job; applying real world experience to the evidence. For me, I didn't sit in on that case. I haven't seen all the evidence. So I'm not going to make any personal judgment one way or another.
But I'm not presuming guilt, he was found guilty and all appeals were exhausted. As far as the law is concerned, he is guilty. So, taking that fact, we move onto the next issue; sentence.
Both men are guilty (in the eyes of the law, which is actually what matters, let's be honest) of a crime. They stand to be sentenced. The judge CANNOT take into consideration in any meaningful way the amount, or lack thereof, of evidence that leads to a conviction. Why? Because then you are introducing a variable which there is no control over, and yet can produce extraordinary differences.
Example: two people each abduct 3 women, rape them, and brutally murder them. Both are convicted at trial. One accused is convicted on the basis of eye witness accounts to the abduction, DNA evidence on the bodies, and physical evidence when the bodies are found in their basement. The other accused is convicted on the basis of nothing but one piece of DNA found at the scene of an abduction, and other circumstantial evidence. No eye witness accounts. No other DNA evidence. No bodies in his basement.
If the state of the evidence is taken into consideration the first criminal is sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole. The second criminal gets 35 years. Can you not see why person one would then have a justifiable grievance with his sentence? He effectively gets a worse sentence because person two was a fucking smarter criminal and covered his tracks better... Yet, they both did the exact same thing That is complete horse shit.
On the other hand, we come to the comparison of the two men in the picture:
One pleads guilty. He confesses to the crime. He does not go to trial. He demonstrates acceptance and remorse for what he did. This saves the Court's time, and the public's money. The victim's family's grief is reduced by not going through the worry as to whether the person is convicted or not.. They achieve some CLOSURE and they have it sooner.
The second pleads not guilty. He does not confess. He goes to trial and loses. He maintains his innocence and demonstrates no remorse. He spends the next 20 years on death row, attempting to reduce his sentence from death to life. He attempts to prove his innocence. The victim's family is put through trial, and appeal after appeal. Their closure takes 20 years.
The law presumes they are both guilty, as explained above, because it must. Once guilt is assumed, it is easy to see why those sentences are justifiable under your system.
Don't get me wrong... The death penalty is fucking ABHORRENT. I AGREE that it probably affects certain groups of people more than others (minorities more than white people, men more than women). But that picture is a poor argument against it, because their sentences actually make sense for other reasons. There are other ways to argue the racial issue than that dumb picture.
|
On September 23 2011 18:53 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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. 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.
|
On September 22 2011 10:57 Supert0fu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 10:52 SonicTitan wrote: What can I say?
I stand against the idea of a state-enforced death penalty, but even by the State's standards, they don't have enough evidence to put this man to death.
On another note, I'd like to ask what you mean, exactly, by pointing out that "he's black and being held in Georgia." If you mean to imply that his sentence has something to do with the fact that he's black, and furthermore he's being held in a southern (implied "racist") state, then you've just opened up a whole new can of worms. As the story points out, Texas, another southern state, just put a white supremacist to death for dragging a black man behind his vehicle by a chain. We can talk about institutional racism and the moral implications it has for state-enforced capital punishment, but we've at least got be up front about it, eh? Don't beat around the bush. Many black Americans believe he was convicted, because he was black. In america a lot of people believe that police officers blame a black guy because they know that it will be easy to convict. I know in my town (in Maine) where 90% of the people are white, I see the small number of backs in our town getting pulled over more frequently than other members of our town. It is appalling that racism still is an integral part of our legal system.
I don`t know about the statistics for your locla area, but in my country, most crimes are actually commited by blacks and other immigrants.
There are certain groups of people the police are to be more suspicious about, and at least in our case, it is justified through actual statistics and experience.
Call it racism, call it whatever you like, but the color of your skin has nothing to do with this. It is however, a simple result of experience.
On topic: Don`t really mind death penalty, hard to discuss the topic though, imo. Wether he was guilty or not, well I`m no one to speak on that subject.
|
Guilty or not, racist Georgia wants a scapegoat. What would be better than a black man to be the scapegoat for a state that had the rebel flag in their state flag for about 50 years.
What appalls me is how this is an issue that's been going on for a long time, this specific case that is. Yet nobody cared enough to spread the word in every internet forum until it's too damn late. Every forum I visit has a thread about this. Yet none of the threads even existed before September. Yea, pretend to care, a month ago most people did not even have a clue what was going on. And in a few weeks you'll completely forget the entire scenario.
Act offended or appalled at the entire situation from that comfortable computer chair. But don't attempt to do anything about it. Oh no, that would require EFFORT.
|
On September 23 2011 20:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +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: 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. 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.
|
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.
|
Just because the rehablitation system in the US is basically non existant and therefore does not work it is not a "fact" that rehabilitation does not work.
No, it's not a necessity at all and it's like you did not read a single post of anyone arguing in a factual way against it.
|
On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote:
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly
Err how many people do you think are executed a year? And how many do you think are sitting on death row for years and years?
I'll give you a hint. One number is much much bigger than the other.
|
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. LOL, you didn't think that through one bit. It's not a necessity. The experience of the rest of the developed world says so.
|
To me death penalty being right or wrong doesn't matter, the answer is subjective. We don't have the tools to understand which criminals can be rehabilitated and which can't so one system will release some delinquents into society while the other will eliminate people that shouldn't be. I think the fairest punishment is always forced labor and the type and quantity should depend on the offence dealt to society, but whatever it's just not going to happen. What I really don't understand is why death penalty has to be so expensive and long term while they can just shoot a simple bullet in the prisoner's head.
|
For the skin color thing, it seems to me there is more correlation between poverty levels and similar than actual skin color. That is not to say that skin color can not affect a jury and/or the police and so forth.
As for the death penalty its stupid in all cases whit less then 100% certainty on the question of guilt and severity of the crime. The USA (as far as I know) and most(or all) other countries with death penalty has life long imprisonment as an alternative(as far as I know(again)) for crimes like this.
I do not know if Troy Davis is guilty, frankly I don't care, as far as I am concerned killing a person is never right, no mater the circumstances. (and just so people don't think I am stupid, just because it isn't right dose not mean it can't be an alternative or even, in some extreme cases, necessary)
As for the death penalty being necessary: + Show Spoiler +On September 23 2011 22:06 Velr wrote: Just because the rehablitation system in the US is basically non existant and therefore does not work it is not a "fact" that rehabilitation does not work.
No, it's not a necessity at all and it's like you did not read a single post of anyone arguing in a factual way against it. + Show Spoiler +On September 23 2011 22:10 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 22:01 deth2munkies wrote:
If we gave everyone life we'd run out of prison space fairly quickly Err how many people do you think are executed a year? And how many do you think are sitting on death row for years and years? I'll give you a hint. One number is much much bigger than the other. My addition to this is as follows: + Show Spoiler +The USA dose have a lot of laws that might not be necessary or at the very lease should not be crimes one gets sent to prison fore, an example:
Some time ago a high school kid got a prison sentence for putting a blow-up doll in the girls bathroom. A very silly prank but not something anyone should be sentenced to prison for(or punished in court for at all...)
There might also be the argument that the death penalty has a positive effect on the crime rate, to which I say thins, there appears to be higher crime rates in death penalty stats in the US at-lest but this does not really prove anything. Research however say that most crimes are, crimes of passion(where people don't think) planed crimes(where people convince themselves that they will not be caught) or crimes of insanity( where people don't think)
Summary: + Show Spoiler +Racism might very well be a problem in the legal system but statistically I think its more other factors that actually make "colored people" more prone to crime, the death penalty is silly, Troy Davis should have had his new trail, and the Death penalty is not necessary.
I am sorry for all the anecdotal evidence and source less quotes and claims! But frankly I can't be bothered to look it up ^^ "lazy"
|
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_grann
This 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.
|
On September 23 2011 22:28 aTnClouD wrote: To me death penalty being right or wrong doesn't matter, the answer is subjective. We don't have the tools to understand which criminals can be rehabilitated and which can't so one system will release some delinquents into society while the other will eliminate people that shouldn't be. I think the fairest punishment is always forced labor and the type and quantity should depend on the offence dealt to society, but whatever it's just not going to happen. What I really don't understand is why death penalty has to be so expensive and long term while they can just shoot a simple bullet in the prisoner's head.
It's expensive so that wrongfully convicted people won't just get a bullet through the head as soon as they are convicted before they have exhausted every possibility of it being a mistake. Even so innocent people evidently still get executed. If you cut costs on this then you'd just have more wrongly executed people.
|
I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?.
|
On September 23 2011 23:38 Egyptian_Head wrote: I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?. You think it's fun to be in jail?
Like seriously?
|
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.
|
On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 23 2011 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 23:38 Egyptian_Head wrote: I wish we still had the death penalty. Not that I think it will have any affect on crime. Some people just need to die, there is nothing else to it. Justice demands it. I really don't think letting people sit in jail watching TV and lifting weights is a punishment nor is it rehabilitation.Its just putting a wall between them and the rest of society which is not a satisfactory outcome in my opinion. Either rehabilitate or punish I'm sure both have there advantages, but this current business is pointless.
Although if I am honest I would prefer we bring back the work gang, make the prisoners do some hard labour, not just busy work either, let them build houses for the poor for example, that kind of thing, they can earn there keep and they are kept away from the rest of us. Lets face it a little hard work never harmed anyone. It might even do them some good, develop some skills they can use once they get out of jail (the less serious offenders) so they can use them to make a living and avoid landing back in jail.
I know it goes against some UN thing but lets face it everyone else is forced to work to survive, why should prisoners be except?. You think it's fun to be in jail? Like seriously?
Reading is a great skill, find the word fun in my previous post please. I am of the opinion I never said jail is fun.
|
On September 24 2011 00:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 24 2011 00:02 Deadlyfish wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On September 24 2011 00:17 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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: 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. 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.
|
On September 24 2011 06:30 Hinanawi wrote: 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.
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Do you not find it troubling that there was no shred of physical evidence found linking him to the crime?
Maybe he was guilty, maybe he wasn't. What I find troubling is that he was convicted, sentenced to death, and executed on VERY spare evidence.
|
I'm currently enrolled in a Criminology class in my college. The material I have read states that suspects are far more likely to be found guilty and sent to death row when A) They are black, and B) When they are accused of killing a white individual. From the OP, I can't tell the race of the slain officer, but it would supplement my material well, and as well as this bias in the justice system if he was in fact white.
|
|
|
|
|
|