Options

Capital Punishment thread

2456718

Posts

  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Everyone deserves a second chance.

    I don't share your view. However I don't believe we, or the governments which represent us, have the right to take life away from anyone.

    That is almost like declaring oneself God.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I am opposed to capital punishment 100%.

    I don't believe that we have the right to take human life just because we get a group of people to agree on it, nor do I see how the government killing a man is any different from one civilian killing another.

    I also feel that, as far as considering it an actual "punishment" goes, it really is something else entirely. The victim is not made to deal with the consequences of their actions, but instead, they are simply snuffed out. There is a huge difference, in my mind, between placing limitations on some one's life, versus taking their life away from them entirely. Personally I believe that all people have a right to their life, because, at the core, that is simply the basest piece of what they are. It is one thing to kill in direct self-preservation; it is an unfortunate necessity, but to kill as punishment, etc., is not actually to punish a person, but to remove that person entirely, and I don't think that one person, or a collective of persons, has the place to simply remove another person.

    I used this example in the last one.

    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    I'm glad you picked this one. Living in the area I can relate to it directly.

    I was very annoyed when it was announced that he was going to be tried in Virginia, despite the fact that the majority of hismurders were in Maryland, because of the fact that his crimes occured during the Maryland death penalty moretorium, so life imprisonment would be the worst he could possibly get there.

    You speak of his crimes, and they are indeed awful. On top of the murders is the simple fact that he sent a community into fear. But whereas you see his death being justice, I see it as merely adding one more to the death toll. If the fact that he took the lives of others is something that we hold up and declare to be vile, then why is it not vile for us to take his life? If it is an issue of safety, life imprisonment is just as affective as the death penalty; solitairy confinement, if necessary (as it sometimes is with serial killers who felt that they were themselves taking justice into their own hands, and killing wrong doers, because they may be inclined to kill fellow inmates.) As has been said, it is actually MORE expensive to kill a man than to put him away for life. Any attempt to cut those costs would, in turn, make it more likely for more innocent people to be put to death, which is not a trade-off we should be willing to accept.



    I just don't see the reasoning for the double standard. When a civilian kills it is murder, but when the state kills it is justice? In both instances, a life is snuffed out.

    Evander on
  • Options
    chromdomchromdom Who? Where?Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    When we all say it's okay to kill another human being; we all become murderers immediately when that person dies. Then we should all be on death row ourselves. (sort of paraphrased from the Penn and Teller show)

    Sorry, but this carries no weight with me. If we all say it's okay to give speeding tickets (punishment to a crime), then do we all become thieves when some one pays it (punishment is enforced)?

    If you live in society, you must obey the laws, or suffer the punishments of that society.

    chromdom on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    Quid on
  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I am opposed to capital punishment 100%.

    I don't believe that we have the right to take human life just because we get a group of people to agree on it, nor do I see how the government killing a man is any different from one civilian killing another.

    I also feel that, as far as considering it an actual "punishment" goes, it really is something else entirely. The victim is not made to deal with the consequences of their actions, but instead, they are simply snuffed out. There is a huge difference, in my mind, between placing limitations on some one's life, versus taking their life away from them entirely. Personally I believe that all people have a right to their life, because, at the core, that is simply the basest piece of what they are. It is one thing to kill in direct self-preservation; it is an unfortunate necessity, but to kill as punishment, etc., is not actually to punish a person, but to remove that person entirely, and I don't think that one person, or a collective of persons, has the place to simply remove another person.

    I used this example in the last one.

    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    Because we're better than him.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    chromdom wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    chromdom wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I don't think military action is really comparable to capital punishment. Debating that would just derail this thread anyway.
    chromdom wrote: »
    I guess I'm in the minority here, but I am for having the death penalty being legal. I understand a lot of the reasoning against it, but at the end of the day, the death penalty fits with my sense of justice: do something bad enough, pay the ultimate price.

    I don't think I can elaborate much past that. Like I say, I understand and respect the reasoning for not being for it, but I can't get on board with not having that option available.
    The possibility of wrongfully sentencing someone to death doesn't affect your opinion?

    No, not really. People die because of accident, because of mistake. I don't want to say all the time because I don't know how often it happens. If you want to talk about raising the standard for when the death penalty could be applied, I'd be all for that. You can have too many precautions, but in something this serious, it'd be tough to get to that level.

    But as I say, that is a club I want our government to have in their golf bag, to take out on the (hopefully) rare occassions when its needed.
    How the hell could it ever be needed, though? Is there any situation where not killing a person, no matter how horrible, would actually detract from other people's lives?

    I believe there is. Take for example the Beltway Sniper cited earlier in this thread. This guys killed a lot of people, trained and had a child kill people, and, in my opinion, has otherwise demonstrated that he has forgone his right to life, liberty, and happiness. Just as criminals of smaller crimes receive smaller sentences, forgoing only their right to liberty, this man has committed greater crimes, and I am in favor of giving him the most serious punishment available to us.

    Like I said earlier, this fits my sense of justice.

    Oh, I think he sould DEFINITELY getthe most serious punishment available.

    But I also believe thatthe death penalty SHOULDN'T be available.

    There are plenty of other penaltiesand punishments that we don't allow. We have had an express sanction against them in our constitution since it was created. I don't disagree thathe deserves a penalty as severe as possible; I just don't think the death penalty should be on the list of allowable ones.

    I mean, do you think we should be allowed to burn him on at a stake, or have him drawn and quartered? How about having him "fight" lions?

    Evander on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?
    What about the West Memphis Three?

    do you think another car with a hole cut in the trunk with the actual rifle used in the murders inside it is likely to surface?

    also, there was the confession.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.

    Maybe everyone knows who did it in this case. But in another case there mihgt be a higher level of doubt. You're suggesting that the punishment for a crime should be dependent not solely on what crime was committed, but also on how certain we can be of the conviction. Not to be flippant, but isn't this just going to make murderers more careful? In any case, it's not the way justice shhould be carried out, surely?

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    Would you rather have everyone given due process, no matter how guilty, or would you rather only some people get due process, and risk condemning an innocent man without a chance to save himself?

    Personally, if life is what we hold dear, and we justify the death penalty by saying that murderers don't deserve to live, then I think even taking the CHANCE of killing even ONE more innocent man would go against the reasoning for the death penalty in the first place.

    Evander on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    Are you suggesting that a confession is a perfectly reliable proof of guilt?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?
    What about the West Memphis Three?

    do you think another car with a hole cut in the trunk with the actual rifle used in the murders inside it is likely to surface?

    also, there was the confession.
    My case had a confession.

    I wholly admit one case has more holes in it than the other, that does not mean you decide to get rid of due process for people you're sure are guilty.

    Quid on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    the same?

    there is physical evidence in the sniper case. they are seperate cases completely.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    chromdom wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    When we all say it's okay to kill another human being; we all become murderers immediately when that person dies. Then we should all be on death row ourselves. (sort of paraphrased from the Penn and Teller show)

    Sorry, but this carries no weight with me. If we all say it's okay to give speeding tickets (punishment to a crime), then do we all become thieves when some one pays it (punishment is enforced)?

    If you live in society, you must obey the laws, or suffer the punishments of that society.

    A fine can be refunded if it is deemed to have been wrongful.

    Just as a thief can repay what they have stolen; that is why we do not put theives to death.



    A life cannot be returned. That is why we consider murder to be so grave a transgression in the first place.



    It also means that there is no recourse for an executed man who was innocent. You can give an apology to his next-of-kin, even pay them something, but if that is some how acceptable, then wouldn't the legal penalty for murder be an apology and a check?

    Evander on
  • Options
    KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    chromdom wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    chromdom wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    I don't think military action is really comparable to capital punishment. Debating that would just derail this thread anyway.
    chromdom wrote: »
    I guess I'm in the minority here, but I am for having the death penalty being legal. I understand a lot of the reasoning against it, but at the end of the day, the death penalty fits with my sense of justice: do something bad enough, pay the ultimate price.

    I don't think I can elaborate much past that. Like I say, I understand and respect the reasoning for not being for it, but I can't get on board with not having that option available.
    The possibility of wrongfully sentencing someone to death doesn't affect your opinion?

    No, not really. People die because of accident, because of mistake. I don't want to say all the time because I don't know how often it happens. If you want to talk about raising the standard for when the death penalty could be applied, I'd be all for that. You can have too many precautions, but in something this serious, it'd be tough to get to that level.

    But as I say, that is a club I want our government to have in their golf bag, to take out on the (hopefully) rare occassions when its needed.
    How the hell could it ever be needed, though? Is there any situation where not killing a person, no matter how horrible, would actually detract from other people's lives?

    I believe there is. Take for example the Beltway Sniper cited earlier in this thread. This guys killed a lot of people, trained and had a child kill people, and, in my opinion, has otherwise demonstrated that he has forgone his right to life, liberty, and happiness. Just as criminals of smaller crimes receive smaller sentences, forgoing only their right to liberty, this man has committed greater crimes, and I am in favor of giving him the most serious punishment available to us.

    Like I said earlier, this fits my sense of justice.
    This doesn't demonstrate how killing the man is actually beneficial in any way, aside from appealing to the irrational "he got what he deserved" mentality that you described. I know there are situations where people would want the death penalty, but I still can't think of any time where it would be needed,. Just to be clear this is in response to this part of your post:
    But as I say, that is a club I want our government to have in their golf bag, to take out on the (hopefully) rare occassions when its needed.

    Kaputa on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    Would you rather have everyone given due process, no matter how guilty, or would you rather only some people get due process, and risk condemning an innocent man without a chance to save himself?

    Personally, if life is what we hold dear, and we justify the death penalty by saying that murderers don't deserve to live, then I think even taking the CHANCE of killing even ONE more innocent man would go against the reasoning for the death penalty in the first place.
    I would think it rather obvious I was making a case for due process.

    Quid on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    Are you suggesting that a confession is a perfectly reliable proof of guilt?

    no. but looking at the facts presented in the case, and the fact that they were found in the car that had been at the scene of the crime with the gun ballistics matched to the bullets and the fact that the trunk had been modified so that it could be accuratly shot out of, along with the confession is pretty damning.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Everyone deserves a second chance.

    That being said, I am a firm believer in 3 strikes and you are out. If you are convicted of 3 seriously violent crimes (murder, rape, torture etc) you should die. You have proven again and again that you are a threat to the res tof society.

    so whether you live or die should bebased on arbitrary numbers?



    and if the argument is that we should put someone to death because they are a threat to society, wouldn't it be just as effective to lock them away?

    Evander on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    0.0 percent recidivism rate.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    Are you suggesting that a confession is a perfectly reliable proof of guilt?

    no. but looking at the facts presented in the case, and the fact that they were found in the car that had been at the scene of the crime with the gun ballistics matched to the bullets and the fact that the trunk had been modified so that it could be accuratly shot out of, along with the confession is pretty damning.

    And the fact that he made it obvious makes him more deserving of death than a slightly sneakier serial killer? I don't really see it. In any case, what standard of guilt is it you're going to insist on between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and '100% certain' (strictly impossible)?

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    the same?

    there is physical evidence in the sniper case. they are seperate cases completely.
    The police from the WM3 had a knife found behind the homes of one of the boys that matched the marks on the victims, a witness who saw them with the knife and leaving the scene, and a confession. Clearly by your statement due process would not have been necessary.

    Quid on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    0.0 percent recidivism rate.
    No. They come back to life a lot.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    CoJoeTheLawyerCoJoeTheLawyer Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Everyone deserves a second chance.

    That being said, I am a firm believer in 3 strikes and you are out. If you are convicted of 3 seriously violent crimes (murder, rape, torture etc) you should die. You have proven again and again that you are a threat to the res tof society.

    Nothing personal, but your theory really sucks. I would perfer we permanently lock people up after violent crime #1, not let them have violent crimes #2 & 3 before deciding they are a threat to the rest of society.

    I am all in favor of capital punishment in theory, but I am firmly against it as it is currently put into practice in the U.S. There is a saying among criminal defense attorneys that "When it comes to murder, it's better to be guilty and rich than innocent and poor" that is so true it hurts my heart. Just look at the social-economic backgrounds of men & women sitting on death row across the nation, and compare it to those who are acquitted of murder in the same states if you don't believe me. The judicial system needs refined in just about every aspect before we can ever consider capital punishment.

    CoJoeTheLawyer on

    CoJoe.png
  • Options
    KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    WTF, blackranger. That's the worst position on this topic I've ever heard.

    Kaputa on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Detharin wrote: »
    0.0 percent recidivism rate.

    if you want to go that route:

    broken windows.

    Giving the state a right to take human life sends a message that life is NOT an inalienable right, but rather, it is possible for people to lose their right to live. By removing the absoluteness from teh scenario, and showing that whether some one lives or dies is based on one or more people sitting down to weigh considerations, what you are doing is opening up the idea that there is no absolute threshold, which, in turn, cheapens the value of life, and makes it easier for other people to kill.



    You know what else has 0.0 recidivism? properly run maximum security life inprisonment in solitairy confinement.

    Evander on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    the same?

    there is physical evidence in the sniper case. they are seperate cases completely.
    The police from the WM3 had a knife found behind the homes of one of the boys that matched the marks on the victims, a witness who saw them with the knife and leaving the scene, and a confession. Clearly by your statement due process would not have been necessary.

    the confession was beat out of the handicaped kid. You and I both know the cases are different. Just because the sentences are the same does not mean the cases are.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    0.0 percent recidivism rate.
    No. They come back to life a lot.

    the people they kill get up and kill

    Evander on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    What about criminals like the Beltway Sniper?

    He was admittedly guilty of multiple murders. Why should he sit in jail (with us footing the bill) when a bullet or a needle would get rid of him (did he get the death sentence?). You talk about right to life, but what about all the lives he took? What about the people who are currently paying to keep mass murderers alive in jail? Why are people who live by societys rules forced to pay for people who don't? About removing the person entirely: it's done. The beltway sniper will never walk free. Why bother paying for him?

    Are you suggesting that a confession is a perfectly reliable proof of guilt?

    no. but looking at the facts presented in the case, and the fact that they were found in the car that had been at the scene of the crime with the gun ballistics matched to the bullets and the fact that the trunk had been modified so that it could be accuratly shot out of, along with the confession is pretty damning.

    And the fact that he made it obvious makes him more deserving of death than a slightly sneakier serial killer? I don't really see it. In any case, what standard of guilt is it you're going to insist on between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and '100% certain' (strictly impossible)?

    the fact that it was obvious just makes it easier. If there isn't enough (or any credible) evidence then no death penalty should take place obviously. However, when there are bucket loads of evidence (like my example) then there shouldn't be any problems.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    the same?

    there is physical evidence in the sniper case. they are seperate cases completely.
    The police from the WM3 had a knife found behind the homes of one of the boys that matched the marks on the victims, a witness who saw them with the knife and leaving the scene, and a confession. Clearly by your statement due process would not have been necessary.

    the confession was beat out of the handicaped kid. You and I both know the cases are different. Just because the sentences are the same does not mean the cases are.

    You know, the differences in the cases is really besides the point.



    Do you feel that it is okay to remove due process in certain situations, even if it would result in the wrongful sentancing of even just one innocent person?

    And, if not, how many innocent persons before you WOULD oppose it. If you think that the death of an innocent man is worth it, then let me know exactly how much the death of an innocent man is worth.

    Evander on
  • Options
    Clutch414Clutch414 Dodge Swinger.... ...WHENEVER IT FEELS RIGHT!!!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?


    Because due process and habeas corpus are the underpinnings of EVERY SINGLE right outlined in the Constitution. You can't just "do away with it." Once you start doing away with it then we become no better than any other authoritarian regime.

    You can't just damn the Constitution because you want blood, regardless of how much this current adminstration has acted that way.

    Clutch414 on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    the confession was beat out of the handicaped kid. You and I both know the cases are different. Just because the sentences are the same does not mean the cases are.
    It meets all the requirements. Just because we know now that they are innocent does not make it the case then. Many people were certain that they were the killers. Why else would they have confessed? How could they explain the weapon? It certainly couldn't have been through incompetance, malfeasance, and prejudice. You say we know that the Beltway sniper is guilty and we should skip due process for him yet have failed to demonstrate how circumventing one of the very few rights a prisoner has won't ever be abused. Simply stating you know someone did it isn't enough. The reason for the appeals are for people to get the chance to prove their innocence whether they want to or not. Our system of justice isn't in place to satisfy people's wants and desires, it's there to figure out the truth no matter how long it takes.

    Quid on
  • Options
    QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Clutch414 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?


    Because due process and habeas corpus are the underpinnings of EVERY SINGLE right outlined in the Constitution. You can't just "do away with it." Once you start doing away with it then we become no better than any other authoritarian regime.

    You can't just damn the Constitution because you want blood, regardless of how much this current adminstration has acted that way.
    Congratulations, you agree with me. Prehaps you would like to read my earlier posts to see how I feel about the subject.

    Quid on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    I know that the death penalty costs more. I think that in cases like the one I mentioned it shouldn't. There is no question of guilt. Everyone knows who did it and no amount of lawyering will ever change his guilt. Just kill him and be done with it. Save people who don't go around killing people a few dollers during tax time.
    Just like the case I cited! Fuck appeals if you know they did it. There were witnesses, a confession, everything. Why bother with due process?

    the same?

    there is physical evidence in the sniper case. they are seperate cases completely.
    The police from the WM3 had a knife found behind the homes of one of the boys that matched the marks on the victims, a witness who saw them with the knife and leaving the scene, and a confession. Clearly by your statement due process would not have been necessary.

    the confession was beat out of the handicaped kid. You and I both know the cases are different. Just because the sentences are the same does not mean the cases are.

    You know, the differences in the cases is really besides the point.



    Do you feel that it is okay to remove due process in certain situations, even if it would result in the wrongful sentancing of even just one innocent person?

    And, if not, how many innocent persons before you WOULD oppose it. If you think that the death of an innocent man is worth it, then let me know exactly how much the death of an innocent man is worth.

    thats a fair point. I would never sit comfortable if there was any kind of doubt about the innocence or guilt of the person up for death. On the flip side, I don't think it's right in certain cases for murderers caught in the act to sit around for 40 or 50 or however many years soaking up dollers provided by people who obay the law.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    Paul_IQ164Paul_IQ164 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    And the fact that he made it obvious makes him more deserving of death than a slightly sneakier serial killer? I don't really see it. In any case, what standard of guilt is it you're going to insist on between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and '100% certain' (strictly impossible)?

    the fact that it was obvious just makes it easier. If there isn't enough (or any credible) evidence then no death penalty should take place obviously. However, when there are bucket loads of evidence (like my example) then there shouldn't be any problems.

    Alright, so exactly how much evidence constitutes a 'bucketload'? It's no use saying you'd have applied the death sentence under your regime to such-and-such a case that's already happened. You'd need rules to apply it to new cases that come up. What would be your standard of proof that would have to be found in order to apply the death penalty?

    Paul_IQ164 on
    But obviously to make that into a viable anecdote you have to tart it up a bit.
    Tetris: 337214-901184
    Puzzle League: 073119-160185
  • Options
    IShallRiseAgainIShallRiseAgain Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    See, I believe that everyone has these basic human rights. The right to live and all that. However, when someone else takes those rights away, they deserve to have an equal amount of their rights taken away. Murder is one of the two crimes, I also find someone irredeemable from. the second is rape. To me murderers are lower than gum on your shoe. I could care less about what happens to them as long as it involves suffering. Also, I'm not talking about people who do it in defense or anything like that.

    IShallRiseAgain on
    Alador239.png
  • Options
    StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Xaquin wrote: »
    thats a fair point. I would never sit comfortable if there was any kind of doubt about the innocence or guilt of the person up for death. On the flip side, I don't think it's right in certain cases for murderers caught in the act to sit around for 40 or 50 or however many years soaking up dollars provided by people who obey the law.

    As things currently are, it costs more to execute a person than to keep them in prison.

    Starcross on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Quid wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    the confession was beat out of the handicaped kid. You and I both know the cases are different. Just because the sentences are the same does not mean the cases are.
    It meets all the requirements. Just because we know now that they are innocent does not make it the case then. Many people were certain that they were the killers. Why else would they have confessed? How could they explain the weapon? It certainly couldn't have been through incompetance, malfeasance, and prejudice. You say we know that the Beltway sniper is guilty and we should skip due process for him yet have failed to demonstrate how circumventing one of the very few rights a prisoner has won't ever be abused. Simply stating you know someone did it isn't enough. The reason for the appeals are for people to get the chance to prove their innocence whether they want to or not. Our system of justice isn't in place to satisfy people's wants and desires, it's there to figure out the truth no matter how long it takes.

    It doesn't meet the requirements. I'm saying that the cases are different (because they are). I know you can see the differences too. In this instance we know the truth. This isn't a confession beat out of a handicaped kid and a knife near a house. This is the murderers found in the car with the gun that was used to shot the people out of the hole they cut in the trunk.

    not the same.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Starcross wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    thats a fair point. I would never sit comfortable if there was any kind of doubt about the innocence or guilt of the person up for death. On the flip side, I don't think it's right in certain cases for murderers caught in the act to sit around for 40 or 50 or however many years soaking up dollars provided by people who obey the law.

    As things currently are, it costs more to execute a person than to keep them in prison.

    I am aware. I'm saying that in some cases, it shouldn't.

    Xaquin on
  • Options
    Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    And the fact that he made it obvious makes him more deserving of death than a slightly sneakier serial killer? I don't really see it. In any case, what standard of guilt is it you're going to insist on between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and '100% certain' (strictly impossible)?

    the fact that it was obvious just makes it easier. If there isn't enough (or any credible) evidence then no death penalty should take place obviously. However, when there are bucket loads of evidence (like my example) then there shouldn't be any problems.

    Alright, so exactly how much evidence constitutes a 'bucketload'? It's no use saying you'd have applied the death sentence under your regime to such-and-such a case that's already happened. You'd need rules to apply it to new cases that come up. What would be your standard of proof that would have to be found in order to apply the death penalty?

    The problem with the "a large magnitude of evidence" argument is that there is no such thing as "a little bit guilty". The accused is either found GUILTY or found INNOCENT. If there is reasonable doubt, s/he is found innocent. Thus the point is moot.

    Supporting the death penalty is to support the notion that the system is perfect. Unfortunately, that is not true.

    Mithrandir86 on
  • Options
    Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    An eye for an eye doesn't really work as an effective policy.

    Al_wat on
  • Options
    XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    And the fact that he made it obvious makes him more deserving of death than a slightly sneakier serial killer? I don't really see it. In any case, what standard of guilt is it you're going to insist on between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and '100% certain' (strictly impossible)?

    the fact that it was obvious just makes it easier. If there isn't enough (or any credible) evidence then no death penalty should take place obviously. However, when there are bucket loads of evidence (like my example) then there shouldn't be any problems.

    Alright, so exactly how much evidence constitutes a 'bucketload'? It's no use saying you'd have applied the death sentence under your regime to such-and-such a case that's already happened. You'd need rules to apply it to new cases that come up. What would be your standard of proof that would have to be found in order to apply the death penalty?

    Another fair point (and possibly (probably) my undoing). There are few cases where guilt can be ascertained 100%. I just feel that those where guilt is positive 100% (as in my case) that life in prison is just a burdon for taxpayers and a bonus for the guilty.

    Xaquin on
Sign In or Register to comment.