The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
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.
Justice, and respecting the rights of individuals, are infinitely more important than dollars.
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.
Justice, and respecting the rights of individuals, are infinitely more important than dollars.
except (in my opinion) when a multiple murderer or rapist is living off those said dollars.
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.
*shrug*
If you don't want to pay for the room and board of murders then you can move to a country that doesn't value human life.
Honestly, it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to impliment what you are suggesting in anyway that would not endager the lives of the innocent. It is possible, however unlikely, for all of the immediate evidence to point to a false culprit.
I mean, what if there was an equisitely orchastrated framing of a particular innocent man. Under your suggestion, we would be putting that man to death.
Like I said earlier, this fits my sense of justice.
Wonderful. How about a good reason now?
Ok, first of all, let's be civil. This is Debate and Discourse, not SE++. No reason to be sarcastic. I've gone out of my way to make sure people aren't taking me as trying to be a dick to them. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Second of all, this is a reason why I am in favor of having the death penalty legal, and it's all the reason I need. This is not a reason to convince you (the generic "you," not any one person specifically) to believe what I believe. At the end of the day, the only one you need to justify yourself to is you.
There are plenty of good reasons on both sides of this (or indeed, most any) debate. I'm not here to covince anybody, I'm discussing both the reality of the world today, and my ideals for it; in this case, my ideal of justice.
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.
I feel the same, but I can't advocate it as a justice system. The legal system's sole concern should be protecting the innocent, not carrying out retribution.
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.
*shrug*
If you don't want to pay for the room and board of murders then you can move to a country that doesn't value human life.
Honestly, it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to impliment what you are suggesting in anyway that would not endager the lives of the innocent. It is possible, however unlikely, for all of the immediate evidence to point to a false culprit.
I mean, what if there was an equisitely orchastrated framing of a particular innocent man. Under your suggestion, we would be putting that man to death.
If it is later found that someone put two people into that car and they weren't actualy the snipers then I will gladly show up to whatever court they are in and proclaim myself the one who did it.
Xaquin, you seem to be building your arguments on the basis of finding a way to allow for the death penalty first and foremost.
Why is it that you see the deathpenalty as being absolutely necessary? Killing a murder doesn't bring back the lives of his victims, it just adds another victim to the death toll. Killing a rapist doesn't unrape his victims, they still have to deal with what happened to them, and nothing has been accomplished, save for showing that human life is not an inalienable right.
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.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
except (in my opinion) when a multiple murderer or rapist is living the sweet life off those said dollars.
While my opinion is stated above, I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens. Tax dollars shouldn't be going to John Wayne Gacy's art supplies so he can paint pictures of the seven dwarfs or to Charles Manson's computer & internet access so he can surf the web all day. I'm all for bare-ass 11 x 7 concrete cells with one barred window, a single lightbulb overhead and a toilet.
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.
*shrug*
If you don't want to pay for the room and board of murders then you can move to a country that doesn't value human life.
Honestly, it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to impliment what you are suggesting in anyway that would not endager the lives of the innocent. It is possible, however unlikely, for all of the immediate evidence to point to a false culprit.
I mean, what if there was an equisitely orchastrated framing of a particular innocent man. Under your suggestion, we would be putting that man to death.
If it is later found that someone put two people into that car and they weren't actualy the snipers then I will gladly show up to whatever court they are in and proclaim myself the one who did it.
Don't play dumb. Obviously the sniper case is one thing, but if you set up rules, there ARE going to be times when they are used with the wrong intentions.
But, just to play, let's say that the snipers WERE innocent, and were the victims of an elaborate conspiracy (before saying that is impossible, let me remind you that sort of thing is merely improbably there ARE organizations that exist that could carry out this sort of thing, no matter how unlikely it is thatthey would ever do it.). If their due process were removed, and they were killed, then how would you taking responsibility bring them back?
Xaquin, you seem to be building your arguments on the basis of finding a way to allow for the death penalty first and foremost.
Why is it that you see the deathpenalty as being absolutely necessary? Killing a murder doesn't bring back the lives of his victims, it just adds another victim to the death toll. Killing a rapist doesn't unrape his victims, they still have to deal with what happened to them, and nothing has been accomplished, save for showing that human life is not an inalienable right.
(making this brief since I have to go)
It's not so much me arguing for the death penalty (well it is, but not because I like seeing dead people) as me arguing for the people like myself who don't like the idea that murderers and rapists are sitting in overcrowded jails sucking up money and manpower from the people in society that actualy give a damn.
except (in my opinion) when a multiple murderer or rapist is living the sweet life off those said dollars.
While my opinion is stated above, I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens. Tax dollars shouldn't be going to John Wayne Gacy's art supplies so he can paint pictures of the seven dwarfs or to Charles Manson's computer & internet access so he can surf the web all day. I'm all for bare-ass 11 x 7 concrete cells with one barred window, a single lightbulb overhead and a toilet.
I think the REAL issue here isn't that criminals are provided with such nice accomodations, I think it's that the poverty stricken within our society aren't.
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.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
People on death row get a certain amount of appeals in order to make sure they are not innocent and some other reasons.
Killing a rapist doesn't unrape his victims, they still have to deal with what happened to them, and nothing has been accomplished, save for showing that human life is not an inalienable right.
I know a rape victim who was given the option of having somebody "take care of it". She declined on the basis that it wouldn't help her and would put the guy (a friend) who carried it out at risk.
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.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
the appeals process for a death row inmate is a lot more costly than for other prisoners.
and necessarily so, to prevent the killing of innocents (which still happens anyway)
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.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
Basically it involves the number of legal hurdles that have to be jumped. The appeals and proceedings are endless. The state has to pay for all of that. And the accused has nothing to lose except to attempt appeal after appeal. It takes a long, long time to kill someone legally in the United States.
Killing a rapist doesn't unrape his victims, they still have to deal with what happened to them, and nothing has been accomplished, save for showing that human life is not an inalienable right.
I know a rape victim who was given the option of having somebody "take care of it". She declined on the basis that it wouldn't help her and would put the guy (a friend) who carried it out at risk.
Anecdotal, admittedly.
It is good to hear she was so level headed about it.
I assume that there are some rape victims out there, though, who would prefer their attackers be put to death. We would not allow them to carry out the killing themselves, though; that would be illegal. Because they are not allowed to kill for revenge, it makes no sense to say thatthe state should conduct a revenge killing for them. that essentially states EXACTLY that the only difference between the state and the individual, when it comes to killing, is thatthe state is allowed to do it, regardless of reason.
Evander on
0
Clutch414Dodge Swinger.......WHENEVER IT FEELS RIGHT!!!Registered Userregular
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.
My bad...my sarcasm detector is a bit off today. I apologize.
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.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
Basically it involves the number of legal hurdles that have to be jumped. The appeals and proceedings are endless. The state has to pay for all of that. And the accused has nothing to lose except to attempt appeal after appeal. It takes a long, long time to kill someone legally in the United States.
when I was young, I used to think that capital punishment was more expensive because of the electirc bills :P
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?
Ok, now this REALLY sounds like I'm being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to be, but have you ever heard of a Wrongful Death lawsuit?
Lawsuits, at least in California -- and I'm no lawyer, this is just my understanding -- are about giving one side (or letting the other side keep) money "to make them whole." In other words, California law does recognize that lives are worth money, and will force one side to pay in dollars for the life they have taken.
The Prosecuting Attorney's offices (usually District Attorneys) operate under another system, one where monies in the form of fines, probation, jail time, and death sentences are available to the appropriate criminals.
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
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.
See, here is where I think our difference of opinion is. I don't think giving people what they deserve is irrational. I think it is just. If you can explain to me why giving people what they don't deserve is rational, I might get to leaning a bit more your way.
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
You are a goddamn moron.
You're telling me a convicted serial murderer like John Wayne Gacy, who really doesn't pay for his own room & board including his own personal cell away from other inmates, food, medical care including psychological counseling, utilities, premium cable television, compuers with internet access AND recieves an expense siphon for his personal hobbies like painting DOESN'T have a better quality of life than the typical homeless guy living on the street, who recieves none of these???
Hell, I would argue he has better quality of life in prison than most middle and lower-income families.
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?
Ok, now this REALLY sounds like I'm being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to be, but have you ever heard of a Wrongful Death lawsuit?
Lawsuits, at least in California -- and I'm no lawyer, this is just my understanding -- are about giving one side (or letting the other side keep) money "to make them whole." In other words, California law does recognize that lives are worth money, and will force one side to pay in dollars for the life they have taken.
The Prosecuting Attorney's offices (usually District Attorneys) operate under another system, one where monies in the form of fines, probation, jail time, and death sentences are available to the appropriate criminals.
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
I'm glad you asked.
When you take away 30 years of a person's life, they cannot be givenback, but you can still give them SOMETHING. We may not feel that what they are given is fair in terms of what they lost, but it is still some sort of compensation.
When you take the life of a person, you cannot give them anything. You can compensate the next of kin, but that does absolutely nothing for the person you killed.
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
You are a goddamn moron.
You're telling me a convicted serial murderer like John Wayne Gacy, who really doesn't pay for his own room & board including his own personal cell away from other inmates, food, medical care including psychological counseling, utilities, premium cable television, compuers with internet access AND recieves an expense siphon for his personal hobbies like painting DOESN'T have a better quality of life than the typical homeless guy living on the street, who recieves none of these???
Hell, I would argue he has better quality of life in prison than most middle and lower-income families.
when you put it like that, yes.
But if he decides he wants to travel, or to move, or to meet new people, he can't. If he wants to raise a family, or switch careers, or even go for a sunday drive, he can't.
He has a comfortable quality of life, but what he doesn't have is the freedom to do anything with his life.
I once did an essay involving the Death Penalty. I forget who the authors were but I did an argumentative essay about it, where I presented both sides of the argument.
The one supporting capital punishment said things along these lines:
- The death penalty is NOT supposed to be used as a deterrant, that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to simply remove this individual from soceity and prevent them from committing further crimes.
- What ever happen to the death penalty being FINAL? I mean, look at how long somebody sits on death row, eating up the money of the tax payers. I saw that once the ruling is given, it should take only a 9mm and a 5 cent bullet to carry out the sentence. What about pain? Well, assuming you shot them in the upper portion of their skull, where the bullet enters the brain immediately after being fired, there is no pain; death is instant.
- The guilt portion. What about guilt? Well, you shouldn't have any, you did not comdemn them, the state did. The state was the judge, jury, and the executioner. More so, the individual being sentenced has themselves to blame more then anything/anyone else.
The one against capital punishment said the following:
- With all the death penalties carried out, how can we say that all of them deserve it? By this I mean, can we really be 100% sure that the person being executed was the person who committed the crime(s)? "Better to let a hundred murderers go, then execute an innocent man."
- What about the guilt for the people who are the judge and jury, or even the executioner for that matter? If they executed a single innocent person, how miserable would they be.
As far as my stance. Well, I would say I am for it.
Hokutosei on
If nothing is impossible, then would that not mean that it would be impossible to find something that is impossible?
"It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail." -Genghis Khan
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?
Ok, now this REALLY sounds like I'm being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to be, but have you ever heard of a Wrongful Death lawsuit?
Lawsuits, at least in California -- and I'm no lawyer, this is just my understanding -- are about giving one side (or letting the other side keep) money "to make them whole." In other words, California law does recognize that lives are worth money, and will force one side to pay in dollars for the life they have taken.
The Prosecuting Attorney's offices (usually District Attorneys) operate under another system, one where monies in the form of fines, probation, jail time, and death sentences are available to the appropriate criminals.
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
I'm glad you asked.
When you take away 30 years of a person's life, they cannot be givenback, but you can still give them SOMETHING. We may not feel that what they are given is fair in terms of what they lost, but it is still some sort of compensation.
When you take the life of a person, you cannot give them anything. You can compensate the next of kin, but that does absolutely nothing for the person you killed.
So are you then saying that all legal punishments must be reversible, even if not completely reversible?
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
THIRTY FOOT STRAWMAN
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
You completely missed the point of the "10 guilty men..." quote. If you execute someone then there is absolutely no way to compensate them for that.
What ever happen to the death penalty being FINAL? I mean, look at how long somebody sits on death row, eating up the money of the tax payers. I saw that once the ruling is given, it should take only a 9mm and a 5 cent bullet to carry out the sentence. What about pain? Well, assuming you shot them in the upper portion of their skull, where the bullet enters the brain immediately after being fired, there is no pain; death is instant.
Despite the fact that all of that money is currently spent, the death penalty STILL isn't infallibel. Innocent people are STILL put to death.
Are you saying that killing bad people is so important that it is okay if some innocent people get caught in the crossfire? At thatpoint, who exactly are we protecting?
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
I have a problem with fantasy land, too.
Does anybody have proof that anybody other than white collar criminals live a better life than the average person? I hear idiots say it all the time without giving any proof.
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?
Ok, now this REALLY sounds like I'm being sarcastic, and I'm not trying to be, but have you ever heard of a Wrongful Death lawsuit?
Lawsuits, at least in California -- and I'm no lawyer, this is just my understanding -- are about giving one side (or letting the other side keep) money "to make them whole." In other words, California law does recognize that lives are worth money, and will force one side to pay in dollars for the life they have taken.
The Prosecuting Attorney's offices (usually District Attorneys) operate under another system, one where monies in the form of fines, probation, jail time, and death sentences are available to the appropriate criminals.
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
I'm glad you asked.
When you take away 30 years of a person's life, they cannot be givenback, but you can still give them SOMETHING. We may not feel that what they are given is fair in terms of what they lost, but it is still some sort of compensation.
When you take the life of a person, you cannot give them anything. You can compensate the next of kin, but that does absolutely nothing for the person you killed.
So are you then saying that all legal punishments must be reversible, even if not completely reversible?
No
I am saying that we should not inact any legal penalty that gives us absolutely zero recourse for compensating the wrongfully convicted.
The issue is the absolute zero, here. You may not be able to give back everything that was taken, but you can at least give something. With the death penalty, there is absolutely NOTHING. Not even giving back their freedom, thirty years after the fact.
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
You are a goddamn moron.
You're telling me a convicted serial murderer like John Wayne Gacy, who really doesn't pay for his own room & board including his own personal cell away from other inmates, food, medical care including psychological counseling, utilities, premium cable television, compuers with internet access AND recieves an expense siphon for his personal hobbies like painting DOESN'T have a better quality of life than the typical homeless guy living on the street, who recieves none of these???
John Wayne Gacy doesn't pay for that because he is dead. It is kind of hard for a dead man to pay for his room and board.
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
I have a problem with fantasy land, too.
Does anybody have proof that anybody other than white collar criminals live a better life than the average person? I hear idiots say it all the time without giving any proof.
I've been under the impression that a lot of people feel that inmates should be served only bread and water, and even then, not every day, and be routinely kicked by the guards, without reason, and when they find out that inmates have a minimum standard of living they are shocked.
I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens.
I have a problem with fantasy land, too.
Does anybody have proof that anybody other than white collar criminals live a better life than the average person? I hear idiots say it all the time without giving any proof.
It's a good life if you like cold showers, lumpy mattresses, dry bologna on Wonder Bread sandwiches, one starchy pair of underwear a week, antibiotics-resistant staph infections, and anal rape.
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.
Posts
Justice, and respecting the rights of individuals, are infinitely more important than dollars.
except (in my opinion) when a multiple murderer or rapist is living off those said dollars.
*shrug*
If you don't want to pay for the room and board of murders then you can move to a country that doesn't value human life.
Honestly, it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to impliment what you are suggesting in anyway that would not endager the lives of the innocent. It is possible, however unlikely, for all of the immediate evidence to point to a false culprit.
I mean, what if there was an equisitely orchastrated framing of a particular innocent man. Under your suggestion, we would be putting that man to death.
Ok, first of all, let's be civil. This is Debate and Discourse, not SE++. No reason to be sarcastic. I've gone out of my way to make sure people aren't taking me as trying to be a dick to them. I'd appreciate the same courtesy.
Second of all, this is a reason why I am in favor of having the death penalty legal, and it's all the reason I need. This is not a reason to convince you (the generic "you," not any one person specifically) to believe what I believe. At the end of the day, the only one you need to justify yourself to is you.
There are plenty of good reasons on both sides of this (or indeed, most any) debate. I'm not here to covince anybody, I'm discussing both the reality of the world today, and my ideals for it; in this case, my ideal of justice.
Someone PM'd me and told me that they had changed their mind about capital punishment after reading that. I wish to god that was a reliable outcome.
I feel the same, but I can't advocate it as a justice system. The legal system's sole concern should be protecting the innocent, not carrying out retribution.
If it is later found that someone put two people into that car and they weren't actualy the snipers then I will gladly show up to whatever court they are in and proclaim myself the one who did it.
Why is it that you see the deathpenalty as being absolutely necessary? Killing a murder doesn't bring back the lives of his victims, it just adds another victim to the death toll. Killing a rapist doesn't unrape his victims, they still have to deal with what happened to them, and nothing has been accomplished, save for showing that human life is not an inalienable right.
Why is that? People keep saying that in this thread but I had honestly not heard this before so I'm curious.
While my opinion is stated above, I would like to say that I do have a serious problem with how some inmates live a better life than most free citizens. Tax dollars shouldn't be going to John Wayne Gacy's art supplies so he can paint pictures of the seven dwarfs or to Charles Manson's computer & internet access so he can surf the web all day. I'm all for bare-ass 11 x 7 concrete cells with one barred window, a single lightbulb overhead and a toilet.
Don't play dumb. Obviously the sniper case is one thing, but if you set up rules, there ARE going to be times when they are used with the wrong intentions.
But, just to play, let's say that the snipers WERE innocent, and were the victims of an elaborate conspiracy (before saying that is impossible, let me remind you that sort of thing is merely improbably there ARE organizations that exist that could carry out this sort of thing, no matter how unlikely it is thatthey would ever do it.). If their due process were removed, and they were killed, then how would you taking responsibility bring them back?
(making this brief since I have to go)
It's not so much me arguing for the death penalty (well it is, but not because I like seeing dead people) as me arguing for the people like myself who don't like the idea that murderers and rapists are sitting in overcrowded jails sucking up money and manpower from the people in society that actualy give a damn.
I think the REAL issue here isn't that criminals are provided with such nice accomodations, I think it's that the poverty stricken within our society aren't.
People on death row get a certain amount of appeals in order to make sure they are not innocent and some other reasons.
I know a rape victim who was given the option of having somebody "take care of it". She declined on the basis that it wouldn't help her and would put the guy (a friend) who carried it out at risk.
Anecdotal, admittedly.
the appeals process for a death row inmate is a lot more costly than for other prisoners.
and necessarily so, to prevent the killing of innocents (which still happens anyway)
Basically it involves the number of legal hurdles that have to be jumped. The appeals and proceedings are endless. The state has to pay for all of that. And the accused has nothing to lose except to attempt appeal after appeal. It takes a long, long time to kill someone legally in the United States.
It is good to hear she was so level headed about it.
I assume that there are some rape victims out there, though, who would prefer their attackers be put to death. We would not allow them to carry out the killing themselves, though; that would be illegal. Because they are not allowed to kill for revenge, it makes no sense to say thatthe state should conduct a revenge killing for them. that essentially states EXACTLY that the only difference between the state and the individual, when it comes to killing, is thatthe state is allowed to do it, regardless of reason.
My bad...my sarcasm detector is a bit off today. I apologize.
when I was young, I used to think that capital punishment was more expensive because of the electirc bills :P
Pros:
Provides ultimate deterrence. (debatable)
Satisfaction of the victims.
Cons:
Irreversible; chance of false positives.
Costlier than life imprisonment.
Violation of an individual's right to life.
Lawsuits, at least in California -- and I'm no lawyer, this is just my understanding -- are about giving one side (or letting the other side keep) money "to make them whole." In other words, California law does recognize that lives are worth money, and will force one side to pay in dollars for the life they have taken.
The Prosecuting Attorney's offices (usually District Attorneys) operate under another system, one where monies in the form of fines, probation, jail time, and death sentences are available to the appropriate criminals.
Ok, now this is an argument I'm not really a fan of, but it seems pertinent. If you are worried about a sentence being handed to a innocent person, then how can you justify imprisoning anyone? A life taken, or a life ruined after 30 years of hard time. Either way, the life that person has is over. So by your logic, we should not imprison anybody on the chance that the jury got it wrong.
Punishments must be handed down with the absolute belief that the guilty are being punished. Here's a phrase I heard after the OJ trial: "It's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished." Now, this is not to say that mistakes don't or can't happen. But the justice system cannot proceed with the thought of "What if we're wrong?" holding it back. That's why I said earlier that if you want to raise the standard for when the death penalty can be applied, I'd be with you, but that I'd continue to favor having it available when appropriate.
You're telling me a convicted serial murderer like John Wayne Gacy, who really doesn't pay for his own room & board including his own personal cell away from other inmates, food, medical care including psychological counseling, utilities, premium cable television, compuers with internet access AND recieves an expense siphon for his personal hobbies like painting DOESN'T have a better quality of life than the typical homeless guy living on the street, who recieves none of these???
Hell, I would argue he has better quality of life in prison than most middle and lower-income families.
I'm glad you asked.
When you take away 30 years of a person's life, they cannot be givenback, but you can still give them SOMETHING. We may not feel that what they are given is fair in terms of what they lost, but it is still some sort of compensation.
When you take the life of a person, you cannot give them anything. You can compensate the next of kin, but that does absolutely nothing for the person you killed.
when you put it like that, yes.
But if he decides he wants to travel, or to move, or to meet new people, he can't. If he wants to raise a family, or switch careers, or even go for a sunday drive, he can't.
He has a comfortable quality of life, but what he doesn't have is the freedom to do anything with his life.
The one supporting capital punishment said things along these lines:
- The death penalty is NOT supposed to be used as a deterrant, that is not its purpose. Its purpose is to simply remove this individual from soceity and prevent them from committing further crimes.
- What ever happen to the death penalty being FINAL? I mean, look at how long somebody sits on death row, eating up the money of the tax payers. I saw that once the ruling is given, it should take only a 9mm and a 5 cent bullet to carry out the sentence. What about pain? Well, assuming you shot them in the upper portion of their skull, where the bullet enters the brain immediately after being fired, there is no pain; death is instant.
- The guilt portion. What about guilt? Well, you shouldn't have any, you did not comdemn them, the state did. The state was the judge, jury, and the executioner. More so, the individual being sentenced has themselves to blame more then anything/anyone else.
The one against capital punishment said the following:
- With all the death penalties carried out, how can we say that all of them deserve it? By this I mean, can we really be 100% sure that the person being executed was the person who committed the crime(s)? "Better to let a hundred murderers go, then execute an innocent man."
- What about the guilt for the people who are the judge and jury, or even the executioner for that matter? If they executed a single innocent person, how miserable would they be.
As far as my stance. Well, I would say I am for it.
"It is not enough that I succeed, all other must fail." -Genghis Khan
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I have a problem with fantasy land, too.
So are you then saying that all legal punishments must be reversible, even if not completely reversible?
THIRTY FOOT STRAWMAN
You completely missed the point of the "10 guilty men..." quote. If you execute someone then there is absolutely no way to compensate them for that.
Despite the fact that all of that money is currently spent, the death penalty STILL isn't infallibel. Innocent people are STILL put to death.
Are you saying that killing bad people is so important that it is okay if some innocent people get caught in the crossfire? At thatpoint, who exactly are we protecting?
Does anybody have proof that anybody other than white collar criminals live a better life than the average person? I hear idiots say it all the time without giving any proof.
No
I am saying that we should not inact any legal penalty that gives us absolutely zero recourse for compensating the wrongfully convicted.
The issue is the absolute zero, here. You may not be able to give back everything that was taken, but you can at least give something. With the death penalty, there is absolutely NOTHING. Not even giving back their freedom, thirty years after the fact.
Unless you have developed an infallible justice system, yes.
John Wayne Gacy doesn't pay for that because he is dead. It is kind of hard for a dead man to pay for his room and board.
I've been under the impression that a lot of people feel that inmates should be served only bread and water, and even then, not every day, and be routinely kicked by the guards, without reason, and when they find out that inmates have a minimum standard of living they are shocked.
It's a good life if you like cold showers, lumpy mattresses, dry bologna on Wonder Bread sandwiches, one starchy pair of underwear a week, antibiotics-resistant staph infections, and anal rape.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.