|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6012 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Theocracy alive and well in Utah (and considerations of the death penalty) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
But we can never be sure. That's the problem. Even your waiting period assumes that the appeals process is sufficient to remove doubt about sentencing. It's not. At least in a life sentence you get to stick around to argue your case some more. You've still got a chance. Execution robs even that chance. Ok, I will agree that perhaps a longer waiting period is necessary, that is on high profile cases where a jury is involved. But will you agree that proven killers should be executed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
No there may be extenuating circumstances....
Hypothetical situation a Pervert Mr A abuses and kills the daughter of Mr B, he is tried and acquited on a technicality (it could happen), there is no doubt in Mr B's mind that Mr A did it and the legal system having failed him he takes matters into his own hands and kills Mr A..... Mr B is taken to court and convicted of murdering Mr A.... Death penalty for Mr A or does he live? Heck some folks would give him a medal.... [This message has been edited by joz, 09-10-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ok, I will agree that perhaps a longer waiting period is necessary, that is on high profile cases where a jury is involved. Why not just wait until they die naturally? (and why do you think low-profile accused murderers are somehow less deserving of protections? That's where the most innocents get sent to the chair, the low-profile murders.)
But will you agree that proven killers should be executed? I don't believe that a "proven killer" could exist. There's just no way to prove. After all, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is still short of "no doubt whatsoever."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: You made this opinion clear, yes. It's simply not something I agree with, so I'm asking for the reasoning behind it. I mean... I think we can all acknowledge that it's not a statement like "the sky is blue" where we can all just look up and nod in agreement. You say that the reason a burglar doesn't lose his right to property is because property is quantifiable, but by this reasoning, shouldn't that just mean that he loses the right to the amount of property he stole? I mean... if it's a quantifiable scenario, it should be easy to nail down an exact punishment. But life, which you define as unquantifiable, can't just be taken away and returned willy-nilly.
quote: True, but amendments can be changed. And if we really need for the punishment to fit the crime that badly...
quote: In which case, why not simply punish the person as is needed to remove the threat from society? (i.e., life in prison.) Anything further certainly sounds to me like revenge at best. (And cruelty at worst.) One more thought... just wanted to weigh in on the dicussion you're having with Crashfrog. You say that we can eliminate the risk of innocent death sentences with waiting periods and appeals. So I thought I'd just toss out a story about where I live. A couple years back, the Governor of Illinois (at the time George Ryan) put a moritorium on the death penalty. The reason was that some law students (I believe at Northwestern, but might be mistaken) had done a school project involving DNA tests on death row inmates. Everyone tested had gone through all their appeals, a waiting period of at least a decade, and were due for execution that year. They discovered that 13 innocent men were up on the chopping block. The majority of the 13 men had been convicted, essentially, of being black in the wrong place at the wrong time. No matter how efficient we get the system, we still can't get it perfect. Innocent people will be convicted. If not due to the flaws in the system, then due to the prejudices of the jury. Life in prison is reversable. If we send someone to jail, and later find out they're innocent, we can let them out. It's still a crappy situation, but at least we can do right by the person. You can't reverse death. If you find out a person has been executed but is innocent, all you can do is shuffle your feet, look down, and say "yeah, our bad."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
But will you agree that proven killers should be executed? Even if we could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone was guilty, I would still oppose the death penalty. Puting someone to death only compounds the loss of human life. [This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Added "(and considerations of the death penalty)".
Adminnemooseus ------------------Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to Change in Moderation? or too fast closure of threads |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
No there may be extenuating circumstances.... Hypothetical situation a Pervert Mr A abuses and kills the daughter of Mr B, he is tried and acquited on a technicality (it could happen), there is no doubt in Mr B's mind that Mr A did it and the legal system having failed him he takes matters into his own hands and kills Mr A..... Mr B is taken to court and convicted of murdering Mr A.... Death penalty for Mr A or does he live? Heck some folks would give him a medal.... A hypothetical situation. Just because Mr. B believes Mr. A did it does not make it fact. Under the law Pervert Mr. A has not committed a crime and therefore the murder of him by Mr. B should be punished with the death penalty. A lot of people think and believe things, but that doesn't make them facts. Take creationism for example. : )I see what you're saying about the technicality though. It is unfortunate and perhaps amendments can be made to the system? It's not set in stone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
quote: because that would be, in my opinion, inadequate. i misspoke. my apologies. "In cases where guilt is not sure which involve a jury."
quote: If you believe that then why even sentence them with jail time? I'm pretty sure that when you are found holding the gun, with gunpowder residue on your shirt, a proper blood splatter trajectory, it's pretty much proven. There are plenty of other way's to prove crime that I won't go into.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
You made this opinion clear, yes. It's simply not something I agree with, so I'm asking for the reasoning behind it. I mean... I think we can all acknowledge that it's not a statement like "the sky is blue" where we can all just look up and nod in agreement. of course, i don't think it can either. The whole point is that the murderer has taken away someone's life and therefore is not deserving of his own. Its an opinion. I don't know what else to say, but I'll try to explain further as I attempt to clarify my position on theft.
You say that the reason a burglar doesn't lose his right to property is because property is quantifiable, but by this reasoning, shouldn't that just mean that he loses the right to the amount of property he stole? How can you take away a right in incremants? Are you saying he would be doomed to the barter system all his life if he stole money from an atm machine?
I mean... if it's a quantifiable scenario, it should be easy to nail down an exact punishment. But life, which you define as unquantifiable, can't just be taken away and returned willy-nilly. Would you define life as quantifiable? I wouldn't. And as property is something that can be returned, unlike life, the burglar may pay his sentence in fines or if he is unable - jail time. The victim's life can't be returned willy nilly either.
In which case, why not simply punish the person as is needed to remove the threat from society? (i.e., life in prison.) Anything further certainly sounds to me like revenge at best. (And cruelty at worst.) The issue is not need, it is justice. But, like I said before, I suppose it comes down to opinion. You think that life in prison is an adequate punishment, I do not.
One more thought... just wanted to weigh in on the dicussion you're having with Crashfrog. You say that we can eliminate the risk of innocent death sentences with waiting periods and appeals. So I thought I'd just toss out a story about where I live. I did not say that we can eliminate the risk. I believe it can be reduced. This is especially true now a days which you have shown. With the development of new DNA testing, the risk is being decreased even more.
Life in prison is reversable. If we send someone to jail, and later find out they're innocent, we can let them out. It's still a crappy situation, but at least we can do right by the person. I see what your saying. But still those people will never have those years back. So its still a tragedy that must be stemmed at the trial level. [This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-11-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
xwhydoyoureyesx responds to me:
quote: And on the other side, there are people that cannot reconcile punishment of killing with more killing.
quote: Indeed, so what does killing the killer accomplish?
quote: Much more money than sentencing someone to life.
quote: But the arguments against the death penalty given here so far have been based upon the practical functioning of it: The system isn't perfect, innocent people will be killed, thus even if we agree that killers deserve to be killed, it cannot be carried out in a way that only hits those who deserve it. Another post in this thread pointed out to the Illinois investigation that found 13 of the people on death row were innocent. What it didn't mention was that there were only 25 people on death row at the time. Half of the people on death row did not do the crime they were charged with. If we're going to argue questions of morality, I guess it comes down to which one is the more important, letting the punishment fit the crime or it being better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person suffer? more[/i] to execute somebody than it does to sentence him to life imprisonment ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM! [This message has been edited by Rrhain, 09-12-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"In cases where guilt is not sure which involve a jury." But that's every single case.
If you believe that then why even sentence them with jail time? Because jail time isn't permanent. You can let them out of jail if you find out you did something wrong, and in the meantime, you've kept a potentially dangerous person off the streets. If it turns out they weren't dangerous at all, then you let them out and find the right person. But you can't undo lethal injection. Remember, if you send an innocent man to the chair, you're doing two bad things. Killing an innocent person and leaving a dangerous one to walk the streets. After all nobody goes back to look at cases after they've executed somebody for the crime. The appeals process, at least, keeps those cases under some kind of scrutiny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
*Rrhain*
And on the other side, there are people that cannot reconcile punishment of killing with more killing. yep. like I said, still just opinion. you keep saying this.
But the arguments against the death penalty given here so far have been based upon the practical functioning of it: The system isn't perfect, innocent people will be killed, thus even if we agree that killers deserve to be killed, it cannot be carried out in a way that only hits those who deserve it. Another post in this thread pointed out to the Illinois investigation that found 13 of the people on death row were innocent. What it didn't mention was that there were only 25 people on death row at the time. Half of the people on death row did not do the crime they were charged with. If we're going to argue questions of morality, I guess it comes down to which one is the more important, letting the punishment fit the crime or it being better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let one innocent person suffer? [Edited to correct the money issue...it costs more to execute somebody than it does to sentence him to life imprisonment] Well, based on Dan Carrol's and Crashfrog's arguments which I can no longer disagree with, I will make an amendment to my philosophy. The death penalty should only be used when guilt is absolutely assured. Crashfrog says that we can never be sure. I disagree with this point. Life sentences may be given in cases with a jury. But if during their sentence guilt is ever proven, then they should be executed. As to Rrhain's comment. I did not know that. Why exactly does it cost more to kill someone than to house them for the rest of their lives?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Life sentences may be given in cases with a jury. Nobody gives the death sentence without a jury. Judges can't give the death penalty. Only juries.
But if during their sentence guilt is ever proven, then they should be executed. But if it were possible to "prove" that somebody killed someone, wouldn't they have already done that at the trial? If you've already convicted him, how can you get more sure? The point is, of course, that you can never be sure enough to kill someone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Crash, you are sitting at the table playing cards with a friend. Someone walks in the door, pulls a gun, and puts a hole through your friend's head. How sure are you? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xwhydoyoureyesx Inactive Member |
Well, after considering your points, I have changed my opinion. I still believe that the murderer deserves the death penalty, however unless there is a way to have a jury arrive at a "no doubt" verdict, the life sentence must be the ultimate punishment in order to prevent the execution of innocent men. Perhaps, in the future there will be a way to do this, but as of yet I do not see how it is possible.
[This message has been edited by xwhydoyoureyesx, 09-12-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024