|
|
|
|
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 12:14:37 PM | Should he have been spared execution due to not being mentally fit?
No. Plain and simple crazy people that do those kind of acts absolutely shouldn't be spared.
The hanging of 45-year old Tsutomu Miyazaki brings to 13 the number of death-row inmates who have faced the gallows since last August: a pace that has provoked rising criticism of Japan’s new justice minister, Kunio Hatoyama.
I'm guessing those "critics" are anti-death penalty advocates. They wouldn't be happy if Adolf Hitler was exacuted, and he was the only one in the country. To them they are close minded to any possiblity that any crime or crimes reach that level.
I for one disagree. I do believe that society has a responcibility to show the world how high they hold human life. And to show that if you take it maliciously you should and will have yours taken away. Now there are cases where its accidental or truely unintentional, those should be looked at differently. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 2:00:01 PM |
You don't work in the criminal justice field do you? I rarely hear the "smoking gun" referred to at work. See it alot on TV, never see it in a police report. And is it "quite clear" to your standards of guilt, or using judicial standards and rules of evidence, or what you read in the newspaper?
"Smoking gun" is a reference that is used which means the evidence is so clear that the person is going to be put away with zero doubt. The "nail in the coffin" so to speak. I never implied that police write that on their reports, although I'm sure some do.
And is it "quite clear" to your standards of guilt, or using judicial standards and rules of evidence, or what you read in the newspaper?
My standards of guilt? No, I determine from seeing a case that not only has a solid basis of proof of guilt as well as solid DNA evidence that the person is guilty. The judicial system obviously does it's job enough to gather the crystal clear evidence to put these sickos away for life. The problem (as been stated already) is that the penalty for these crimes needs to toughen up a lot more and then yes I feel it would make them think before they do these type of crimes a lot more. It does not take rocket science for me or anyone to see a case like the BTK killer or someone like Charles Manson and determine that those sick freaks should be put to death.
Do you have any doubt in your mind that BTK or Manson did the crimes?
Do you feel they should be put to death, or sit in prison for life after they did the unspeakable crimes that they did?
No I will never understand how there will be people who will look at even some sicko like Dennis Rader "BTK" and hold up there little candle and morn their death even if they were put to death which he won't be because he has life behind bars. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 2:41:41 PM | | The death penalty should be applied to murderers, rapists and child molesters. It may not deter others from committing a crime but it would ensure that person does not kill, rape or molest again. With a life sentence, there is always a possibility of them escaping or killing while in prison. Look at Ted Bundy - he escaped and killed again while on the run. He definitely won't kill any more now that he's been put to death. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 3:02:59 PM | Death penalty would only apply to people that commit murder or rape against childern groming childern to bomb people under the age of 14, and thier dna evidence required to back up the results. People accused of those crimes would have to be taped on video during police intergorations for capital murder cases where a sentence could be appield. The jury only can recommend the death sentence in a conviction, but the option of life imprisoment will be given as a option if the jury opposes the death sentence.
People convicted of crime regarding a death sentence would have thier case appeal to the courts. Judges in appeals courts can overturn death sentences only if person is considered mentally imparied intellecutally, nor mentally insane. The state would have to go before a judge with evidence before the death sentence would be considered before conviction. Death sentences should be carried by firing squad or lethal injection.
Death Penalty should be limited in its use as means to send a message that society cannot tolerate feeeding and housing these scums of the earth. The deterrance effect is limited in crime, but the local jury should be allowed to choose the option if the judge thinks before the trail the crime would merit its use. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 3:29:43 PM | | well said....i agree with every thing you have expressed....bring back capital punishment! if someone wants to still go on a killing spree knowing if they are caught and found guilty they will be executed for the crime....then they are aware of the consequences so be it.....and to the human rights and the do gooders, i ask you this...if it was your child, mother, sister, brother etc that was tortured raped and murdered would you not want justice for them? and would you have any idea at all and feel the pain and fear they must of gone through before their right to a life was violently taken from them by some evil **stard that has no regard for human life, iv read many a brutal story and maybe watched too many real life murder cases, but when i have, i have cried for the victims and their families........i want for us all to live in a safe world and as far as i can see murder is on the increase, some cities in the world are seeing 50 murders per week! and more.......yep bring back capital punishment and if they have any doubt that someone has committed a murder then dont execute untill they have more evidence, but if someone has been caught red handed and it was pre meditated then hang the **stards.... | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 3:48:39 PM | I do understand some people's concerns with capital punishment. I support the death penalty wholeheartedly, but also with the knowledge in knowing that our judicial system is not "fool proof". There are numerous people within history who have died at the hands of justice but only to find out after their deaths, they were innocent.
Our system needs to be revamped. Where I support capital punishment, I also support the "guilty" paying for the crime, not the "innocent".
In stating this, to those who do not support capital punishment, I must say.....I respect your stance, but most people statistically speaking who do not support capital punishment support abortion. We are to believe that you do not supporting murdering an adult but yet you support murdering a fetus/baby. This is not a convincing stance. I will state that I support not only the death penalty, but I support abortion, which is a believable stance, at least in my eyes.
No I will never understand how there will be people who will look at even some sicko like Dennis Rader "BTK" and hold up there little candle and morn their death even if they were put to death which he won't be because he has life behind bars.
The reason people will hold up candles and break out their tambourines in instances such as this is largely due to the fact that they have not fallen victims to sicko's such as this or had family members who have fallen victims. These tambourine playing hippies have no clue of the horror family members face upon knowing the horrible way their family members died at the hands of these animals, if most did, they would more than likely change their tunes. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/21/2008 5:13:29 PM | The Judicial System on Capital Punishment only benefits the Judges and the Lawyers. That's why they have come up with First Degree, Second Degree, Third Degree, Premeditated, Involuntaialrly/Voluntarly Man Slaughter and probally so on and so on. To me personally you either meant to Kill or did not mean to Kill someone. A serial killer who continuously kills and kills until getting caught Why should he/she Not be Mentally fit to stand trial?  A No Brainer to me but then again I'm no Judge or Lawyer | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:59:18 AM |
A serial killer who continuously kills and kills until getting caught Why should he/she Not be Mentally fit to stand trial?
Perhaps because there is solid medical evidence that at the time of trial, the accused person was affected by a disease of the mind which rendered him/her incapable of understanding the charges against them, comprehending advice given and incapable of instructing their lawyer.
Accused people have the right to defend themselves, and if they cannot do the three things listed above, they can not mount any kind of defence. This is the reason why children under a certain age cannot be charged with a crime.
Holding any kind of legal proceedings when an accused person is mentally unfit to stand trial is basically saying that their rights don't exist or don't apply, and that they shouldn't have any say in how their defence is presented. This principle is one of the most important bases of our criminal law, and changing it in the way you imply would amount to ripping up the constitution. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/22/2008 10:21:09 AM | This principle is one of the most important bases of our criminal law, and changing it in the way you imply would amount to ripping up the constitution? THEN I SAY GO AHEAD AND START RIPPING UP THE CONSTITUTION    | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/22/2008 11:36:28 AM | I see the success of Canada's abolition of the death penalty as a rather good example of how things can improve with it. Our homicide rate hasn't gone up appreciably since we banned the death penalty here. Our society, like yours, faces many of the same challenges, watches the same violent movies, plays the same violent video games....
We abolished the death penalty here on July 14, 1976. The last men we hung died on December 11, 1962. The total number of Canadians, over our entire history as a country, who were executed : 710. (697 men/13 women)
Since 1961, there have been two distinct trends. Between 1961 and 1975, the homicide rate increased steadily from 1.25 per 100,000 population to a peak of 3.02, an increase of 142%. From 1975 to 1997, despite yearly fluctuations, the homicide rate has gradually declined from 3.02 per 100,000 to 1.92, a decrease of 36%.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/kits/justic/2-4.pdf
Since then, our homicide rate has fallen again.
Homicide rate drops
Police reported 605 homicides in 2006, 58 fewer than in 2005. This resulted in a rate of 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, 10% lower than in 2005.
So we've gone from a homicide rate of 1.25 per capita in 1961, and are now at around 1.85. Considering how much our population's grown, and how much it's changed from those simpler times - that's pretty remarkable.
And we did all that without a death penalty.  | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/22/2008 11:43:22 AM | Well that is just fine and dandy for Canada and more power to them, however, here within the United States we have what is commonly called "The CRIMINAL justice system" which means the criminal has more rights as compared to the victims.
I do not support innocent people being executed but on the other hand, I am not for the guilty not having to pay for their crimes. In the case such as the OP has presented to us, there was evidence he was a sick homicidal pedophile killer. I agree with what the government did and this is kill him, for it was obvious he was not going to stop. He deserved his penalty and thank god he got it. This will not bring back the lives of the innocent children he murdered and raped and killed, but this did however give the victims family some justice.
This principle is one of the most important bases of our criminal law, and changing it in the way you imply would amount to ripping up the constitution?
The liberals within our government have been ripping up and misinterpreting the constitution for years, what's the difference? | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:00:46 PM | Subject:
<div class="quote">The liberals within our government have been ripping up and misinterpreting the constitution for years, what's the difference?
How so? ~ I hold the Constitution in great reverance. ~
Our criminal element comes in many colors ~ but perdominant by the darker shades which the Americans have ample supply ~ past history and climate and all given considerations that our northern neighbor fails to enjoy.
I personally believe ~ there is a few People wasting air that something else could be breathing ~ and as barbaric as it sounds ~ there is things much worse then death.
Sever punishment is the keep them live ` until their soul leaves their body ~ and you are left tending to a shell ~ of once a person.
So is it punishment we wish to have or correction and safe-guard of the public peace.
Dance | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:22:40 AM | How so? ~ I hold the Constitution in great reverance. ~
I understand and respect that, however, a great example is how the Supreme Court has allowed KNOWN terrorists who orchestrated 9/11 to appeal their cases in a civilian court, this is utter crap and should not have occurred. These terrorists should have been forced onto a remote control airplane while being driven into an abandoned building somewhere meeting their deaths, instead, due to our constitution being misintrepreted, meaning....terrrorists are given the same rights now with this stupid ignorant political move as the very citizens which they murdered. This is not sane, it's unfathomable. Now these terrorists who murdered our citizens will be able to live and abuse our legal system...this is NOT fair. This is only ONE example that comes to mind.
Sever punishment is the keep them live ` until their soul leaves their body ~ and you are left tending to a shell ~ of once a person.
This would be fine and dandy...let the liberals fund their stay in prison for life. I personally have better things to do with my hard earned tax dollars as compared to funding their meals as well as their lives, I do not care about their lives, I want them dead! Harsh? Sure it is, but people forget what these animals have performed, their victims were not afforded a life stay, why should they be afforded such a luxury? | |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 5:47:24 AM | How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers.
JESSE VENTURA | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:06:18 PM | Beware when you battle monsters,
lest you become a monster.
And as you gaze into the abyss,
the abyss gazes also,
into you.
Frederic Nietzsche.
While I suppose these words are suppose to wax eloquently I must point out something. A person who believes in the death penalty AKA justice is not about to turn into a monster themselves. Which brings me to another point and food for thought. To anyone who is against the death penalty. If one of these serial killers suddenly broke out of prison and suddenly broke into your house, and is coming at you with a knife ready to stab you to death.
Would you..
A. Get the nearest gun or weapon and make every effort to kill him first. This will insure that you were not stabbed to death yourself and that the rest of your family was safe.
Or..
B. Hope that he suddenly changed his mind, turned around and walked out your door having a change of heart. After all, according to people oppose to the death penility, killing another person should be wrong period right?
The point, if that same man that broke into your house had stayed behind bars all along to begin with, many would say that it's wrong to kill and that person should not be put to death even though they tortured and killed someone else’s family member. If suddenly that same person busted through your front door and was about to kill you or your family member, would you not then kill them in order to save your own life or the life or your child? My guess is you would, that also means you killed them. Wither they escape their crime at the time or they are killed on site as they are about to commit their crime, it's one in the same. They deserve to die wither already in prison for a crime of murdering someone elses family member, or having broke in your home ready to kill you. Maybe the only difference was, the victims that they happen to kill, didn't have that same chance that I proposed in this scenario which allowed YOU to have the chance to shoot first before your life was ended. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:23:57 PM |
Wither they escape their crime at the time or they are killed on site as they are about to commit their crime, it's one in the same.
Ummm....no ?
One is an instinctive reaction, legally allowed, to self-defense against direct attack. As long as one matches the threat faced with a corresponding level of violence - you are in the clear.
There's no grey area there, the person is trying to kill you or your family.
In a courtroom, one doesn't have anywhere near the same certainty - nor urgency. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 12:57:53 PM |
In a courtroom, one doesn't have anywhere near the same certainty - nor urgency.
Ok, so you would admit it's ok to kill as long as the intent of the person trying to kill you was clear. It's self defense, direct attack as you stated, I agree.
Now my point was.. If that person happen to be BTK killer who has escaped from prison and he showed up at your house and you then killed him in self defense, its ok to kill him true? So why is it that he sits behind bars for life and is not put to death even though at the time of his murders, he happen to catch his victims off guard and they could not kill him first in defense of themselves? See my point now? There are people who will say the death penalty is wrong no matter what, yet I guarantee that if they were confronted, they would defend themselves and kill if they had too. I say, the judicial system needs to take more action and enforce the death penalty more in order to speak for those who did not have the chance to defend themselves. That was what I was trying to point out. Just because a victim did not have the chance to shoot first in self defence and the killer gets away at first, should not give them the right to avoid death for the unspeakable crime that they commited. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:23:57 PM |
Just because a victim did not have the chance to shoot first in self defence and the killer gets away at first, should not give them the right to avoid death for the unspeakable crime that they commited.
Solution: Time Machine.
But seriously sometimes reading what your about to post is a good idea. Otherwise, people may think your quite absurd. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 3:43:23 PM | Since that is too eloquent for you, roses, try this one.
What you resist, you become.
And stop with the strawman arguments. Most cases aren't nearly as clear cut as the one you cited. And comparing a heat of the moment act of self defense with a court of law is a poor comparison. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 4:31:39 PM | Since that is too eloquent for you, roses, try this one.
What you resist, you become.
And stop with the strawman arguments. Most cases aren't nearly as clear cut as the one you cited. And comparing a heat of the moment act of self defense with a court of law is a poor comparison.
There was nothing "strawman" about my argument. The reason I used a very clear cut example of criminal guilt involving someone like BTK was to make a point. Point is, why is someone like that still alive?
I think most anyone would agree that he is guility, so why is he still alive? People still defend someone like him and don't want them put to death even though they tortured others and had zero remorse for their victims lives. That is pretty messed up thinking if you ask me. Yes it's a clear example of guilt with a sicko like BTK, so I ask you. Knowing that clearly what he did in his crimes and that he is guiltly, would you still see it as wrong to put him to death?
I don't feel it's fair to these victims familys to have to go to bed at night and realize that the sick freak that tortured their loved one is sitting alive and well behind bars eating three meals a day. The families deserve some sort of justice and closure. After all, the victims life is over, so why should the killer deserve more? | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 5:49:26 PM |
People still defend someone like him and don't want them put to death even though they tortured others and had zero remorse for their victims lives.
What you're advocating is revenge, not justice. As I've said before in this very thread, justice should never be based on emotion. Yes, if we were related to the victim we would all entertain thoughts of personal revenge - that's normal. Justice, however, should react with logic and reason, not some emotional appeal for vengeance. The criminal courts are not the victim's family, and they shouldn't act like it.
Simply put, barring an immediate, pressing, urgent need for self-defence, nobody (including governments) should be killing anybody else. You might want to respond to that by saying that there is an urgent need to execute people based on past behaviour, or some speculative guess that the person might escape, but that would be twisting my words, wouldn't it?
We're a society that considers the concepts of freedom and liberty as what separates us from bad governments. Courts should (and do, in many places) keep that in mind during sentencing. With that said, we should be sentencing people to the least severe sentence available, given all the circumstances of the case. In the example of serial killers, life imprisonment would be the least severe. It meets the sentencing goals of protecting the public and deterrence, and best yet, we get to truly say that everyone has a right to life (and the right to not be deprived of it) - not just those people who we consider good. Everyone. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 6:51:52 PM |
What you're advocating is revenge, not justice. As I've said before in this very thread, justice should never be based on emotion.
I don't agree that what your saying is I advocate revenge and not justice. If I advocated revenge, I would say that I felt it was ok for the family of the victim to have the right to (by their own hand) go kill/torture the murderer that did that to their family member. Justice means to me that the person has a trial, is sentinced and pays for their crime in a manner that is at least somewhat equal punishment that fits the crime. Life in prison for someone who tortures innocent people/kills them is (as you stated also) the least punishment for their crime. I say "somewhat" because I don't advocate a person be tortured but I do feel that punishment of being put to death in a humane way IS fair treatment for the crime that they commit.
In the example of serial killers, life imprisonment would be the least severe. It meets the sentencing goals of protecting the public and deterrence, and best yet, we get to truly say that everyone has a right to life (and the right to not be deprived of it) - not just those people who we consider good. Everyone.
That is the problem with our judicial system. Criminals are given many times, the least severe judgment against them. It allows people to in many cases, get off very easy for a severe crime that should be dealt with much more serious. Read my other posts about how these hard core criminals; lose that hardened attitude when suddenly they are facing death themselves. "rights" are and should be lost when someone does the type of crimes that I referred to before. Your saying these serial killers should (as if it should be owed to them) have a right to life. I don't agree. The moment they decided to take someone else’s life in the manner that they did, to me they forfeit their right to life as well. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 7:39:53 PM |
Criminals are given many times, the least severe judgment against them. It allows people to in many cases, get off very easy for a severe crime that should be dealt with much more serious
Can you provide any such example where you actually sat through the trial and or sentencing of a person, or read transcript of same to support your allegation? | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/23/2008 8:02:12 PM |
Life in prison for someone who tortures innocent people/kills them is (as you stated also) the least punishment for their crime. I say "somewhat" because I don't advocate a person be tortured but I do feel that punishment of being put to death in a humane way IS fair treatment for the crime that they commit.
So you agree with me that people should be entitled to the least severe punishment, given all the circumstances? You say that being executed is fair, but you haven't told me how it is at all logical. We say "don't ever kill", and yet for the government it's okay. Not logically consistent.
That is the problem with our judicial system. Criminals are given many times, the least severe judgment against them. It allows people to in many cases, get off very easy for a severe crime that should be dealt with much more serious. Read my other posts about how these hard core criminals; lose that hardened attitude when suddenly they are facing death themselves.
How do you know these things? Do you have statistics? How do you know "hard core criminals" (whatever that means) lose their hardened attitude? Have you surveyed them? You purport to know these things, and yet don't quote any sources or have anything to back up your claims.
It's fine to state logical, thought out principles. It's healthy to have discussions about what should and shouldn't be taken into account upon sentencing, or what should be the subject of the criminal law. But don't make statements about things you clearly have no idea about.
These statements you are making are common gripes about the justice system. Nobody ever cites its successes. Nobody ever cites the multitude of cases where a court treats an accused person with compassion and that person goes on their way to lead a happy, productive life. Nobody ever tells the story of the person who went to jail and vowed never to go back again. Nobody tells the story of the addict who received counselling and recovered. It's always about the guy who people feel wasn't punished enough (without even hearing their side of the story, of course) or should be lynched as soon as he steps out of the jail or hung from the nearest accessable tree branch. The system is flawed. It will always be flawed. We can try our best, but not everything will come out right. Even more reason why we should never execute anybody.
Your saying these serial killers should (as if it should be owed to them) have a right to life. I don't agree. The moment they decided to take someone else’s life in the manner that they did, to me they forfeit their right to life as well.
Ah, the old "eye for an eye" basis for punishment. What about the people who kill for compassion? What about those who help terminally ill people commit suicide? Or the man who killed his severely disabled daughter who was in constant pain? Or the men who were shipwrecked and killed one of their number so that the others could (and did) survive? By your standards then, those people should be executed, right? Again, your argument isn't logically consistent.
Last I heard, people have a right to life. Not a right to life except if they happen to kill someone else. Or maybe rape them. Or perhaps commit sedition. Or treason. Or maybe... the list goes on. Just what is it to have a right to life anyway? Is it just a meaningless phrase? | |
|
|
| Page 7 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
