|
|
|
|
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 2:21:20 PM |
Please note I am talking about the truly 100% guilty, DNA evidence. Not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt guilty.
Doesn't exist in a court room. Arguably, would probably make up .01% of the cases that can recieve a capital punishment sentence. Advocating the death penalty on those grounds has no worthwhile practical application. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 5:10:59 PM |
I understand your stance, but this shows you are more supportive of the rights of criminals and you do not support victim's rights, and your logic is TRULY in
my eyes, the reason we have murderers on death row for 20 years as well as tax paying dollars funding the lives of these animals.
A couple of points here. I wasn't aware that victim's rights are enshrined in any constitution. People accused of a crime, however, have the right to defend themselves properly. They also have the right to life, as I've said before. Victims have the right to express whatever they want, as do we all, and are often allowed to voice how the crime has affected them in court. The judge takes these things into account. That's as far as victim's rights go. I still don't understand how killing others corrects what has happened in the past.
Also, I've noticed throughout your posts that your language is very hateful and vitriolic. People in prison aren't animals. They're still people. And as far as tax dollars go - what is the value of a human life? Seems to me that we ought not to go around measuring lives by their potential economic output or whether or not they're a tax burden. Seems to me that there's an innate value to human life that goes beyond what can be expressed by money.
I assure you I do know about mental illness. I also understand that the "temporary insanity" defense as well as "insanity" defense is utilized more times to none with the hopes of appealing to a liberal jury or judge in order to get away with committing murder.
And you know this how? Are you an expert on that particular legal defence? Are you a psychiatrist with expertise in the area? Stop making statements about things you don't know about. It's quite clear by how you phrase your statements that you haven't had any sort of education either in law or in medicine.
If someone evades the law and hides what they do, this shows that first off... they were "sane" enough to know how to evade the law...secondly... due to "hiding" what they were doing in the first place,,this shows they KNEW what they were doing was wrong.
You've said this several times, and it still doesn't make any sense. It also shows, again, that you have no idea what mental illness is, and how it affects people's brains. Until you, or anybody else has the ability to actually read people's thoughts, the best anybody can do is provide an educated guess. What you're saying is merely guessing - there's no education behind it whatsoever.
You are also generalizing. You seem to think that everyone who uses that defence is lying. Do you know what kind of evidence it takes to establish a mental illness defence in a court? Do you know the standard of proof?
I find it odd that you would advocate "rehabilitation" for sick cold bloodied killers with no evidence to even support your stance. This makes your stance not believable at all. YOu expect our society to believe that Jeffrey Dahmer could have been rehabilitated.
I never said that everyone can be rehabilitated. I said that the first priority is to try to rehabilitate. If it is determined (by a court of law, advised by experts) that a person cannot be rehabilitated and there is a high probability that that person will reoffend, then they should stay in prison indefinately. You asked for an example or proof that a "serial killer" type had been rehabilitated. I'm not a psychiatrist, and neither are you - so that means we both have no idea, right? Feel free to throw out wild, speculative guesses though.
I see no benefit to anyone to let someone who has remorse for their act (whatever that act might be), and is assessed as being a low risk to reoffend to stay in prison forever. I'd rather have someone, even murderers, serve their time out and then leave prison to lead a productive life. It benefits everyone. Maybe they can even make amends.
Healing should be about the victims families NOT the criminals. Prevention is flipping a switch and frying them or shooting poison in their arm. This would work as a great deterrent as compared to your suggestions. I advocate sentences being given out equivalent to the crime.
Exactly my previous point. "Healing" for you is about revenge and spilling blood. Quite frankly, that's barbaric behaviour. Also, judging by the crime statistics in the US, executions aren't really deterring people from murdering anyone, are they? All it does is quench the thirst for blood.
Your "eye for an eye" sentencing suggestion is unworkable, and you know it. We react in disgust when we hear about someone in some other country having their hands cut off for stealing. That's what you're advocating. Barbarism.
You do not care about the victims of these animals nor their families. You strike me as someone who will advocate for the life of a murderer but yet turn around and support abortion, it's just a feeling I have.
I feel badly for their families. This thread is about the death penalty though (particularly for mentally ill people), and I don't think that anyone should have their lives taken away, for all the reasons that I've said above. People have the right to life, full stop. As for your abortion "feeling", I'm not going to reply because you're not even remotely on topic. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:25:47 PM | A couple of points here. I wasn't aware that victim's
rights are enshrined in any constitution.
Actually...you are incorrect. There are state constitutional
rights for victims. In the past, crime victims had no rights
during the criminal justice process, states have passed many laws
that protect the rights of victims, in fact, 32 states have
included crime victims rights within their state constitutions.
The US states which have performed this are as follows; Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Several
more states are soon to follow. Keep in mind, these are State constitutional
amendments which debunk State statutes...their next goal? The US
Constitution. I support this 100%.
You state that victims have no rights, yes, they have rights by
the amendments of the state constitutions and this is quickly spreading
on nationwide with their next target being at the Federal Level.
Victims have the right to express whatever they want, as do
we all, and are often allowed to voice how the crime has
affected them in court.
Hmmm kinda hard for a victim to voice their discontent in court
when they are laying six foot under the ground in a casket. are you suggesting
we use psychics?
People in prison aren't animals. They're still people.
I agree that not all prisoners are quote animals, but I would safely
bet most are. Do you even know what goes on within prisons? If
you believe that all prisoners are within their cells finding Jesus,
there is nothing I can say to you on that. Most in prison ARE
animals, their criminalistic behavior is why they are there in the
first place. People do not go to prison for merely stealing
people's purses. Give me a break.
And as far as tax dollars go - what is the value of a
human life?
I find this an odd question for you to ask. Reason being? You are
seriously contradicting yourself. You advocate life for murderers
while disregarding the lives of victims, all the while saying that
everyone has the right to life. Your stance is confusing and quite
honestly doesn't make sense. Advocating life for murderers on the
grounds of morality is sick logic due to the fact, you are advocating
on the basis that it is not moral to kill a murderer who performed
unmoralistic acts. Even philosophically speaking, your stance
holds no ground and is basically moot.
Seems to me that there's an innate value to human life that
goes beyond what can be expressed by money.
I think we should ask the victims about how much their lives were worth...
wait a minute...we can't...their dead.
And you know this how? Are you an expert on that
particular legal defence? Are you a psychiatrist with expertise
in the area? Stop making statements about things you don't know
about. It's quite clear by how you phrase your statements that
you haven't had any sort of education either in law or in medicine.
One does not need a PHD in law nor medicine to know history. History
shows that serial killers such as Ted Bundy as well as the BTK killer
and Charles Manson etc...were not rehabilitated. Many others can
be added to this list...in fact..I"m still waiting for you to give
me an example of a serial killer who was rehabilitated. You can not
do this because such proof does not exist. This point is moot as well
obviously.
You are also generalizing. You seem to think that
everyone who uses that defence is lying. Do you know what kind of
evidence it takes to establish a mental illness defence in a
court? Do you know the standard of proof?
The laws are specific in most cases of "mental illness". Any good
District Attorney would immediately attack a "mental illness" case
if the perpetrator was avoiding the law as well as able to evade
the law. Mentally ill people do not recognize laws and are unable
to comprehend reality from fantasies, therefore why these cases
do not fly by a good "DA".
Of course not EVERYONE is lying, but more times to none, they are
that is what Defense Lawyers are for. Why don't sharks eat lawyers?
Professional courtesy.
Exactly my previous point. "Healing" for you is about
revenge and spilling blood. Quite frankly, that's barbaric
behaviour
Let's compare here. Hypothetical scenario. Criminal accosts woman
and drags her into an alley and brutally rapes her then strangles
her while leaving her dead body laying in the alley. Criminal is
captured tried and sentenced to death. Criminal is fed three
square meals a day while receiving free medical care and on the
day of execution is gently placed on a gurney and given a infusion
where he drifts off to sleep to never wake up. Nice try,,this is
NOT barbaric, it's better than what I would advocate for this make
believe rapist, it's far better than what his victim received who
died with brutal savagery. It's not barbaric, it's better than what
most would feel he deserves.
executions aren't really deterring people from murdering
anyone, are they?
Duly noted and I can not dispute this fact, but to state this obvious
fact, one must face the realization that housing murderers for
life within our prisons is not deterring people from murdering
either...you forgot to mention that.
As for your abortion "feeling", I'm not going to reply
because you're not even remotely on topic.
That's because I'm more than likely right, thanks for proving as
such.
As far as me being a barbarian......so be it. I advocate justice
for victims and their families. I do not stand with a tambourine
in my hand lighting candles advocating for murderers. I stand
for justice and in my eyes...justice is frying them or sticking
poison in their arms, which is more times to none much better than
the death their victims met. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:44:14 PM |
executions aren't really deterring people from murdering
anyone, are they? And the fear of prison is doing such a bang up job....the reason the death penalty is not effective is because the process is to long and drawn out to many appeals and what not..if they shorten the process it will become Real to the perps and in turn would increase its effectiveness as a deterrent. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:52:19 PM | | This Thread is about the death Penalty though ( Particularly for the Mentally Ill People) I worked for the Government with the Homeless Program for over 15 years. I worked around Doctor's A&D Counselors Social Workers and Psychotrists who told me once you become homeless ( out on the street) for more than 6 months you will never recouperate from it. 30% of the Homeless did not make it passed the 4th grade while the majority of them did not Graduate at all. Yet some did have a College Education. They could not keep a job some could not read or write and some had no sense of getting out of the rain. Most of them had been to jail Disorderly Conduct, Public Intox, Thieft of Property, Criminal Impersonation etc. Of going through life and having to live under those conditions and the hand that was dealt to them they All had TWO things in Common. One they were ALL Mentally Ill People and Two they did All have SENSE ENOUGH to KNOW that KILLING someone is just plain wrong and if they did they would have to serve the consequences. Never had the Opportunity to work around a Serial Killer ( Not Going to) Serial killers have a Mental Illness to but they don't have enough sense to care. They do it for the adventure and the Trill and they All should have to pay the Ultimate Price which is death. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 6:56:17 PM | | Actually, even in previous centuries where hangings were public and for petty crime, capital punishment had no deterent effect. That of course was prior to the many rights that accused individuals currently have. The process was shorter, and still had no deterent effect. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:14:24 PM | Let's show another side of what you speak.....During the 80s incarceration was favored over capital punishment. During this time the US incarceration rate was the highest of most
societies with of course being behind Russia and South Africa. Our nation during this time even imposed the longest sentences. Our nation had the highest per capita crime rate of any advanced nations. This is proof alone that incarceration alone does not work.
Our society as a whole generally speaking does not want criminals turned loose within our
societies but yet are unwilling to pay increased taxes for more prisons to be built.
I personally am not willing to pay higher taxes to house serial killers. People on the other side of the fence are advocating doing this but with no real solution of funding it. It looks like neither side here is working. This does not stop me in my belief of ridding society of serial killers and I have already voiced numerous times how I feel this should be performed. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/25/2008 7:31:38 PM |
There are state constitutional rights for victims.
And what do those rights give them?
Hmmm kinda hard for a victim to voice their discontent in court when they are laying six foot under the ground in a casket.
So what's the point of giving them rights then?
I agree that not all prisoners are quote animals, but I would safely
bet most are.
First of all, using terms like "animal" brings nothing to this discussion. It's inflammatory language and it really doesn't belong in a rational debate. Second, by saying "bet", you're admitting you're just guessing.
You advocate life for murderers while disregarding the lives of victims, all the while saying that everyone has the right to life.
How do I disregard the lives of victims? Get convicted of murder? Then go to prison. You can't bring back the dead, but you might be able to reform the living. And if you can't, then they stay where they are. Killing people is morally wrong.
I think we should ask the victims about how much their lives were worth...
wait a minute...we can't...their dead.
How is that at all a response to what I said? There is a value to human life, beyond economics.
One does not need a PHD in law nor medicine to know history. History
shows that serial killers such as Ted Bundy as well as the BTK killer
and Charles Manson etc...were not rehabilitated.
My question was whether you were an expert on mental illness. It was based on your statement that you understand mental illness and that it was used as a bogus defence. You haven't answered it.
And so what if they weren't rehabilitated? Then they stay in prison. What's your point?
The laws are specific in most cases of "mental illness". Any good District Attorney would immediately attack a "mental illness" case if the perpetrator was avoiding the law as well as able to evade the law. Mentally ill people do not recognize laws and are unable to comprehend reality from fantasies, therefore why these cases
do not fly by a good "DA".
How do you know what good District Attorney's do? Are you one? Have you ever spoken to a lawyer (on either side) about the defence? You said mentally ill people don't recognize laws and are unable to comprehend reality - that is exactly the point. If they are incapable of comprehension, then they cannot form an intent to break a law. If they can form no intent to break a law, then they can't be convicted of breaking one.
The fact is that mental illness can be used as a legitimate defence to criminal acts. As a defence, it has been around for many, many years. Mental illness isn't just somebody faking hallucinations or delusions. They are real diseases, backed up by decades of medical research.
Criminal is fed three square meals a day while receiving free medical care and on the day of execution is gently placed on a gurney and given a infusion where he drifts off to sleep to never wake up. Nice try,,this is NOT barbaric
Killing is barbaric, no matter how it's done. It may be done in a humane way, but it's still wrong.
Duly noted and I can not dispute this fact, but to state this obvious fact, one must face the realization that housing murderers for life within our prisons is not deterring people from murdering either...you forgot to mention that.
I agree, prison doesn't deter murder. So if executions don't deter, what's the point? They serve no purpose except vengeance for the family.
That's because I'm more than likely right, thanks for proving as such.
Why do you keep thinking you can read people's minds? My opinion on abortion is irrelevant to this discussion. What you're trying to do is make an ad hominem attack.
As far as me being a barbarian......so be it.
You said it. If the shoe fits... | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 2:59:09 PM | And what do those rights give them?
Feel free to look it up yourself, I provided you with the states
which do indeed have victim's rights within their constitution, happy
reading. It's obvious victim's rights do exist. You were wrong.
So what's the point of giving them rights then?
After this statement, it's obvious you have absolutely no clue
what you are talking about.
First of all, using terms like "animal" brings nothing to
this discussion. It's inflammatory language and it really doesn't
belong in a rational debate. Second, by saying "bet",
you're admitting you're just guessing.
YOU can state in your mind that dead victims have no rights but
then turn around and defend a murderer being called an "animal".
You are constantly conflicting yourself. In my eyes...if it walks
like a duck...talks like a ducks...well, you get the jest. They're
animals.
How do I disregard the lives of victims?
This is how you disregard the lives of victims. See example below:
ME: Hmmm kinda hard for a victim to voice their discontent in
court when they are laying six foot under the ground in a casket.
YOU: So what's the point of giving them rights then?
Next stupid question?
How is that at all a response to what I said? There is a
value to human life, beyond economics.
It was a response showing how you hold highly the lives of murderers
who are the very people who do not cherish lives while disregarding
the lives of innocent victims, if you can not comprehend this, that
is not my problem. You are continually contradicting yourself which
is why your stance makes absolutely NO sense at all.
My question was whether you were an expert on mental
illness. It was based on your statement that you understand
mental illness and that it was used as a bogus defence. You
haven't answered it.
I did indeed answer your question in reference to mental illness.
Just because it's over your head does not make me incorrect and you
automatically correct. It is most definitely utilized as a bogus
defense continually within our court system. If you disagree with
this obvious fact, it shows you know nothing about the court system.
And so what if they weren't rehabilitated? Then they stay
in prison. What's your point?
My point is....serial killers can not be rehabilitated. That was
my point and you can not prove this point wrong. It was absolutely
ridiculous for you to even bring this up at all. Yes, they stay
in prison while our tax payers dollars fund them. I am against
this at all costs. These animals deserve to die, I have better
things to spend my money on,,,,like shoes or toilet paper for my bathroom.
How do you know what good District Attorney's do? Are you
one?
Your attempt at this point made me laugh. No, I am not a District
Attorney but nor are you. The District Attorney's job is to be
a voice for the victims. This of course is public knowledge. SOme
of us have actually been represented by a DA therefore, it's common
sense, at least to most.
If they are incapable of comprehension, then they cannot
form an intent to break a law.
This is true, but keep in mind that someone who is claiming
they are incapable of comprehending the law more times to none were
able to comprehend how to evade the police and hide their crime. This
shows they KNEW what they were doing was wrong and they had enough
sanity about them to evade the police. It's truly amazing how
serial killers very expertly perform these actions but upon being
caught, they are all of a sudden mentally ill, it's bogus and just
a ploy to not get executed.
The fact is that mental illness can be used as a
legitimate defence to criminal acts. As a defence, it has been
around for many, many years. Mental illness isn't just somebody
faking hallucinations or delusions. They are real diseases,
backed up by decades of medical research.
It's a very naive stance for anyone to take in believing that every
serial killer is "mentally ill". Most serial killers are sociopath's
which means they are above average intelligence, which is how they
get away with their crimes for so long. They are not able to be
rehabilitated. Our society needs to rid itself of these monsters/
animals while giving justice to the victims whether dead or alive.
Killing is barbaric, no matter how it's done. It may be
done in a humane way, but it's still wrong.
It's also barbaric to claim that just because victims are dead they
are not entitled to rights.
I agree, prison doesn't deter murder
Nor does housing them for life either. I say,,,since neither way
is truly working, our nation needs to save a few bucks and just
get rid of them. :)
Why do you keep thinking you can read people's minds? My
opinion on abortion is irrelevant to this discussion. What you're
trying to do is make an ad hominem attack.
Once again, that is because I'm right more than likely. I find it
funny you bringing up philosophical rules when you have broken numerous
philosophical rules within your debate. lol
I find your stance extremely contradicting and not a believable stance. For one to
truly advocate life, one must advocate life for all people and things. You do not perform this. You only advocate life for people sentenced to death while disregarding the right
to life for victims. This makes your stance not only unbelievable but truly laughable and something to not take seriously. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 3:24:09 PM | Simply compare death penalty states with non-death penalty states, and you'll start to see how the death penalty serves no real purpose outside of revenge.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=168
Take a state like Texas, with a pretty well deserved title as a "hang 'em high" state. They've had 406 executions total, out of the 1108 the entire country has performed since 1976.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=186
Almost half the people who have been executed for murder, in the entire country, since the return of the death penalty, have shuffled off this mortal coil in Texas.
And what's the result of all this, in terms of deterrence ?
Very little, it seems....
2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997
Texas 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.4 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.1 6.8 6.8
MURDER RATES PER 100,000 PEOPLE
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169
Canada, with no death penalty, less police officers, and less prison cells and prisoners, restrictive gun laws (compared to Texas, most certainly) , and a far higher standard for use of lethal force in self-defense ?
2006
Quebec recorded its lowest murder rate in 40 years (1.2 per 100,000 people) and along with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, had one of the lowest rates in the country.
Among Canada’s metropolitan areas, Regina had the highest murder rate (4.5) followed by Edmonton and then Saskatoon.
The nation’s capital region, Ottawa-Gatineau, bucked the national trend and reported an unusually high number of homicides, Statistics Canada said. The rate in Gatineau, Que., at 3.1, was the highest in almost 20 years and Ottawa’s rate (1.8) was the highest in over a decade.
http://mysilvercreek.sampasite.com/news/CANADA-CRIME-RATE.htm
The HIGHEST regional rate of homicide here (Regina) was still significantly lower than Texas's state average by about one third (4.5 vs 5.9) . The national murder rate of 1.85 murders per 100,000 people here was one third of what Texas offered to it's citizens.
If one wants to start to reduce crime, one does it through better education and poverty reduction. That's the one sure way, along with an older demographic, to reduce crime in the long run. Couple that with drug and alcohol treatment centers that people can access, and you might start to see less murders over time.
Even a newspaper in Texas agrees :
The South executes far more convicted murderers than any other region yet has a homicide rate far above the national average. Texas' murder rate is slightly above average, despite the state's peerless deployment of the death penalty. If capital punishment were an effective deterrent to homicide, shouldn't we expect the opposite result? What's going on here?
Human nature, mostly. Murder is often a crime of passion, which by definition excludes the faculties of reason. The jealous husband who walks in on his wife and another man is in no position to deliberate rationally on the consequences of killing his rival. The convenience store robber who chooses in a split-second to shoot the clerk has not pondered the potential outcomes of pulling the trigger.
People overtaken by rage, panic or drunkenness should be brought to justice, of course, but they are hardly paragons of pure reason, and it's unreasonable to assert that they consider the possibility of a death sentence when committing their crimes.
Too distant a threat
Even premeditated killers don't expect to be executed. And for good reason. Statistics show that a homicidal gangster is far more likely to die at the hands of his fellow thugs than the hands of the state. As economist and Freakonomics author Steven Levitt writes, "No rational criminal should be deterred by the death penalty, since the punishment is too distant and too unlikely to merit much attention."
Well, then, just speed up the appeals process, some say. But the appeals process has already been shortened as much as possible without being reckless. This at the same time that a steady stream of DNA exonerations have raised important questions about investigative tactics once thought to be foolproof.
Is it worth the risk of killing innocent people on the unproven theory that it would result in fewer innocents dying via homicide?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/
DN-deterrence_1202edi.ART.State.Edition1.36bbe2f.html
In the meantime, people who are most typically black/ poor /mentally ill/abused will be misrepresented by their attorney, and condemned to death by a prosecution that makes sure that they will be seen as guilty. All too often, we've seen what "justice" is when people are freed from prison due to factual evidence that they did not have the access to when tried.
I work in the security business, and I can certainly confirm to you that criminals (the overwhelming majority) do NOT think they will get caught - or act rationally, in many cases.
It seems that argument for deterrence is all hat, and no cattle. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 4:00:06 PM |
It seems that argument for deterrence is all hat, and no cattle.
This is duly noted however, there is equal amount of evidence showing that housing criminals for life is not working either at least here within the United States. Not only is THIS all hat and no cattle but it's a bunch of crap. Neither way is working, but this does not mean that justice should not be given to the victims. Killers still need to die as far as Im concerned, no matter what statistics show. I'm about justice for the victims and their families, not statistics. | |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 5:32:38 PM | | There is an old saying "rule with an iron fist." The death penalty in this case is justice served. Some predators need to die. Society must rid its self of evil when presented the chance to do so. Molesters more than murders need to go. Rapist gone. I don't want to here but because everything after but is bullshit. To allow these people anything less is uncivilized. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:42:48 PM |
YOU can state in your mind that dead victims have no rights but then turn around and defend a murderer being called an "animal". You are constantly conflicting yourself. In my eyes...if it walks like a duck...talks like a ducks...well, you get the jest. They're animals.
Once again, you have chosen not to respond to my post, or you have missed the point completely. Perhaps you're confused about what "conflicting" actually means.
There's really no point in continuing this conversation, because we're not speaking the same language. You equate mentally ill people with serial killers, you are willfully blind to the reasoning behind my points, you believe fallacies are "philosophical rules" and your comments state things as fact when it is abundantly clear (and even admitted)that you have no expertise in the area you are speaking about. You have no interest in middle ground or in learning anything, even when you admit that you have a severe lack of education in the topic. All you have is an opinion; one that is not based in reason - but instead based on an emotional gut response. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:09:09 PM | Ok if it hasn't been said so plainly I will stay the pro-death penalty stance as I particularly see it.
We believe that life is so valuable that there is the option if the murder(s) were so terrible that they need to be delt with by the ultimate punishment.
Now on a personal note. We know that killers don't stop in prison. Alot of times someone with a life sentance is the most lethal person behind bars. The way they see it your not going to beable to punish them any worst. So I argue that it does stop atleast one person from continuing to kill.
Ok states that have the death penalty don't deter the murder rate as a whole. But let me talk about one in specific. Maybe just maybe in California having the last person exicuted take 25 years and all the stars in Hollywood back him isn't much of a deterent. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/27/2008 1:31:08 AM | Ginsuknife:
Perhaps you're confused about what "conflicting" actually means.
I actually meant to type "contradicting" NOT conflicting. With that being said...you're whole stance contradicts itself.
You are NOT a true pro life advocate, if you were, you would advocate for the life of victims as well, therefore why I do not take your stance seriously or much else you say pertaining to this topic.
You have no interest in middle ground or in learning anything, even when you admit that you have a severe lack of education in the topic.
Of course I have no interest in middle ground on this topic, I believe in victim's rights, NOT criminal rights. Why would I want to find middle ground with you? Your stance makes absolutely no sense. In YOUR eyes....the TRUE victims are criminals..which is absolutely ridiculous and shows YOUR lack of common sense therefore, touche.
| |
|
| |
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/27/2008 11:25:42 AM | I am anti-abortion, and anti-capital punishment.
You are NOT a true pro life advocate, if you were, you would advocate for the life of victims as well, therefore why I do not take your stance seriously or much else you say pertaining to this topic
The life of the victims??? Um, when we're discussing murder, the victims are dead. You can't advocate for their lives when they have none.
To say that someone killed someone else, so we should kill them, is do unto others as you have had them do unto you. Some of us prefer the original golden rule, and not the alternative version. An eye for an eye truly leaves the whole world blind. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/28/2008 2:07:41 AM | Captain Girly Girl.
How about defense of another? That's also a legal justification for homicide. You also left out killing in war. Do you believe that is wrong? If so, your attitude is extreme--no nation's law, nor any law of war forbids the killing of enemy soldiers. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/28/2008 3:25:29 AM | I don't know what the requirements for an insanity defense are under Japanese law. In the U.S., they vary from state to state, but if the prosecution succeeds in proving its case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove he is not culpable (or less culpable) because he was insane at the time of his criminal act.
The Supreme Court has held that states can't execute people below a certain age or IQ, period. But it's never held that they can't execute a murderer who fails to convince the jury he was insane. There is a small percentage of murderers who are so crazy they probably didn't know they were killing a person, that it was wrong, or both. I don't favor executing them, but otherwise, I believe the death penalty should be available for murders where special circumstances are proven--e.g. murder of a police officer, murder involving severe torture, multiple murders, murder by arson, by poison, or by lying in wait, etc. That's how it works in California and some other states.
Somewhat OT, I'm surprised to see how many posters have favored the death penalty for rape and for child molestation. You probably won't live to see that. The Supreme Court held forty years ago that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was cruel and unusual punishment, which the Eighth Amendment prohibits. And just the other day, it held that "child rape," a crime Louisiana and several other states had defined by statute, was unconstitutional on the same grounds, because the statute made death a possible punishment.
So in the U.S., no state can put you to death for any crime except murder. I believe the federal treason statute allows for the death penalty, and so do a couple other federal crimes. And Congress has made almost all major war crimes punishable by death--e.g. sabotage, murder of captives, fighting out of uniform, using civilians as shields, faking surrender to gain advantage, etc. Usually some milder penalty is actually imposed, but not always.
In 1945-46, the U.S. hanged almost 1,000 Japanese for various stomach-turning atrocities. If you really hate the idea of criminals getting away with murder, here's one for you: Two weeks and more after the formal surrender, Japanese guards at remote camps took Allied prisoners, made them kneel, and beheaded them. Dozens died that way--how must they have felt, if they'd heard the war was over and thought they were going home? If anyone deserved hanging, it was these sadistic guards, and yet none was ever captured. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 6/28/2008 5:08:33 AM | The life of the victims??? Um, when we're discussing murder, the victims are dead. You can't advocate for their lives when they have none.
So you are stating that just because someone was murdered and laying in the ground, this automatically constitutes that they have no rights? What a load of crap!
Victims are VERY MUCH entitled to the right of the
person who TOOK their life to pay for robbing them of their life. In some states this means that murderers if tried and convicted and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did indeed perform the crime, they are to pay with their own lives.
Our dead victims are entitled to be represented by the District
Attorney who represents the dead victims, the District Attorney is the voice of the victims
even if they are dead.
What a bunch of malarkey!
Matchless:
The maximum punishment within our military for treason is death by firing squad. This
is not used anymore, but the law does exist. Our country is far too mild on criminals, hence why we have the horrible crime rate which we have. The death penalty would work if the appeals process was not so long. Thank the liberal judges for this one along with more crap they have allowed into our legal system.
I believe in the rights of victims. I can also state that if someone as in an alleged criminal
is wrongfully tried in a court of law and wrongly convicted, I support their right as well, for in my eyes...they are now victims. Proof of wrongful convictions are... not enough evidence to convict but was convicted anyways, a predjudiced jury, etc...I am for
VI CTIM's right period..straight across the board. WHo I do not advocate for are the criminals who are convicted and actually performed the crime. Criminals who were actually caught in the act of murdering someone,,,etc....besides..DNA evidence does not lie.
This is where I stand out as a true victim's rights advocate. Unlike pro lifers who state they only support saving the lives of known convicted murderers while disregarding the lives of victims.
I advocate program for the urban communities. Poverty breeds crime, which is understandably so. DO you see pro lifers out in the communities? No, but you will view them with their tambourines and candles standing outside prisons singing Kumbaya!
I advocate fair representation for all, not just the ones who afford it. Not every person who is tried on crimes is guilty, that is if they have decent representation. Our inner city population will get locked up and the key thrown away over medial crimes with more wealthy criminals receiving probation if they are even prosecuted at all.
Our veterans use to come back from wars in the past and due to their inability to fit into society and lack of programs available to aid them, would resort to crime. I am proud to say that I volunteer as a mentor for veterans who are brought into court for performing crimes. A Veterans Court has been instituted to aid veterans who are having problems and resorting to crimes. I advocate that veterans should pay for the crimes which they have performed but while receiving the much needed care and services they badly need, this will enable the veteran to understand that one must pay for their crime, however, receiving the care which they need will enable them to possibly stay out of the criminal system.
I advocate victim's rights for victims of criminals and also victim's of our supposed justice system. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 7/2/2008 6:01:32 PM | How many people have to die at the hands of a convicted murderer, before you do finally stop them.
Case in point:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E4D91F38F93BA25752C0A9649C8B63
A counselor for the Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest private operator of prisons, was stabbed to death by an inmate, becoming the first employee to die in job-related violence in the company's 19-year history. The counselor, Delbert Steed, 57, was stabbed in the back with a homemade weapon while meeting with the prisoner, who was serving two life sentences for murder at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, some 50 miles northeast of Memphis, company officials said. David Firestone (NYT)
These people in jail must get the very basic human services, medical, counseling, etc... In this instance, the Convicted Murderer decided to take another life, WHILE serving 2 life sentences for MURDER.
So, to further clarify my original question, or actually take it a step further.
HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO BE MURDERED BEFORE YOU STOP THE KILLER?
 | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 7/4/2008 8:26:23 PM | | Let's see.........how about all the people that are not in favor of the death penalty pay for the criminal while in prison. I bet he starves to death if that was the case. | |
|
| The Death Penalty - When is it ever justified?
Posted: 7/5/2008 9:20:36 AM |
Let's see.........how about all the people that are not in favor of the death penalty pay for the criminal while in prison. I bet he starves to death if that was the case.
This sounds like a wonderful idea.
I second it.
 | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
