Death Penalty

[Sir Barton]

Yeah, and then have that entire innocent person's family out for revenge when their loved one is innocently slaughtered, WAY safer indeed.

If they are inclined to seek revenge, they would be seeking revenge against the state so I don't see how that is dangerous towards the general public. Also, can they be completely certain that their loved one was innocent?

 

I think the family would be more apt to grieve given the circumstance than they would be to violently seek revenge. At most they would continue to pursue the issue and try to clear their loved one's name. If they do I'm sure they will seek restitution and will also reopen the case which will hopefully lead to the arrest of the real criminal.

 

While the loss of an innocent life is regrettable, it's not overly dangerous like leaving a murder, serial killer or rapist open to possible escape can be.

[archangelofcreation]

i believe the death penalty is right and everone who doesnt must be a liberal.

i believe what the good lord tells us "Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth." also the golden rule. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." i say that if you kill someone in cold blood without remorse then you should also be killed without remorse. now im not saying that we should kill people for stupid reasons but people who kill then only get 20 years?? its bull**** and needs to be rewriten as you kill you will be killed. thats my input. if someone kills me i want to have the satisfaction that he will be killed soon after he is caught.

[pinkieseb]

That, is absolutly true!

 

In Australia i think Julia Gillard said she would rise jail sentences, guess what!?!? Another lie -.- Shes gone next election.

 

 

Anyway, i personally dont want people roaming the streets who just came out of prison for murder! Australia needs the death sentence!!

[grammydragon]

2 cents here....

Perhaps in your discussion thread there needs to be a distinction between the theory of the Death Penalty and then the practical application. (perhaps the

discussion of Justice and a just enforcement).

In Texas there have been people executed only to be found Not Guilty after

their execution. Fortunately others found innocent before their execution.

Though their conviction/sentence was based on lies and withheld evidence, the

prosecutors involved are held immune from any punishment or attempt for

restitution. Even go on to become a Judge. Where is the justice?

[archangelofcreation]

2 cents here....

Perhaps in your discussion thread there needs to be a distinction between the theory of the Death Penalty and then the practical application. (perhaps the

discussion of Justice and a just enforcement).

In Texas there have been people executed only to be found Not Guilty after

their execution. Fortunately others found innocent before their execution.

Though their conviction/sentence was based on lies and withheld evidence, the

prosecutors involved are held immune from any punishment or attempt for

restitution. Even go on to become a Judge. Where is the justice?

that is a good point. i think texas may have been hasty in some of their executions but at the time the person was guilty. after they found that they were innocent because of new evidence it is unfortunate yes but it was the best course of action at the time. i am still for it i just want them to be careful about passing said penalty so that we dont accidently end up sending someone thats innocent to the gallows.

[Sir Barton]

2 cents here....

Perhaps in your discussion thread there needs to be a distinction between the theory of the Death Penalty and then the practical application.  (perhaps the

discussion of Justice and a just enforcement).

In Texas there have been people executed only to be found Not Guilty after

their execution. Fortunately others found innocent before their execution.

Though their conviction/sentence was based on lies and withheld evidence, the

prosecutors involved are held immune from any punishment or attempt for

restitution.  Even go on to become a Judge.   Where is the justice?

Sadly that is a corruption in the system and I don't know of any solution, especially since Texas tends to be a world onto itself. Of course, offense not meant in that, just that the state seems to move to the beat of a different drum... not that Louisiana doesn't have it's own rhythm as well.

 

The most recent outcry that I saw as far as the death penalty and Texas was concerned was... oh, maybe a month ago when they put a mentally retarded man to death which goes against the national statue that states a mentally challenged individual can't be executed. Texas is a strange world. Some really good folks but some messed up political structure. ....Again, while we're not messed up the same way, Louisiana has more then it's share of crooks so.... yeah, not really passing judgement, just stating the way it appears.

 

I know withholding of evidence is going to be really hard to prove, but that would be the start. A good attorney would have to be willing to take on the bad ones and bring the problem out into the open. Punish the corrupt harshly and send a message that sort of bull won't be tolerated. About the only way to straighten that out. That's reforming the system which sadly takes a lot of guts and determination since the challenger would be going up against well established "good old boys" and "politics as usual." Also take a pretty penny I'm sure.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton

[grammydragon]

archangelofcreation,

 

Not "new" evidence. It was the revelation of original case evidence and

willful deception and hiding of evidence that proved innocence and the

denial of a true process of law which resulted in what you consider "the

best course of action at the time". That is just

part of the reason Texas tries so hard to deny any convicted person

access to DNA or other evidence, and protects so vigorously the

questionable prosecutors and judges involved.

 

Why wouldn't truth have been a better course of action, then and anytime?

 

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I think it's fairly clear that everyone here who supports the death penalty (or at least I should hope so!) supports it in the cases where there isn't the corruption/lying/etc mentioned in some of these cases.

 

And... I feel like it must be increasingly hard for an innocent person to get sent to prison. Think about it. Most people nowadays carry cell phones 24/7. Those phones can be tracked. They can show you weren't where something bad happened. If you don't have a phone, you could be with people who can prove you weren't there. Or maybe you were truly innocently at home goofing on your computer and they again thus have proof you weren't around at the time.

 

And even IF you don't have any of the three above common proofs-I-wasn't-involved going for you, you'd ALSO need to somehow have yourself associated with the crime through blood or hair or DNA. Which, sure, perhaps you have none of the above AND they somehow damage the samples and confuse you as a suspect. But then they'd have to go through all your criminal history to see if it makes sense...

 

So yes. I'm assuming the amount of innocent people who end up on death row is like a hundreth of one percent, if not LESS. And even then, the death penalty should only be used if there's no shred of doubt. Like that crazy monster who shot up all the people watching Dark Knight Rises? Not a single QUESTION that he was guilty. He's guilty. The court trial should be over in a week and he should be put to death. But nope--it'll take years to prove what is undeniable, super-clear fact and then he still might not be put to death. Idiotic.

[BlazingPhoenix]

I am an Aussie, so no death penalty here. But I do believe that death penalties are cruel, because two wrongs do NOT make a right!

[grammydragon]

Oh my, angelicdragonpuppy, you don't give your age, but I could bet my life you could be my

grandchild.

27 years ago, how many people do you know carried around cell phones

with Google tracking chips in them using them all the time to prove where

they are at all times? And did they leave it on all night to record their

snoring to prove they were home sleeping.

Yes, DNA can help prove innocence or guilt, IF IT IS NOT hidden/denied/or

destroyed because it did not validate the claims of a zealous proscecutor.

Reality is that even today witnesses are offered deals to testify against

another person in order to get convictions.

Computers used to track you? hmmm, do you know how recently they

became really widely used by not-college educated middle class or low income

people?

Actually you did open my eyes to a cruel reality....the reason most people

are so tied to nonsense on their cell phone is to try to establish an alibi

for their every moment. Since I don't even own a cell phone, maybe I

will play DC all day and night....

 

BlazingPhoenix, I regret to say I do believe firmly in the Death Penalty.

My big anger flash point is the unjust way it has been used and continues

to be. You are correct, two wrongs don't make a right!

Edited September 8, 2012 by grammydragon

[Rosedamai]

archangelofcreation,

 

Not "new" evidence.  It was the revelation of original case evidence and

willful deception and hiding of evidence that proved innocence and the

denial of a true process of law which resulted in what you consider "the

best course of action at the time".  That is just

part of the reason Texas tries so hard to deny any convicted person

access to DNA or other evidence, and protects so vigorously the

questionable prosecutors and judges involved.

 

Why wouldn't truth have been a better course of action, then and anytime?

And that is one of the reasons why I'm against the death penalty. There's just no way to overturn that. Reminds me of this quote from the Abbot Arnaud Amaury: "Kill them all, God will know his own."

 

It's not a good policy.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2012 by ylangylang

[BlazingPhoenix]

GUYS. Just because someone murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they aren't people themselves! Every person should be treated equally.

[Wantdew]

^^^

That is exactly why they should suffer what they did to others.

 

I say this partly jokingly, but, for every person a man shoots he should be shot.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2012 by Wantdew

[BlazingPhoenix]

*facepalms* That's not what I meant! I meant that no person has the right to kill or be killed.

[Wantdew]

I wasn't agreeing with you.

[BlazingPhoenix]

I wasn't saying you were agreeing with me, I was just clarifying.

[Wantdew]

I knew what you meant and that only furthers my and a lot of others point.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Oh my,  angelicdragonpuppy, you don't give your age, but I could bet my life you could be my

grandchild.

27 years ago,  how many people do you know carried around cell phones

with Google tracking chips in them using them all the time to prove where

they are at all times?  And did they leave it on all  night to record their

snoring to prove they were home sleeping. 

Yes, DNA can help prove innocence or guilt,  IF IT IS NOT hidden/denied/or

destroyed because it did not validate the claims of a zealous proscecutor.

Reality is that even today witnesses are offered deals to testify against

another person in order to get convictions. 

Computers used to track you?  hmmm, do you know how recently they

became really widely used by not-college educated middle class or low income

people?

Actually you did open my eyes to a cruel reality....the reason most people

are so tied to nonsense on their cell phone is to try to establish an alibi

for their every  moment.  Since I don't even own a cell phone, maybe I

will play DC  all day and night....

 

BlazingPhoenix,  I regret to say I do believe firmly in the Death Penalty.

My big anger flash point is the unjust way it has been used and continues

to be.   You are correct, two wrongs don't make a right!

I'm saying that the average person who gets convicted NOW has a lot of ways to prove their innocence, in most cases. I don't claim to speak for the past--I know full well cellphones and computers are still fairly new. I'm not that old, but I do remember a time when they were really crappy and few people had them/used them extensively.

 

My point was that it is increasingly become all that much harder for the average person to be wrongfully convicted. Pretty much everyone who's using cellphones and computers at this point will keep using them 'til they die, and the newer generations will, too. When everyone's increasingly connected to cellphone towers/internet things/etc etc, it becomes all that much easier to establish they weren't where the crime happened.

 

As for bad lawyers... heh, that's why I mentioned that I don't like lawyers much. Loopholes in laws + money > justice for a lot of them. There's problems in there that need to be rooted out. But again--there are some cases where it is truly slam-dunk. Again, the Dark Knight shooter. GUILTY BEYOND ALL DOUBT. In cases like that, the death penalty should be handed out swift and harsh.

 

Edit: Also Blazing, that person lost the right to be called a person when they decided to become a monster. Serial killers and child rapists are not people in my eyes.

Edited September 8, 2012 by angelicdragonpuppy

[Sir Barton]

GUYS. Just because someone murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they aren't people themselves! Every person should be treated equally.

We are treating them equally. "Do onto others as you would have done to you." If they decided to take a life than it stands to reason that they didn't value theirs. Knowing the punishment for the crime and still deciding to commit that crime is giving consent to that punishment. In this case that would be death.

[Kestra15]

Edit: Also Blazing, that person lost the right to be called a person when they decided to become a monster. Serial killers and child rapists are not people in my eyes.

Precisely - in your eyes. Whose eyes should be the moral measuring stick? I think we can all agree on serial killers - such as Anders Breivik - are monsters. But what about a crime of passion - anyone can fall foul of their emotions, no matter how good or bad a person is. Child rapists...well, define 'child' and 'rape.' A consenting 15yr old with a consenting 18yr old - I believe that is technically 'child rape.' Should the 18yr old be put to death? Where do you draw the line - and who has the right to draw that line?

 

This is the issue with extreme punishments such as the death penalty, and responses such as yours as to when someone becomes a 'monster' - where do we define the cut-off point? Your Mileage Will Vary from person to person.

[pinkieseb]

I think Under 18s cant have death sentences, just life in prison.....

Anyone over 18 i'd say would be able to get the death sentence.

Edited September 8, 2012 by pinkieseb

[earthgirl]

GUYS. Just because someone murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they aren't people themselves! Every person should be treated equally.

Yeah, they had the right to live, were treated equally, well, they weren't killed at birth, were they? They have been given the right to live until... they screwed it up and took someone else's. And they did that intentionally.

 

If they had the urge to kill once and then felt no remorse for their action, You can be sure they will do it again. So, it's best to cut it short, before more people will become their victims.

 

Oh... and not to mention those serial killers who went to jail and killed their cell mates. There are real monsters out there. You would say they were rejected by the society and they've grown frustrated and traumatized But this isn't an excuse to go on a killing spree. Honestly, I think committing a crime is the most horrible thing one can do. Some people can be helped. We've all had our downs, but we're not all criminals. But those who kill and enjoy it, can't be helped. I'm sorry. They should just be removed for everyone's sake, including their own.

[Wantdew]

I think Under 18s cant have death sentences, just life in prison.....

Anyone over 18 i'd say would be able to get the death sentence.

Think about that, the death sentance is a way to remove those people who could do it again. A child is more likly to do that cosidering they have much more life left.

[Iza111]

The death penalty: They may have killed, but if you kill them, are you any better than they are?

[Sir Barton]

The death penalty: They may have killed, but if you kill them, are you any better than they are?

Nope, but when we take them out of the population we are all just a little bit safer. They chose to kill for pleasure, profit, power...some intrinsic value. When we kill, as a society, it is for protection; something that benefits all of society. I don't see that as a moral high ground, but I do see it as a legitimate reason instead of a personal agenda.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Sir Barton