• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Death Penalty

Stayin' alive

GrandMasterFox said:
Obviously putting a man to death for something he didn't do is wrong but is sentencing to say 60 years in prison all that better?
Both are wrong and should have been stopped at a much earlier point than sentencing.
Click to expand...
The death penalty is irrevocable. However if we stopped executing people but never addressed how to minimize wrongful convictions or how better to reverse wrongful convictions once they happen, then we would be making only a miniscule improvement in our system. After reading most of "False Justice" by Jim and Nancy Petro, I am more strongly of the opinion that our appeals process is not functioning at all properly. The CJ system ought to be in a position to take advances in forensics or in the understanding of witness identifications and false confessions into consideration. That requires both reform in the CJ system and that the convicted individual be alive. MOO.
 
With all the advances we have in DNA ,I think the courts should look at the evidence of all the older prisoners on death row. I would hate to see an inocent man put to death.If you catch the person red handed commiting a crime he should have a fair trial ,but if he gets the death penalty and there is no way he would ever be proven inocent, don't drag it out in court with 20 years of appeals . If by chance they appeal it then have a quick trial again and if they are guilty put them to death that day . Why is it that they have to have a seperate trial to sentence a person after they have been found guilty ? This has never made any sense to me either.
 
COLONEL said:
Here is a hypothetical question seeing as everyone likes these . You come home find a family member bleeding say fram a stab wound, you call 911 and the police are on the way, when you hear a scream from another family member upstairs. You go to investigate along the way you grab your gun, you get up satirs and find a low life standing over your wife with a knife . Do you A. tell him to drop the knife and hold him at gun point until the police arrive or B. you say you're a dead mother and shoot him where he stands ? I know I would opt for B. No watse of tax payer money for a long drawn out trial. or the chance of him going free on a tecnicality.
Click to expand...
May I ask a question?

Why do ask?

See, this is like the "Dogg example" in the beginning of the thread. "Let me just give you a grizzly enough example, and you'll probably buy into capital punishment, too!".

Um, no. We know rape and murder are gruesome acts. Our objection to death sentence has nothing to do with ignorance or naivete.

COLONEL said:
Why is it that they have to have a seperate trial to sentence a person after they have been found guilty ? This has never made any sense to me either.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is to determine, for example, why the crime was committed. If I killed someone in self-defense, I would greatly appreciate being allowed to prove this rather than just having the foaming-at-the-mouth CP crowd drag me off to be killed.
 
I'm all for the death penalty in slam-dunk cases where there is literally zero question as to whodunnit.

Take Anders Breverik(sp?) for example. Timothy McVeigh. Charles Manson, who should be dead but isn't.... etc.

Guys like that.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
I suppose it is to determine, for example, why the crime was committed. If I killed someone in self-defense, I would greatly appreciate being allowed to prove this rather than just having the foaming-at-the-mouth CP crowd drag me off to be killed.
Click to expand...

If you killed somebody in self defense, you wouldn't even have committed a crime. If a jury found you guilty (if it even got that far), that means they didn't buy your self defense defense. At least that is how it works in the USA, where we value the right to self defense. YMMV
 
Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.
 
Last edited:
Muldur said:
Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.
Click to expand...

Um, I agree with upholding the death penalty, but in no way agree with how you got there =\
 
Muldur said:
Not only is the DP morally acceptable, but IMO is morally required for all capital crimes.

By NOT enforcing the DP for capital crimes, the state is committing a further criminal act of violence and injustice against society and the individual victims of the capital criminal. By NOT killing these degenerate scum, we are forcing decent, law abiding citizens to labor to feed, clothe, house, and pay for medical care for individuals who have forfeited any moral right to claim the status of "human", and the rights pertaining thereunto.

The "no death penalty" crowd are the same sort of moral nitwits who claim that a bank robber, caught red-handed by the police coming out of the bank with the gun and the bag of cash is a "suspect", not a bank robber.
Click to expand...
And what is the state committing when they execute the wrong person and let the real murderer go out and kill some more?

Sounds like you are parroting the 'pro-criminal lobby' line.
 
crimresearch said:
More slam dunk than beyond a reasonable doubt?

Richard Jewell slam dunk with confession video and everything?

Fatty Arbuckle slam dunk? :D

Some of the crooks wear badges, donchano?
Click to expand...

Very much so, and this is the factor so frequently ignored by those calling for more and more extreme powers by those in charge of our lives and freedom - whether it be executions, locking people up without due process or conducting acts of war. These powers will be abused.
 
crimresearch said:
More slam dunk than beyond a reasonable doubt?

Richard Jewell slam dunk with confession video and everything?

Fatty Arbuckle slam dunk? :D

Some of the crooks wear badges, donchano?
Click to expand...

For crying out loud....

SLAM DUNK

Did I mention Andres Breverik? In no way humanly possible can there be ANY doubt as to his guilt.

Cases.
Like.
That.

Breverik was on film committing the murders. There's no room for doubt, at all. That he's on trial at all ( in my opinion ) is a total farce and a slap in the face of those who lost loved ones.
 
Last edited:
The Dark Lord said:
If you killed somebody in self defense, you wouldn't even have committed a crime. If a jury found you guilty (if it even got that far), that means they didn't buy your self defense defense. At least that is how it works in the USA, where we value the right to self defense. YMMV
Click to expand...
Thank you that would hjave been my answer to him. also I do not think he under stood when I asked why have a separate trial to sentence a person .If the jury found you guilty the judge should be able to sentence you then
 
I like the Death Penalty! :D

As long as it applies to prosecutors who screw up too! :D
 
Breverik was on film committing the murders. There's no room for doubt, at all. That he's on trial at all ( in my opinion ) is a total farce...
Click to expand...
a. Like it or not, that's how modern, democratic nations are run. Deal with it.
b. The court case, by closely scrutinizing every smallest detail of the case, has taught us a lot about both Breivik, the attacks, and its context. I feel both the trials, and their broadcasting by the media, has been handled wonderfully.
c. If we were to just throw Breivik in a "black prison" in some secret location and torture and execute him, War on Terror-style, he would have remained a boogeyman in the eyes of very many. Putting him in the spotlight and tearing into him has done a lot to "declaw" him, reducing him from a scary terrorist to the pathetic disturbed loser he is.

and a slap in the face of those who lost loved ones.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so. Point a above remains, however. Defendants' right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of democracies.
 
NoahFence said:
Its just my opinion.

I'd have rather seen a Humvee with a .50 cal gattling gun turn the moron into swiss cheese.
Click to expand...

Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.
 
Antony said:
Yes, and this is a revealing sentiment. The thing about arguing with supporters of the death penalty is that we can talk all we like about there being no deterrent effect, or faulty justice systems executing the wrong person, or the corrupting influence on society of officially killing people - but it all means nothing.

Death penalty supporters want criminals killed because it gives them a good feeling.
Click to expand...
That would be the most straightforward argument. Society's retaliation.

'Penitence', 'rehabilitation', 'deterrence' and so on are simply euphemisms in this context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom