06 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe death penalty should only be used when guilt is incontrovertible, and only for the most haenous of crimes.....prepubescent child rape springs immediately to mind.
in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a part ...[text shortened]... icted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
We should also allow the severed heads of these bastards to be kicked around the market square of the town, or to be used in some reality gameshow which includes paintball guns and chainsaws....i'm kinda off the fence on this one mate.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by lepomisi think i've seen newshots of trials in other countries where the defendants were hidden from the jury.
Interesting... has anything like that ever been pursued?
and some mideastern countries are ahead of us re the degree of control given the victim's family in defining the sentence.
probably there are lots more examples.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotI wouldn't call letting the family defining a criminals sentence progress, but I was interested in the jury being blind to the emotional aspects of a trial.
i think i've seen newshots of trials in other countries where the defendants were hidden from the jury.
and some mideastern countries are ahead of us re the degree of control given the victim's family in defining the sentence.
probably there are lots more examples.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhat is the purpose of a judicial system if we simply allow individuals to take "justice" into their own hands? Would you propose having the judicial system abolished?
would you also propose having the government define permissible boundaries in bedroom activity? after all, individuals don't know what's good for them.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf you commit a crime, say, illegally parking in front of someone else's house, would you prefer that the owner of the house chooses the punishment or would you prefer an elected government, not blinded by the emotional heat of the moment, to set it instead.
would you also propose having the government define permissible boundaries in bedroom activity? after all, individuals don't know what's good for them.
The punishment for a crime must be the same for everyone, regardless of the consequences.
Imagine you are driving along a motorway and your tire blows because the tread has worn down and you swerve off and hit an empty bus parked on the hard shoulder. The thing you did wrong, i.e your crime, was to neglect the proper upkeep of your vehicle. The consequences were significant but not major (assuming you survive of course). Now lets say another person has exactly the same accident but the bus is full of school children.
Purely on the throw of the dice, two people having neglected to properly maintain their car in the same way but one gets the full force of angry and upset parents choosing the punishment and the other probably gets his driving license revoked.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by wittywonkathere's no need for a jury in the sentencing phase, or a judge either, except to inform as to the permissible range of punishment prescribed by law.
What is the purpose of a judicial system if we simply allow individuals to take "justice" into their own hands? Would you propose having the judicial system abolished?
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by WheelyWhy don't we create civil obedience just by randomly picking people out of a telephone directory and killing them on prime time. If nothing else it will make you glad to be alive and while you haven't been called the sense that you could be next will probably spur you onto enjoying everything you could out of this life.
If you have decided that the death penalty is a suitable punishment then that 1% figure is collateral damage and acceptable. We have the same in prisons now who are innocent.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by kmax87I don't think that would be a very good idea.
Why don't we create civil obedience just by randomly picking people out of a telephone directory and killing them on prime time. If nothing else it will make you glad to be alive and while you haven't been called the sense that you could be next will probably spur you onto enjoying everything you could out of this life.
07 Jul 07
Ever notice that the "innocent" death row inmates that do get exonerated and released usually had extensive criminal records to begin with?
Not like it would've been any great loss if a mistake had been made. They probably deserved it for a bunch of things they weren't caught for.
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by slimjimSo it doesn't bother you the blatant discrepency where blacks are executed 400% more than whites? Doesn't that say something about the system?
Capital punishment does deter crime. Once you fry their butts they will never kill again. It costs more because of puke lawyers who drag out the trial most of the time knowing their client is a murderer. They should let the family of the victim decide whether to kill the SOB or not. I wonder what the percentage rate would be then for the executuion of said individual.