Re: The Death Penalty
It is actually difficult to say. The death penalty would work as karma. HOWEVER, you have to actually prove that the crime was done by this person, ensuring whether or not they are innocent or guilty. If they are guilty, and the crime was murder, then I say go ahead. But I voted "no" because it may not be effective if a person was put to death for another person. No one should be on Death Row, because being assigned a day to die should not happen, when they could just leave them there for life, to rot in prison anyway.
I mean, they invented the lie detector (whatever the scientific word for it is) in order to detect the changes in blood pressure caused by the uneasiness of lying. However, it is not used for those accused for a crime as extreme as death, as well as placing people on death row that are innocent. If they aren't given the chance to prove that they are not lying about the crime that they were accused of, then they could be put to death in place of the actual murderer.
The system was developed to help improve the community to remove people that try to bring down the name of the society. Instead, they are not investigating far enough to say who is the actual person that committed the crime. Think about it logically, shows like CSI and Law & Order are not cut out for what it is in real life. I mean, you see more reality in crime solving in Scooby Doo. Because the suspicions of one person does not mean that they are the guilty one.
You actually have to go deeper than what suspicions or tests show you. If they were to say: "'Person x' was killed by 'Object y', and the fingerprints or blood from 'Person z' is on the body of Person x after we ran tests." Now you see that is how they do it in the shows and the movies. In an actual scenario, they are starting to do that as well, because they do not want to take all the time they have to go deep enough into the crime to figure out who actually committed the crime. It's like a game of Clue. They accuse someone of a crime, and each person finds some way to prove why they were either innocent, or which instrument was used, and where. They already know the instrument used, and where. But do they know the person? The system just finds the person that they suspect the most of the crime, and then put them in prison and Death Row without a single chance.
This is why the death penalty system is extremely flawed, and should be removed, if not fixed in any way. Even the most innocent of people get screwed over by the system because of suspicions that they never bothered to think through. If they have an alibi, and the lie detector is used and proves that they are not lying about what happened and where they were at the time. Then they should be let go. If things were like they were in the Old West, it would be easier to find someone, because there are usually witnesses as to what went on because they did nearly everything publicly. And they already knew their man. Even if they didn't, they were located in an open area, with towns so far away from each other, that they would have to come back to town eventually. So, they could easily find the person who ran away as they came back, with a witness to any previous crime able to point them out.
It's not that easy anymore. So, each person on Death Row should get a chance to show they are innocent, unless someone can actually point them out because they know what happened, where it happened, and who did it.
That is all.
- Cursebred
It is actually difficult to say. The death penalty would work as karma. HOWEVER, you have to actually prove that the crime was done by this person, ensuring whether or not they are innocent or guilty. If they are guilty, and the crime was murder, then I say go ahead. But I voted "no" because it may not be effective if a person was put to death for another person. No one should be on Death Row, because being assigned a day to die should not happen, when they could just leave them there for life, to rot in prison anyway.
I mean, they invented the lie detector (whatever the scientific word for it is) in order to detect the changes in blood pressure caused by the uneasiness of lying. However, it is not used for those accused for a crime as extreme as death, as well as placing people on death row that are innocent. If they aren't given the chance to prove that they are not lying about the crime that they were accused of, then they could be put to death in place of the actual murderer.
The system was developed to help improve the community to remove people that try to bring down the name of the society. Instead, they are not investigating far enough to say who is the actual person that committed the crime. Think about it logically, shows like CSI and Law & Order are not cut out for what it is in real life. I mean, you see more reality in crime solving in Scooby Doo. Because the suspicions of one person does not mean that they are the guilty one.
You actually have to go deeper than what suspicions or tests show you. If they were to say: "'Person x' was killed by 'Object y', and the fingerprints or blood from 'Person z' is on the body of Person x after we ran tests." Now you see that is how they do it in the shows and the movies. In an actual scenario, they are starting to do that as well, because they do not want to take all the time they have to go deep enough into the crime to figure out who actually committed the crime. It's like a game of Clue. They accuse someone of a crime, and each person finds some way to prove why they were either innocent, or which instrument was used, and where. They already know the instrument used, and where. But do they know the person? The system just finds the person that they suspect the most of the crime, and then put them in prison and Death Row without a single chance.
This is why the death penalty system is extremely flawed, and should be removed, if not fixed in any way. Even the most innocent of people get screwed over by the system because of suspicions that they never bothered to think through. If they have an alibi, and the lie detector is used and proves that they are not lying about what happened and where they were at the time. Then they should be let go. If things were like they were in the Old West, it would be easier to find someone, because there are usually witnesses as to what went on because they did nearly everything publicly. And they already knew their man. Even if they didn't, they were located in an open area, with towns so far away from each other, that they would have to come back to town eventually. So, they could easily find the person who ran away as they came back, with a witness to any previous crime able to point them out.
It's not that easy anymore. So, each person on Death Row should get a chance to show they are innocent, unless someone can actually point them out because they know what happened, where it happened, and who did it.
That is all.
- Cursebred
Comment