|
|
#141 | |||
|
MCDC 2011
|
Quote:
I know if I was arrested and I was looking at life in jail; no second chance, I'd rather die as a punishment then spend life in constant guilt and regret.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#142 |
|
TWG Veteran
|
It's not limitede to simply just that reason, however, that is another plus for the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#143 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Wait...the death penalty is for people who do the most horrible and heinous things...and a plus for you is that it is a kind mercy for them? If life in prison is "worse" than death, one assumes you'd be all for life in prison to further punish the murderers and rapists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#144 | |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: a galaxy far far away
Age: 29
Posts: 119
|
Quote:
If a murderer was captured before he succeeded in a suicide attempt, would death not be his first choice anyway? Scenarios like that can be thought of in HUGE quantities, but the first conclusion that "whichever is worse to the one being punished should be granted" doesn't really make any sense because of the lies and manipulations that go on in the legal process. This being said, what would be a way to determine which punishment is ultimately "worse" for an individual? And that's just assuming that they are actually guilty. Personal opinion--cannot be sentenced to death until ABSOLUTE proof is shown, and even then the sentence should not be given out without careful consideration.
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#145 | ||
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Michigan
Age: 29
Posts: 754
|
I skimmed all of the pages of this thread and I apologize sincerely if this point has already been brought up - if so, please simply tell me and I'll read more thoroughly to find it.
Quote:
What if 100 guilty men are given life sentences in jail, while 1 innocent man was executed for a murder he did not commit? One of the guilty men escapes and kills one person. Thus, killing all 101 men would have been an equally good option. Had the escaped guilty man killed two people, killing all 101 men would have been the better option. Obviously, I'm just making up numbers here, but I think that to answer this question accurately we must know the comparison between the number of people who escape from jail and repeat their crimes [they need not be violent] and the number of people who are wrongly executed. The latter is impossible to know, but doesn't the existence of the conundrum disprove your theory? If you can prove that it is more beneficial to let guilty men live, your point is still valid, but until then, it seems to be a moot point in the context of this conversation. Quote:
A. Be happy that they didn't get put to death or B. Hate their life in prison and wish they had been killed. At least if they are put to death, the issue of their feelings is, erm, negated. I feel that if there is sufficient evidence to declare a man guilty for certain terrible crimes [rape, at least 1st-degree murder], he should be considered eligible for the death penalty. [I admit that I am subjective to bias for the crime of rape, since my girlfriend was raped.] Last edited by T3hDDRKid; 06-15-2008 at 07:52 PM.. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#146 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia
Age: 27
Posts: 709
|
Killing criminals actually costs more money then putting them in jail which in my opinion is reason enough to not have the death penalty. Plus, I think nobody should have the right to decide whether someon dies.
And to tehddrkid, criminals generally don't escape from prison. Actually, make that almost never escape from prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
#147 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: IDK look under your bed ;D
Posts: 667
|
my thing is, if you kill someone, you get killed.
but if it something like shooting someone, and they are paralayzed, they should be senteced to life in prison without parol
__________________
AAA-5 FC's-102 Best AAA-Pita Best FC-Piano Etude <He Got Laid [img]http://i34.tinypic.com/rs4m0y.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
#148 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia
Age: 27
Posts: 709
|
So you're saying that once the executioner kills the criminal he should be killed, so on and so forth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#149 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 32
|
For many obvious reasons, justice is not left to the individual. Instead there is in place, a cold blooded, rational system that is not supposed to exhibit favoritism designed to look at the facts of a case and come to a conclusion about the guilt or innocence of an individual. In the final analysis, it is not an individual that carries out an execution but an emotionless institution. The main purpose being to make sure that a sentence is carried out rationally. In so doing it cannot be said that a murderer is murdered because it is case of justice being meted out, not revenge.
Devonian states several times that he does not trust a fallible human system to carry out justice, but that is exactly what the justice system is supposed to do with all of its checks and balances. What one lawyer attempts to do is countered by another which is moderated by a judge in front of a panal of impartial jurors consisting of the defendants peers. Granted it is not perfect but if we are to distrust the justice system's conclusions should we not then dismiss all of its convictions for all crimes for the same reasons? I admit, that although I do believe that the death penalty should be used, I still fear the possibility of mistakes. On the other hand, I know that there are circumstances in which the guilt of the offender is beyond all doubt. In such circumstances the death penalty should be available. Finally, on a side note, the correct expression should be "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and no more." This expression from the Old Testament of the Bible was revolutionary in its time in that no longer could a wealthy, prestigious or 'pillar of the community' exact more from someone who has offended him than what was the actual damage. In other words it set the upper limit for justice, not the minimum. To apply this to a case of murder would be to state that a life for a life is the maximum sentence. I know that it is a bit redundant but that is what justice is supposed to be about. |
|
|
|
|
|
#150 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: IDK look under your bed ;D
Posts: 667
|
lol no, the executioner shouldnt be killed, because he should have law thats states he can kill the killer
__________________
AAA-5 FC's-102 Best AAA-Pita Best FC-Piano Etude <He Got Laid [img]http://i34.tinypic.com/rs4m0y.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
#151 | |||
|
MCDC 2011
|
Quote:
My incredibly retarded, meth-addicted aunt escaped from Texas State Pen not once, but twice.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#152 | |
|
woah shrooms
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 3,864
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#153 |
|
woah shrooms
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 3,864
|
And having 10 guilty people go freely is better than having 1 innocent person be convicted?
First off, most criminals do not change their ways after jail. Most of them go back to the streets and recommit crimes. So you're saying you'd rather let 10 people go to continue their offenses than let 1 person who didn't do anything die. I'm sorry, but as cruel as that sounds, it's the reality of it. If we can sacrifice the life of an innocent fetus, then I don't see why we can't do the same for an innocent adult. |
|
|
|
|
|
#154 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, you're somehow taking this statement to mean that we should never punish anybody "just in case", but the foundation of the statement "I would rather 100 men go free than 1 innocent person suffer wrongly" is what created the "reasonable doubt" clause in trial law. It doesn't say you should let everybody go, it says "If you have -any- doubts as to their guilt, you ought not to find them guilty" Legal dramas on TV love to suggest that there are only two kinds of criminal: The ones who are wholly and completely guilty, and the ones that are going to get off on a stupid technicality despite being obviously and wholly guilty, so I can see why you'd look at a statement like the one I made and somehow conclude that I'm advocating letting obviously guilty criminals onto the streets to re-offend, but that is clearly not what I'm saying. I think you'll find that -most- people who actually make it to trial have a more than large enough body of evidence to convict them "beyond a reasonable doubt" but it's the cases where there isn't quite enough solid evidence to reach that "reasonable doubt" stage where we have to be incredibly careful. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#155 |
|
woah shrooms
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 29
Posts: 3,864
|
Well, should we put a criminal who has more than enough evidence that makes him guilty on death row; or do you want to completely remove capital punishment as a whole because I thought this thread was asking "should we should completely remove it or keep it", and not "should we wrongly convict someone and kill them or let 10 guilty people go".
|
|
|
|
|
|
#156 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I oppose the death penalty because even if we think we have enough evidence to support a conviction, we've clearly executed people wrongly before. At least if we fail in our duty and convict an innocent person to life in prison, if we can eventually prove they were in fact innocent, we can still give reparations and let the person live out the rest of their life.
Once you kill someone, there isn't really any going back from that, so given how fallible the justice system seems to be, I can't support the death penalty even in cases where we are "positive" the person is guilty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#157 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia
Age: 27
Posts: 709
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#158 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 32
|
I think that the biggest frustration with the justice system is it's seemingly inability to mete out a measure of justice equivaltent to the crime. A case in point would be that of Charles Eng and Donald Lake in California. These two, depraved men, decided to kidnap women for the purpose of rape and murder. Further, they were so arrogant, that they decided to videotape their crimes. To say that there was a possiblility of innocence in their case would be the height of naivete and foolishness. If ever there was a case for the death penalty it would be there. Would you not agree, Devonin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#159 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I don't believe we have the right to kill someone else no matter what they did. Lock them up forever, in a small empty room with just enough bread and water to keep them alive, and nothing else. Minimize their quality of life as much as you want, in fact, do so in direct relation to how bad their crime was. I can't support killing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#160 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: IDK look under your bed ;D
Posts: 667
|
Quote:
__________________
AAA-5 FC's-102 Best AAA-Pita Best FC-Piano Etude <He Got Laid [img]http://i34.tinypic.com/rs4m0y.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|