The problem is, the death penalty is not as much used against horrible predators as against the mentally disadvanted, and poor minorities. In this case I am willing to throw out the baby with the bath water in order to save innocent lives.
I can see what you are saying about having enough hard evidence to convict someone. But when there is a lack of hard evidence, then the death penatly should not be a choice. I also agree with yourbuttocks. The death penalty is not used only against predators but against everyone convicted. Also, if someone kills another person by means of the death penalty, is that not murder? How can we bend our rules for certain situations.
On 2002-05-09 15:47, Disclaimer wrote:
I can see what you are saying about having enough hard evidence to convict someone. But when there is a lack of hard evidence, then the death penatly should not be a choice. I also agree with yourbuttocks. The death penalty is not used only against predators but against everyone convicted. Also, if someone kills another person by means of the death penalty, is that not murder? How can we bend our rules for certain situations.[/quote/]
We bend the rules in war, why not here.
Killing a violent convicted crimmnal could be looked at as self defence, the defence of society.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Ghoul on 2002-05-09 17:47 ]
Two good points Mr Ghoul. First off, I cannot say that I agree with bending the rules in war time. Rules are rules. Second, I guess that killing a person for the better of society would be fine, but what about the innocent people? If a life was yours for the taking, then what’s the point in life itself.
we were actually watching something kinda about this in class the other day. it doesn’t really have to do with the death penalty as much as the judicial system. Anyway, our system is designed so that the prosecutor trys to convict and the defense tries to avoid conviction. I’m inferring this as a result of our capitalistic and competitive society. I win or I lose. But shouldn’t our courts try to discover the truth? Its sort of assumed that through the process the truth will come out but time and time again it has proven that it doesn’t….maybe we need to rethink the morality of our “justice” system.
I don’t know that you can pin the blame of this on the "justice’ system itself. The name is misleading because for the most part the “justice” system is not just at all. I would pin the blame on the representatives of the supposed criminals. All they are in a case for is to try and make some money. Even if there is a person that is recieving a large part of the blame for a crime, our society looks for retribution for the crime; weather it be on the person who did it or the accused. The peace of mind and the sorrow that has been lifted off a persons back cannot justify the taking of an innocent life.
The Justice system is just another reason to abolish the death penalty:
It makes mistakes.
You can’t pardon a corpse.
Enough said.
On 2002-05-10 20:03, yourbuttocks wrote:
The Justice system is just another reason to abolish the death penalty:It makes mistakes.
You can’t pardon a corpse.
Enough said.
I agree fully
I like the Stalin QUote
My favorite quote so far. Feel free to use if you wish.
Nah, I like my quote of you even better ;p
Hah. I feel so privileged to be honored on your signature. Expecially since I am a newbie.
On 2002-05-08 15:50, Candyman67 wrote:
It seems to me that the death penalty is very hypocritcal. Society punishes a murderer by killing the murderer (a bit ludicrous to me).
“My honour is my loyalty.”
[ This Message was edited by: Candyman67 on 2002-05-08 15:51 ]
Most people don’t want to die, and figure they could get away with a prison term than death.
But i have a compromise…hjow about we work 100% DNA proven convicted killers in work camps…so they work themselves to death. IO just want a horrible punishment for ones who murder.
note: DNA evidence just shows that someone has been at a crime scene. It does not actually demonstrate that someone shot/knifed/bashed-a-head-into someone. A forensics expert gave us an interesting talk on this, and although DNA evidence is VERY handy (small amounts may be amplified etc.) it is not a photograph of a murder scene.
oh i understand. but if you have DNA, whitnesses, and pretty much a crap-load of evidence that the man is guilty (like OJ), then they deserve that punishment.
Unfortunately, i have forgotten where to find it. But there was a nice “game” on “can you read percentages” somewhere. It had an example where you should do a verdict based on a DNA test. Once version was with percentages, the other one with relations like “one out of 10.000” (which is 0.01%) And then take the average chance of ppl having distinct DNA features (say, having a base population of 1 million around)…. that was funny to see how different the judging was.
Blah, don’t get me started on OJ. DNA does prove that a person was at the crime scene but it also could prove that a person did it when DNA is in certain places (to tired to think of examples). As far as working a person to death, think of what the potential cons of are this.
quote: think of what the potential cons of are this
no pun intended?
(sorry - i couldn’t resist)
Sorry, guess you lost me with your last post too. I should get some sleep. Maybe then I will understand.
