Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't pointed to a specific case where the highlighted portion happened, just pointed to several that show the criminal justice system does in fact work, albeit slowly at times.

[/ QUOTE ]

DblBarrelJ, are you saying that the basis, or foundation, of your position with regard the death penalty is that there is no evidence of miscarriage of justice that resulted in execution in the US.

Your ignorance is phenomenal!

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why upstanding citizens should be armed. I find it ridiculous that so many people are forced by law to place themselves at the mercy of these gangsta pieces of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is weak. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]
As far as I can tell, I haven't yet expressed any train of logic. I expressed the opinion that upstanding citizens should be armed. And I expressed the opinion that laws mandating that gangsta pieces of [censored] have the upper hand in violent confrontations with upstanding citizens are ridiculous. I may hold these opinions for logical reasons, but I haven't yet expressed them in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're first statement seems to be part of an argument. I do agree with it, however, and would like to hear the explanation for why it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first sentence was supposed to be short for: "In situations such as these, I would rather see the upstanding citzen armed and able to fight, rather than gunned down in cold blood."

I'd like to see an explanation for why it's "wrong" too.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The world would be a better place if everyone carried guns.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Often I think its pretty obvious that the person is not innocent and cannot be innocent. There are clearly cases where the chances of the convicted being innocent is so slim it is not worth noting. When you have a dozen of eye witnesses, DNA, confession, motives, videotape and so on there is very litle reason for talking about "chance of being innocent".

[/ QUOTE ]
The chance of society executing an innocent person is always greater than zero. Not all murders have dozens of eye witnesses or CSI-quality DNA evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument seemed to be on a specific-case level. You said that there is always a chance for someone being innocent, and I argue that in some cases there are 0% chance of the person being innocent.

When there is doubt I prefer the person going free altogether, Im not in favor "well, you are 90% likely to be guilty, thats not quite enough to kill you, but we feel we are better off putting you behind bars for the next 25 years".

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is phenomenal!

[/ QUOTE ]

My general feelings about you MidGe!

Good morning from the US btw.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, i'm suprised so many people here think it is good for the state to murder people.

[/ QUOTE ]

As murder is the unlawful killing of a human being I dont think there are anyone here that think that is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've learned not to go too for down that road. There are a certain number of people who do not have the capability to understand that while killing is usually wrong, there are exceptions where it is not only justifiable, but necessary.

Whether the death penalty is one of those times is up in the air for debate, and whether zasterguava is one of those without the capability to understand sometimes killing is morally acceptable, and necessary for the good of yourself or society I don't know, but I'm just saying this as a general statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did not divulge at all in to my personal opinion on the (state) death penalty- was just making an observation. My personl opinion is that the state should not murder people; though there are exceptions e.g legitimate wars. However, I think history serves me well in showig that the state should not conduct murder against percieved threats to society and that there are better deterrents and practical ways to curb these probelms.

To the person who said that the death penalty is not murder because it is not unlawfull... you may like to note that in the UK the act to abolish the death penalty was called The MURDER Act of 1965. I'm pretty sure the death of 5 milltion Jews in Germany was murder; or because it was lawful as dictated by head of state it wasn't murder? Im guessing you refer to unlawful as 'not conforming to legality' as if you refer to 'moral law' then it doesn;t make sense because as demonstrated here the percepton of morality is completely ambiguous and unique to the indivudual.

I actually sympathise with a traditional anarchist (whoes name escpaes me) who argues that the death penalty of murderers could be just in an anarchist/ fair society providing the fate of the murderer is decided by those involved/ directly effected and conducted in a legitimate manner. But in honesty I understand this is hardly relevent to current society and current discussion.

But yeah, capital punishment is abhorent and immoral to summarise.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

Like I did against it, could someone post their arguments for the death penalty?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument seemed to be on a specific-case level. You said that there is always a chance for someone being innocent, and I argue that in some cases there are 0% chance of the person being innocent.

When there is doubt I prefer the person going free altogether, Im not in favor "well, you are 90% likely to be guilty, thats not quite enough to kill you, but we feel we are better off putting you behind bars for the next 25 years".

[/ QUOTE ]
So we're back to this. I refer you to my previous comment on prison vs death penalty.

I'm curious, just to make sure, are you for the death penalty?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thats like arguing against the morality of sentencing people to serve time in prison based on the fact that people that have served time in prison are later found to beinnocent, and the government have wrongfully taken away their freedom for an often substantial time. Noone is arguing in favor of punishing innocent people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you not see any difference between putting an innocent person in prison for life, releasing him 15 years later because he turned out to be innocent, and killing him and finding out he was innocent 15 years later..?

My point is, killing an innocent person is worse than putting him in prison. Do you not agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not in favor of punishing people on the varying degree of how likely they are to be guilty of a crime. If someone is 30% likely to have killed someone, are we giving him a fine? 50%=House arrest? 75%=5 years? 90%=10 years?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious, just to make sure, are you for the death penalty?

[/ QUOTE ]

Long answer: Yes, in some cases

Short answer: Yes

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Long answer: Yes, in some cases

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not in favor of punishing people on the varying degree of how likely they are to be guilty of a crime. If someone is 30% likely to have killed someone, are we giving him a fine? 50%=House arrest? 75%=5 years? 90%=10 years?

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither am I. However, death is final, prison is not. We know that innocent people do get convicted (see previous references).

I'm against the death penalty all together, you're the one who's for it "in some cases". Explain?

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You still haven't pointed to a specific case where the highlighted portion happened, just pointed to several that show the criminal justice system does in fact work, albeit slowly at times.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...?&did=2238 (I didn't actually read through those cases, but quickly googled something)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you posted that. I actually, as strange as it would be for many of you to believe, do have a problem with the way Texas handles executions. If you'll notice on that thread, more than half of them are from Texas.

Most of those are kind of weak speculation, but I'd like to focus in on these two, as they are the most glaring examples.

[ QUOTE ]
David Spence Texas Conviction: 1984, Executed: 1997
Spence was charged with murdering three teenagers in 1982. He was allegedly hired by a convenience store owner to kill another girl, and killed these victims by mistake. The convenience store owner, Muneer Deeb, was originally convicted and sentenced to death, but then was acquitted at a re-trial. The police lieutenant who supervised the investigation of Spence, Marvin Horton, later concluded: "I do not think David Spence committed this crime." Ramon Salinas, the homicide detective who actually conducted the investigation, said: "My opinion is that David Spence was innocent. Nothing from the investigation ever led us to any evidence that he was involved." No physical evidence connected Spence to the crime. The case against Spence was pursued by a zealous narcotics cop who relied on testimony of prison inmates who were granted favors in return for testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem with this case. I have a real problem with the American court system allowing incarcerated inmates to provide testimony, especially without serious collaberation, and I have an even bigger problem with sentence reduction and favors for such testimony.

Anyone with a functional brain should be able to see that. Give a sentence reduction to an incarcerated inmate, he'll tell you under oath that the sky is green and that he personally witnessed the JFK assassination, in spite of the fact that he's never seen Texas and wasn't born until 1982.

[ QUOTE ]
Cameron Willingham Texas Convicted: 1992, Executed: 2004
After examining evidence from the capital prosecution of Cameron Willingham, four national arson experts have concluded that the original investigation of Willingham's case was flawed and it is possible the fire was accidental. The independent investigation, reported by the Chicago Tribune, found that prosecutors and arson investigators used arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. Willingham was executed earlier this year in Texas despite his consistent claims of innocence. He was convicted of murdering his three children in a 1991 house fire.


Arson expert Gerald Hurst said, "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire." Former Louisiana State University fire instructor Kendall Ryland added, "[It] made me sick to think this guy was executed based on this investigation.... They executed this guy and they've just got no idea - at least not scientifically - if he set the fire, or if the fire was even intentionally set."


Willingham was convicted of capital murder after arson investigators concluded that 20 indicators of arson led them to believe that an accelerent had been used to set three separate fires inside his home. Among the only other evidence presented by prosecutors during the the trial was testimony from jailhouse snitch Johnny E. Webb, a drug addict on psychiatric medication, who claimed Willingham had confessed to him in the county jail.


[/ QUOTE ]

Notice we have the same problems here in this case. Still, 8 cases, 1/2 of which are suspect, the other half are based on prison "snitches".

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your ignorance is phenomenal!

[/ QUOTE ]

My general feelings about you MidGe!

Good morning from the US btw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sunday, July 2, 2006; Page B04

Last Monday, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in Kansas by a vote of 5 to 4 in the case of Kansas v. Marsh . In concurring with the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the decision was justified because, in recent American history, there has not been "a single case -- not one -- in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

Unfortunately, Scalia is wrong. Public concern about wrongful convictions has been growing since DNA evidence started exonerating death row inmates in recent years...
Wrong on wronful executions - Washington Post

PS Once you get wrongfully executed you won't be very active in trying to rectify the perception of your guilt or innocence either!

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why upstanding citizens should be armed. I find it ridiculous that so many people are forced by law to place themselves at the mercy of these gangsta pieces of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic is weak. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people have to use that freaking DUCY in stead of pointing out what they disagree with? It just slows the developent of the thread/subject down, and basically having the previous poster having to guess why you find his statements weak/wrong does not add much to the discussion. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take a wild shot in the dark and assume that he's under the strange assumption that a man who would gun someone down for asking him to please move would, somehow, for reasons we as humans can never understand, not carry a gun because "its against the law".

Anyone want to take any wagers the suspect was actually carrying the gun illegally anyway, without the proper permits?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's got to be at least 100 to 1 that the guy was already carrying illegally.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Long answer: Yes, in some cases

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not in favor of punishing people on the varying degree of how likely they are to be guilty of a crime. If someone is 30% likely to have killed someone, are we giving him a fine? 50%=House arrest? 75%=5 years? 90%=10 years?

[/ QUOTE ]
Neither am I. However, death is final, prison is not. We know that innocent people do get convicted (see previous references).

I'm against the death penalty all together, you're the one who's for it "in some cases". Explain?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, innocent people have been convicted. But you seem unable to accept the fact that they have been convicted in the first stage of a multi-stage system, and they have later been cleared of their charges when they have gone on to the next stage in the road to the poison-needle. From what Ive read there is little reason to believe that anyone of those that have been executed in the US after the reintroduction of the death penalty has been wrongfully punished.

Im in favor of the death penalty in some cases, as in "the worst cases".

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope this guy frys.

Basicly this past weekend a guy got shot in the head and later died after the UF/FSU football game. He was shot in the head because he asked a couple guys to hurry up who were talking to some people in a car in front of them that was blocking the path when they were trying to leave a parking garage downtown. It's [censored] senseless. Anyone who has so little value for another human being's life does not deserve to live. Leathal injection is too humane for this prick.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post shows why I'm against the death penalty. In a fit of anger (righteous though it may be) about a particular crime, someone says "Well, for a murder this bad surely the death penalty is in order!" And then...

"Yes, yes. Of course, of course. How awful!"

"But we must make sure that it is only used when the crime is really bad and we're really sure the person's guilty."

"Oh, yes, of course."

Days later...

"Are you telling me that when my daughter was killed that wasn't bad enough?"

"Er, um, no of course not. To death with with the defendent!"

"Are you trying to tell me that it isn't enough that someone saw a car just like the defendent's leaving the scene? I lost my husband!"

"Er, um, no of course not. To death with with the defendent!"

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
From what Ive read there is little reason to believe that anyone of those that have been executed in the US after the reintroduction of the death penalty has been wrongfully punished.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll repeat Midge's point: "Once you get wrongfully executed you won't be very active in trying to rectify the perception of your guilt or innocence either!"

[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of the death penalty in some cases, as in "the worst cases".

[/ QUOTE ]
What is a worst case? What isn't? What is the worst crime you wouldn't use the death penalty for? What is the least worst crime you would use the death penalty for?

I have yet to hear a solid argument for death penalties here, aside from "we're pretty sure they're never innocent".

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This post shows why I'm against the death penalty. In a fit of anger (righteous though it may be) about a particular crime, someone says "Well, for a murder this bad surely the death penalty is in order!" And then...

"Yes, yes. Of course, of course. How awful!"

"But we must make sure that it is only used when the crime is really bad and we're really sure the person's guilty."

"Oh, yes, of course."

Days later...

"Are you telling me that when my daughter was killed that wasn't bad enough?"

"Er, um, no of course not. To death with with the defendent!"

"Are you trying to tell me that it isn't enough that someone saw a car just like the defendent's leaving the scene? I lost my husband!"

"Er, um, no of course not. To death with with the defendent!"

And so on, and so on, and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you also against varying length of prison-time based on the severity of the crime? Some murderers get 40 years, while others only get 15 because their murder seemed "less bad"? Should there be one set sentence for anyone who are found guilty of having taken the life of another human being?

And how is having a death penalty related to less evidence needed for a conviction? Its not like states where the death penalty is in place automatically convicts people based on them having a car that resembles the car at the scene of the crime, while states without a death penalty automatically demands a lot more hard evidence.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Im in favor of the death penalty in some cases, as in "the worst cases".

[/ QUOTE ]
What is a worst case? What isn't? What is the worst crime you wouldn't use the death penalty for? What is the least worst crime you would use the death penalty for?

[/ QUOTE ]
I read soemwhere that you are going to the Rosenborg-Chelsea game, so under the assumption that you are Norwegian Im gonna say that Viggo Kristiansen is the one case in Norway from the last 10 years where I feel death penalty would have been in place. There are probably others as well, but thats the one that comes to mind.

[ QUOTE ]
I have yet to hear a solid argument for death penalties here, aside from "we're pretty sure they're never innocent".

[/ QUOTE ]
That is not an argument for or against the death penalty. That is solely related to the fairness of the courts, not the sentence handed out.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'll repeat Midge's point: "Once you get wrongfully executed you won't be very active in trying to rectify the perception of your guilt or innocence either!"


[/ QUOTE ]

I have Midge on ignore so I dont see his posts, but I can answer this one since you brought it up.

This is not an argument against the death penalty. People who are against the death penalty love to bring this up, but the argument is about the legality/morality of a death penalty altogether. There are cases where there is zero doubt about the guilt of the defendent, and in some cases that guy will be executed. People like myself find that fair. That person cannot be executed if the death penalty is not in place, and that would suck imo.

People that are being executed in the US have gone through so many trials over so many years that it seems hugely unlikely that annyone innocent are being executed. That makes the "but what about the innocent people that are being executed?"-argument rather trivial.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll repeat Midge's point: "Once you get wrongfully executed you won't be very active in trying to rectify the perception of your guilt or innocence either!"


[/ QUOTE ]

I have Midge on ignore so I dont see his posts, but I can answer this one since you brought it up.

This is not an argument against the death penalty. People who are against the death penalty love to bring this up, but the argument is about the legality/morality of a death penalty altogether. There are cases where there is zero doubt about the guilt of the defendent, and in some cases that guy will be executed. People like myself find that fair. That person cannot be executed if the death penalty is not in place, and that would suck imo.

People that are being executed in the US have gone through so many trials over so many years that it seems hugely unlikely that annyone innocent are being executed. That makes the "but what about the innocent people that are being executed?"-argument rather trivial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the point that it's a ridiculous point anyway. I've seen several stories about families who tried for years after the execution to prove the innocence of a loved one, only to end up ultimately proving an even more rock solid case against their loved one than the state did.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll repeat Midge's point: "Once you get wrongfully executed you won't be very active in trying to rectify the perception of your guilt or innocence either!"


[/ QUOTE ]

I have Midge on ignore so I dont see his posts, but I can answer this one since you brought it up.

This is not an argument against the death penalty. People who are against the death penalty love to bring this up, but the argument is about the legality/morality of a death penalty altogether. There are cases where there is zero doubt about the guilt of the defendent, and in some cases that guy will be executed. People like myself find that fair. That person cannot be executed if the death penalty is not in place, and that would suck imo.

People that are being executed in the US have gone through so many trials over so many years that it seems hugely unlikely that annyone innocent are being executed. That makes the "but what about the innocent people that are being executed?"-argument rather trivial.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the point that it's a ridiculous point anyway. I've seen several stories about families who tried for years after the execution to prove the innocence of a loved one, only to end up ultimately proving an even more rock solid case against their loved one than the state did.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they just had to wait for the right technology to come along. DNA forensic did and still does exonerate many wrongfully condemned to death, or long prison terms. But I do appreciate that a screw would usually not be technology literate.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

It is wrong to take vengeance. Revenge is essentially an evil emotion. By willfully submitting themselves to primitive and evil emotions, humans become less Godlike and even less human. Resisting the urge for vengeance, on the other hand, is the sign of a higher consciousness.

Many on Death Row have later been exonerated by DNA ewvidence (and some posthumously, I believe). You can free an innocent man from prison but you cannot resurrect him from the grave. Only Jesus was resurrected, and it is not for humans to pretend to be Gods, in meting out death as punishment.

Taking a life in hatred, as the state and state's apparatchiks do, is in itself an evil act.

The emotion for vengeance is understandable but what sets man above the animals is that man has the conscious ability to suppress the evil and to choose the good, whereas animals do not have the capability of making that willful choice. Choosing to kill (or to have killed) in vengeance or in hatred, is not living up to the God-given human potential.

Deliberately acting in cruelty is also evil.

Therefore the death penalty is evil on two counts: it is a deliberate act of cruelty, as well as a willful rejection of the higher reaches of human potential. Both are sins against God, and against the spirit of Love, and against everything pointing towards higher human potential.

Thanks for reading.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

I opt to keep the Christian God out of this debate.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

As long as there is a seperation between the church and state I find it hard to argue for or against the death penalty based on what the Bible says.

And killing people has as little to do with playing God as treating deadly diseases do. Gods punishment doesnt come into play after the death is a fact, and whatever punishment is given in this world by humans probably should not be linked to any powers God have to punish people.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

Diverging slightly: Here is a good current example of the robustness of the justice system! Luckily the judge wasn't handing out death sentences [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
As long as there is a seperation between the church and state I find it hard to argue for or against the death penalty based on what the Bible says.

And killing people has as little to do with playing God as treating deadly diseases do. Gods punishment doesnt come into play after the death is a fact, and whatever punishment is given in this world by humans probably should not be linked to any powers God have to punish people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to base it on God or the Bible, just base it on what you know in your heart is good and kind and right, versus what you know is cruel and evil and wrong. Acting in vengeance and cruelty is wrong and you know it when you look deep in your heart.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

Making a statement that people who take away innnocent lives for their own pleasure or profit risk having their own life taken away from them, and no longer be part of this world is not something I consider evil, cruel or wrong.

I think that stating that our society value the life of the innocent so much that those who take it away can end up having the same done upon them is not evil. In my heart I see this world and our society as being better with certain people that have proved that they do not respect the innocent life being sent to meet their creator.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Diverging slightly: Here is a good current example of the robustness of the justice system! Luckily the judge wasn't handing out death sentences [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to go out on a limb and agree with Midge(!) that the state should not have the power of life and death over individuals.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

This make me remember why I put Midge on ignore in the first place.

Somehow hes not able to comprehend the fact that a process that last more than a decade and involves 5+ trials on the highest level (with expert witnesses, media attention, added attention from the system itself) is´nt comparable to one judge handing out stupid sentences for small offences on a bad day.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

I'm against the death penalty, but wouldn't mind so much if the entire town of Gainesville was leveled... with extreme prejudice!

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This make me remember why I put Midge on ignore in the first place.

Somehow hes not able to comprehend the fact that a process that last more than a decade and involves 5+ trials on the highest level (with expert witnesses, media attention, added attention from the system itself) is´nt comparable to one judge handing out stupid sentences for small offences on a bad day.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry I didn't know, nor did I wish to imply, you had memory problems. Be that as it may, I wonder at which level of your justice systems you think no more mistaken are made? I would have accepted fewer, but none!? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

IMO, comments such as "he did such a horrible thing, he should die" - often referring to the murder and molestation of children - are based on hatred. I too get disgusted when I hear some of the things that are done in the world, but I think it is a bad idea to base laws on it.

As long as there is no good argument for the death penalty, e.g. it is considerably safer for the society, aside from the subjective opinion of "he deserved it", I'm against it.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you also against varying length of prison-time based on the severity of the crime? Some murderers get 40 years, while others only get 15 because their murder seemed "less bad"? Should there be one set sentence for anyone who are found guilty of having taken the life of another human being?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. I believe the death sentence clearly falls into it's own category as a punishment because it is by far the most severe and fully irreversable. So, in my admittedly subjective view, the death sentence cannot be considered as "just another level of severity of punishment".

[ QUOTE ]
And how is having a death penalty related to less evidence needed for a conviction? Its not like states where the death penalty is in place automatically convicts people based on them having a car that resembles the car at the scene of the crime, while states without a death penalty automatically demands a lot more hard evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand my point. My point is that arguments for the death penalty inevitably rely on the caveat that it will only be used when the crime is "bad enough" and their is "a very low chance of punishing someone innocent". These subjective measures are insufficient, in my view, for determination of when the death sentence will be applied. I have no doubt that the law will be used to punish people to the maximum extent possible (that's what it's there for) and when you have subjective measures determining the scope of the law you will inevitably end up with emotional reactions pushing the application of the law beyond what you think is reasonable. For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, comments such as "he did such a horrible thing, he should die" - often referring to the murder and molestation of children - are based on hatred. I too get disgusted when I hear some of the things that are done in the world, but I think it is a bad idea to base laws on it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have to disagree. Think one of the problems when handing out punishments is that people seem to have forgotten what the murderer actually have done. To every action there is a reaction, and the worse the crie the harder the punishment. The victim can be forgotten or distanced from the trial, while the murderer is there to show his humanity and good will and all that. But we should always try to remember what it was that was taken away, an inncoent person, with maybe 50 good years left, with a loving family or other people who cared for him/her that will grieve forever because of the selfish actions of the murderer.

Handing out punishment in corrolation with the crime that the offender has been found guilty of seems very logical to me, and for some crimes I dont find any punishment but capital punishment sufficient. To the degree that any hate is involved in this on my part it is more hate towards the action itself and not necessarily the agressor, but still he have to pay for the deliberate action that he took.

When someone say "he did such a horrible thing" they are hating what he did, and "he must die" based on that action. I can honestly say that Im in favor of executing people without hating the persons, but hating the actions so much that I do not find any other punishment suitable for the people guilty of commiting the crimes.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different when we have the death penalty than it is if we give people time in prison? Some people will argue that "how come he only got 12 years when someone last week got 50 years, or someone 2 months ago got life?". This is as much an argument against varying length of prison-sentences as it is against death penalty. With the death penalty we still have the possibility to carefully state which crimes and situations and limitations it applies to.

And "really very positively sure" also applies when we just have a prison sentence.

Your remarks doesnt seem to deal with the death penalty itself, just how the public mob react to criminals and the legal system, and I dont feel comfortable basing our laws on what some mob feels in some hypotethical situations.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Money2burn,

Are you advocating the death penalty in only cases like this where guilt is not in question and the crime is especially heinous?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I think there should be very very strict rules for being sentanced to the death penalty, but I feel that this is a very clear case where there should be no other option. Upon sentancing this guy's life should be ended as soon as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, what is the purpose of ending this murder's life? Is there anything society gains from losing another person? One thing that seems to confuse me about the death penalty is that we lose what possibly could be another member of humanity who could do positive things. One more question, in your eyes would his immediate state execution be a means of retribution on behalf of the bereaved or is it something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I had to sleep, wasn't expecting this thing to blow up like it did.

Well, it's partly retribution, and part effeciency. If he gets sentance to the death penalty I don't see much reason to drag out his execution. It costs money that we shouldn't have to pay and allows him to live longer than he deserves imo.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it's partly retribution, and part effeciency. If he gets sentance to the death penalty I don't see much reason to drag out his execution. It costs money that we shouldn't have to pay and allows him to live longer than he deserves imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the 124 innocent Americans who were found innocent and released after receiving the death sentence strongly disagree.

As pointed out earlier in this thread, the X number of trials and tedious process of death row is very necessary if you're going to use the death penalty.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

One gotta ask oneself what do you want from punishment. Do you want less hassle or revenge? Death penalties following stringent conditions are expensive, outdrawn, doesn't seem to be very effective when it comes to lowering crime and it sends a weird message ("listen children, its wrong to kill so sometimes when people do it we kill them") and I wouldn't be surprised if it gives nourishment to a more aggressive culture (though that last one I just my personal judgement speaking) since it 'idolizes' the revenge aspect of punishment.

Personally from punishment I want chances at lower crime rates, lowered chance of repeat offences (the death penalty obv rules supreme on that one), cost efficiency and lowered risk of error. In total I don't think the death penalty delivers this package in a worthwhile deal.

Re: This is why I\'m for the death penalty.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For virtually any murder, someone will want the murderer dead, and when faced with the prospect of telling someone that the murder of their loved one was not "severe enough", I have no doubt that most people would back down. The same goes for subjective determination of being "really very positively sure" that the defendent is guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this different when we have the death penalty than it is if we give people time in prison? Some people will argue that "how come he only got 12 years when someone last week got 50 years, or someone 2 months ago got life?".

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the very first thing I addressed in my prior post. My view is based on my subjective opinion that the death sentence is not just an extension of a life in prison sentence. You're comparing apples and oranges because the death sentence is the most severe (subjectively, for sure) and is irreversable (objectively, by the way).