This is why I'm for the death penalty.

[slickss]

[ 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?

[Bedreviter]

[ 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".

[slickss]

[ 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".

[Bedreviter]

[ 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.

[Bedreviter]

[ 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.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ 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.

[MidGe]

[ 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.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

MidGe, are you honestly going to challenge my knowledge of forensics with your own? I'm not denying that DNA evidence has exonerated some innocent people, but you really need a reality check here.

Just for the record, there is alot of spin placed on many of these cases. The DNA is either there, or it isn't. If they say "The DNA 'cast's doubt as to the guilt' of the convicted" what they really mean is "The evidence was DNA tested after the fact, but the results were inconclusive." Sometimes it also means "DNA tests were attempted, but a sufficient sample did not exist".

These are just headlines by people who have moral objections to the death penalty. If real evidence existed, ten thousand defense attorneys would be jumping all over it, which is exactly what happens when hard DNA evidence actually does exonerate someone.

It's amazing what a little leftist spin can do for a story.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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".

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean there are actually people who are in favor of the death penalty who are NOT in favor of shortening the appeals process and making it a more efficient and cost-effective process from beginning to end? I've never met one.

[Bedreviter]

Well hi. Pleased to be the first then.