Death Penalty - Your thoughts

goldfly said:
uh, killing innocent people and not believing the gov't should have the power to do so
Click to expand...

Innocent people die all the time and at the hands of the government. Extremely few happen by death penalty. So I ask again, why be so vehemently against it? Why do some make it a top issue as opposed to something else?
 
goldfly said:
your willingness to let 10 people die for a crime they didn't do is very disturbing to me
Click to expand...

Well, first I doubt the stat. Second and most important, I'm just not making it a top issue is all. That was my question. Innocent people die all the time for a plethora of preventable reasons. Why not solve these issues first?

Still haven't heard a good reason why I should make this a top issue.
 
weso1 said:
Well, first I doubt the stat. Second and most important, I'm just not making it a top issue is all. That was my question. Innocent people die all the time for a plethora of preventable reasons. Why not solve these issues first?

Still haven't heard a good reason why I should make this a top issue.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point, to me.
What other ways do innocent people die? I know it happens, I'm not arguing - just can't think.
I know what you're saying though and it's a solid point so far.
 
weso1 said:
You're comparing apples and oranges. Really hard to compare an amendment in the Bill of Rights to a modern day amendment.
Click to expand...

Why?

weso1 said:
Plus you aren't really taking away governmental power in regards to death penalty vs life sentence on the surface anyway. One requires government to oversee the death penalty, the other requires government to oversee a life sentence. So you're adding a federal regulation without taking away local government in any significant way at least.
Click to expand...

I don't follow you here. Can you rephrase this?

weso1 said:
I think the true mental gymnastics is to try and call a small government supporter a hypocrite because they support the death penalty. I feel like julio's original post was a troll so it's interesting you didn't challenge his post. You scurred? Julio is pretty good at making an argument, much better than I.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue with Julio because I agree with Julio. I find it discordant when people who think the government is bad at everything have a blind spot when it comes to the criminal justice system; this sentiment applies more broadly than just to the death penalty.

Sturg may have delusional first principles, but give him credit: he believes them and sticks to them. And so he doesn't like the death penalty.
 
weso1 said:
I get the technicality of this, but I think it's pretty clear what we're arguing here. Kind of cheap to go after this like you are.
Click to expand...

You are trying to claim that the government is not the ultimately responsible for the death penalty because.... juries... which are government-agents performing one role among many in a government directed action. I don't see how pointing that out is "cheap." It goes directly to the heart of your claim.
 
weso1 said:
Innocent people die all the time and at the hands of the government. Extremely few happen by death penalty. So I ask again, why be so vehemently against it? Why do some make it a top issue as opposed to something else?
Click to expand...

What government-directed innocent-killing issue are we not opposed enough to?
 
weso1 said:
I doubt this stat, but even if you're right it's still pretty damn insignificant, so my question still stands.
Click to expand...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

There've been 1384 people executed as well so roll the exonerated. that makes 10.1% of all people killed or let off death row as being proven not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt that's without there being a massive amount of research into people already executed.
 
Metaphysicist said:
What if they are wrongfully convicted?
Click to expand...

So....if they are guilty, the families lost someone they cannot get back and that person who did it, while locked up, does not have to suffer any pain except a poking in ass while in the shower now and then, maybe a few shank attacks, but they still will be ALIVE, why the person they snuff DEAD, DEAD, DEAD.

What do you suggest? We can't do a Clockwork Orange of rehabilitation, we can't do any cruel and unusual punishment. That murderer in the end only loses his freedom, that's it.
 
I don't think anyone in the thread has called it a "top issue" have they?

My reasons for being against it:

- Government shouldn't be able to kill its own citizens

- If one innocent person is put to death, that is enough for me to not want it

- It is more costly than just imprisoning

- It's really backwards logic to say "This person killed someone. Killing is wrong. We should kill him!"

Note: This is an issue that I have changed on since the scout days
 
sturg33 said:
I don't think anyone in the thread has called it a "top issue" have they?

- It's really backwards logic to say "This person killed someone. Killing is wrong. We should kill him!"
Click to expand...

This is where situation comes in to play. Killing someone for killing someone else isn't necessarily "backwards." Killing someone for no reason vs. killing them for killing someone else is a little different.
 
Would anybody be opposed to the death penalty PROVIDED the defendant/accused pleads guilty?

I agree with others; the notion of an innocent man being murdered as 'retribution' doesn't quite jibe with me, but I do basically support the death penalty primarily on grounds of capital punishment being one of the strongest deterrents man can offer.
 
yeezus said:
The fear of executing an innocent person is a really big deal to me.

Personally, in "clear cut" cases, I'm not opposed, in theory. But what is "clear-cut"? It can be subjective and you can't really have that used.

I struggle with it, those who brutally kill others, or are serial rapists/pedophiles, the world is better off without them. But you'd better be damn sure, and even then it's dicey.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, this.
 
Metaphysicist said:
What if they are wrongfully convicted?
Click to expand...

there are probably those who have life sentences and end up dying end there that could be wrongfully convicted.

we spend millions to put them in and hold them there, spend millions to kill them and the victims suffer the whole time.

Tough sh!t I guess to those who suffer. My aunts murderer got a life imprisonment. I could ask my mom if he got shanked to death yet. His case was clear cut because he got caught in the action. He stabbed her over 80 times. It took a few bailiffs to keep her son and my cousins from killing him in court.

So yeah, it bothers me people like that took his mom and my aunt away and him grinning and bragging about it in court (which set them off). I think my brother said he said something to this effect ("boy you ain't seeing your mammy anymore, I cut her up real good and watched her bleed like a pig") I am paraphrasing but it was something to that effect.

before that, I was on the fence about the death penalty and then when I see parents do that to their own kid and clear cut guilty I hope and pray he shanked in prison.
 
If I were made Dictator-For-Life tomorrow, here's how I'd handle the death penalty.

First, everyone currently on death row that was convicted without the use of DNA, or who didn't confess in a clearly non-coerced confession, would have their sentences commuted to life without parole.

Next, I'd only allow the death penalty in future cases where DNA evidence or an honest confession were in place.

Death penalty cases would be limited to capital murder (actually committing the crime - an accessory who didn't actually pull the trigger would only get life w/o), child sexual abuse, and impeding the left lane on a multi-lane highway. OK not really the last one - life without parole would suffice for it. I might also add prosecutors that fight against new trials for people they have convicted in the face of new compelling evidence, especially when they do it simply to make sure their resumes stand intact.

Like others I'm bothered by the fact that we've executed so many innocent people. The only way it's acceptable to execute someone is if we know for certain that person is guilty. With forensic science the way it is today I think we can get to that point in some cases. If not, stop executing people until we can.
 
DirkPiggler said:
If I were made Dictator-For-Life tomorrow, here's how I'd handle the death penalty.

First, everyone currently on death row that was convicted without the use of DNA, or who didn't confess in a clearly non-coerced confession, would have their sentences commuted to life without parole.

Next, I'd only allow the death penalty in future cases where DNA evidence or an honest confession were in place.

Death penalty cases would be limited to capital murder (actually committing the crime - an accessory who didn't actually pull the trigger would only get life w/o), child sexual abuse, and impeding the left lane on a multi-lane highway. OK not really the last one - life without parole would suffice for it. I might also add prosecutors that fight against new trials for people they have convicted in the face of new compelling evidence, especially when they do it simply to make sure their resumes stand intact.

Like others I'm bothered by the fact that we've executed so many innocent people. The only way it's acceptable to execute someone is if we know for certain that person is guilty. With forensic science the way it is today I think we can get to that point in some cases. If not, stop executing people until we can.
Click to expand...

Case in point of the murderer of my aunt caught in the act and then gleefully put our family down in owning up and laughing about it teasing her son while exiting court which my mom told me they tried to get at him.

He would have died of a beating if the judge just turned around and the bailiffs do nothing, but he has the right to a trial that convicted him, life in prison parole in 50 years, he could get out at 95 years old, but my aunt will stay dead.
 
DirkPiggler said:
If I were made Dictator-For-Life tomorrow, here's how I'd handle the death penalty.

First, everyone currently on death row that was convicted without the use of DNA, or who didn't confess in a clearly non-coerced confession, would have their sentences commuted to life without parole.

Next, I'd only allow the death penalty in future cases where DNA evidence or an honest confession were in place.

Death penalty cases would be limited to ... and impeding the left lane on a multi-lane highway. OK not really the last one - life without parole would suffice for it.
.
Click to expand...

That sounds great but it just can't be that simple.
The seconded bolded part - I've never agreed with anything more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top