Indoril Nerevar Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 yeah just let them go untill they can't take any more of life inprisonment? Then they go and break out and kill the family members of the person they killed. Sounds logical *said sarcastically* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaosmaker Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 People should only be exeuted under certain condition's. One if they killed someone or multiple people. ( which is already the case ). But i think that should be if you take someone's life on purpose not in a car accident or anything and that all evidence without a dought points to you, you should be executed. That's me opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Yes, because so many life imprisonment criminals escape to kill again. Even if this was relatively common, which it is not, it still does not justify killing innocents. 23 innocents have been confirmed to have been killed by the U.S. since 1900. Other civilized nations have stopped this practice and do not experience any significant problems with repeat murder's, but I guess that's just luck, I mean the majority of Europe could be lucky. In reference to this quote, "But i think that should be if you take someone's life on purpose not in a car accident or anything and that all evidence without a dought points to you, you should be executed" Chaosmaker The problem with this is that no court of law is 100% infallible. The fact is that as long as humans are making the decision, there will be mistakes. Evidence can be altered. However, once that person is dead, they are dead for good. In fact, chances are by killing that one innocent, you've allowed that guilty killer more oppurtunities to kill, as he is no longer under suspicion. So, let's not assume that killing someone will end the murders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThetaOrionis01 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Just an example to illustrate the point made about miscarriages of justice: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4249943.stm Something to think about, perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaosmaker Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Well they should be killed if they are positive that no other person without a dought did this crime and that no other evidence points to anybody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 But, my point is that no court can ever truly be 100% certain of guilt, even if all evidence points towards a person. Coincidence is a natural occurance, as are human errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaosmaker Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Well in the upcoming years they may perfect lie detecting skill's. If the person can be questioned if he was the man who killed whoever then they will have all the ecvidence they will ever need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyGilbert Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I think its wrong in some occasions because sometimes 3 years after the executuion you find out that that person was not guilty for there crimes. And I think its morally incorrect to execute because now you are just as bad as the person who was executed. But thats how I see it others may look at it differently. (if the person is really bad like Bin laden or something they deserve worse than that) -CG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 If its alwyas wrong to kill somone nomatter what, then all war is wrong. Everytime a solder shoots down a threat hes taking life from somone on a diffrent side, not the life of a rapist or serial killer, the life of a human on the other side of combat, just doing his job, fighting who he sees as the enemy. And to kill in battle is justified, we hold these battles to settle political diffrences. When people kill for greed its ok, when they kill for revenge its wrong. I belive in revenge. You cant forgive somone who dosnt apoligize first, and some things are unforgivable. And if your dead you cant forgive your murderer, who the hell are you to forgive the murder of your family? IF I beived in souls I would assume the souls of the murdered whould cry out for blood. It is natrual to defend yourself, it is just as natrual to advenge somone as it is to kill the the enemy before he can murder. So many of you speak aganst the death penalty without ever having been a victim. America is not the same as smaller countrys and is not run the same, we have problems, they need to be addressed. If we could simply adopt all the europen laws and be fine we would. I agree our legal system is messed up and the death penalty has has been affected by its short commings, but some kind of penalty is nessesary to maintain order. There are such things as inferoir people, but they are not born that way (aside from defects) thier are kinds of people who think in such a warped way they are actualy murderuos freaks. Not all murderers regret what they did, esp not murders that killed many people. I saw some police photos of a man that was decapited and hid head was put on a chair and his member was put in his mouth, and the same ritual it seems has appeared in other cases. People who do these things are not the kind of people you have ANY respect for, they forfit thier rights to live. Can somone forfit thier right to live? If you kill somone in self defence they forfited. so answer is yes, Can somone forfit thier right to live perminatly after the fact? the damage is done the dead are dead, if the murder wants redemption they can die with honor by killing themselfs, otherwise they should be killed by the law, even if the law has its problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Akrid, the problem is that our "justice" system is hopelessly incompetent. With the kind of error rates it produces, giving it the power to give the death penalty is unacceptable. With life in prison, at least if the error is revealed, the victim can still salvage something from it. But if you execute an innocent person, that's the end of it. Anything short of a full confession (and not always then, as false confessions have been forced/manipulated from people) leaves room for error. Far too many times that "obviously guilty" criminal has been convicted by false evidence, and later proved innocent. Witnesses can be mistaken or lying, evidence can be interpreted wrong, even DNA tests can contain errors. There's just too many ways an innocent person can be wrongly convicted, even looking 100% guilty. And even outside the problem of false convictions, there is evidence of bias in sentencing. The death penalty is not applied in a fair and objective manner. When things like race/social status/etc determine the sentence, not the facts of the case, what right do we have to execute people just for being born with the wrong characteristics? On the other hand, the death penalty itself doesn't have any moral flaws. There are crimes that deserve it. There are countless evil people this world would be better off without, and who deserve a quick trial (just to be legal) and a bullet in the head. If we could find a flawless method of determining guilt, then fine, make the death penalty legal. But not until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.