hoofhearted4 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ok so answer this. a person proven 100% guilty for the murder of X amount of ppl. should he be sentenced to death or be allowed to live in prision with his food and exersize and chance of rehabilitation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ok so answer this. a person proven 100% guilty for the murder of X amount of ppl. should he be sentenced to death or be allowed to live in prision with his food and exersize and chance of rehabilitation?Short answer.......100% Guilty..then 100% Dead..not a qualm of doubt either, every heinous crime should have a consequence.IE: Charles Manson, a waste of useful penitentiary space (yes I know he committed suicide recently). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ok so answer this. a person proven 100% guilty for the murder of X amount of ppl. should he be sentenced to death or be allowed to live in prision with his food and exersize and chance of rehabilitation?Short answer.......100% Guilty..then 100% Dead..not a qualm of doubt either, every heinous crime should have a consequence.IE: Charles Manson, a waste of useful penitentiary space (yes I know he committed suicide recently). pretty sure he is still alive :P curious as to what others whove been on the other side of the debate believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 ok so answer this. a person proven 100% guilty for the murder of X amount of ppl. should he be sentenced to death or be allowed to live in prision with his food and exersize and chance of rehabilitation?Short answer.......100% Guilty..then 100% Dead..not a qualm of doubt either, every heinous crime should have a consequence.IE: Charles Manson, a waste of useful penitentiary space (yes I know he committed suicide recently). pretty sure he is still alive :P You are right...drat wishful thinking :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keanumoreira Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 *sigh*...I withdraw my argument. There is no getting through to you ppl. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kvnchrist Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 >snip< I'm still waiting for the proof you guys have refereed to that all these people are innocent. That's just another talking point. Talking points are red herrings that people toss out, when they don't have a valid argument. They are nothing more than a possible assumption of an affirmed maybe, Which makes it nothing So every criminal must be guilty per default. Why not shut down the trial system then? Must be billions. New procedure could be that every murdere/raptist is shot on site by the police. :thumbsup: Will you guys ever stop repeating this all or nothing, mindset. Being guilty or innocent is the duty of the court and the jury to decide. The penalties for being found guilty have never been administered to those who found innocent, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 (edited) Our government kills more innocents than that in a week in various wars. (civilians that have nothing to do with why we are there in the first place.) Terrorists account for MANY more than that...... That's incorrect actually. Terrorists do not kill more people then the governments of the world. What people seem to not understand is the court ruling is not always correct. It is commonly fueled by emotion for murders, and logic and evidence can be thrown out the window for some of the people in the jury. Its up for the court to decide, but the court is not always correct. I would rather set free a criminal then kill a innocent man, and that ideology is what built our court system. You are innocent before proven gulity. It should be assumed you are innocent until there is overwhelming proof you committed a crime. I find it highly unlikely you can prove someone was gulity of something one hundred percent. There is almost always a small chance the person could be innocent. Edited September 27, 2011 by marharth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 even DNA tests arent 100% accurate, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted September 27, 2011 Author Share Posted September 27, 2011 even DNA tests arent 100% accurate,And? That's my point. Do you really want to kill someone on the chance that they are innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted September 27, 2011 Share Posted September 27, 2011 even DNA tests arent 100% accurate,There seems to be a lot of pity and hand wringing for the criminal, you might want to refocus that on the victims. We go by a trial by jury by your peers not perfect but nothing ever is, there is a long appeals process with multiple chances to present new or mitigating evidence. Very few states have a fast track towards execution. Forgive me if I have some faith in Anglo/American common law it has stood the test of time in comparison to some other systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now