The Death Penalty

[marharth]

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.

My concern is if they are really criminals

 

Requests to present new evidence can be denied, so that does not always work.

 

What about the victims who don't want the criminal executed? We execute them anyways.

[kvnchrist]

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.

My concern is if they are really criminals

 

 

In order to determine if they are criminals, you would have to be apart of the jury and have your say. This system is flawed and it really depends on the attitudes of those on the jury. Let's get down to brass tacks. If you are against executions, it doesn't matter if they are found guilty or innocent and the fog of possible innocence is just a talking point to try to validate your argument. It Is the same thing for using the line, IT WON'T BRING ANY ONE BACK, and the exchanging of revenge for justice.

 

This is all ideology here. One says all killing is murder and one says murder is murder, but killing for murdering is justified.

 

This whole thing is the reverse topic of the Abortion issue. Both look at humanity taking a life. The only difference is that one is an adult and one is an unborn child. It is the state that allows it and it is all about one persons, or another rights. I don't want this to spread out in the abortion thing, but I do think the comparison is justified.

 

This is pretty much a non-debatable subject, because there are no facts to bring to the table. Just attitude, ideals and Conjecture

[marharth]

In order to determine if they are criminals, you would have to be apart of the jury and have your say. This system is flawed and it really depends on the attitudes of those on the jury. Let's get down to brass tacks. If you are against executions, it doesn't matter if they are found guilty or innocent and the fog of possible innocence is just a talking point to try to validate your argument. It Is the same thing for using the line, IT WON'T BRING ANY ONE BACK, and the exchanging of revenge for justice.

 

This is all ideology here. One says all killing is murder and one says murder is murder, but killing for murdering is justified.

 

This whole thing is the reverse topic of the Abortion issue. Both look at humanity taking a life. The only difference is that one is an adult and one is an unborn child. It is the state that allows it and it is all about one persons, or another rights. I don't want this to spread out in the abortion thing, but I do think the comparison is justified.

 

This is pretty much a non-debatable subject, because there are no facts to bring to the table. Just attitude, ideals and Conjecture

You don't abort unborn children, you abort fetuses. Yes, you stopped a possible human from being born, but condoms do that as well.

 

 

No, not all killing is murder. Killing someone to stop the deaths of other makes sense. If you already have someone in custody killing him will not stop more deaths.

 

Its not just a talking point. If they are possibly innocent, then you could possibly be killing someone who is innocent. Do you not understand that? You could be accidentally doing something that you are wanting to execute people for, murder.

[kvnchrist]

In order to determine if they are criminals, you would have to be apart of the jury and have your say. This system is flawed and it really depends on the attitudes of those on the jury. Let's get down to brass tacks. If you are against executions, it doesn't matter if they are found guilty or innocent and the fog of possible innocence is just a talking point to try to validate your argument. It Is the same thing for using the line, IT WON'T BRING ANY ONE BACK, and the exchanging of revenge for justice.

 

This is all ideology here. One says all killing is murder and one says murder is murder, but killing for murdering is justified.

 

This whole thing is the reverse topic of the Abortion issue. Both look at humanity taking a life. The only difference is that one is an adult and one is an unborn child. It is the state that allows it and it is all about one persons, or another rights. I don't want this to spread out in the abortion thing, but I do think the comparison is justified.

 

This is pretty much a non-debatable subject, because there are no facts to bring to the table. Just attitude, ideals and Conjecture

You don't abort unborn children, you abort fetuses. Yes, you stopped a possible human from being born, but condoms do that as well.

 

 

No, not all killing is murder. Killing someone to stop the deaths of other makes sense. If you already have someone in custody killing him will not stop more deaths.

 

Its not just a talking point. If they are possibly innocent, then you could possibly be killing someone who is innocent. Do you not understand that? You could be accidentally doing something that you are wanting to execute people for, murder.

 

 

And where are you going with this? I understand your reasoning all too well. If everybody that is convicted is possibly innocent and it is wrong to kill innocent people, then the bottom line in your entire argument is that you can't kill anybody, because of that mindset.

[hoofhearted4]

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.

 

thats what i was saying. nothing is 100% but we cant let that stop everything. i understand there is a small chance that someone on death row is innocent, but i dont think thats enough of a reason to stop capital punishment. innocent or guilty, they were both put through the same process. a truely guilty person could have just as easily been proven innocent just the same as an innocent person could be proven guilty. both have happened. it is an unfortunate side effect of the Judical system. one that cant be prevented, but it is what it is.

 

the statistic of how many innocent people have been killed by capital punishment is such a horrible statistic. and by that i mean, its barely plausible. they take those numbers based on the people taken off death row (before they were killed) based on evidence that proves them slightly less guilty. of those people, all of them were still kept in jail, most for life sentences because they were still more guilty then there were innocent....does that mean those ppl were innocent? no. not at all. every one of those people could really have been murders in reality, but our judicial system said theres a chance they might not be.....what im saying is, the number of innocent people killed via capital punishment is unknown. when someone is killed via capital punishment, their case is usually dropped. ppl dont waste resources continuing to investigate whether that dead person was innocent or guilty. (cause it doesnt matter at that point) therefore we dont know how many people we killed were innocent. the number in actuality could be very very low. but because X amount of people were taken off death row due to other evidence, we think everyone ever killed with the death penalty, was innocent.

 

if the judicial system says a person is guilty, hes guilty. plain and simple. that is how it works. whether you like it or you dont like it doesnt matter. you have no control over it there isnt ANYTHING anyone can do about it. its in the Constitution, its how our country works. period.

[marharth]

And where are you going with this? I understand your reasoning all too well. If everybody that is convicted is possibly innocent and it is wrong to kill innocent people, then the bottom line in your entire argument is that you can't kill anybody, because of that mindset.

My point is you have no problem putting murderers to death, yet you don't have a problem with people with a good chance of being innocent being executed.

Edited September 27, 2011 by marharth

[sendo75]

if the judicial system says a person is guilty, hes guilty. plain and simple. that is how it works. whether you like it or you dont like it doesnt matter. you have no control over it there isnt ANYTHING anyone can do about it. its in the Constitution, its how our country works. period.

 

This is a debate on legality of death penalty, essentially a debate on whether the punishment is just, a matter of opinions. Who can expect reliable facts from the internet other than written literature? Not to mention facts on confidential legal matters. At least some literature has been provided to disprove the reliability of the judiciary system. For the irreversible ultimate death penalty, there are many who believe an unreliable system cannot use it, while others think its for the greater good that sacrificing some innocents is fine.

 

I doubt anyone is willing to be die involuntarily for the greater good, just to keep suspected murderers dead. There are also individuals who think that it could never happen anywhere remotely close to them. Because the law of randomness never apply to victims i bet. So with that immunity, its easy enough to be unaffected by the tragedy. When these tragedies happen close to anyone, the numbers don't matter.

Edited September 27, 2011 by sendo75

[kvnchrist]

And where are you going with this? I understand your reasoning all too well. If everybody that is convicted is possibly innocent and it is wrong to kill innocent people, then the bottom line in your entire argument is that you can't kill anybody, because of that mindset.

My point is you have no problem putting murderers to death, yet you don't have a problem with people with a good chance of being innocent being executed.

 

 

I've already discussed this. There is no reason to continue. We both are working from assumptions and the only facts are in my favor. The judicial system is flawed, but that is all we have. I started a thread on the judicial system a while back. I don't think I got many responses on it

 

All this is is a circular argument leading back to the same ideal. You are against executions, and you are using the possibility of innocence as a unworkable reason why they should be stopped.

 

You want something else that would not be so obvious tell everybody to see the movie THE OXBOW INCIDENT. That is a very moving movie staring Glenn Ford that deals with this very subject. Here is a summery

 

the oxbow incident

[marharth]

I've already discussed this. There is no reason to continue. We both are working from assumptions and the only facts are in my favor. The judicial system is flawed, but that is all we have. I started a thread on the judicial system a while back. I don't think I got many responses on it

 

All this is is a circular argument leading back to the same ideal. You are against executions, and you are using the possibility of innocence as a unworkable reason why they should be stopped.

 

You want something else that would not be so obvious tell everybody to see the movie THE OXBOW INCIDENT. That is a very moving movie staring Glenn Ford that deals with this very subject. Here is a summery

 

the oxbow incident

1. The system is flawed, you said it yourself. Obviously there will be innocent people executed in such a system.

 

2. Courts have declared people who have been executed innocent after the fact. There is a word and a entire system for this. I am not assuming anything.

 

To make this clear, you think that the government should be allowed to execute people because it would make the victim feel at ease correct?

 

 

What about the many victims who don't want the killer executed?

 

As stated before, running society on emotions does nothing by stop progress and cause pain.

[Aurielius]

This is a debate on legality of death penalty, essentially a debate on whether the punishment is just, a matter of opinions.

Actually a concise summation of the debate thus far. So I will address the matter of legality which is based on the constitutional principle that any authority not specifically granted to the Federal Government devolves to the individual sates. Each state elects it's own legislature and enacts it's own laws, some states have abolished the death penalty and others have not, in many those states where capital punishment still exists a long backlog of death row inmates with a few states being notable exceptions. If we grant that the state governments are legal entities then it follows that baring an constitutional challenge to their law (that is successful) their use of the Death Penalty is lawful. There has been no successful Supreme Court challenge to the legality of a state to pass and enforce such lethal sanctions, the only grounds that have ever had any weight with the court have been under the terms of ' cruel and unusual punishment' which simply evaporate when the state changes methodology of execution. So in summation it's legal and currently constitutionally valid to have the Death Penalty and enforce in states that have choose to proscribe it for certain defined crimes. You can type yourself blue in the fingers arguing about it errors and egregious inequities but that doesn't change the facts one iota.