Again, presumably there is no doubt period, otherwise there is no conviction.
worlock77
Prove to me that all murderers weren't controlled by a group of extraterrestrial bees a seeking to assassinate key members in a possible future resistance to their conquest of earth and so the convicts weren't responsible for their actions.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="Zyrokin"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] The rest of your quote had no relevance to my post. People deserve to live no matter what. For one thing, there's no such thing as "without a doubt;" there's ALWAYS the possibility, no matter how remote, that we have the wrong guy behind bars. Secondly, a punishment should be proportionate to the crime, not equal to it; we do not rape rapists, torture torturers, or set arsonists on fire, and there is no punishment more disproportionate to any crime than death. Ok, without a doubt of a reasonable man. There are certain situations that are just plain obvious. Well torture is considered inhumane, along with rape, and setting someone on fire. Death on the other hand, takes them out of this world, and I support doing it in the most painless way possible. Sorry, but if you destroy someone else, you lost your humanity, and the same rules don't apply(except for torture and inhumane acts). That logic is not consistent. If they are not human, they are not entitled to any human rights, and if they are human, then they are entitled to all human rights. Death, which is eternal, is not proportionate to any finite crime, no matter how bad it may be. And reasonable men can be wrong. Yes, but thats a risk I am willing to take to punish the wrong. Calculated risks my friend. And my logic is not inconsistent. I would never torture an animal, because that would be inhumane. But I would put it to sleep if it started to attack people. You are more animal than human when you murder innocent people. Obviously I think there are exceptions, such as momentary anger, self defense, or war to name a few. But cold blooded murder, sorry, no excuse for that.
The thing is, however, if you have some doubt then they shouldn't even be in prison in the first place. Our system isn't meant to punish those who are "probably guilty". It's suppose to punish those who's guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt.
markop2003
Reasonable doubt in numerical terms means, for example, 98%. That is not 100% guilty, that is probably guilty, it's impossible to prove 100% guilt.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Presumably, if you are convicted, than your guilty is established "100%". If not then you are aquitted. That's the idea behind it anyway. If you don't believe this then you recognize then it is a flawed system created by flawed beings, and if it is impossible to prove "100%" guilt then we have no business executing anyone.
If Bin Laden was captured, would you want him to stay alive?
bloodling
Yes. What would killing him solve?
Absolutely nothing, but why would you want him to stay alive?
Because I believe in a rational, consistent penal system that treats all humans as born equal and is based on calculated justice, not pointless emotion.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Film can be edited and people can be bribed, brainwashed, misled, or just mistaken. What about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/russia-lawyer-murder A murder of two reporters on a busy street in broad daylight
Because I believe in a rational, consistent penal system that treats all humans as born equal and is based on calculated justice, not pointless emotion.Theokhoth
It has to do with the gravity of his crimes and emotions for the most part. I think the population should be allowed to vote on it.
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Film can be edited and people can be bribed, brainwashed, misled, or just mistaken. What about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/russia-lawyer-murder A murder of two reporters on a busy street in broad daylight Made up by the Chechnya government to rally support for their cause. The so-called "witnesses" were in on it themselves. Obviously not what I really believe; just introducing a possibility that, even if improbable, casts a doubt on the matter.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Because I believe in a rational, consistent penal system that treats all humans as born equal and is based on calculated justice, not pointless emotion.bloodling
It has to do with the gravity of his crimes and emotions for the most part. I think the population should be allowed to vote on it.
If Bin Laden was captured, would you want him to stay alive?
bloodling
Yes actually. Otherwise you'd just make him a martyr.
I don't see it that way. I don't think we should feed him for his whole life because of what he did.
It's not about how you see it, but about how the people in the middle east see it. If their enemy captured their leader, and he's still alive, then that makes a big dent in their morale.
If Bin Laden was captured, would you want him to stay alive?
bloodling
Bin Laden himself hasn't done much. It would be difficult to prove he did anything because he is an organiser, he could easily say he delegated those tasks to other people and just acted as a spokes person.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] No there isn't. Every single jury conviction is based on "without reasonable doubt," not "without doubt." This is because juries can be and sometimes are wrong. There is absolutely no such thing as "no doubt" in the legal system.Theokhoth
Plenty of people have commited crimes in full view of the public or cameras. In that case there is no doubt in a practical sense that they have commited the crime. Dozens of people saw them do it or they were caught on camera.
If you're going to split hairs on this argument then we have nothing to discuss.
Film can be edited and people can be bribed, brainwashed, misled, or just mistaken. And aliens could have done it as well :|
If there is no reasonable suspicion of foul play or evidence tampering then there still isn't any doubt.
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Because I believe in a rational, consistent penal system that treats all humans as born equal and is based on calculated justice, not pointless emotion.Theokhoth
It has to do with the gravity of his crimes and emotions for the most part. I think the population should be allowed to vote on it.
No it doesn't, and no they shouldn't.
Prison and death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent and a punishment, calculated justice is quite meaningless in this situation.
[QUOTE="11Marcel"]Yes actually. Otherwise you'd just make him a martyr.
11Marcel
I don't see it that way. I don't think we should feed him for his whole life because of what he did.
It's not about how you see it, but about how the people in the middle east see it. If their enemy captured their leader, and he's still alive, then that makes a big dent in their morale.
But that has nothing to do with the justice system. What if instead of Bin Laden, I asked you if the rapist and killer in that other thread should have a death penalty?
Against, Maybe it's due to living in a country where death sentence is considered barbaric, but I do believe that people can be rehabilitated with the correct means.
[QUOTE="jaydough"] And what would killing him do to help with your grief? What's done is done. You need to restrain him from attacking others, but that's it.
jaydough
But what would NOT killing a serial killer (other than BL since he's an icon or something) solve?
Against. Your letting the criminals off easy with this.
If you really want to make them suffer, put them IN JAIL for life. No parole.
ChiSoxBombers
There's this as well. A little needle prick and drifting off to sleep seems like less of a punishment than spending the rest of your natural life confined to an 8' x 10' cell.
[QUOTE="wstfld"]Against. Cost too much and its not a deterrent. chathuranga
It only costs too much because of the ridiculous appeals process. I am for the death penalty and I think we should use it more often to punish murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. If even one innocent person goes free because of the appeals process, its not ridiculous.
Against. Your letting the criminals off easy with this.
If you really want to make them suffer, put them IN JAIL for life. No parole.
worlock77
There's this as well. A little needle prick and drifting off to sleep seems like less of a punishment than spending the rest of your natural life confined to an 8' x 10' cell.
It would be in a 3rd world country, but unfortunately criminals are given such luxuries as TVs and such in prisons...
If we were to kill him we'd pay more if he's given due process, which we will give no matter what the crime.
jaydough
If he's dead, I don't mind. Where do I sign?
Why do you want him dead?
What could that possibly solve?
Nothing. Lots of people would be extremely happy and relieved though. I already answered that, it solves the same thing prison does. It's just different.
Nothing. Lots of people would be extremely happy and relieved though. I already answered that, it solves the same thing prison does. It's just different.
If It solves the same thing as prison does, then wouldn't it be better and cheaper to have them in prison for life since that is cheaper then giving a convict the death penalty?
I didn't vote in the poll because I don't believe that the federal government (in the US) should be able to put anyone to death or a super-national organization (UN, EU, etc). States should set their own policies, although it brings to question what happens when a criminal crosses state borders. For a country like the UK or Sweden where the power originates at the national level then is subdivided, the national government should set the policy or at least has the right to unless they want territories/provinces/whatever to set their own.
Log in to comment