what do you think about death penalty?

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]um out of how many total?GabuEx

1,099 people were executed as of the end of 2007. So about 10% of those sentenced to death were later exonerated.

Why does that matter, though? A population that truly cares about justice and human rights should recoil with disgust at any number larger than zero.

I don't have a problem with it. If someone killed your son, I'd probably want him dead.

Definitely necessary in certain situations.

how many were on technicalities rather than them actually being innocent?...how many total were put on death row? ......How many people were murdered during that time? Omni-Slash

The top reasons for exonerations were mistaken eyewitness testimony, the false testimony of informants, bribed witnesses, incompetent lawyers, defective or fraudulent evidence, police or prosecutor misconduct, or false confessions.

But why does that matter? Are you asserting that the government murdering a few innocent people here and there is OK as long as the purpose in doing so is a reduction in crime? Why can we not just lock them up in a place from which they may be released if we find out that the one charged with a crime is, in fact, innocent? The death penalty is among the most unnecessary things in existence.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

at least people that have been totally proved to be guilty of murder should get killed

GabuEx

As I have said elsewhere, such a standard would abolish the death penalty. There is no such thing as "totally proved" in criminal justice. No evidence is absolutely incontrovertible, and confessions can be forced.

what about videos?

also mistakes like that might happen but don't think it can happen twice with the same guy, if someone is accused twice for mudering he's probably guillty or at least was part of the muder in some way

It has improved greatly since DNA, innocent people aren't dying...

JustusCF

False.

This is Cameron. He was executed in 2004 on the charges of murder by arson of his three children. It has now come to light that his lawyers refused to actually argue for his innocence because they thought he was guilty; that the forensic evidence presented for arson had no scientific basis; and that a jailhouse informant, who received early release for his testimony, falsely testified that he had confessed. All the evidence points to this man being an innocent man executed purposelessly for what was nothing more than a tragic accident that already cost him his three daughters.

Please, if you will, tell Cameron's family why his execution was a necessary part of being tough on crime.

what about videos?

hyrueprince11

Digital video editing capabilities are getting better every day.

There are certainly things that can increase the probability that a person is guilty. But nothing can bring it to 100%.

also mistakes like that might happen but don't think it can happen twice with the same guy, if someone is accused twice for mudering he's probably guillty or at least was part of the muder in some way

hyrueprince11

"I don't think it can happen" is not exactly very solid evidence that it is impossible for someone to be falsely accused twice.

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

I'm against it.

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

JustusCF

that's actually pretty good, don't know if the 100k thing could be possible but if it is possible it would be almost perfect, I still think that a few people should get death penalty, like the guys who killed guys at universities

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

hyrueprince11

that's actually pretty good,

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

what about videos?

GabuEx

Digital video editing capabilities are getting better every day.

There are certainly things that can increase the probability that a person is guilty. But nothing can bring it to 100%.

also mistakes like that might happen but don't think it can happen twice with the same guy, if someone is accused twice for mudering he's probably guillty or at least was part of the muder in some way

hyrueprince11

"I don't think it can happen" is not exactly very solid evidence that it is impossible for someone to be falsely accused twice.

do you actually think someone who is 100% innocent could get accused from murdering else two times?

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

hyrueprince11

that's actually pretty good, don't know if the 100k thing could be possible but if it is possible it would be almost perfect, I still think that a few people should get death penalty, like the guys who killed guys at universities

---

This is mainly for the murderers, rapists and people who steal LARGE amounts of money (like, ruin lives... People like Bernie Madoff) I think we should kick all the druggies out of prison, they're a waste of money... No rehab either, they can go themselves. People who do smaller stuff should still not be given tv or any of that, but I think social interaction is necessary if we're gonna send them back out.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

Theokhoth

that's actually pretty good,

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

yeah, it might be a bit harsh but someone who kills a innocent human for wealth, pleasure or pretty much any other reason in my opinion isn't a human and shouldn't have human rights

do you actually think someone who is 100% innocent could get accused from murdering else two times?

hyrueprince11

If he could get falsely accused the first time, why could he not get falsely accused the second time?

It is perhaps less likelythat that would happen twice than just once. But less likely is a rather far cry away from impossible.

Here is the question we must ask. We have life imprisonment. This accomplishes the exact same things as the death penalty: it provides punishment to those receiving it that serves to deter others from doing the same, and it protects society from the one being punished. Except, life imprisonment can be reversed at any time. You cannot, on the other hand, resurrect someone like Cameron and tell him "sorry we killed you based on false evidence".

There is thus absolutely no reason to perform the death penalty; its only real additional effect above and beyond life imprisonment is disabling the nullification of the punishment of one who was wrongfully convicted.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

Theokhoth

that's actually pretty good,

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

No it's not, if you murder someone or rape someone you should be given a harsh punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about it. Look what happens when we don't they get on parole, kidnap children and rape them for 18 years, thanks to weaklings who always want to give these "humans" a second chance.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

that's actually pretty good,

hyrueprince11

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

yeah, it might be a bit harsh but someone who kills a innocent human for wealth, pleasure or pretty much any other reason in my opinion isn't a human and shouldn't have human rights

Denying someone indoor plumbing, food and human interaction until they beg for death isn't what I call "a bit harsh." It's monstrous, perhaps moreso than the crimes they themselves commit.

an eye for an eye?

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

Or...

Lock prisoners (1 per room) in a small room with a blanket, pillow and a cup to piss, **** and eat out of, give them one hour of outside time a week. No tv, no games, no computer, no books, no special meal, no social interaction. They can opt out and choose to be given the death penalty whenever they want, no appeals, no nothing... Same day they want to be killed you shoot them up.

As time goes on those that are found innocent can be given 100k for every year they were wrongly incarcerated. We can easily pay this because of all the money we save giving the real animals all this special treatment.

JustusCF

that's actually pretty good, don't know if the 100k thing could be possible but if it is possible it would be almost perfect, I still think that a few people should get death penalty, like the guys who killed guys at universities

---

This is mainly for the murderers, rapists and people who steal LARGE amounts of money (like, ruin lives... People like Bernie Madoff) I think we should kick all the druggies out of prison, they're a waste of money... No rehab either, they can go themselves. People who do smaller stuff should still not be given tv or any of that, but I think social interaction is necessary if we're gonna send them back out.

obviously, I actually even think people who steal large amounts of money should have some rights but people who rape, kill or kidnap shouldn't have ANY rights at all

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

that's actually pretty good,

JustusCF

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

No it's not, if you murder someone or rape someone you should be given a harsh punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about it. Look what happens when we don't they get on parole, kidnap children and rape them for 18 years, thanks to weaklings who always want to give these "humans" a second chance.

Last I checked, life in prison is a pretty damn harsh punishment.

Eye for an eye.

yeah, it might be a bit harsh but someone who kills a innocent human for wealth, pleasure or pretty much any other reason in my opinion isn't a human and shouldn't have human rights

hyrueprince11

See, here's the thing.

By saying that, you have basically stated that you automatically assume that anyone charged with a crime is guilty.

But in every single civilized society, we recognize that preventing an innocent from being punished is more important than not punishing one who is guilty (if indeed we must choose between the two - and we do). This is why we have the "innocent until proven guilty" standard of judgment in a court of law.

By basing the punishment of those charged with a crime on the assumption that anyone so charged is 100% guaranteed to be guilty, you are effectively subverting that most sacred of sacred human rights.

And that is a path that I believe no one would want to go down if they were to see its end result.

(Hint: we've already seen it.)

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

that's actually pretty good, don't know if the 100k thing could be possible but if it is possible it would be almost perfect, I still think that a few people should get death penalty, like the guys who killed guys at universities

hyrueprince11

---

This is mainly for the murderers, rapists and people who steal LARGE amounts of money (like, ruin lives... People like Bernie Madoff) I think we should kick all the druggies out of prison, they're a waste of money... No rehab either, they can go themselves. People who do smaller stuff should still not be given tv or any of that, but I think social interaction is necessary if we're gonna send them back out.

obviously, I actually even think people who steal large amounts of money should have some rights but people who rape, kill or kidnap shouldn't have ANY rights at all

Human rights are inalienable, and thank God for that; all we need is someone with that mindset to come into power and, if rights weren't fundamental to our existence, deny them to anyone that doesn't meet his standards.

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

Theokhoth

No it's not, if you murder someone or rape someone you should be given a harsh punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about it. Look what happens when we don't they get on parole, kidnap children and rape them for 18 years, thanks to weaklings who always want to give these "humans" a second chance.

Last I checked, life in prison is a pretty damn harsh punishment.

It's a waste of money to give them all these things. Costs us $50,000 a year per inmate, I'm sure if we didn't give them all the crap we do now we could cut down at least 50%, most people don't even make 50k a year, it's ridiculous.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Are we reading the same thing, because what I read sounds like a fascist-styIe violation of the Eighth Amendment, basic human rights and common sense.

Theokhoth

yeah, it might be a bit harsh but someone who kills a innocent human for wealth, pleasure or pretty much any other reason in my opinion isn't a human and shouldn't have human rights

Denying someone indoor plumbing, food and human interaction until they beg for death isn't what I call "a bit harsh." It's monstrous, perhaps moreso than the crimes they themselves commit.

that's exactly what people who kindap do so why shouldn't they receive the same treatmemt? and well murders do things that are even worse

but well I think I actually lost my point, the reason why I want death penalty isn't because of vengance and well this solution is more like vengance, it's to make people afraid of doing things like raping, killing or kindaping, and if they do it we would at least have one monster less than we had before

the big problem of death penalty is that you can't say innocents you're sorry and let them free or anything

But why does that matter? Are you asserting that the government murdering a few innocent people here and there is OK as long as the purpose in doing so is a reduction in crime? Why can we not just lock them up in a place from which they may be released if we find out that the one charged with a crime is, in fact, innocent? The death penalty is among the most unnecessary things in existence.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

No it's not, if you murder someone or rape someone you should be given a harsh punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about it. Look what happens when we don't they get on parole, kidnap children and rape them for 18 years, thanks to weaklings who always want to give these "humans" a second chance.

JustusCF

Last I checked, life in prison is a pretty damn harsh punishment.

It's a waste of money to give them all these things. Costs us $50,000 a year per inmate, I'm sure if we didn't give them all the crap we do now we could cut down at least 50%, most people don't even make 50k a year, it's ridiculous.

It costs us more to kill them. Doing away with the appeal process in favor of physical and psychological torture is, in addition to being utterly barbaric and on the level of Sharia Law jurisdictions, kinda giving the shaft to people who are wrongly convicted.

If you don't like tax money going to them, petition to have them do a crapload of community service. Clean up some roads, serve some soup, do some work.

It's a waste of money to give them all these things. Costs us $50,000 a year per inmate, I'm sure if we didn't give them all the crap we do now we could cut down at least 50%, most people don't even make 50k a year, it's ridiculous.

JustusCF

What exactly is the difference between giving someone the death penalty and giving someone a punishment that would scar them for life and would make them wish that they were dead?

See, here's the thing I don't get: people say they want justice. But at the same time, they seem utterly unfazed at the prospect of an innocent human being murdered by the government. That's not justice. That's just vengeance. As someone once candidly admitted in a murder trial where the defendant was found innocent, she just wanted someone to pay - even if that person was innocent.

The moment we allow that sort of mentality to creep into our justice system is the moment we can say goodbye to civilization.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

yeah, it might be a bit harsh but someone who kills a innocent human for wealth, pleasure or pretty much any other reason in my opinion isn't a human and shouldn't have human rights

hyrueprince11

Denying someone indoor plumbing, food and human interaction until they beg for death isn't what I call "a bit harsh." It's monstrous, perhaps moreso than the crimes they themselves commit.

that's exactly what people who kindap do so why shouldn't they receive the same treatmemt? and well murders do things that are even worse

Because justice is far above stooping to their level. Eye for an Eye makes the world go blind; it is an outdated and immature idea of "justice" that goes against every progress civilised people have made since the Dark Ages. Yes, it is horrible that such a thing happened, but stooping to their level just out of emotional vengeance is not only hypocritical, but regressive.

What exactly is the difference between giving someone the death penalty and giving someone a punishment that would scar them for life and would make them wish that they were dead?

See, here's the thing I don't get: people say they want justice. But at the same time, they seem utterly unfazed at the prospect of an innocent human being murdered by the government. That's not justice. That's just vengeance. As someone once candidly admitted in a murder trial where the defendant was found innocent, she just wanted someone to pay - even if that person was innocent.

The moment we allow that sort of mentality to creep into our justice system is the moment we can say goodbye to civilization.

[QUOTE="hyrueprince11"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Denying someone indoor plumbing, food and human interaction until they beg for death isn't what I call "a bit harsh." It's monstrous, perhaps moreso than the crimes they themselves commit.

Theokhoth

that's exactly what people who kindap do so why shouldn't they receive the same treatmemt? and well murders do things that are even worse

Because justice is far above stooping to their level. Eye for an Eye makes the world go blind; it is an outdated and immature idea of "justice" that goes against every progress civilised people have made since the Dark Ages. Yes, it is horrible that such a thing happened, but stooping to their level just out of emotional vengeance is not only hypocritical, but regressive.

that's why I added another sentences to my post

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Last I checked, life in prison is a pretty damn harsh punishment.

Theokhoth

It's a waste of money to give them all these things. Costs us $50,000 a year per inmate, I'm sure if we didn't give them all the crap we do now we could cut down at least 50%, most people don't even make 50k a year, it's ridiculous.

It costs us more to kill them. Doing away with the appeal process in favor of physical and psychological torture is, in addition to being utterly barbaric and on the level of Sharia Law jurisdictions, kinda giving the shaft to people who are wrongly convicted.

If you don't like tax money going to them, petition to have them do a crapload of community service. Clean up some roads, serve some soup, do some work.

My original idea would be to do away with the ordinary death penalty, to give them the shot on the day they ask to die; and like I said, 100k for every year you're wrongly confined.

No. How many more guards are we gonna need when we have them out in public cleaning roads or serving soup. They don't go to prison to do work, they go to be punished... Torture? It's torture to rob me of my money to fund those sacks of **** and it's slavery.

are you saying that we should not be willing to sacrifice for the collective?...that geos against everything anyone with a liberal point of view believes......of course a few innocent deaths should be tolerated if it means that the vast majority of people can live safely without the threat of being murdered in their sleep....../obvious sarcasm with some truth... mistakes happen..is it fair.,...no.....but neither is allowing somone who murders many people/rapes/ruins the lives of not only the victim but thier families to exist....Omni-Slash

But here are our options:

Life imprisonment: Punishment meted; society protected; can be undone if accused is found guilty.

Death penalty: Punishment meted; society protected; cannotbe undone if accused is found guilty.

The only real difference between the two is that life imprisonment can be undone, whereas an execution can't. Both perform their two fundamental tasks for society: punishment and the protection of society.

Of course, there is that one other difference - the death penalty satisfies people's sick and twisted thirst for blood where they somehow feel that the moment someone does something bad that all bets are off and morals no longer exist. And this is what it all comes down to: not justice, but revenge - the same revenge that that lady wanted: someone, anyone must pay, even if that person is actually innocent. And it will be a fabulous day when all remnants of this frame of mind are purged from the justice system.

and btw......I'd like a link to that story you just put up there....Omni-Slash

Gladly.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What exactly is the difference between giving someone the death penalty and giving someone a punishment that would scar them for life and would make them wish that they were dead?

See, here's the thing I don't get: people say they want justice. But at the same time, they seem utterly unfazed at the prospect of an innocent human being murdered by the government. That's not justice. That's just vengeance. As someone once candidly admitted in a murder trial where the defendant was found innocent, she just wanted someone to pay - even if that person was innocent.

The moment we allow that sort of mentality to creep into our justice system is the moment we can say goodbye to civilization.

Omni-Slash

I have heard that some people whish they were dead in jail but I think that a few others that even seem to enjoy jail, especially in mexico, I've heard the worst guys are all in one jail and I've heard that they get a pretty good treatment, I also knew about a guy who did something terrible (don't know what) espcaped from mexico and went to ustrilia, he got sent to jail there and he asked to be sent to maxico because he had been trated horribly in austrailia, when he got to mexico he even constructed a tennis court were he was and seemed to have a pretty decent life there, a few months later he got released

Since when is jail someplace where they wished they were dead...there is no hard punishment anymore.....cable TV....clean place to live....3 square meals a day are provided....Omni-Slash

I didn't say it was. In fact, I was saying that it was unacceptable for any government that wishes to maintain an air of dignity and moral standing to subject someone to such a place.

If morals are only applicable towards those who have not broken them, then morals are dead, and we might as well bury them.

It doesn't cost that much for a bullet. These murders and rapists and thieves and such live like they are at a Hilton.

It doesn't cost that much for a bullet. These murders and rapists and thieves and such live like they are at a Hilton.

corwinn01

It doesn't cost that much for a bullet.corwinn01

It would cost the lives of innocent people. At least 129 of them, in fact.

If a government has murdered even one single innocent person, it no longer has any right to act as though it is in any way morally superior to those whom it wishes to kill.

But here are our options:

Life imprisonment: Punishment meted; society protected; can be undone if accused is found guilty.

Death penalty: Punishment meted; society protected; cannotbe undone if accused is found guilty.

The only real difference between the two is that life imprisonment can be undone, whereas an execution can't. Both perform their two fundamental tasks for society: punishment and the protection of society.

Of course, there is that one other difference - the death penalty satisfies people's sick and twisted thirst for blood where they somehow feel that the moment someone does something bad that all bets are off and morals no longer exist. And this is what it all comes down to: not justice, but revenge - the same revenge that that lady wanted: someone, anyone must pay, even if that person is actually innocent. And it will be a fabulous day when all remnants of this frame of mind are purged from the justice system.

GabuEx

two....and what happens when that person gets out of jail and kills someone else?...was society protected....did the system fulfil it's duty then?.....or maybe he just kills a guard one day..no big deal......it's only a guard...

Eye for an eye.

BRi4NB

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="JustusCF"]

No it's not, if you murder someone or rape someone you should be given a harsh punishment, there's nothing cruel and unusual about it. Look what happens when we don't they get on parole, kidnap children and rape them for 18 years, thanks to weaklings who always want to give these "humans" a second chance.

JustusCF

Last I checked, life in prison is a pretty damn harsh punishment.

It's a waste of money to give them all these things. Costs us $50,000 a year per inmate, I'm sure if we didn't give them all the crap we do now we could cut down at least 50%, most people don't even make 50k a year, it's ridiculous.

then everyone's blind.danwallacefan

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What exactly is the difference between giving someone the death penalty and giving someone a punishment that would scar them for life and would make them wish that they were dead?

See, here's the thing I don't get: people say they want justice. But at the same time, they seem utterly unfazed at the prospect of an innocent human being murdered by the government. That's not justice. That's just vengeance. As someone once candidly admitted in a murder trial where the defendant was found innocent, she just wanted someone to pay - even if that person was innocent.

The moment we allow that sort of mentality to creep into our justice system is the moment we can say goodbye to civilization.

Omni-Slash

one...that wasn't reporting ofa story that was a puff piece glamorization....

Omni-Slash

It contained all of the information you would need to piece together the fact that this man is very likely not guilty.

two....and what happens when that person gets out of jail and kills someone else?...was society protected....did the system fulfil it's duty then?.....or maybe he just kills a guard one day..no big deal......it's only a guard...

Omni-Slash

Gets out of jail? That's the point of life imprisonment: they don't get out of jail. In countries where "life" does not actually mean "life", I would have no problem with adjusting the definition accordingly.

As for the killing of guards, that's why especially dangerous individuals are transported to maximum security prisons.

It isn't worth the bother.duxup

I agree arguing about the death penalty isn't worth the bother.;)