Your views on the Death Penalty

Post Reply New Topic

what? what do you mean by "sold"?
circumstantial evidence is compelling it must be admitted.
evidence that fortifies the likely hood of the truth of the plaintiff's assertion (given their description of the circumstance) is circumstantial evidence and it matters.

i was not bothered to add to my post last night that i believe that in the modern world, (quite contrary to expectation) that guilt is very much more difficult to establish because the networks of the accused's associations are quite complicated, and not easily accounted for.
i have worked out that when you wrote "sold", you meant "solid", but it is too late for me to change my post

if there is any doubt, then the sentence of "DEATH" is a very serious mistake that i would not like to be accountable for.

Trials with possible death penalty are considerably more expensive. The defense will do absolutely every thing possible, and the legislator has let a lot of room for appeal. The whole process with multiple checks, and specialized detention is quite expensive. The money can be better spent in prevention.

As a deterrent, it simply doesn't work.

usually, its the poor and minorities that really get sentenced.

This government violence gives the wrong example to the population. Bad leadership.

How does the northern countries work with out the death penalty? They are among the best places on the planet to live in. Crime rate is low.

Actually, back then, you could pay the family X amounts of pigs/goats(a lot of value) and consider it fair compensation. If you think about it, its beater for the accused to work a bit for the family/community, then simply kill him. It depended on the circumstances and the culture.

I'm against the death penalty; I have no problem with the death part, it's the fact that I don't trust the people in charge of the killing to pave the streets properly that's at issue.

Casey Anthony.
See? We've already abolished the death penalty for pretty white women. We don't even make them serve time.

I'm against the death penalty.

As am I, on the grounds that it can be applied in error. The next best thing are penal colonies, far from our shores.

ruveyn

That is how I see things. More innocent people have gotten the death penalty. Then those who where guilty.

I doubt that. But enough innocent people have beens sentenced to die to indicate that the process of assigning guilt is quite faulty. In Illinois it was about five percent false guilty. Later evidence exonerated about five percent of those either sentenced to life or sentence to die.

ruveyn

The Soviet Union tried a similar concept. From the state's point of view, it was a net loss, for reasons of transport and food (of gards and prisonners alike). Most of the convicts died. The fact that most camps were in Siberia or near the White Sea didn't help of course, but the camps in Kazakhstan weren't merrier (though I'm not sure there were criminal camps there, to be honest), and I don't except you propose building the colony on the Florida coast either.

Oh, while I'm at it, where exactly would the colony be?

Life criminals are not very numerous. I don't see why we should think the matter so extensively. We already have measures for dealing with such matters, and imperfect though they are, they are not so inadequate that they needing extensive changing. Anyway, most life criminals are probably lesser scums than many of the organized criminals with good lawyers we lock in for minimal sentences. As for the cost of a life in prison, most of it is probably just your typical government waste and corruption, which would apply to any system, be it penal colony, death setence or weregild.


As I have said, that is a problem of the justice system in general; it isn't really an argument against death penalty itself.

I mean plenty of people later prooven innocent of a crime. Where put to death and it was unjust. Like in my state plenty of innocent people have gotten the death penalty.

Pretty much this.

In a perfect system of justice where it could be demonstrated that rehabilitation was impossible and a person's crimes so heinous, sure I would back the death penalty.

But it's use as a deterrent is a joke it doesn't work or the US would have no murder.

Calling any justice system infallible is also a joke, an awful lot of innocent people have been executed in the US and I would rather live somewhere where the state doesn't give itself that power.

I agree. And by *rot* in prison I mean be sodomized by their fellow inmates!

Now that is worse then death

i think that an animal lives only once. humans are animals.
everything that lives has only one life, and to "live" is sacred and very valuable in my mind.
there is the entirety of the consciousness of the animal in question to consider when calculating the value (or in other words "irreplaceability" of existence) of their complete life ,
and i do not think it is within the realm of human consideration to determine what is expendable with reference to life.

our lives are infinitely valuable to us. we will fight to the death to preserve our life.
we are the only ones who see how important our own lives are.

others see us as nice but not mandatory to their happiness.

replace "us" with "me" (and "our" with "my") in this post and that is what i have to say.

Human beings are not animals.

that is incorrect.