Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 121
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    OK then, what about miscarriages of justice? They do happen in the USA, like everywhere else. What do you call it when the State kills an innocent person?
    What most are talking about is an execution after the second or third time... I'm for the third time...

    If the third time happens to not be true, but the prior two time are, then I'll lose no sleep if the slim is executed by the state.

    Tirk, have a heart, think of the innocent children.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  2. #82  
    I third Theog's statement also, though the first time, not the 2nd or 3rd. When one speaks of violence in the US, I take it that we are also aware of violence in other places. Britain is seeing an increase in knife related crime.
  3. #83  
    So it's okay if a person is executed while innocent of the crime they're convicted of, since they've done other things in the past (for which they've already served a sentence)? That's an....interesting.... view. Totally at odds with the entire foundations of our country's system of justice, but... interesting.

    That's the kind of thinking that leads to jurors convicting innocent folks - the "well, they must be guilty of something, even if it's not this crime" concept.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I third Theog's statement also, though the first time, not the 2nd or 3rd. When one speaks of violence in the US, I take it that we are also aware of violence in other places. Britain is seeing an increase in knife related crime.
    They're crime & imprisonment rate isn't nearly that of ours. And evidence is pretty clear that, if they started executing these criminals using knives to injure and kill people, it wouldn't reduce their crime rate one bit.
  5. tirk's Avatar
    Posts
    810 Posts
    Global Posts
    918 Global Posts
    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Tirk, have a heart, think of the innocent children.
    I am a parent, thank you!

    And I was thinking of the innocent children too, like, what if one of my children was falsely accused of something?
    PalmPilot Professional...Palm Vx...Treo 600...Treo 680...HTC Touch HD...iPhone 4S...
  6. #86  
    So they just let them out again to do it again and again and again. Really makes sense. Oh well, thank God I do not live there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    They're crime & imprisonment rate isn't nearly that of ours. And evidence is pretty clear that, if they started executing these criminals using knives to injure and kill people, it wouldn't reduce their crime rate one bit.
  7. #87  
    The hoops the criminal justice system has to jump through to throw the switch, do the needle, et cetera, means that the appeals are exhausted and little if anything else remains of importance. I firmly do not believe that we should let everyone go just because there is the possibility of 1 innocent person being executed. Just does not make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by tirk View Post
    I am a parent, thank you!

    And I was thinking of the innocent children too, like, what if one of my children was falsely accused of something?
  8. #88  
    Do you think that all executed so far, and all those on the death row are guilty?

    How will you ensure that no innocents get executed? or one or two innocents, once in a while, is OK as long as other guilty get executed?
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  9. tirk's Avatar
    Posts
    810 Posts
    Global Posts
    918 Global Posts
    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    I firmly do not believe that we should let everyone go just because there is the possibility of 1 innocent person being executed.
    I always thought the whole point justice was the protection of the innocent. I can't see how you can square that with your statement. "Kill them all and let god sort it out" perhaps?

    And if you remove "protection of the innocent" from justice, surely you are only left with base things like vengeance and blood-lust.
    PalmPilot Professional...Palm Vx...Treo 600...Treo 680...HTC Touch HD...iPhone 4S...
  10. #90  
    http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," says English jurist William Blackstone. The ratio 10:1 has become known as the "Blackstone ratio." Lawyers "are indoctrinated" with it "early in law school." "Schoolboys are taught" it. In the fantasies of legal academics, jurors think about Blackstone routinely.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    So they just let them out again to do it again and again and again. Really makes sense. Oh well, thank God I do not live there.
    But that's the point: if that were the case, then their crime rates would be very high - but ours are significantly higher than most other "first world" countries. So the heavy-handed, highly disciplinary approach simply isn't working for us. Our system has problems, but the solution isn't simply stricter penalties - if that were the case, then our crime rate would be very low.

    I know that common sense would seem to dictate that the harsher approach would work; however, that's why we need to look at scientifically reliable data. If we made our decisions on "common sense" alone, we'd still think that a flat sun revolves around the earth.

    The simple fact is that nobody on this thread will ever convince a person with the opposite opinion to change their minds. This sort of opinion is firmly rooted in folks' political belief system. I think this topic has been talked to death, so I'm opting out from here on, but, for the good of the forum and this discussion, I'd personally prefer that people try to refrain from the "think of the children", "take the nonsense out", "move all of them into your neighborhood" type of arguments that don't address the issue so much as question the personal qualities of the person posting.
    Last edited by Bujin; 07/08/2008 at 11:04 AM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  12. #92  
    The problem we have with your "neighborhood" statement is that it does happen. There have been cases (not that distant in the past) where a child has been kidnapped by a repeat offender in the neighborhood.

    Our court system is far from perfect; however, the number executed that are guilty far exceeds the number executed that are innocent. Nothing is perfect, nothing other than death is certain. The death of an innocent child, the death of an innocent person, the death of a guilty person - all play at our emotions and the guilty person wins. Keep them in jail? Sure, especially with judges that decide to alter the law or believe they can do anything they want, including over-rule what the people decide. The US is a nation of law and unfortunately the 3rd branch, the judicial branch sees itself as the more powerful branch.
  13. #93  
    BC:
    Shouldnt the punishment be that the ****** pays the father of the child fifty silver shekels and marry the girl?

    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the.../dt22_28a.html

    Unless she was engaged off course then he should be stoned to death at gate of the town...
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the...e/dt22_24.html


    But seriously, I think if you start killing people you are getting your self on a slippery slide:
    -you could kill an innocent person.. it would not be the first time that happened.
    -you are sinking to the criminals level
    -By executing them you lett them off easy, a child molestor does rightfully so not get a nice time in prison.. so if you let them rot in hell for the rest of their life it is a harder punushment then killing them in a painfree way.

    I share the sentiment of wanting to kill such monsters, I would feel the same if something like that would happen to my daughter, but we should let our heads rule, not our emotions.. thats what sets us appart from the rest of the animals..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    The problem we have with your "neighborhood" statement is that it does happen. There have been cases (not that distant in the past) where a child has been kidnapped by a repeat offender in the neighborhood.

    Our court system is far from perfect; however, the number executed that are guilty far exceeds the number executed that are innocent. Nothing is perfect, nothing other than death is certain. The death of an innocent child, the death of an innocent person, the death of a guilty person - all play at our emotions and the guilty person wins. Keep them in jail? Sure, especially with judges that decide to alter the law or believe they can do anything they want, including over-rule what the people decide. The US is a nation of law and unfortunately the 3rd branch, the judicial branch sees itself as the more powerful branch.
    I prefer (life in prison without the possibility of parole) instead of death penalty. That way these cretins would not be released to repeat their crime. And, if they are proven not-guilty later on (DNA evidence, or whatever .. it happens), then the miscarriage of justice can be (partially) reversed.

    Put yourself in the position of an innocent man in prison or the death chamber and then you'll understand why I find the punishing of the innocent so repugnant.

    Really, all your concerns about repeat offenders (which you use to justify the death penalty) gets addressed by (life in prison without the possibility of parole).
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby
    See, this is why I don't think you understand 'where I'm going'. I never said capital punishment was little more than revenge.


    I’m thinking the issue you and I have here is a matter of me not distinguishing your argument from another person’s. Maybe I’m not quite understanding here, but I think I took the approach that your dialog was a mere extension of another dialog, no?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin
    In this case, it doesn't seem to matter if capital punishment actually meets its intended goals - as long as it makes people feel like it is.


    I think there may be an issue with what constitutes intended goals. For myself, the primary purpose is punishment, period. It is the same as when I receive a speeding ticket or when someone robs a bank—they are punished for doing what they know was wrong to do. The legal system has a method for dealing with people who legitimately are not capable of making rational decisions.

    As far as a deterrent, that is quite a difficult argument for either side and any two persons could go around and around and never come to anything conclusive—at least in the sense of actual data (in theory one might “prove” the DP as an effective deterrent).

    From
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder (I left out the irrelevant definitions, pay close attention to number 5):
    Quote:
    1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
    4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
    5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.


    It sounds like killing someone by lethal injection, hanging, stoning, drowning, electrocution, firing squad or by any other means with deliberate malice and forethought would be murder and that is what the death penalty is all about; murder in response to murder sanctioned by the state. Yes, I know what murder is.
    No, I still think you missed it. The concept of malice and premeditation are terms used to describe a person who plans out a crime in advance and represents an evil intent—as opposed to the state which represents the intent to provide justice in response to a crime. There is a major difference between a person who plans ahead of time to kill someone for any arbitrary reason and the state which creates an atmosphere of judgment in response to an alleged crime (first you are convicted of guilt and then sentence is passed).

    As far as paying attention to #5, you should have as well. Note the two words, “inhumanly” and “barbarously.” If indeed one can kill inhumanly, then one could kill humanely; likewise for barbarously.

    Quote Originally Posted by tirk
    What do you call it when the State kills an innocent person?


    The same thing when the state lets a guilty man go free, who in turn commits a heinous crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin
    And evidence is pretty clear that, if they started executing these criminals using knives to injure and kill people, it wouldn't reduce their crime rate one bit.


    Actually, no it’s not.

    This means that it is almost impossible to prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration by "direct" empirical demonstration. Instead, researchers have to reach conclusion from statistical analysis of overall crime statistics, which is much more inconclusive.


    Quote Originally Posted by aprasad
    "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," says English jurist William Blackstone. The ratio 10:1 has become known as the "Blackstone ratio." Lawyers "are indoctrinated" with it "early in law school." "Schoolboys are taught" it. In the fantasies of legal academics, jurors think about Blackstone routinely.


    I like the quote from an alleged chinese philosopher at the end: “Better for whom?”

    Anyhow, the reality is this theory really applies more for issues where doubt exists as opposed to which methods of punishment should be employed, no? If not, then the reality is that even under a conviction of guilt—even when doubt is virtually non-existant—one would be forced to adhere to this principle under the premise that a person’s guilt may be false and let even those convicted of guilt go free (just in case).


    Quote Originally Posted by Toolkit
    But seriously, I think if you start killing people you are getting your self on a slippery slide:
    Quote Originally Posted by Toolkit
    (1)-you could kill an innocent person.. it would not be the first time that happened.
    (2)-you are sinking to the criminals level
    (3)-By executing them you lett them off easy, a child molestor does rightfully so not get a nice time in prison.. so if you let them rot in hell for the rest of their life it is a harder punushment then killing them in a painfree wa
    y.

    1 – That assumes an inherent right to an accurate outcome, as opposed to a fair trial (which is what is guaranteed to a person).
    2 – Not hardly; unless you automatically assume all killing to bear the same intent. Criminals have a more selfish intent and kill with disregard for the law. The state kills only as a reaction to certain breaches of law and works with much regard for the law.
    3 – So then taking the life of a child molester would quintessentially be the more humane punishment.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    I’m thinking the issue you and I have here is a matter of me not distinguishing your argument from another person’s. Maybe I’m not quite understanding here, but I think I took the approach that your dialog was a mere extension of another dialog, no?
    My statement was referencing other dialogs, but I think you read into it more than was there.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    [COLOR=black][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]No, I still think you missed it. The concept of malice and premeditation are terms used to describe a person [...] as opposed to the state which represents the intent to provide justice in response to a crime.
    Nope... I think you missed it. The death penalty is nothing more than petty, state-sponsored (and inflicted) revenge and revenge entails malice and premeditation thus making the death penalty murder.
    Grant Smith
    A+, Net+, MCPx2, BSIT/VC, MIS

    eNVENT Technologies
    Use your imagination.
    --
    Sprint HTC Evo 4G

    DISCLAIMER: The views, conclusions, findings and opinions of this author are those of this author and do not necessarily reflect the views of eNVENT Technologies.
  18. #98  
    The norms of society defined by that society and not the court system is what I am in favor of, even if it may be horrific. My biggest complaint though is that the people need to be the ones to decide the ultimate consequence, not the judicial system. As stated before, if the people are allowed the choice, the true morals of the country are respected. What is good for the US may not be good for Britain and so forth. To expect every country to do the same is just not practical. Heck, what I see in Britain with Shira law over-riding the law of the land, I find that to be down-right scary.

    If one can guarantee life in prison WITHOUT parole, then fine. However, from the reading I have done on this subject, that does not appear to be the norm. Appeal, appeal, appeal, even when no evidence is brought to light showing innocence and the guy is back out on the street. Does it happen often? More than what I thought it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToolkiT View Post
    BC:
    Shouldnt the punishment be that the ****** pays the father of the child fifty silver shekels and marry the girl?

    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the.../dt22_28a.html

    Unless she was engaged off course then he should be stoned to death at gate of the town...
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the...e/dt22_24.html


    But seriously, I think if you start killing people you are getting your self on a slippery slide:
    -you could kill an innocent person.. it would not be the first time that happened.
    -you are sinking to the criminals level
    -By executing them you lett them off easy, a child molestor does rightfully so not get a nice time in prison.. so if you let them rot in hell for the rest of their life it is a harder punushment then killing them in a painfree way.

    I share the sentiment of wanting to kill such monsters, I would feel the same if something like that would happen to my daughter, but we should let our heads rule, not our emotions.. thats what sets us appart from the rest of the animals..
  19. #99  
    The US judicial system does not guarantee an accurate outcome - only the right to a fair trial - reading anything more in to it means a personal agenda.


    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    I’m thinking the issue you and I have here is a matter of me not distinguishing your argument from another person’s. Maybe I’m not quite understanding here, but I think I took the approach that your dialog was a mere extension of another dialog, no?



    I think there may be an issue with what constitutes intended goals. For myself, the primary purpose is punishment, period. It is the same as when I receive a speeding ticket or when someone robs a bank—they are punished for doing what they know was wrong to do. The legal system has a method for dealing with people who legitimately are not capable of making rational decisions.

    As far as a deterrent, that is quite a difficult argument for either side and any two persons could go around and around and never come to anything conclusive—at least in the sense of actual data (in theory one might “prove” the DP as an effective deterrent).



    No, I still think you missed it. The concept of malice and premeditation are terms used to describe a person who plans out a crime in advance and represents an evil intent—as opposed to the state which represents the intent to provide justice in response to a crime. There is a major difference between a person who plans ahead of time to kill someone for any arbitrary reason and the state which creates an atmosphere of judgment in response to an alleged crime (first you are convicted of guilt and then sentence is passed).

    As far as paying attention to #5, you should have as well. Note the two words, “inhumanly” and “barbarously.” If indeed one can kill inhumanly, then one could kill humanely; likewise for barbarously.



    The same thing when the state lets a guilty man go free, who in turn commits a heinous crime.



    Actually, no it’s not.

    This means that it is almost impossible to prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty or incarceration by "direct" empirical demonstration. Instead, researchers have to reach conclusion from statistical analysis of overall crime statistics, which is much more inconclusive.




    I like the quote from an alleged chinese philosopher at the end: “Better for whom?”

    Anyhow, the reality is this theory really applies more for issues where doubt exists as opposed to which methods of punishment should be employed, no? If not, then the reality is that even under a conviction of guilt—even when doubt is virtually non-existant—one would be forced to adhere to this principle under the premise that a person’s guilt may be false and let even those convicted of guilt go free (just in case).





    1 – That assumes an inherent right to an accurate outcome, as opposed to a fair trial (which is what is guaranteed to a person).
    2 – Not hardly; unless you automatically assume all killing to bear the same intent. Criminals have a more selfish intent and kill with disregard for the law. The state kills only as a reaction to certain breaches of law and works with much regard for the law.
    3 – So then taking the life of a child molester would quintessentially be the more humane punishment.
  20. #100  
    Wow, I see we have an opinion that has a tremendous amount of emotion behind it. As he stated, the state reacts within the law, which does not allow for revenge nor entail malice - it reflects the norms of society.

    Quote Originally Posted by gksmithlcw View Post
    Nope... I think you missed it. The death penalty is nothing more than petty, state-sponsored (and inflicted) revenge and revenge entails malice and premeditation thus making the death penalty murder.
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions