By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The death penalty.

Killiana1a on 17 October 2010
Khuutra said:
Killiana1a said:

The exception is never the rule. We have DNA evidence nowadays, if we use it during the appeals process for the death penalty, then that is the death row prisoner's trump card. No dna evidence? You should have never been convicted.

I just don't like it when anti-death penalty advocates always argue from the logical fallacy "the exception is the rule" to try and dissuade public opinion on the issue. It is blatantly dishonest and in any system, death penalty or not, you will have innocent individuals behind bars. Getting rid of the death penalty will not rid the problem of wrongful convictions.

I agree with the appeals process eventhough it is long and expensive because we are ensuring due process with the amount of appeals and sheer time (10-20 years before executed) it takes to execute a prisoner on death row.

The problem with the appeals process is not enough money for the US courts to expediate the appeals process. If we, and I am favor of this, increased taxes to give the courts more money to speed up the appeals process, then we would not have the decades long cases of individuals such as Mumia Abu Jamal who should have been executed 2 decades ago.

Getting rid of the death penalty would not end wrongful convictions.

It would, however, end wrongful executions, which was one small part of his point.

It's not that the exception is the rule. It's that the exception is institutionalized murder.

Yes, most criminals in the US justice system are not there on death row for murder. So in comparison to the overall prison population, they are the exception.

The point I took it as, was we should get rid of the death penalty because one wrongful execution is too much. In this case, they are arguing from "the exception is the rule" fallacy.

This is disagree with. I will not quibble over death row population vs. general prison population because it is a moot point, which we have no disagreement on.

Wrongful convictions will occur death penalty or not because not all criminals have the money of OJ Simpson to hire the best attorneys to get off of a murder, that I believe and many believe he committed. Most criminals get stuck with a public defender who is not a Johnnie Cochran type lawyer, therefore evidence may be omitted or the public defender will muck up the jury selection phase and end up with a wrongful conviction.

Well, arguing about the racial makeup of a jury is contentious nonetheless. Blacks will argue that they were wrongfully convicted because a plurality of the jurors were White. Men will argue that there were too many women on the jury. This is an issue that drags out the appeals process for an inordinate amount of time.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 17 October 2010
AnthonyW86 said:
sad.man.loves.vgc said:

Kill the killers, they deserve to die unless they are insane or something.

Now this i don't understand, why should someone who's diagnosed ''insane'' receive a lighter sentence? Doesn't the fact that they are insane make them much less likely to ever be succesfully re-introduced, or ever contribute to society in any way?

People who are insane aren't in control of their actions. Such people should be thrown in high security mental institutions for life.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

The Ghost of RubangB on 18 October 2010
Killiana1a said:
Khuutra said:
Killiana1a said:

The exception is never the rule. We have DNA evidence nowadays, if we use it during the appeals process for the death penalty, then that is the death row prisoner's trump card. No dna evidence? You should have never been convicted.

I just don't like it when anti-death penalty advocates always argue from the logical fallacy "the exception is the rule" to try and dissuade public opinion on the issue. It is blatantly dishonest and in any system, death penalty or not, you will have innocent individuals behind bars. Getting rid of the death penalty will not rid the problem of wrongful convictions.

I agree with the appeals process eventhough it is long and expensive because we are ensuring due process with the amount of appeals and sheer time (10-20 years before executed) it takes to execute a prisoner on death row.

The problem with the appeals process is not enough money for the US courts to expediate the appeals process. If we, and I am favor of this, increased taxes to give the courts more money to speed up the appeals process, then we would not have the decades long cases of individuals such as Mumia Abu Jamal who should have been executed 2 decades ago.

Getting rid of the death penalty would not end wrongful convictions.

It would, however, end wrongful executions, which was one small part of his point.

It's not that the exception is the rule. It's that the exception is institutionalized murder.

Yes, most criminals in the US justice system are not there on death row for murder. So in comparison to the overall prison population, they are the exception.

The point I took it as, was we should get rid of the death penalty because one wrongful execution is too much. In this case, they are arguing from "the exception is the rule" fallacy.

This is disagree with. I will not quibble over death row population vs. general prison population because it is a moot point, which we have no disagreement on.

Wrongful convictions will occur death penalty or not because not all criminals have the money of OJ Simpson to hire the best attorneys to get off of a murder, that I believe and many believe he committed. Most criminals get stuck with a public defender who is not a Johnnie Cochran type lawyer, therefore evidence may be omitted or the public defender will muck up the jury selection phase and end up with a wrongful conviction.

Well, arguing about the racial makeup of a jury is contentious nonetheless. Blacks will argue that they were wrongfully convicted because a plurality of the jurors were White. Men will argue that there were too many women on the jury. This is an issue that drags out the appeals process for an inordinate amount of time.

Wrongful convictions will always be there.  That's not what I'm arguing.

My argument is this:

Because we will always have wrongful convictions, we can never have executions.

And yes, one wrongful execution is too much.  With the death penalty, we waste too much money and we waste too many lives, and it doesn't make anybody safer.  It actually has no net benefit for society.  It just takes up time and money, clogs up our legal system, and murders the occasional innocent person.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

numonex on 18 October 2010
Killiana1a said:
Khuutra said:
Killiana1a said:

The exception is never the rule. We have DNA evidence nowadays, if we use it during the appeals process for the death penalty, then that is the death row prisoner's trump card. No dna evidence? You should have never been convicted.

I just don't like it when anti-death penalty advocates always argue from the logical fallacy "the exception is the rule" to try and dissuade public opinion on the issue. It is blatantly dishonest and in any system, death penalty or not, you will have innocent individuals behind bars. Getting rid of the death penalty will not rid the problem of wrongful convictions.

I agree with the appeals process eventhough it is long and expensive because we are ensuring due process with the amount of appeals and sheer time (10-20 years before executed) it takes to execute a prisoner on death row.

The problem with the appeals process is not enough money for the US courts to expediate the appeals process. If we, and I am favor of this, increased taxes to give the courts more money to speed up the appeals process, then we would not have the decades long cases of individuals such as Mumia Abu Jamal who should have been executed 2 decades ago.

Getting rid of the death penalty would not end wrongful convictions.

It would, however, end wrongful executions, which was one small part of his point.

It's not that the exception is the rule. It's that the exception is institutionalized murder.

Yes, most criminals in the US justice system are not there on death row for murder. So in comparison to the overall prison population, they are the exception.

The point I took it as, was we should get rid of the death penalty because one wrongful execution is too much. In this case, they are arguing from "the exception is the rule" fallacy.

This is disagree with. I will not quibble over death row population vs. general prison population because it is a moot point, which we have no disagreement on.

Wrongful convictions will occur death penalty or not because not all criminals have the money of OJ Simpson to hire the best attorneys to get off of a murder, that I believe and many believe he committed. Most criminals get stuck with a public defender who is not a Johnnie Cochran type lawyer, therefore evidence may be omitted or the public defender will muck up the jury selection phase and end up with a wrongful conviction.

Well, arguing about the racial makeup of a jury is contentious nonetheless. Blacks will argue that they were wrongfully convicted because a plurality of the jurors were White. Men will argue that there were too many women on the jury. This is an issue that drags out the appeals process for an inordinate amount of time.

A high percentage of people in prison or on death row are from low socio-economic backgrounds. Many have been discriminated against due to various factors such as race, religion and disabilities. There is no such thing as social justice in this corrupt world. Having lots of money can help rich criminals get off with murder, fraud and many other criminal offences. Judges, police, politicians and lawyers will let  off a rich man who carries out any crime(s) if the price is right. 

The death penalty should be outlawed. Life in prison is better than executing an innocent man. 



Star-Wars-Josh9 on 18 October 2010

I don't think it is worth having though there are some people who should be kill for their crimes like serial killers. People Like Scott Rush who is a drug mule in Indonesia is on death row where other menbers in his group are getting less then him for the same thing. Which is unfiar.

Also Breaker Morrant a solider in the Boar war was excuted for klilling the people who surrended when they were orded not to take no pows so they were just folling orders.

I don't think there should be a captial punishment and life in jail is pretty bad just endless days having to think of what you did though i have to pay for them with Tax.



 

Around the Network
SosusOCR on 18 October 2010

So when did capital punishment become an issue of revenge and not punishment? I figure once those lines get blurred its time to take a step back. 



lestatdark on 18 October 2010

This is an issue in which I can't have a definite stance, it's not a black or white thing as there are many shades of grey relating the justice or the applications of the death penalty.

In one hand, it's my personal conviction that people who murder, rape or abuse a person, be it either an adult or a child (but in the cases of a child I'm more strongly in favour of the death sentence), deserve this kind of punishment, as these are acts that destroy not only the victim's life, but also everyone around him/her as well, family, friends, coworkers, etc.

But on the other hand, any system that deals this kind of justice (or any other for that matter), is prone to various mistakes and judgment errors, and not even with the use of modern scientific methods such as DNA comparison can these mistakes be completely abolished. 

So to me, the best solution would be life imprisonment, which is something i'm ashamed of my country for not having (maximum penalty here is 25 years, which is rarely used, even on the only case of serial killing we've had since be became a democracy in 1974).



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

masterb8tr on 18 October 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4L6-0WRfSA

watch after 5 minutes and so:p



numonex on 18 October 2010

Stalin/Mao/Hitler and other dictators frequently used mass executions on prisoners and political opponents without trial. People who support the death penalty and public executions are just as civilised  as a despotic dictator. Death penalty supporters do not believe in human rights and civil liberties.

To support the death penalty is to support murder. The blood of the executed man is on all the hands of the people within society regardless if you played a role in the judicial process or execution of the man.

What if the man executed was innocent of all charges and he was not the person who carried out the alleged crimes?

Why should the state have the power to decide who lives and who dies? 

Death penalty supporters are just as civilised as Stalin and Hitler, et. al. 

 



Zlejedi on 18 October 2010
numonex said:

Those who support it. How would you feel if an innocent man was sentenced to death? Even sending one man to his death is reason enough that

That's a very popular argument against people protesting against capital punishement.

But let me ask you and all the civilized defenders if we are afraid of sentencing innocents why do we put so little value in protecting innocents from crime commisioned by people who left jail after serving their time ?

 

Personally I support death penalty for cases of crimes involving extreme brutality as long as we have direct proof of that person commiting this crime.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB