Still believe in the death Penalty?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Who exactly said anything about revenge. Is that a specific reply to anything I argued, or just a concept that you made up right now?

Just my concept of the death penalty. In hindsight i should have left the word revenge out.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

My point is that even the people deemed medically disabled in anyway still have responsibility.

Medically disabled can define a wide range of people. Can you be more specific as to the types of people you are referring too?

[Flames_Gimp]

i wish i was one of the officers on the scene at the "beheading", i would have shot and killed the guy without hesitation. Save a lot of time and money.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dion

Just my concept of the death penalty. In hindsight i should have left the word revenge out.

I'm glad you could admit that, and I'd suggest that if you think that people who are pro death penalty are just looking for revenge you are looking at a very small minority.

For me specifically it has to do with sometimes you just believe in things that on the surface aren't very nice. Executing someone isn't fun, or nice, but sometimes the best way to deal with an awful situation. If I had a choice of either a) spending a million bucks on say families who are grieving dead family members who died from needless crimes, or spend the money on improving jailing facilities for those who may be closer to being rehabilitated, or b) listen to a million experts mull over if this guy on the bus is nuts or not, I go with a. Just to darn pragmatic to decide otherwise.

And that's the thing about money, it is a choice, because we can't pick more off the tree ... so you have to decide between that 'b' scenario or any other scenario that could be more constructive.

Also, I think the death penalty in some cases relieves society from people who are significant threats to reoffend ... I just care too much about prospective victims to not think otherwise.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dion

Medically disabled can define a wide range of people. Can you be more specific as to the types of people you are referring too?

No, it's not important to the main arguement, I use the death penalty on the ahole on the bus. Simple as that.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

No, it's not important to the main arguement, I use the death penalty on the ahole on the bus. Simple as that.

You made a broad statement and i asked for specifics.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I'm glad you could admit that, and I'd suggest that if you think that people who are pro death penalty are just looking for revenge you are looking at a very small minority.

I'm not suggesting anything. I agree that people have thier own views on the death penalty.

And that's the thing about money, it is a choice, because we can't pick more off the tree ... so you have to decide between that 'b' scenario or any other scenario that could be more constructive.

Also, I think the death penalty in some cases relieves society from people who are significant threats to reoffend ... I just care too much about prospective victims to not think otherwise.

I care about the innocent people that might be wrongly executed. The justice system and the police force are not that infallible that it doesn't make mistakes.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dion

I'm not suggesting anything. I agree that people have thier own views on the death penalty.



I care about the innocent people that might be wrongly executed. The justice system and the police force are not that infallible that it doesn't make mistakes.

Do you think that there is much question as to who did the killing on the bus?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Do you think that there is much question as to who did the killing on the bus?

You'd have a hard time finding anyone questioning who did the killing. That being said having a death penalty would also include cases where people are wrongly convicted and executed for thier cimes.

[3 Justin 3]

My boss had a good point when we talked yesterday. He said the criminal (no matter what the crime, murder or theft), should always be punished more than what he did. For example. He killed a man, he should be killed as well, I give no sympathy to people who kill others, and he should be punished for it by having his own life ended. 25+ years in prison isn't just IMO because they don't deserve to live if they think killing someone is right.

For theft how is a few years in jail proper? Make people think twice before they do something stupid and send them there for 10 years. Unless they steal like a candy from a 7-11, just kick them out/fine them.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dion

You'd have a hard time finding anyone questioning who did the killing. That being said having a death penalty would also include cases where people are wrongly convicted and executed for thier cimes.

And that is why I think the death penalty applies in this case.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

And that is why I think the death penalty applies in this case.

If my friend had succeded in killing his mother would you have him put to sleep?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dion

If my friend had succeded in killing his mother would you have him put to sleep?

I hate to be blunt, but having any emotions towards the victim/criminal shouldn't have any effect on what the jury decides. Ever.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Azure

I hate to be blunt, but having any emotions towards the victim/criminal shouldn't have any effect on what the jury decides. Ever.

And what has that got to do with my question to Flames in 07?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Do you think that there is much question as to who did the killing on the bus?

Well, one might say that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we have the killer; however, the point is that apparently "beyond a reasonable doubt" sometimes STILL gets it wrong, else there wouldn't be any wrongful convictions.

So should there be a "we're completely sure this time - really!" or maybe "it's absolutely impossible that this guy didn't do it, unless we're all crazy" standard of evidence for capital punishment?

Or, I have an even better idea - if it's ever proved that someone was wrongfully convicted and then killed, we should get to try the original judge, jury and prosecutor for murder, as theoretically they conspired in killing an innocent person. That would be "justice" - sure it sucks to be the people getting the juice for a mistake, but if we're going with a life for a life, then the principle has to applied across the board!

As long as you have fallible humans in charge of justice, I'm a big proponent of the "rather 10 criminals free than 1 innocent man in prison" theory. To start leaning the other way is to tempt tyranny.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, one might say that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" that we have the killer; however, the point is that apparently "beyond a reasonable doubt" sometimes STILL gets it wrong, else there wouldn't be any wrongful convictions.

So should there be a "we're completely sure this time - really!" or maybe "it's absolutely impossible that this guy didn't do it, unless we're all crazy" standard of evidence for capital punishment?

Or, I have an even better idea - if it's ever proved that someone was wrongfully convicted and then killed, we should get to try the original judge, jury and prosecutor for murder, as theoretically they conspired in killing an innocent person. That would be "justice" - sure it sucks to be the people getting the juice for a mistake, but if we're going with a life for a life, then the principle has to applied across the board!

As long as you have fallible humans in charge of justice, I'm a big proponent of the "rather 10 criminals free than 1 innocent man in prison" theory. To start leaning the other way is to tempt tyranny.

I think we will be able to figure out who did the killing in this one. Once in awhile a crime happens where you just know who the criminal is, this is one of them.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Dion

If my friend had succeded in killing his mother would you have him put to sleep?

Wheather someone was your friend, or not, really is not important. If someone, be it your buddy or not, kills someone else, completely unprovoked, with a bus load of witnesses that all agree on who the criminal is, then yes.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Wheather someone was your friend, or not, really is not important. If someone, be it your buddy or not, kills someone else, completely unprovoked, with a bus load of witnesses that all agree on who the criminal is, then yes.

It is important as it gets right down to the crux of the argument of should the mentally ill be subjected to the death penalty - something i don't support. Plus the ignorance about schizophrenia in general.

My deceased friend was schizophrenic much like I suspect that man was. My friend had a psychotic episode where voices told him to kill his mother. And in this case i suspect voices told this man to kill that teen. As horrific as the act was i have a feeling the courts will find him criminaly insane and not responsible.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Dion

It is important as it gets right down to the crux of the argument of should the mentally ill be subjected to the death penalty - something i don't support. Plus the ignorance about schizophrenia in general.

My deceased friend was schizophrenic much like I suspect that man was. My friend had a psychotic episode where voices told him to kill his mother. And in this case i suspect voices told this man to kill that teen. As horrific as the act was i have a feeling the courts will find him criminaly insane and not responsible.

I have no problem with this as long as he spends the rest of his days in a padded room.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

I think we will be able to figure out who did the killing in this one. Once in awhile a crime happens where you just know who the criminal is, this is one of them.

You are missing the whole point of the argument. What we "know" and what we "know" by law are not the same thing, and can never be the same thing. Why don't you explain exactly how your "we know who did it" system is going to work?