Death Penalty quandry...
- Thread starter nico
- Start date
Granted...
Well let's be realistic here, if they are in jail they can appeal, and be let out... alive... sure they are in prison and they would get a nice cash settlement from the government. Hey they may end up better off...but jail time and death are illogical comparisons. They deal with totally different ethics.
Well let's be realistic here, if they are in jail they can appeal, and be let out... alive... sure they are in prison and they would get a nice cash settlement from the government. Hey they may end up better off...but jail time and death are illogical comparisons. They deal with totally different ethics.
False. Vigilante justice is not ordained by the law.
Let me ask you this. You're on a jury for a murder trial. The evidence against the defendant is both pervasive and persuasive. He has a motive. He has no alibi. His prints are the only prints on the murder weapon, which is registered to him. His wife and children have left him because he is prone to violent, abusive behavior. He had ample opportunity to commit the crime. He was seen at the scene of the crime immediately before and after it took place, and seemed agitated. Every witness believes he was culpable and capable. You and your colleagues are convinced. You unanimously decide that he is guilty, with no doubts. the judge sentances the defendant to death. He is executed.
The tape is discovered. The man who was executed is innocent.
Should your head roll? What about the 34-year-old mother of two who sat next to you in the box, and was equally convinced? What about the 25-year-old grad student who is the sole caretaker of his 87-year-old blind grandmother? Do these people deserve to die because of the failure of the system?
Let me ask you this. You're on a jury for a murder trial. The evidence against the defendant is both pervasive and persuasive. He has a motive. He has no alibi. His prints are the only prints on the murder weapon, which is registered to him. His wife and children have left him because he is prone to violent, abusive behavior. He had ample opportunity to commit the crime. He was seen at the scene of the crime immediately before and after it took place, and seemed agitated. Every witness believes he was culpable and capable. You and your colleagues are convinced. You unanimously decide that he is guilty, with no doubts. the judge sentances the defendant to death. He is executed.
The tape is discovered. The man who was executed is innocent.
Should your head roll? What about the 34-year-old mother of two who sat next to you in the box, and was equally convinced? What about the 25-year-old grad student who is the sole caretaker of his 87-year-old blind grandmother? Do these people deserve to die because of the failure of the system?
*Yawn* nice appeal to emotion... but I don't care. See I wouldn't have a problem if they put the man in jail. But to kill that man...that is regardless of any emotional connection you may think you have with jury, the "true victims here" the innocent man and the murdered person. To both a great injustice had been done.
Let me ask you this. You're on a jury for a murder trial. The evidence against the defendant is both pervasive and persuasive. He has a motive. He has no alibi. His prints are the only prints on the murder weapon, which is registered to him. His wife and children have left him because he is prone to violent, abusive behavior. He had ample opportunity to commit the crime. He was seen at the scene of the crime immediately before and after it took place, and seemed agitated. Every witness believes he was culpable and capable. You and your colleagues are convinced. You unanimously decide that he is guilty, with no doubts. the judge sentances the defendant to death.
WHOA! talk about circumstantial’s, give me some proof
Video tapes can easily be altered or appear to show something that isn't actually happening.
DNA is more abundant than finger prints, and perhaps more accurate, but they do no more than finger prints do...
Show that a person was there.
Not necessarily even that.
It would be much easier for me to place one of your hairs at the scene of a crime, than fake your fingerprints on a murder weapon.
Both are far from infallible.
DNA is more abundant than finger prints, and perhaps more accurate, but they do no more than finger prints do...
Show that a person was there.
Not necessarily even that.
It would be much easier for me to place one of your hairs at the scene of a crime, than fake your fingerprints on a murder weapon.
Both are far from infallible.
The evidence I gave was for the sake of debate. you need eyewitess accounts and DNA verification? Okay. Apply the above, or whatever you deem necessary as proof, to my previous post. The idea, which you are apparently incapable of grasping, is that you as a juror are convinced.
As for not caring about the lives of others,
1) Appealing to emotion isn't my goal: notice that the judge determines the sentance. Should everyone involved be punished for the conviction if they were not also responsible for the sentance?
2) If you "don't care" about the lives of others, who gives a shit about the accused? If a jury is convinced of a decision to convict because of faulty information or poor communication on the part of the defense/prosecution, and are subsequently punished as a result, wouldn't they be just as much "victims" as the accused? What about the judge?
You had presented this as though we were discussing the necessity for ramifications of a faulty sentance, not the morality or legitimacy of death sentancing, and I've responded to the former. The morality of the death sentance is a whole other ballgame, and one I'm not prepared to play, considering the propagandist methods of discussion you've displayed so far, and inability to proceed with your case without splitting hairs and arguing semantics. Others try to discuss the issue, you retreat into macrocosm. A good, if unoriginal means of escape, but I don't have time for socioethical hide-and-seek.
If you have something intelligent or conclusive to say, we'll talk.
As for not caring about the lives of others,
1) Appealing to emotion isn't my goal: notice that the judge determines the sentance. Should everyone involved be punished for the conviction if they were not also responsible for the sentance?
2) If you "don't care" about the lives of others, who gives a shit about the accused? If a jury is convinced of a decision to convict because of faulty information or poor communication on the part of the defense/prosecution, and are subsequently punished as a result, wouldn't they be just as much "victims" as the accused? What about the judge?
You had presented this as though we were discussing the necessity for ramifications of a faulty sentance, not the morality or legitimacy of death sentancing, and I've responded to the former. The morality of the death sentance is a whole other ballgame, and one I'm not prepared to play, considering the propagandist methods of discussion you've displayed so far, and inability to proceed with your case without splitting hairs and arguing semantics. Others try to discuss the issue, you retreat into macrocosm. A good, if unoriginal means of escape, but I don't have time for socioethical hide-and-seek.
If you have something intelligent or conclusive to say, we'll talk.
Video tapes can easily be altered or appear to show something that isn't actually happening.
You mean it would look like a South Park episode? I mean seriously here, I am talking about tape found... do you think normal ppl have the editing power?
DNA is more abundant than finger prints, and perhaps more accurate, but they do no more than finger prints do...
Show that a person was there.
True... but DNA is more reliable then a fingerprint.
It would be much easier for me to place one of your hairs at the scene of a crime, than fake your fingerprints on a murder weapon.
Well in this context that could have happened yes... but how would u get my hair? Unless you knew me personally, and fake my fingerprints? How?
You mean it would look like a South Park episode? I mean seriously here, I am talking about tape found... do you think normal ppl have the editing power?
DNA is more abundant than finger prints, and perhaps more accurate, but they do no more than finger prints do...
Show that a person was there.
True... but DNA is more reliable then a fingerprint.
It would be much easier for me to place one of your hairs at the scene of a crime, than fake your fingerprints on a murder weapon.
Well in this context that could have happened yes... but how would u get my hair? Unless you knew me personally, and fake my fingerprints? How?
Alright, NOW we've taken a detour into the abso-fucking-lutely ridiculous. In order to be worthy of the absolute bliss of having the esteemed "nico" discuss one's post (or rather, discuss around it, as the trend has been) one must first edit it so that it is devoid of anything other than fact, figure and postulation? Preposterous. If you want to assume the role of lecturer, make a website. Moderator? Ask Porfiry. If you want to discuss anything on a message board, you're going to have to prepare yourself to deal not only with the ideas and hypotheses of others, but also their opinions, personalities, interjections, choice of words. If that's something you don't like, then you are playing in the wrong sandbox.
Incidentally, I don't see your posturing as anything more than proof of my point that you do whatever you can to avoid embracing the shakey ground you currently crawl upon, and I'd bet money that others would see things the same way.
No, I mean like the video could show someone that looked like me, but actually wasn't.
Also, it really isn't that difficult to edit video, and the ease of editing is really irrelevant, isn't it?
First you say that the scenario that Wlaker presented wasn't "proof", now you discount the editing of a video tape as unlikely?
Sounds pretty inconsistant to me.
More reliable?
How so?
And, even if it is 100% reliable, as I said, all it proves is that your DNA was at the scene nothing more.
Isn't that no better than circumstantial evidence?
How is better than a video (or eye witness) seeing you enter the building before and leaving the building after?
Do you think that no one in history has evert set-up someone they know??
I would bet that 99% (or more) of set-up victims knew the ones that set them up.
I think you are really missing the point.
Point is, you are talking about having absolute proof.
My position is that there is no such thing as absolute proof, only reasonable belief.
Given that the justice system seeks a conviction when someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, there is a risk that innocent people will be imprisoned or executed. It’s a risk that the majority accept. When the risk is realized nobody pays unless somebody in the system was malicious or grossly negligent.
Bells
Staff member
I'd have thought that it was the primary argument for banning the death penalty. To convict an innocent person and put them in jail for any length of time is incomprehensible and no amount of compensation or release from prison would ever pay back that individual's life. But to kill that person under the guise of the law and then realise they were innocent and pardon them posthumously, that would be even more of a travesty. Taking away the innocent's freedom is horrid, but taking away their life for no reason other than it was a mistake is even more inexcusable. Death is final, and once the State puts someone to death, any mistake can never be repaired as far as the innocent victim is concerned. The State will give the family an apology, not for the family's comfort but for the State to feel better about itself and to show to the population that it supposedly cares and that such situations will be avoided in the future. But they never are and innocent people are still being killed legally by the State. Even though the majority may be guilty, the death of just one innocent individual at the hands of the State proves that the system has failed completely and irrevocably.
The story of Joseph Amrine and how the law and the system has failed him
Sadly, the story of Joseph Amrine is only one of many.
The notion that the death penalty acts as a deterrent can no longer be substantiated.
Too many times has the system failed and it is time that the criminal justice system learned from its mistakes and misdeeds and did ban the death penalty. The US has pointed the finger at many States for human rights abuses, yet:
I have not even gone into the argument of the racial issues in regards to the death penalty. The links provided give a pretty good insight into all aspects of the death penalty.
I think most of us posting on this thread agree that the death penalty is not a good thing. But the initial post of the thread presents a question about whether those involved in making a judgement should make restitution, should someone be sentances to death by mistake. It said nothing about the morality of the death sentance itself, and I think we've been having two seperate discussions, and a hell of a lot of hair-splitting.
Nico said something about a "world of perfect karma". Karma is the pervasive energy of the universe, and one putting negative energy into the universe will result in negative karma being returned to that person. A judge/jury/executioner who were convinced that they were doing the right thing, that an accused individual was guilty, and who carried out their objectives in the name of justice, with the safety and will of the innocent in mind would not be generating or recieving negative karma, nor should their "heads roll".
If we're debating the karma of execution itself, that is a completely different topic, and we should start a new thread.
Nico said something about a "world of perfect karma". Karma is the pervasive energy of the universe, and one putting negative energy into the universe will result in negative karma being returned to that person. A judge/jury/executioner who were convinced that they were doing the right thing, that an accused individual was guilty, and who carried out their objectives in the name of justice, with the safety and will of the innocent in mind would not be generating or recieving negative karma, nor should their "heads roll".
If we're debating the karma of execution itself, that is a completely different topic, and we should start a new thread.