??? Well, maybe if they shoot from a long distance.
But if they touch the person, they leave DNA.
Do you agree with capital punishment?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
??? Well, maybe if they shoot from a long distance.
But if they touch the person, they leave DNA.
Prisons are a medieval concept. Perhaps the idea of incarceration, or removal of freedom, should be consigned the the medieval dustbin.
It simply does not work as a deterrent (nor does capital punishment), except as a temporary measure (it keeps the "bad guys" out of society for a while). I think 70% or so of inmates are there on a second or third tour. If it "worked" they'd all be first-timers.
Back in the day, prisoners were often kept for ransom, a much more practical approach to the concept.
We need to overhaul what is obviously an abject failure, despite those who want an Old Testament style of justice -maybe we should bring back crucifixion, or the Inquisition?
It simply does not work as a deterrent (nor does capital punishment), except as a temporary measure (it keeps the "bad guys" out of society for a while). I think 70% or so of inmates are there on a second or third tour. If it "worked" they'd all be first-timers.
Back in the day, prisoners were often kept for ransom, a much more practical approach to the concept.
We need to overhaul what is obviously an abject failure, despite those who want an Old Testament style of justice -maybe we should bring back crucifixion, or the Inquisition?
Orelander said:
We can convict people of murder in the United States without a murder victim. We only need suspect that there is a body somewhere. Evidence that the "victim" is actually dead is not a requirement.
Don't get me wrong, in the case I'm thinking of, from Oregon in the 1990s, all other signs pointed to the guy being guilty ... if his wife was actually dead. I don't recall that, in the years since, they've ever found her body.
If they just "touch" a person they don't leave any DNA. Where do you get
from? Now if they had body fluids on their hands and touched another
person that can then leave DNA.
You can get DNA from fingerprints.
If the dead person is found soon enough, you can get fingerprints off their skin. If you touch a person's clothes, you can leave skin cells. And who knows where your hair falls.
If the dead person is found soon enough, you can get fingerprints off their skin. If you touch a person's clothes, you can leave skin cells. And who knows where your hair falls.
From your link
"While DNA typing from fingerprints is commonplace in the UK, don't rush
your evidence to the laboratory just yet. This type of analysis is not
common in the United States and standards for this analysis method have
not been set by the Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods
(SWGDAM). (Some of the organization's guidelines can be found by going to
the FBI Web site, www.fbi.gov, and doing a search for "SWGDAM.")
Also , as you have stated, they can stab someone, shoot them or just blow
them up. There's all sorts of ways to kill without touching someone.
ok, so?
I'm still saying with the advent of DNA as evidence, I think fewer and fewer and fewer innocent people are executed.
And that article is several years old. I grabbed the first one I came to.
Either way, it still is expensive too. All of the court orders, and time to convict a person with enough evidence for punishment, and the machine itself costs money to operate. Lethal injection is just as expensive. If they even were going to have capital punishment, they might as well just shoot the murderer.
My other opposition to the death penalty is that criminals can still be productive while they are in jail. A man who was on death row wrote a book telling people to stay out of gangs and to never be like him. It is not like those criminals don't do anything in prison.
Fry 'em. The faster the better. No more waiting on death row for up to 30 years. Fry 'em within 2 weeks of their sentence. That may deter some of the scum out there. I also think they should be treated exactly like they treated their victim before they are fried.
I have no use for jail. It's an improvement for most who are there. 3 meals, medical care, dental care, housing, no work, responsibility, no mortgage, computer, phone, tv.. Jail enables losers to stay losers. The guys who fight, join gangs, and misbehave, should be severely punished. If they can't behave, throw them in the hole. I have zero tolerance for criminal behavior.
Oh, and fry 'em slow. V---E---R---Y slow.
I have no use for jail. It's an improvement for most who are there. 3 meals, medical care, dental care, housing, no work, responsibility, no mortgage, computer, phone, tv.. Jail enables losers to stay losers. The guys who fight, join gangs, and misbehave, should be severely punished. If they can't behave, throw them in the hole. I have zero tolerance for criminal behavior.
Oh, and fry 'em slow. V---E---R---Y slow.
I do agree with the feelings behind this. If I knew without a doubt that someone had raped a child, I think I would kill him myself.
But no one's justice system is infallible, and there is a risk of an innocent person being executed.
So no...I don't support capital punishment.
if his semen is in your dead 4 yr old, then would you?
I admit yes, I would.
CarvedMercury
Registered Member
I am against it quite strongly, except in extreme circumstances. I hate the idea that the wrongly convicted could be executed, and also for many death may be too good. Also execution can be inhumane (I don't mind too much, as the physical pain is probably nothing compared to the mental agony) as the proportions of paralytics and anesthetic can be incorrect, leading to a horrific death, but they are unable to see as the criminal is completely paralyzed.
If your own baby was tortured and raped then cut into pieces by someone,
would you want them dead? If not then what do you think would be a good
punishment.
The OP presents a false choice. I'm not against the death penalty because criminals don't deserve it. I'm against it because our ability to determine who is a criminal will never be 100% reliable.
People have been put on death row and later exonerated.
The argument that prisoners who aren't killed can later be set free to murder again is also a false choice. If they were so dangerous, they can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
People have been put on death row and later exonerated.
The argument that prisoners who aren't killed can later be set free to murder again is also a false choice. If they were so dangerous, they can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
This, arguably, is the big philosophical and moral problem with "vengeance" -as defined in the Old Testament, I mean.spidergoat said:
People who want blood are just fuelling this age-old desire to "punish" transgression, which I believe can be traced all the back to when we were hunter-gatherers (like modern chimps are), and would attack or punish other groups who transgressed by "poaching" from "our territory". Murder and so on all derive from this basic group behaviour (to protect territory and the group "dynamic" -i.e. social structure and hierarchy).
Just my ideas. I think we're basically group animals, tribalism, nationalism. political parties and "followers", gangs, societies, organisations, committees, clubs; I'd say we're incurably groupist. Groups tend to protect their worldviews, people join up to "identify" with something, and to fill the need for purpose and meaning, and so on. Groups tend to dispute what other groups have to say, too, so our groupism leads to conflict, fundamentally. But we aren't too good at individualism, either. Groups tend to have leaders, individuals who embody some group ideal.
Last edited:
A state appellate court overturned on Friday the convictions of a Long Island man who has been imprisoned for 17 years for the grisly 1988 murders of his parents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/nyregion/21cnd-tankleff.html?hp
No doubt when he was convicted in 1990, you supporters of the death penalty would have wanted him killed. You would have murdered an innocent man. Hmmm, if you wanted to be consistent, you would then also have to support the death penalty for yourselves.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/nyregion/21cnd-tankleff.html?hp
No doubt when he was convicted in 1990, you supporters of the death penalty would have wanted him killed. You would have murdered an innocent man. Hmmm, if you wanted to be consistent, you would then also have to support the death penalty for yourselves.
Why not? Plenty of people deserve execution, we are way behind schedule...
Now we are talking. Carry on...