Why abolish CP instead of raising the standard when it is used???
Also what is more cruel: executing an innocent or keeping him in jail for the rest of his life? I say the later....
Do you agree with capital punishment?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Why abolish CP instead of raising the standard when it is used???
Also what is more cruel: executing an innocent or keeping him in jail for the rest of his life? I say the later....
Your point is moot. In my example the teenagers were 100% GUILTY.
Now do you agree, if the criminal is 100% guilty CP can be justified??? Also my previous post's question : why not raising the standard for CP instead of abolishing it? Sounds like a pussy cop-out....
The performance art value of your post is remarkable
(chortle!) What, when reality is inconvenient, insist on fantasy?
Nope. You know, though, if you tack on a few more question marks, maybe your argument will be more convincing.
Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.
Now that is a convincing argument.
Seriously, Syz, investing your pro-homicide argument in moronic machismo isn't going to get you much. All you accomplish by that is to remind people that there's not much for a rational argument in favor of capital punishment.
The performance-art value of your post is remarkable. You provide a strong reminder of the lengths some folks will go to in order to feel good about homicide.
Syzygys said:
(chortle!) What, when reality is inconvenient, insist on fantasy?
Nope. You know, though, if you tack on a few more question marks, maybe your argument will be more convincing.
Because all we are accomplishing by executing criminals is satisfying our bloodlust.
Now that is a convincing argument.
Seriously, Syz, investing your pro-homicide argument in moronic machismo isn't going to get you much. All you accomplish by that is to remind people that there's not much for a rational argument in favor of capital punishment.
The performance-art value of your post is remarkable. You provide a strong reminder of the lengths some folks will go to in order to feel good about homicide.
So would you advocate the use by the courts of a sliding scale of guilt - with a corresponding spectrum of punishments? It sounds ridiculous to me. Imagine if two people are tried and found guilty of separate but comparable muders. By executing one and incarcerating the other you are effectively admitting that that latter defendant's guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Laika said:
One notion that strikes me about your point is that perhaps the advocates of state-sanctioned homicide might finally come to understand the importance of competent representation. Imagine a smart, successful District Attorney losing his job to a slicked huckster because the latter got the people all frenzied about a convict who wasn't sentenced to death.
"Elect Joe, because the other guy just doesn't meet the standard ...."
Or an appointed DA sacked for similar political concerns?
D.A.: We were lucky to get the conviction after the judge ruled against the evidence seized without a warrant.
Mayor: Doesn't matter, Bob. The people want blood, so I gotta make a change.
Mayor: Doesn't matter, Bob. The people want blood, so I gotta make a change.
Can you imagine the eventual argument for double-jeopardy?
"The Constitutional rule against double-jeopardy violates the People's Constitutional right to competent counsel. I ought to know, since I'm the dumb bastard who lost the case. That's right, Your Honors: the People deserve a new trial because I'm a complete moron."
Who knows? The Roberts court might actually agree.
Yes, I support it for many crimes and I also think it should be greatly extended. For example, it should also include drunk and drugged drivers on their third strike. Society has NO need of them and they've proven themselves unfit to live among us.
What's wrong with that?
It wasn't an argument but an opinion. On the other hand I think I will stop responding to you, because we are not advancing...
Just a last question: Do you agree with keeping the Green river killer alive After all he only killed 50+ women and they were mostly prostitutes and I think it would have been very harsh justice to kill him because it would have been for our bloodlust??? (3 questionmarks for you)
I apologize, but I still have one more question:
At the Nurenberg trials I assume you would have spared all the nazi criminals convicted with crimes against humanity of the death sentece??
Last edited:
Finally a good argument, thanks.
First of all, I wasn't the one worrying about executing the innocent. Raising the standard doesn't necessery mean what you brought up. It can mean more proper investigation, having more evidence,etc.
But since you brought up a good point, I don't see a problem with a sliding scale of guilt. After all if we worry about punishing innocents, we should only punish hard the absolute guilty, do you agree?
By the way the courts are already using this when they bring up lesser charges when a certain crime can not stand the stronger scrutiny of more serious charges...
Now if we are too worried about punishing people we shouldn't even have jails, because after all putting maybe innocents behind bars is an incredibly harsh punishment...
First of all, I wasn't the one worrying about executing the innocent. Raising the standard doesn't necessery mean what you brought up. It can mean more proper investigation, having more evidence,etc.
But since you brought up a good point, I don't see a problem with a sliding scale of guilt. After all if we worry about punishing innocents, we should only punish hard the absolute guilty, do you agree?
By the way the courts are already using this when they bring up lesser charges when a certain crime can not stand the stronger scrutiny of more serious charges...
Now if we are too worried about punishing people we shouldn't even have jails, because after all putting maybe innocents behind bars is an incredibly harsh punishment...
For the anti-CP crowd, a weekend reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_river_killer
Read it and tell me that society is better off having him in jail forever....
By the way I find the anti-CP people extremely sadist. To keep a criminal in jail for 30-50 years is way more cruel, than executing him. Now, if more punishment is the goal, let's just torture him then do the execution. But keeping a human being in jail forever....
Even Jeffrey Dahmer asked for more human contact after a few months in solitary confinement. Oh yes, we the society spared his life, after all he only killed 15+ people, but the prison population decided that he was too evil even for them....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_river_killer
Read it and tell me that society is better off having him in jail forever....
By the way I find the anti-CP people extremely sadist. To keep a criminal in jail for 30-50 years is way more cruel, than executing him. Now, if more punishment is the goal, let's just torture him then do the execution. But keeping a human being in jail forever....
Even Jeffrey Dahmer asked for more human contact after a few months in solitary confinement. Oh yes, we the society spared his life, after all he only killed 15+ people, but the prison population decided that he was too evil even for them....
Last edited:
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
You said 'Fry em slow,' I believe.
I cannot see where that fits with the Jesus in the Bible, your father, I believe you referred to him as. Do you think Jesus wants us to torture people?
Sorry, I seem to have misinterpreted what you said then. I thought you were suggesting the use of different certainty thresholds for different sentences.
I do agree, of course, that only the guilty should be punished. But I'm realistic - I understand that the judicial system is trusted to balance the release of genuine offenders against the wrongful sentencing of innocents. The ratios of each that most would deem acceptable are probably arbitrary; wherever you draw the line, some innocent people will be condemned or some guilty people will be set free. I think that this is a strong argument against capital punishment, but it's not my main reason for opposing it. Even if miscarriages of justice were an impossibility, I would still be strongly against the death penalty.
I think that there is a major difference between what you have described above, and fitting the sentence to the certainty of guilt. If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the (maybe too frequent!) occasions when the CPS (in the UK) will choose to pursue a safer, less serious conviction, or will bargain with the solicitor of the accused for a guilty plea to a less serious crime. This is not the same as finding the defendant guilty of the more serious charge but then not prosecuting to the full extent of the law because of lingering doubt.
I think not. Again, why not work on perfection instead of throwing away the idea?
The justice system just has to buld in more safety valves, that's it.
A counter argument against your argument is the already mentioned "why jail anyone, after all they can be innocent". So why stop at CP and let's abolish the penitentiary system!
Actually, I find the "innocent people can be killed" an incredibly stupid argument. Here it is why:
At every big construction (bridge, dam,etc.) it is pretty much a given that workers are going to die in accidents. Do we stop building big things? No! We try to avoid these accidents by applying more safety, improving things, working on perfection. And there are actually big structures built without workers dying, so the answer is working on safety and not abandoning projects.
Just for educational purposes, the Hoover Dam:
"Construction deaths
There were 112 deaths associated with the construction of the dam. The first person to die in the construction of Hoover Dam was J. G. Tierney, a surveyor who drowned while looking for an ideal spot for the dam. Coincidentally, his son, Patrick W. Tierney, was the last man to die working on the dam, 13 years to the day later. Only 96 of the deaths occurred during construction at the site."
At every big construction (bridge, dam,etc.) it is pretty much a given that workers are going to die in accidents. Do we stop building big things? No! We try to avoid these accidents by applying more safety, improving things, working on perfection. And there are actually big structures built without workers dying, so the answer is working on safety and not abandoning projects.
Just for educational purposes, the Hoover Dam:
"Construction deaths
There were 112 deaths associated with the construction of the dam. The first person to die in the construction of Hoover Dam was J. G. Tierney, a surveyor who drowned while looking for an ideal spot for the dam. Coincidentally, his son, Patrick W. Tierney, was the last man to die working on the dam, 13 years to the day later. Only 96 of the deaths occurred during construction at the site."
An eye for an eye. I have NO sympathy for criminals.
An eye for an eye would make the world blind.
Pretty stupid line, but how about half eye for en eye, so just your tiny little world wouldn't go blind? Actually I would give CP automatically to everyone who kills more than 2 people. See, there is a win-win situation.
Pretty stupid line, but how about half eye for en eye, so just your tiny little world wouldn't go blind? Actually I would give CP automatically to everyone who kills more than 2 people. See, there is a win-win situation.
Whatever you say, I'm not in total favor of CP. There will always be so many people protesting it, in addition to the fact that it involves so many transactions. If it was just finding the overwhelming evidence and then taking him out back and shooting him, I would be fine with it.
by the way, that "Stupid line" that I said was actually quoted from Gandhi. and look what he did for 900 million people.
...and Muslims and buddhists have lived in peace ever since.
Sorry, wrong fairy tale.
His policy would encourage dictators to try to take over the word. Bad strategy....
I know, Jesus was all loving too, and God help us from his followers!
Um....Do your research....really. India is Hindu and Buddhist majority, a very small portion of it is muslim. Most of the muslims moved to a part of India seperated in 1947 as we know today as Pakistan.