Should it be up to you to decide, after the defendant is found guilty, and they jury is deciding on the punishment, whether to allow the death penalty or say they cannot be killed, in states that allow it? Or, consider that the movement for getting the death penalty on other crimes which don't result in a death. If you were the only one harmed, and you are against the death penalty, is it fair to have them executed anyways?
Your parents have been murdered
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
James R
you do realise there is a bill in state parliment in SA to alow victoms of crime to suggest a senatance for the offenders. There is of course no obligation for the judge to follow there recomendation but the bill itself is concerning.
Can anyone objectivly rate the facts and what should be taken into acount as a victom?
you do realise there is a bill in state parliment in SA to alow victoms of crime to suggest a senatance for the offenders. There is of course no obligation for the judge to follow there recomendation but the bill itself is concerning.
Can anyone objectivly rate the facts and what should be taken into acount as a victom?
Interesting comment, James. And you'll notice, won't you, that that would help ONLY the criminal? Why would you want to help the criminals?
Baron Max
Who says it would help only the criminals? What if the family of the victim is against the death penalty? What if they want to see him rot in prison? What if they want to see him find redemption?
Not true, it would help the innocent person wrongly convicted of a crime a well. The real criminal is still a criminal and loses their freedom.
Our laws say that when a person is found guilty by a court of law, he's guilty! There is no "almost guilty".
If years later, that same man is discovered to actually have been innocent, well, that's just tough shit for him!
Baron Max
That's a pretty effed up way of looking at it.
I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if it was you locked up wrongly.
If that were true, there could be no appeal. So you are wrong.
Appeals are valuable ONLY because they're supposed to present NEW, PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN evidence as part of the original trial. But I don't think they should wait forever for that kind of evidence.
Baron Max
Why not? Lust for death burning a hole in your brain?
Can we not turn this thread into YET ANOTHER Death Penalty debate? Especially not while we're still on the first page.
The question is whether victims should have a say in the verdict - I shout a resounding no.
The question is whether victims should have a say in the verdict - I shout a resounding no.
The victims already have a voice in the verdict ....throught the district attorneys of the state. That's exactly what the prosecuting attorneys are supposed to do.
Baron Max
So the fact the laws exist make it irrefutably correct? Tell me, is this the case in the UK as well?
Yes the penalty should be left up to the one actually affected by the crime.
That would not be just, those people are unable to be objective about it. That's why the statue of "justice" has a blindfold over her eyes.
Those people are unable to be objective about it, but so is every human ever to exist. How objective do you have to be, and how do you suggest we test it? We say innocent until proven guilty, so I say they are as objective as each other until proven that they are not, because they are both humans dood.
No, that's not accurate. Once the person is found guilty in a court of law, Lady Justice in the blindfold is done! She can take off the blindfold and watch the bastard die on the gallows, and it doesn't affect "justice" at all.
Baron Max
No. It would also immeasurably help the innocent people on death row.