Get off the topic of whether capital punishment is just or not, or whether the justice system works. Is it right for the victim of a crime to insist that the person who committed the action is not killed or, maybe, not even punished, because that would conflict with the religious beliefs of the people(Amish, for example), and therefore would punish them unjustly?
Your parents have been murdered
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
There are no innocent people on death row, James! Those people were convicted in a court of law, and by that very act, they're guilty. That's what a court of law is/does ...decides guilt or innocence.
Baron Max
I think that's been answered several times. It's not the place in the justice system for the victims to "demand" anything ...it's up to the district attorney or the prosecuting attorney. It's as simple as that.
To allow victims to "demand" anything is waaaaaaaay out of line in any justice system that I know about.
Baron Max
It's been answered several times, but they are differing answers. THERE SEEMS TO BE A PROBLEM HERE, HMMM. COULD YOU GUESS WHAT IT IS, BARON MAX?
Situation A:
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
However the family of the girl ultimately have the choice between imprisonment and Old Sparky.
They are distraught, but fundamentally don't believe in the Death Penalty.
The murderer serves the rest of his life in a small room, but is still alive.
Situation B:
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
However the family of the girl ultimately have the choice between imprisonment and Old Sparky.
They are distraught, and want 'to see the bastard fry for killing our baby'.
The convict is killed.
Situation C:
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
The girl has no family.
Is the punishment more lenient? :shrug:
Thus justice is served.
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
However the family of the girl ultimately have the choice between imprisonment and Old Sparky.
They are distraught, but fundamentally don't believe in the Death Penalty.
The murderer serves the rest of his life in a small room, but is still alive.
Situation B:
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
However the family of the girl ultimately have the choice between imprisonment and Old Sparky.
They are distraught, and want 'to see the bastard fry for killing our baby'.
The convict is killed.
Situation C:
Girl is murdered in a state that punishes murder with death.
Man is convicted of the crime.
The girl has no family.
Is the punishment more lenient? :shrug:
Thus justice is served.
It depends on lots of things, not the least is the human element. Your scenarios are foolish when the differences in humans are involved.
"Justice" is served when the court and the jury issue their verdict. Whether YOU like it or not, whether YOU think it's justice or not.
You seem to consistently think that all humans will react exactly the same in the same situations at different times in different locations. That's simply not the case. Humans are each different, and to make it worse, they're different depending on the time of day!
Yes, justice is served. It's not up to you to decide.
Baron Max
Why? They outline my point - if the final verdict was partly down to the families of the victims or even the victims themselves, how could justice be given? For a start there would be vast inconsistencies - so one criminal gets a more lenient sentence just because he happened to murder someone with a more liberal family?
Then there's the topic of victims leaving no family behind to fight their case at all. Serial killers would purposefully target waifs and strays because they know they will never face the Death Penalty.
The whole idea is completely illogical.
:bugeye:
Please, point out out for me the passage where I asserted this. I thought the whole point of my post was to show how the same case would be treated completely differently by different people in three different situations.
Secondly, that is not what 'justice' means. A legal system could be unjust and unfair, as many in the world are.
Perhaps. But that's not the way the legal systems work, so your scenarios are still nothing but silly "what if" fantasies.
Yeah, but you're using your own consistent beliefs to judge each one of your own "what if" fantasies.
But ONLY as determined by a legitimate court of law. Just because people might parade in front of the courthouse with signs in protest, it doesn't mean that there was/is no justice. Ditto for just because YOU say it's not justice.
Baron Max
I think that there is potential for error in the death penalty, and I cannot accept the state making errors when giving the death penalty. The state fucks up too much as it is, why give them the power of life and death?
There's also a potential for a criminal to sneak into your house and blow you to hell. So what's the big deal? There's "potential" for almost anything and everything, but to use it as any kind of argument is a reach.
Well, I can accept it. So why should you have your way, and in doing so, cost me lots of money in taxes to pay for all the prisons and prison costs?
If humans stopped doing things because they fuck up a lot, nothing would have ever gotten done in all of human history!
And it's funny, sad, ...but I'll bet you're one of those people who rants for a state-run healthcare system, right? And what other state-run, socialist programs do you want?
Baron Max
They are perfectly possible hypothetical situations. You still fail to address the point.
What consistent beliefs are these? :bugeye:
You are an idiot and that is rubbish - buy a dictionary. How can inconsistency in punishment for the same crime be justice?
No, they aren't perfectly possible. Review your hypotheticals again, perhaps you'll see it ....but probably not.
I don't think you're allowed to call people "idiots" on this site. And even if you can, it's not very nice to do so.
As to you "inconsistency" in punishments, your problem is that it is NOT the same crime! It was done by different people to different people. And not only that, but the courts were different, as well as the juries. That clearly makes it NOT the same crime situation ...and to think so is simply missing the whole point of "...jury of your peers", etc.
You seem to want every robbery or every murder to be exactly the same so you can make you "inconsistent" judgements. But it ain't gonna' ever happen, so you're just shit outta' luck with that one.
Baron Max
Actually I dont want state run healthcare, I wouldnt mind state funded healthcare. I'm a libertarian socialist. I think the government should fund privately run institutions through vouchers, tax credits and even by directly funding. But I don't like standardized testing, I don't like the government telling us what we can and can't do, I hate regulation of our behavior when nobody is being hurt by it, I'm for ending the war on drugs and decriminalizing marijuana. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, both want to dominate our lives and control us like slavemasters.
That would make the pro-life groups happy
No they only care about fetuses.
What ARE you talking about?
Read the OP - this is meant to be a thread discussing whether or not victims or victims' families should decide what the punishment for the criminal should be.
My point was to highlight how the punishment would change for the same crime if the family deciding was altered. The juries don't matter because all they do is decide whether the defendant is guilty or not. The defendant in this case has already been found accountable for the murder of the girl.
Understand now?
So what is your point? All you have done so far is get yourself confused without actually assuming a position. Do you think victims should decide?
It's more of a case of, the people are against murder, so they will get life. Does this seem unfair?
Death penalty* not murder.