For all the opponents of the death penalty....read this

[martha]

My logic of thinking is you that you could give a shit about a person that was killed because your all to busy in front of a prison with candles and signs with pictures saying Would Jesus do this?

Another stupid assumption.

 

[martha]

I'm going to bed. My dreams will make more sense than this thread.

 

[Justin24]

Another stupid assumption.

No it's not. I find it sickening of you supposed anti-death penalty supporters to cause such a hoopla over Stanley Tookie Williams but when the next one up for execution came up. Where was snoop dogg, or Rev. Jesse Jackson??

I guess they choose who they want to live and die too.

 

[Diemen]

Justin, grow the hell up. I only brought up the Bible because you brought God up first.

I would have absolutely no problem telling a family that I don't believe killing someone is the right response to having someone you know killed. What you seem to mistakenly believe is that every family of a murder victim wants to execute the murderer, and this is totally and utterly false. There are PLENTY of families who argued for life in prison, even though it was THEIR daughter, THEIR son, THEIR husband or THEIR wife who was murdered.

My mom's sister was killed when she was a teenager. My grandma and grandpa did not at any time want to have the guy responsible executed. So don't sit here and even attempt to lecture us on what to do, when you have absolutely no grasp on the reality of the situation anymore. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think we've been more than patient with you, but since you can't bother to discuss things rationally, maybe it's best if you step out of this thread for a while?

 

[Justin24]

I'm going to bed. My dreams will make more sense than this thread.

Good night and keep safe.

 

[Justin24]

Justin, grow the hell up. I only brought up the Bible because you brought God up first.

I would have absolutely no problem telling a family that I don't believe killing someone is the right response to having someone you know killed. What you seem to mistakenly believe is that every family of a murder victim wants to execute the murderer, and this is totally and utterly false. There are PLENTY of families who argued for life in prison, even though it was THEIR daughter, THEIR son, THEIR husband or THEIR wife who was murdered.

My mom's sister was killed when she was a teenager. My grandma and grandpa did not at any time want to have the guy responsible executed. So don't sit here and even attempt to lecture us on what to do, when you have absolutely no grasp on the reality of the situation anymore. You have no idea what you're talking about.

I think we've been more than patient with you, but since you can't bother to discuss things rationally, maybe it's best if you step out of this thread for a while?

Sorry to hear about your loss.


I am not telling people what to do. I am not forcing anyone to only accept executions. In my view there acceptable.

 

[Diemen]

You may not be telling us what to do, but you are making it very clear that you think the rest of us are murderer sympathizers who care more about the criminal than the victim. And that's simply not the case. Nowhere in this thread did anyone say they'd sooner hold a vigil for the murderer than for the victim. Nowhere did anyone say they don't care about the victim's family or don't want justice. But you assumed all these things about us that simply aren't true.

But nuanced thought doesn't seem to be your forté.

 

[Axver]

This thread is unbelieveable. Justin, seriously, do you think before you speak, and do you actually partake in any kind of analytical, critical, or logical thought? Or do you just have some urge for revenge or bloodlust that makes you so keen on executions?

There are so many points I could address, but I won't really bother. I would like to add a comment to one thing namkcuR said, though.

There will always be human error and, as long as that is true, there will NEVER be any such thing as being 100% sure of a person's guilt short of having a video recording of the person commiting the crime. Because a video is not human. It's a machine. Videos don't have error. See how that works?

I don't think even video footage can give a 100% assurance of guilt. Firstly, video footage is open to the interpretation of the viewer - which is especially a problem when the video is poor quality or not focused on the crime. And secondly, the video only offers one particular perspective on the crime. Sure, we may see one guy shoot another, but what we might not see, because the first guy is in the way, is that the second guy had a pistol pointed at the first guy's little child.

 

[Justin24]

This thread is unbelieveable. Justin, seriously, do you think before you speak, and do you actually partake in any kind of analytical, critical, or logical thought? Or do you just have some urge for revenge or bloodlust that makes you so keen on executions?

I seek only justice. Does a person who writes something you don't agree with automatically make that person false in critical or logical thought?

 

[BVS]

Justin, take a deep breath and come back...

 

[adrball]

I don't give a damn what happens to murderers. I don't see execution of a murderer as anywhere near an equal to a murder of an innocent law abiding member of the community. I'd love to see them executed and out of society in a way that doesn't financially burden the taxpayer.

BUT...

until someone (Justin?) can show me a guaranteed sure fire way of ensuring no innocent person is executed, then I can't bring myself round to supporting capital punishment.

 

[Axver]

I seek only justice.

I don't think you even know what justice is.

(No, revenge is not justice.)

Does a person who writes something you don't agree with automatically make that person false in critical or logical thought?

No.

Given the disorganised, haphazard, and somewhat incoherent nature of your posts, I think there is valid reason to question whether you think critically or logically.

 

[Justin24]

I don't think you even know what justice is.

(No, revenge is not justice.)

Justice is.

A drug user who get's arrested should not be put in jail but in drug clinic.

Drug dealers should be put in jail as should, Robbers, Pedophiles, Rapists etc..........


Murders who are 100% guilty should be executed. If it would make, I would agree to have all persons in Death Row have a re-trial and let investigators from other cities or federal investigators review the cases to be certain that person is innocent or guilty. And for the wrongful executions of past "supposed" murderers who were found innocent today, a reperation and apology to the family.

 

[adrball]

Murders who are 100% guilty should be executed. If it would make, I would agree to have all persons in Death Row have a re-trial and let investigators from other cities or federal investigators review the cases to be certain that person is innocent or guilty.

More LIKELY to get the right decision, but not a guarantee. There's a good chance over a period of time for a innocent person to be found guilty in error twice. Not good enough for me.

And for the wrongful executions of past "supposed" murderers who were found innocent today, a reperation and apology to the family.

Nothing can repair this...hence why I believe it has to be avoided whilst protecting the community.

 

[Diemen]

Murders who are 100% guilty should be executed. If it would make, I would agree to have all persons in Death Row have a re-trial and let investigators from other cities or federal investigators review the cases to be certain that person is innocent or guilty. And for the wrongful executions of past "supposed" murderers who were found innocent today, a reperation and apology to the family.

How many times do we have to explain this? There is no way under our judicial system to determine 100% guilt! And simply saying "well, we should change the system then" isn't gonna help unless you've got some sort of meaningful explanation as to how to do that.

I find it hard to believe that you of all people, who are so vehemently for the death penalty and are always crying about the victim's family and getting justice for them, would be so callous as to say that money and an apology would be good enough to make up for the murder of someone who turned out to be innocent. As if that would be good enough. "Oops, sorry, we shouldn't have killed your dad. Our bad. Here's some money."

You've just created another victim and victim's family, and yet this time around a little money and some words are ok for you? Please.

And yes, your understanding of justice is horribly skewed. From everything you've written here it would seem that your definition of justice is doing back to someone what they did to you. That is not justice, that is revenge, pure and simple. It would be the same as if you argued that the proper sentence for a thief is to have their things stolen, or the proper sentence for a rapist is to have them raped in return.

If the criminal's action is wrong and reprehensible, then we can't claim the higher ground if we are willing and capable of doing the same thing to them.

 

[Diemen]

double post.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yes, I agree with Diemen, martha, ardball, and Axver's posts.

Justin, you must remember:

- There is no one who is 100% guilty.
- Just because we're anti-death penalty, it doesn't mean we're soft on criminals, or even sympathize with them.

 

[dazzlingamy]

Although everyone has said what I think my main reason for being opposed to the death penalty is that I don't believe anyone (murderers included) have the right to take away someone elses life. I do believe that murderers should get life in prison, because i abhor any kind of violence.

And back to an earlier post, I also disagree with putting down dogs/animals who attack or kill people, especially domesticated dogs. I feel its a harsh punishment and believe their our other alternatives out there for animals.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Justin, you must remember:

- There is no one who is 100% guilty.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate? Thanks.

 

[Diemen]

- There is no one who is 100% guilty.

I side with 80s on this - are you sure you mean this?
Because the one who actually committed the crime is 100% guilty. But our judicial system is only designed to determine guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," so perhaps the more accurate statement would be "it is nearly impossible to be absolutely 100% sure someone is guilty through our judicial system."

 

[80sU2isBest]

I side with 80s on this - are you sure you mean this?
Because the one who actually committed the crime is 100% guilty. But our judicial system is only designed to determine guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," so perhaps the more accurate statement would be "it is nearly impossible to be absolutely 100% sure someone is guilty through our judicial system."

And I agree with you.

 

[INDY500]

I am 1000% against capital punishment and I always will be.

I am going to back up my opinion with facts.

the primary purpose of prison is not now, nor has it EVER been, to punish the guilty party. Prison is a quarantine - its primary and fundemental purpose is to keep criminals out of society.

Yes, to protect us from the likes of Martha Stewart, Tommy Chong, Judith Miller and Robert Downey jr, to name a few. Not to downplay the importance of removing violent criminals from society but come on, of coarse incarceration is a PUNISHMENT. It's a loss of freedoms and privileges. What are sentencing guidelines for if not to match, using the principle of proportionality, the PUNISHMENT (length and type of term) to the crime. Criminal PUNISHMENT may also take the form of fines, public service, probation and the yes, even the death penalty. Henceforth called Capital PUNISHMENT as some in the forum have confused it with revenge.

if just ONE innocent person has been put to death, OR EVEN, if there is the potential for just ONE innocent person to be put to death in the future, nothing more needs to be said in arguement against capital punishment.

How do you feel about those dramatic police chases we see on TV. Should all suspects be allowed to speed-off in an automobile because, unfortunately, some high-speed pursuits end (not theoretically but statistically) with an a completely innocent citizen being tragically killed. Or does the benefit of capturing criminals and thus preventing future crimes and future victims far outweigh the risk of innocents being wrongly harmed by authorities?

EVERY time someone is executed by the state, innocent people are being punished because somewhere, that murderer's mother is crying just as hard as the murderer's victim's mother is crying. THAT is not ok. If you stick the murderer in prison for the rest of his/her life, then at least the mother, who did NOTHING wrong, can still see her son/daughter

"From your double axe-murdering daughter on Mother's Day" Ummm, pardon me if I don't get too choked up that Ted Bundy, Timothy Mcveigh and Karla Faye Tucker didn't get to send out cards this year.

These are my views on why capital punishment is barbaric and purposeless, and I really don't see anything changing them.

Many people I have great deal of admiration for are against capital punishment. With them, as with you, I respectfully disagree.

 

[BVS]

How do you feel about those dramatic police chases we see on TV. Should all suspects be allowed to speed-off in an automobile because, unfortunately, some high-speed pursuits end (not theoretically but statistically) with an a completely innocent citizen being tragically killed. Or does the benefit of capturing criminals and thus preventing future crimes and future victims far outweigh the risk of innocents being wrongly harmed by authorities?

How is this an accurate analogy? For one, how are you completely innocent if you are running from the cops? Not yeilding to an officer is a crime itself. Second, the chase is not the punishment. Statistically speaking you are at risk of dying everytime you step into a car.

I really don't see how this analogy has anything to do with DP...

 

[namkcuR]

Yes, to protect us from the likes of Martha Stewart, Tommy Chong, Judith Miller and Robert Downey jr, to name a few. Not to downplay the importance of removing violent criminals from society but come on, of coarse incarceration is a PUNISHMENT. It's a loss of freedoms and privileges. What are sentencing guidelines for if not to match, using the principle of proportionality, the PUNISHMENT (length and type of term) to the crime. Criminal PUNISHMENT may also take the form of fines, public service, probation and the yes, even the death penalty. Henceforth called Capital PUNISHMENT as some in the forum have confused it with revenge.

You are proving my point. Remember what I said about human error? Stupidity counts as human error, and it is stupidty that puts people like Martha Stewart, Robert Downey Jr., etc, who pose no threat to anybody, in prison. They should never have been in prison because they are no threat to society. Likewise, if someone, let's say, runs over someone else with their car, and it is a COMPLETE accident, and the driver never intended to hurt, let alone kill, anyone, then that driver shouldn't need to spend a single second in prison, because that driver doesn't pose ANY threat to society. The only people who should go to prison are those who will be a danger to society if they are free. And that is prison's purpose. And sentencing guidelines are NOT for matching, using the principle of proportionality, the punishment to the crime. Sentencing guidles are for matching, using the principle of proportionality, the length of time in prison to the degree of threat/danger the subject poses to society in the event of release. Cold-blooded murderers, serial rapists, etc, pose the most danger and therefore get the longest possible sentences - life. That's my take.

How do you feel about those dramatic police chases we see on TV. Should all suspects be allowed to speed-off in an automobile because, unfortunately, some high-speed pursuits end (not theoretically but statistically) with an a completely innocent citizen being tragically killed. Or does the benefit of capturing criminals and thus preventing future crimes and future victims far outweigh the risk of innocents being wrongly harmed by authorities?

This analogy doesn't work for one simple reason: When a cops start chasing somone, the only intent is to stop the person being chased and arrest them. There is no intent to kill ANYBODY. With Capital Punishment, the point is there is a 200% chance someone is going to die, and that someone could be innocent. In a car chase, they don't want to kill anyone, and if an innocent bystander gets killed, it's a tragic, unintended, unintentional, accident. If an innocent person gets executed by the state, it's STILL AN INTENTIONAL MURDER. Therefore, this analogy doesn't work at all.

"From your double axe-murdering daughter on Mother's Day" Ummm, pardon me if I don't get too choked up that Ted Bundy, Timothy Mcveigh and Karla Faye Tucker didn't get to send out cards this year.

But it's NOT ABOUT THE MURDERER. I'm not asking you to feel sorry for the murderer. I'm asking to feel some compassion for the MURDER'S FAMILY. Do you have kids? Look at this way: What if your son/daughter commited cold-blooded permeditated murder? Would you still support capital punishment? Would you want to see your child executed by the state? I don't think you would, because then you'd never get to see your child again. Anyone being put to death by the state is likely leaving family behind, and it is THAT FAMILY that you should feel some compassion for, not the murderer. But the way that the state shows some compassion for the murderer's parents/siblings/children/spouse/whatever, is by not killing the murderer, by allowing the murderer's family to visit him/her. It's for the FAMILY'S benefit, not the MURDERER's.

 

[phillyfan26]

I side with 80s on this - are you sure you mean this?
Because the one who actually committed the crime is 100% guilty. But our judicial system is only designed to determine guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," so perhaps the more accurate statement would be "it is nearly impossible to be absolutely 100% sure someone is guilty through our judicial system."

Whoops, yeah, I stated incorrectly. I meant that we cannot be certain of 100% guilt. It is merely beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[phillyfan26]

Thank you namkcuR for clearing that up. Opposition to the death penalty is not sympathy for the criminal. Indy and Justin have repeatedly made the mistake of assuming that.

 

[randhail]

Whoops, yeah, I stated incorrectly. I meant that we cannot be certain of 100% guilt. It is merely beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but there definitely can be cases of 100% guilt. Sure most cases aren't, but 100% isn't impossible.

 

[BVS]

Maybe I'm just arguing semantics, but there definitely can be cases of 100% guilt. Sure most cases aren't, but 100% isn't impossible.

How?

 

[randhail]

Caught on tape, lots of witnesses like in a public place, confession. Like a said, won't occur often but definitely possible.

 

[BVS]

Caught on tape, lots of witnesses like in a public place, confession. Like a said, won't occur often but definitely possible.

It's also possible to manipulate tape.

There is no absolution in knowing guilt.