Justice for Jessica........

[indra]

Originally posted by financeguy
One question I'd ask the anti-death penalty people - were the Nuremberg trial sentences wrong?

Yes.

[Vincent Vega]

BTW, not everyone was sentenced to death in the Nuremberg Trials.

[financeguy]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega
BTW, not everyone was sentenced to death in the Nuremberg Trials.

I realise that, it was only the worst cases (and correctly so, IMO)

[phillyfan26]

Originally posted by financeguy
Precisely. Certain crimes are so bad that they call for the death penalty and yes to a certain extent that is an appeal to vengeance. I wouldn't deny it.

It's not the deterrent effect - I fully agree that argument is highly suspect. It's a profound need of society to take revenge on people whose crimes offend its deepest instincts.

In practice, cases where the death penalty are justified are exceedingly rare, but I believe it's wrong to remove the option from the statute books altogether.

Yes, and it would be a complete contradiction to say that certain crimes are so bad. Because, again, we can't decide certain cases are more certain than others.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by financeguy


I realise that, it was only the worst cases (and correctly so, IMO)

Yeah, my personal feeling is that I so not care about what happened to them, but my opposition to the death penalty in general stays the same.

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by financeguy


Precisely. Certain crimes are so bad that they call for the death penalty and yes to a certain extent that is an appeal to vengeance. I wouldn't deny it.

It's not the deterrent effect - I fully agree that argument is highly suspect. It's a profound need of society to take revenge on people whose crimes offend its deepest instincts.

In practice, cases where the death penalty are justified are exceedingly rare, but I believe it's wrong to remove the option from the statute books altogether.

It's this which precisely leads me to be against the DP, funnily enough. The legal system must be dispassionately separated from victim and offender. The legal system is not there to cry with family and friends of victims, or to point a bony finger at the offender. That's what we as individuals in society do. I don't ever want to see a CJS that is asked to define what is usually a personal opinion - that of whether something justifies such an absolute penalty. It is this precisely which is a slippery slope by removing static fact as the key elements in sentencing, and instead allowing emotion and the rather organic victim impact to dictate rulings and sentencing.

Removing the death penalty still allows for the CJS to serve all 3 interest groups- the offender, the victim, and society as a whole. It still allows judgements of guilt, and can remove all further risk with a simple Act such as Truth In Sentencing (thus keeping very At Risk offenders in gaol for the rest of their natural lives), it meets a civil society's duty to respect the rights of offenders by leaving them with at least the minimum - which is life itself, and it keeps society as safe from harm from repeat offending as the highly debatable death penalty does.

[martha]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem


It's this which precisely leads me to be against the DP, funnily enough. The legal system must be dispassionately separated from victim and offender. The legal system is not there to cry with family and friends of victims, or to point a bony finger at the offender. That's what we as individuals in society do. I don't ever want to see a CJS that is asked to define what is usually a personal opinion - that of whether something justifies such an absolute penalty. It is this precisely which is a slippery slope by removing static fact as the key elements in sentencing, and instead allowing emotion and the rather organic victim impact to dictate rulings and sentencing.

Removing the death penalty still allows for the CJS to serve all 3 interest groups- the offender, the victim, and society as a whole. It still allows judgements of guilt, and can remove all further risk with a simple Act such as Truth In Sentencing (thus keeping very At Risk offenders in gaol for the rest of their natural lives), it meets a civil society's duty to respect the rights of offenders by leaving them with at least the minimum - which is life itself, and it keeps society as safe from harm from repeat offending as the highly debatable death penalty does.

Nicely put.

[martha]

Originally posted by financeguy
It's a profound need of society to take revenge on people whose crimes offend its deepest instincts.

And societal revenge should not be a part of any legal system. It makes the society as base as the criminals it seeks to punish.