Explosions at the Boston Marathon

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not trying to be smarmy.

There is no mechanism in our system for there being 100 percent certainty. On that we can agree, correct? Juries find people guilty if they believe the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." They are not legally asked anything further than that. So, my question to you is: who is it that is deciding a person is 100 percent certainly guilty? It's certainly not the judge or the jury, since we've just established the threshold they meet. The truth is that we have no mechanism for determining such a thing, and it's intentional. The people who designed the system recognized its inherent flaws and gave the system options to correct its own mistakes. No one is 100 percent guilty, otherwise not everyone would be entitled to an appeals process.

Now, if you want to make the argument that there should be such a mechanism, that's a separate conversation. If you believe there are certain people who are so obviously guilty that the death penalty should be in play, make that argument. I'll vehemently disagree with you, but at least you're making a case that is logical. Right now, you're arguing that there's such a thing as 100 percent guilt and it simply isn't true.

I can say with 100% certainty that Major Hasan killed 13 people in the Ft Hood shooting and appropriately now awaits execution.

There are moral arguments against the death penalty but your "reasonable doubt" argument isn't an argument against the death penalty, it's an argument against common law and trial by jury.
If it isn't moral to execute someone convicted under our jurisprudence system how is it not just as immoral to send someone off to prison for life with such uncertainty inherent in the system?
Why have jails when convicts can never be more than kinda-sorta-pretty-sure-but-then-again guilty?
I'm just as opposed to innocent people being wrongfully executed as you but wishy-washy, pragmatic-to-the-point-of-indecision is no way to run a legal system either.
 
If it isn't moral to execute someone convicted under our jurisprudence system how is it not just as immoral to send someone off to prison for life with such uncertainty inherent in the system?

Because, if you were found to be wrongly convicted, you can have your sentence overturned and be given your freedom back.

You can't be un-executed.

I'm just as opposed to innocent people being wrongfully executed as you but wishy-washy, pragmatic-to-the-point-of-indecision

Another grossly unfair and flat out inaccurate mischaracterization of the opposing viewpoint.

Life in prison is totally indecisive and wishy-washy, everyone!
 
Last edited:
I can say with 100% certainty that Major Hasan killed 13 people in the Ft Hood shooting and appropriately now awaits execution.

There are moral arguments against the death penalty but your "reasonable doubt" argument isn't an argument against the death penalty, it's an argument against common law and trial by jury.
If it isn't moral to execute someone convicted under our jurisprudence system how is it not just as immoral to send someone off to prison for life with such uncertainty inherent in the system?
Why have jails when convicts can never be more than kinda-sorta-pretty-sure-but-then-again guilty?
I'm just as opposed to innocent people being wrongfully executed as you but wishy-washy, pragmatic-to-the-point-of-indecision is no way to run a legal system either.
You can say that, but if we're not basing our legal system around your gut, are we?

I'm not arguing against common law and trial by jury. In fact, I'm supporting it. I'm arguing it's the best way, and that we're only getting into problems here when we start trying to go further (i.e. saying we're 100 percent certain about someone's guilt and/or executing him or her).

My entire point is that life in prison gives us the option of making up for our mistakes, even when we're pretty damn sure we got things right. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is, I think, the perfect threshold.
 
unless the real goal is vengeance.

There are more appropriate words, like justice. Taking the life of an innocent will result in the forfeiture of your life. We should send that message as a society. That we place such a premium on human life that we will punish those that don't with the ultimate penalty.
 
There are more appropriate words, like justice. Taking the life of an innocent will result in the forfeiture of your life. We should send that message as a society. That we place such a premium on human life that we will punish those that don't with the ultimate penalty.




It's not a deterrent though. States with the death penalty have higher nurder rates than ones that don't.

Again, this is why my issues are purely pragmatic. It makes no rational sense. It's pure emotion.
 
If killing is so wrong, why is it ok to kill those who've committed that crime?

Just makes no sense. As Irvine stated, it's purely emotional. And it's OK to be upset.

But be rational. Why stop there? Why not treat any crime with an equivalent in humane "justice"?
 
It's not a deterrent though. States with the death penalty have higher nurder rates than ones that don't.

Again, this is why my issues are purely pragmatic. It makes no rational sense. It's pure emotion.

It is actually. Are we to believe that punishment is a deterrent for all other crimes except murder? True, when dealing with terrorist zealots, psychopaths or conscienceless sadists no law, no punishment is a deterrent.

But it would be more of a deterrent if it wasn't delayed 20 years.
 
It is actually. Are we to believe that punishment is a deterrent for all other crimes except murder? True, when dealing with terrorist zealots, psychopaths or conscienceless sadists no law, no punishment is a deterrent.

But it would be more of a deterrent if it wasn't delayed 20 years.



no, it isn't actually.

Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center

and you tell us why in your post -- no one deserving of the death penalty would be deterred by the death penalty. so this isn't about "sending a message," it's about something else entirely.

should we discuss abortion in this context?
 
I sympathise a bit with INDY on this. He brought up someone who had shot dead 13 people - guilty. I don't really have an issue with that person being given the death penalty. A man here last week beat his 11yo son in the head with a cricket bat and then stabbed him in the neck. He was shot by police after threatening them with a knife and later died in hospital. Had he been given the death penalty I wouldn't really have had a problem with that either.

The problem of course arises from what peef, irvine, diemen et al are talking about. The death penalty will see innocent people being killed, and that is why I don't and never will support it. As diemen said, you can be released from prison, but you can't be un-executed.
 
I sympathise a bit with INDY on this. He brought up someone who had shot dead 13 people - guilty. I don't really have an issue with that person being given the death penalty. A man here last week beat his 11yo son in the head with a cricket bat and then stabbed him in the neck. He was shot by police after threatening them with a knife and later died in hospital. Had he been given the death penalty I wouldn't really have had a problem with that either.

The problem of course arises from what peef, irvine, diemen et al are talking about. The death penalty will see innocent people being killed, and that is why I don't and never will support it. As diemen said, you can be released from prison, but you can't be un-executed.

That's pretty much my stance too. The situation where murderers and rapist are 100% guilty, they can die for all I care... but the large inaccuracy is too much to validate it.
 
But why? This is about justice. We have a system to keep those who a harm, or those who could harm society, locked up or even provide assistance to rehabilitate.

I don't see how putting someone to death, even the most serious of crime, makes us any Better than the person who committed the crime.

Acting on emotion is usually what got someone into the criminal behavior in the first place.

If the person is mentally ill, had no control over what they were doing, you still justice is to put them to death versus studying why they do what they do?

And I understand some beat the system, get out and cause problems again. But you fix the system. There will always be flaws, but our society evokes and so should out laws. Killing someone for a crime is barbaric
 
I'm not saying it makes us better. But it does make society safer, protecting possible future victims from repeated crimes. And insane nutjobs like that serve no purpose to society either way, so we're better off without it.
 
I'm not saying it makes us better. But it does make society safer, protecting possible future victims from repeated crimes. And insane nutjobs like that serve no purpose to society either way, so we're better off without it.

The death penalty does not prevent crime.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using U2 Interference mobile app
 
That's pretty much my stance too. The situation where murderers and rapist are 100% guilty, they can die for all I care... but the large inaccuracy is too much to validate it.

I'm basically pretty much of this opinion as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom