Eye for an Eye

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

My opinion is the examples you cite are more a problem with judicial proceedings than the actual sentencing.

And that is a valid reason for opposing the death penalty. Much as I might like to see some people executed it is not worth even one innocent person being put to death.

The judicial system will never be able to operate with 100% accuracy so I will never be able to support the death penalty.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[steveorino 7]

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

steveOrino

[billvon 3,070]

>This is why I think we should have an eye for an eye punishment.

As someone much wiser than me once said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I'd be for the death penalty if our justice system were perfect. I think it has a ways to go - so for now I am for the cheaper method (life in prison, no parole.) For me, the sweet feeling of revenge really doesn't enter into it - the only issue is making sure he/she is off the street forever so they can never commit such a crime again.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Justice isn't about revenge or "punishment", it's about taking someone who is a danger to society and removing a threat. Right or wrong, jail time and/or death penalty in the end is a defensive act.

Making these two incapable of conception seems like the answer then. Unfit parents doesn't seem to describe them. Question seems to be about intent versus incompetence and if the penalty should be different for the two.

If Narci has a real reason to doubt the story's general truth, I'm interested to hear. When a bruised, dead child shows up, there aren't too many plausible explanations.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

Would you support a moratorium until your lobbying is succesful, or would you prefer to let a flawed system continue with executions in the meantime?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Making these two incapable of conception seems like the answer then.

Nope, or at least not the whole answer. Remember, the woman was the stepmother. They don't need to breed to end up under the same roof as the children they abuse.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Making these two incapable of conception seems like the answer then.

Nope, or at least not the whole answer. Remember, the woman was the stepmother. They don't need to breed to end up under the same roof as the children they abuse.

You can't sterilize ahead of the fact. All you can do now is take away the child that survived, and prevent it from happening again.

[Andy9o8 2]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for these reasons:

1. Possibility of executing innocent person - executing even 1 innocent person is an abomination.

2. Inequality in how penalty is applied - too many arbitrary (or worse) factors in who does and does not get the penalty.

Here's the most philosophical one:

3. Society is supposed to represent something higher than the mere individual. It tempers, and in theory provides the rational face for, our basest instincts and emotions. Therefore, it is supposed to operate at a higher level than the level of the individual. As such, although as individuals we may wish to kill a murderer as a way of enacting moral "justice" (I'd certainly want to kill a person who killed a relative or friend of mine), those are our basest animal instincts at work. Civilized society should not be in the business of killing human beings unless it is absolutely unavoidable. When Society kills (executes) a murderer who is already incarcerated, Society as an institution is bringing itself down to the same level as the murderer, and in doing so, becomes no better than the murderer.

Possible Exception: Death penalty for cop-killers.
In the past few years, I've begun to carve out in my mind an exception, from the above, to permit the death penalty for someone convicted of murdering a police officer, if there was absolutely, positively proof positive that the defendant did the crime (which often is not possible). The reason is because civil society cannot function without police officers to protect us, and officers (much the same as military personnel) place themselves in harm's way for our protection. Therefore, giving cop killers the death penalty is Society's way of providing some extra protection to the cops who protect us. (I admit I still have a problem with dealing with reasons # 1 & 2 above in this, which I'm not sure can be completely satisfied.)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

A laudable goal, but more accuracy will never be perfect accuracy; and without perfect accuracy, some small percentage of innocent people will inevitably be convicted. Society should never accept the abomination of executing an innocent person as the cost of doing business. To me, that's reason enough not to have the death penalty.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

Would you support a moratorium until your lobbying is succesful, or would you prefer to let a flawed system continue with executions in the meantime?

I'd use it for the cut and dry cases as few as they may be.

steveOrino

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

A laudable goal, but more accuracy will never be perfect accuracy; and without perfect accuracy, some small percentage of innocent people will inevitably be convicted. Society should never accept the abomination of executing an innocent person as the cost of doing business. To me, that's reason enough not to have the death penalty.

I understand your viewpoint. I really do. And I'm leaning more that way, but when I hear of such cases as cited in the original post it leads me to believe there are cases where CP is worthy.

steveOrino

[AFFI 0]

Quote

As someone much wiser than me once said, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

I'd be for the death penalty if our justice system were perfect. I think it has a ways to go - so for now I am for the cheaper method (life in prison, no parole.) For me, the sweet feeling of revenge really doesn't enter into it - the only issue is making sure he/she is off the street forever so they can never commit such a crime again.

Well Said!

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Possible Exception: Death penalty for cop-killers.
In the past few years, I've begun to carve out in my mind an exception, from the above, to permit the death penalty for someone convicted of murdering a police officer, if there was absolutely, positively proof positive that the defendant did the crime (which often is not possible). The reason is because civil society cannot function without police officers to protect us, and officers (much the same as military personnel) place themselves in harm's way for our protection. Therefore, giving cop killers the death penalty is Society's way of providing some extra protection to the cops who protect us. (I admit I still have a problem with dealing with reasons # 1 & 2 above in this, which I'm not sure can be completely satisfied.)

Then what happens in the case of, say, the farmer who shot the cop outside his house? People like the canadian currently facing a first degree murder charge for shooting a cop on a raid in his own house?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

You can't sterilize ahead of the fact. All you can do now is take away the child that survived, and prevent it from happening again.

And I'm saying, sterilisation won't prevent it. She was the stepmother.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Then what happens in the case of, say, the farmer who shot the cop outside his house? People like the canadian currently facing a first degree murder charge for shooting a cop on a raid in his own house?

Very tough examples. I'm so anti-death penalty that I'm hesitant to put too much mental effort into carving out exceptions. Let's just say that even in the case of a police officer, the bar would have be set very high (both as to strength of evidence and absence of cloudy or mitigating circumstances) for me to endorse a death penalty. My thought process about this "exception" is very much a work still in progress.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

both as to strength of evidence and absence of cloudy or mitigating circumstances

Yeah that's the way I was thinking. In both cases there is absolutely no doubt that the accused did in fact shoot the officers, so of course any hint of mitigating circumstances would also have to be taken into account and I'm sure that would start to get really complicated really quickly.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You can't sterilize ahead of the fact. All you can do now is take away the child that survived, and prevent it from happening again.

And I'm saying, sterilisation won't prevent it. She was the stepmother.

If in this hypothetical, society is willing to sterilize people, it can certainly forbid them from adopting or marrying into a family with children as well. Make them register as Parent Offenders.

[kelpdiver 2]

I have a problem with sentencing laws that value police over wives, girlfriends, buddies, people.

The only time a different balance might be appropriate is when two guys rob a 7-11 and one gets killed in the attempt. The other gets charged for the death. That person is worth less than you or me or the cop.

[Andy9o8 2]

Well, like I said, it's a work in progress.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

While i disagree with that I certainly support your right to lobby for your convictions. I'd prefer to lobby for a system that would make the judicail process more accurate.

I've been working in the criminal justice system for the last two years, both with prosecutors and defense attorneys, and I don't know anybody who believes that there is a way to be certain that innocent people will not be executed as long as we have the death penalty.

We rely on twelve human beings to make decisions about whether a defendant lives or dies. Human beings are by nature fallible. As long as the system relies on humans to make these decisions, there will be mistakes. No matter how hard we work to ensure accuracy in the system, it will never be 100%. When it comes to life or death, anything less than 100% is not acceptable.

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

In the most extreme cases (child abuse that ends in the death of a child, etc) I'm okay with the death penalty. My opinion is the examples you cite are more a problem with judicial proceedings than the actual sentencing.

Good point, the red tape with the Judiciary is ridiculous.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[SkyChimp 0]

Quote

I'm opposed to the death penalty for these reasons:

1. Possibility of executing innocent person - executing even 1 innocent person is an abomination.

2. Inequality in how penalty is applied - too many arbitrary (or worse) factors in who does and does not get the penalty.

Here's the most philosophical one:

3. Society is supposed to represent something higher than the mere individual. It tempers, and in theory provides the rational face for, our basest instincts and emotions. Therefore, it is supposed to operate at a higher level than the level of the individual. As such, although as individuals we may wish to kill a murderer as a way of enacting moral "justice" (I'd certainly want to kill a person who killed a relative or friend of mine), those are our basest animal instincts at work. Civilized society should not be in the business of killing human beings unless it is absolutely unavoidable. When Society kills (executes) a murderer who is already incarcerated, Society as an institution is bringing itself down to the same level as the murderer, and in doing so, becomes no better than the murderer.

Possible Exception: Death penalty for cop-killers.
In the past few years, I've begun to carve out in my mind an exception, from the above, to permit the death penalty for someone convicted of murdering a police officer, if there was absolutely, positively proof positive that the defendant did the crime (which often is not possible). The reason is because civil society cannot function without police officers to protect us, and officers (much the same as military personnel) place themselves in harm's way for our protection. Therefore, giving cop killers the death penalty is Society's way of providing some extra protection to the cops who protect us. (I admit I still have a problem with dealing with reasons # 1 & 2 above in this, which I'm not sure can be completely satisfied.)

You state your point of view very well. I have a question for you on your 3rd reason for opposing the penalty. Who are we representing the example to with higher standards? The good citizens or the criminals? This is where I differ on the subject only because my concern isn't what a non-criminal takes away from an execution but rather what another criminal takes away from it. I view this as setting the example of zero tolerance and laying the foundation as a deterrent on possible future crimes.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[SkyChimp 0]

Here is a perfect example of setting the example. Jury Recommends John Couey be Executed for Murder of 9-Year-Old Jessica Lunsford

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258690,00.html

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

I view this as setting the example of zero tolerance and laying the foundation as a deterrent on possible future crimes.

I thought that popular view here in SC was that zero-tolerance = zero-intelligence?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Quote

In the most extreme cases (child abuse that ends in the death of a child, etc) I'm okay with the death penalty. My opinion is the examples you cite are more a problem with judicial proceedings than the actual sentencing.

Good point, the red tape with the Judiciary is ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with red tape. It has all to do with the fact that our courts sometimes get it wrong.

When you get it wrong and lock someone away for life you can realise your mistake and set them free again. When you get it wrong, execute someone and realise your mistake then it is too late. You can't set them free, you've killed them forever.

What benefits does CP have over life without parole that are worth executing innocent people?

Edit: Shockingly bad sentence structure.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?