- Joined
- Sep 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,218
- Reaction score
- 1,859
- Location
- DFW, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Some cases are that cut and dry.
And why is this? What didnt we have 50 years ago?
DNA evidence.
We live in a different world with the advancements of forensic science.
Maybe because cash doesn't alter the fact that the state has murdered an innocent man?
I am not sure it is worth the risk to execute someone who may be innocent.
With the current legal challenges and system, it has actually been shown to cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated; is this really a cost benefit argument, or one of moral integrity?
Much like my argument for the life of an unborn child, I would also argue that society needs to maintain its moral high ground when it comes to executions; maybe it is a barbaric past we need to distance ourselves from.
I used to always be in favor of executions, as I grow older and I would hope wiser, I have tended to believe that perhaps this is something we need to take a long hard look at.
Do I really care if these murderers as charged are a potential threat to the other thugs in the prison? Hell no.
Should they have all the luxuries of home? Hell no.
I believe the ONLY reason they are permitted exercise rooms and TVs is to control them and make the guards jobs a little safer. Can you imagine if we incarcerate people for life and remove all these things? There would be never ending violence and riots.
Any way, that is my :twocents: on this topic.
I don't support the death penalty because I'm weary of giving such power to the state. It is an act designed to create fear and awe of the state in a way I don't like to see.
Umm... only around 50 people are executed each year. :2wave:Not only would we have to build a gazillion more prisons, we have to feed them---give them food when there are so many other deserving hungry people in this country...jeez, I'm sounding liberal...WTF?
..and yet mistakes are still made. New technology brings with it unforeseen faults.There is DNA testing and other modern technologies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that people are guilty. I could see your point if we didn't have this.
Truth Detector said:I am not sure it is worth the risk to execute someone who may be innocent.
With the current legal challenges and system, it has actually been shown to cost more to execute someone than it does to keep them incarcerated; is this really a cost benefit argument, or one of moral integrity?
Maybe because cash doesn't alter the fact that the state has murdered an innocent man?
I never thought I'd thank a TD post... Hell must be freezing over
I don't think the gross injustice (and deaths) done to so many truly innocent victims by released criminals is justified to avoid the fear of there ever being one wrongly executed person. I don't see how that is respecting life or protecting the innocent.
and here I thought our entire legal system was based uponThis is a blatantly false dichotomy. there has been no one arguing for the release of any guilty people. These are not the only two options. This is why these emotion-based arguments are pointelss... because they invariably lead down the road of which emotionally-bassed side can fabricate and make-up the more absurd scenario.
The fact of the matter is, nobody has EVER given me a single logical reason why the governemnt should have the power to murder any of it's citizens without the need tto resort to irrational emotionally-charged rhetoric.
and here I thought our entire legal system was based upon
It is better for 10 guilty people go free, than 1 innocent be convicted
T The real issue is that the power is retained by the people, not the govenremnt.
I am for the death penalty, but I feel it's vastly overused. I have no problem seeing someone like John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy put to death; they were serial killers, proven so beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, nearly every murder case has the death penalty on the table now, more as a means of extorting a plea bargain than because it really merits the ultimate punishment.
Too many people are sentenced to death, and many of those on circumstantial evidence. Yes, I understand circumstantial evidence is good evidence, but unless it offers positive proof that the defendant commited a crime so heinous that it merits the death penalty, capital punishment shouldn't be used. There's not a doubt in my mind that innocent people have been executed. Not a doubt. Look how many death row inmates have been proven innocent because of the development of DNA?
So I believe in the death penalty, but it should be rarely used and only on the most heinous cases where proof of guilt is irrefutable.
If you really think that mistakes are still not made, I pity you.
I agree. john Wayne Gacy is a great example of someone who was definitely guilty.
My thinking is that, "Yes. These peices of **** DESERVE to die". I don't deny that. In fact, I usually agree with that in most cases on an emotional level.
My argument hinges entirely on the fact that I do not think it is the government's job to exact revenge.
I most definitely think that the government should NOT have this ability.
I've never seen any compelling argument for that which did not rely solely on emotionality.
Emotionality is irrational by nature, so deciding something based on this is irrational.
This is a blatantly false dichotomy. there has been no one arguing for the release of any guilty people. These are not the only two options. This is why these emotion-based arguments are pointelss... because they invariably lead down the road of which emotionally-bassed side can fabricate and make-up the more absurd scenario.
The fact of the matter is, nobody has EVER given me a single logical reason why the governemnt should have the power to murder any of it's citizens without the need tto resort to irrational emotionally-charged rhetoric.
Which mistakes?
The part where innocent people die. Those mistakes. :2wave:
No, it isn't the death penalty that is expensive, it's all the ridiculous amount of legal wrangling we allow death row inmates to engage in at taxpayer expense. Instead of limiting appeals to claims of factual innocence, we let them appeal on any basis whatsoever in a desperate attempt to stay alive. It extends their lives for decades and they stand a better chance of dying of old age than of actually getting executed.
The actual execution, if it ever comes, is positively cheap in comparison.
If the state is going to take the risk of killing an innocent person who is wrongly accused I have no problem with every avenue being explored to prove their innocence or guilt.
Your usage of "power to murder" is a strawman unless you oppose all war actions too.
Are you denying that people are murdered in prison by convicted murderers? Or is it your view that anyone in prison regardless of reason therefore should be subjected to murder by other inmates as just punishment for any felony crime? Murder is ok - as long as the government isn't directly doing it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?