The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Why the death penalty is wrong

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8
HiImDan On February 29, 2024




Cleveland, the boil on the but
#106New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 07:47:36
@moonlighthopes Said
I'm just going to flat out say what I think.

Murderers, rapists, and pedophiles should all have the death penalty in my opinion. I'm all for it.



Murderers, yes. Rapists should have their tweeters cut off (violent rapists, not date rapist cuz sometimes it's bull). Pedophiles...? You can make a case either way. I say protect the innocent, punish the guilty.
treebee On April 13, 2015
Government Hooker

Moderator




London, United Kingdom
#107New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 07:51:12
@jonnythan Said
Google "Troy Davis."



There is no way that man should be executed. There is too much in question to put a man to death. Its not our business to take life for crime, the system is too tenuous.
iwannano On May 19, 2010
Mountain William


Deleted



,
#108New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 07:56:14
@treebee Said
There is no way that man should be executed. There is too much in question to put a man to death. Its not our business to take life for crime, the system is too tenuous. [/QUOTI



I totally agree about Troy Davis that he should not be executed. All the people that testified against him has sence come forward and admitted they lied .
rubylights On November 30, 2021




Miami, Florida
#109New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 18:22:27
@perfectlystrange Said
There's a problem with having them tortured, too. Some people view torturing them, as being a more cruel thing to do to them, than having them killed.

No matter what way that anyone comes with as to how people like this should be dealt with, there's always going to be a group of people that are against it.



of ocurse, there will be protestors. there will never be a solution that makes everyone happy. I'm just telling you my views.

And torture is more cruel. But it's cruel to the perpetrator himself. The perpetrator sufferes for what he/she did. That's the way it should be. I guarantee you that after an experience like that, killing someone will be the last thing on their minds. And torture is something horrible, but raping a six year old girl warrants such a penalty in my opinion. but death is just too definitive a measure to be considered punishment.

I'm not saying let's go around torturing armed robbers. That's a petty offense if no one was harmed. I'm talking about mass murderes, serial rapists, modern day cannibals, etc.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#110New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 18:25:31
Torture is expressly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

And rightly so. No civilized country - or human being - can in good conscience engage in the torture of another human being as a form of punishment.

The idea is preposterous.
iliterate_enginere On February 12, 2010

Deleted



Wichita, Kansas
#111New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 18:31:58
I don't see how that's a suitable argument for your premise. The problem appears to be determing whether the person is guilty or not, no with the punishment. If there is without a doubt that the person is guilty then I'm for it, depending on the crime. If not, then prisonment.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#112New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 18:37:36
@iliterate_enginere Said
I don't see how that's a suitable argument for your premise. The problem appears to be determing whether the person is guilty or not, no with the punishment. If there is without a doubt that the person is guilty then I'm for it, depending on the crime. If not, then prisonment.


Ah, but it is.

Think about what you just said:

"If there is without a doubt that the person is guilty then I'm for it, depending on the crime. If not, then prisonment."

The United States legal system does not allow for doubt. It's literally impossible to "give a lesser sentence if there's any doubt." The entire legal system is set up to expressly prohibit that.

If someone is convicted of a crime, they are 100% absolutely guilty, end of story. They get the punishment befitting the crime, with absolutely no consideration given for any "lingering doubts."

If someone does not get convicted, they are free, and 100% absolutely not guilty.

There is no legal way to give a lesser sentence if you're not totally sure. It's impossible.
iwannano On May 19, 2010
Mountain William


Deleted



,
#113New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 20:13:55
@jonnythan Said
Ah, but it is.

Think about what you just said:

"If there is without a doubt that the person is guilty then I'm for it, depending on the crime. If not, then prisonment."

The United States legal system does not allow for doubt . It's literally impossible to "give a lesser sentence if there's any doubt." The entire legal system is set up to expressly prohibit that.

If someone is convicted of a crime, they are 100% absolutely guilty, end of story. They get the punishment befitting the crime, with absolutely no consideration given for any "lingering doubts."

If someone does not get convicted, they are free, and 100% absolutely not guilty.

There is no legal way to give a lesser sentence if you're not totally sure. It's impossible.



so where do the words' guilty beyond reasonable doubt' fit when taken in context to your post ?
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#114New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 20:20:35
@iwannano Said
so where do the words' guilty beyond reasonable doubt' fit when taken in context to your post ?


It's "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" that gets people convicted.

It's not "guilty without any doubt."

Enginere was proposing that we dole out sentences based on level of doubt. In other words, that there's a level of doubt high enough to convict but not high enough to execute.

However, the reality is that once you're convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's it. Game over. You are officially 100% guilty with no doubt whatsoever unless later exonerated.

The legal system does not recognize any level of "doubt" for a convicted person.
iwannano On May 19, 2010
Mountain William


Deleted



,
#115New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 22:09:49
@jonnythan Said
It's "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" that gets people convicted.

It's not "guilty without any doubt."

Enginere was proposing that we dole out sentences based on level of doubt. In other words, that there's a level of doubt high enough to convict but not high enough to execute.

However, the reality is that once you're convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" that's it. Game over. You are officially 100% guilty with no doubt whatsoever unless later exonerated.

The legal system does not recognize any level of "doubt" for a convicted person.




It took a moment and a re read for me to figure out I had left out the letter 'a' in my question and yes that littel letter does change the meaning of my question.
so now I stand corrected. Thank you.


jonnythan said
Quote:
The United States legal system does not allow for doubt. It's literally impossible to "give a lesser sentence if there's any doubt." The entire legal system is set up to expressly prohibit that.



This is what lead me to ask my question I left the 'a' out of.
I was asking what is the United States legal system s defintion of reasonable doubt if doubt is not allowed?
rubylights On November 30, 2021




Miami, Florida
#116New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 22:15:39
@jonnythan Said
Torture is expressly prohibited by the Constitution of the United States.

And rightly so. No civilized country - or human being - can in good conscience engage in the torture of another human being as a form of punishment.

The idea is preposterous.



It's a matter of opinion. I wouldn't personally engage in such an activity. What I'm trying to get across is that the death penalty is equal to, or even worse than something like torture, because its irrevocable.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#117New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 22:15:51
@iwannano Said
I was asking what is the United States legal system s defintion of reasonable doubt if doubt is not allowed?


Doubt is a matter for a jury to consider when deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

If the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors, the jurors will convict him.

Once he is convicted, that's it for doubt. Once the jury turns in "guilty," there is no more doubt. In the opinion of the legal system, that person is 100% guilty with no doubt whatsoever.

The sentencing takes place on the assumption that the person definitely did it. There is no leeway for doubt there.
iwannano On May 19, 2010
Mountain William


Deleted



,
#118New Post! Sep 29, 2008 @ 22:19:00
Thanks.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: << · 1 2 3 ...6 7 8

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed May 23, 2012 @ 00:09
98 5600
New posts   Politics
Sun Aug 02, 2009 @ 16:35
44 2917
New posts   Politics
Thu Oct 02, 2008 @ 18:51
38 1701
New posts   Politics
Mon Mar 12, 2007 @ 09:42
18 876
New posts   Random
Tue Nov 07, 2006 @ 04:17
24 997