|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 6, 2004 9:29:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lordjulius7 on Sept 7, 2004 11:10:22 GMT -5
"Lordjulius do you have a back ground in this field? I'D like to know more about the system in the UK"
I've a background in law, with emphasis on criminal law. Ask away.
|
|
|
|
Post by uac84244525 on Sept 19, 2004 9:36:05 GMT -5
If a person kills someone, and it is known that he killed that someone, is it right that society, through taxes, should bear the financial burden of imprisoning this person, paying for his food, bathing, recreation, and healthcare? No. It's not.
I am opposed to murder as a punishment. The purpose of a punishment is to act as a deterrent to others, and to deter the wrongdoer from committing wrong again. Executing a person cannot deter her from committing murder again, because he's too dead to murder anyone. I also doubt the death penalty serves as a significant deterrent against others committing murder. Thus, I am against the death penalty as a punishment.
However, is the death penalty murder? Murder and killing are two different concepts. If I am angry at someone and I shoot him four times in the face, then I murder him. If someone tries to mug me and he has a knife, and then I shoot him and he dies, I simply kill him. There is a distinction. The question is whether the death penalty is murder. I don't think it is. Someone who has committed at least one murder is more of a potential danger to society than someone who has not, and so it would be foolish to release him from prison. But it is also not fair that society should have to bear the cost of maintaining the prisoner's welfare while in prison. So, is it murder to kill a threat to society who must be isolated from society, who could only live by the economic support of society? Probably not, considering that the money spent on keeping a murderer healthy until his natural death could be much better spent, say, researching diseases.
It's a fairly tough issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by scummybear on Sept 19, 2004 11:44:06 GMT -5
As I've said before, I don't think the death penalty was ever meant to deter. I think it is meant as justice for those who's lives are affected by the act of murder. Not all victims feel that it helps them any more to end the life of the perpetrator, but it is the law, and the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime.
Definition of murder as per the dictionary: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle68 on Sept 20, 2004 22:36:21 GMT -5
No discussion needed on this topic. First of all the person should be proved guilty beyond any doubt.. Like in the case of the two snipers.. They did not deserve a trial or anything else. It would have been better if they had been killed while being taken into custody.. The Boss states: Le:24:17: And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. Killeth here means to lie in wait.. Murder!! Here is a site that will teach more on the subject... www.eagle-wheels.com/bible.html |
|
|
|
Post by colehartt on Sept 23, 2004 21:55:26 GMT -5
The only thing I can say with some unwavering conviction is that if a person has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, they should be executed, immediately! That would cut down on court cost & lawyers getting richer!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eagle68 on Sept 24, 2004 4:23:00 GMT -5
The only thing I can say with some unwavering conviction is that if a person has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, they should be executed, immediately! That would cut down on court cost & lawyers getting richer! So very true!!!!! It would help save the taxpayers many dollars.. |
|
|
|
Post by cupolaa5 on Oct 25, 2004 20:21:22 GMT -5
no matter what one may think of the Death Penalty.The one thing we should all agree with is the fact that an individual guilty of the crime will never get a chance to do it again!who cares about their childhood or any other excuse they and their attorneys may come up with!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 10, 2004 18:48:08 GMT -5
The only thing I can say with some unwavering conviction is that if a person has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be guilty, they should be executed, immediately! That would cut down on court cost & lawyers getting richer! Ahhh, yes. Because nobody who was convicted has ever been found to be innocent with the introduction of new evidence. Why even let them appeal. The system is flawless, we never convict an innocent man. |
|
|
|
Post by ProChildren on Nov 11, 2004 10:06:04 GMT -5
cutting costs is good, but killing a person is never the right to any wrong no matter how you see it
|
|
|
|
Post by HybridConservative on Nov 11, 2004 14:48:10 GMT -5
 sadly, Im torn on this issue. Sometimes Im more pro sometimes Im more against. Its so hard--especially when its personal. But...morally...I know its wrong to take any life. Even in self defense...just try to get away. AAAAH Im torn lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupolaa5 on Nov 12, 2004 12:09:41 GMT -5
I find that I have have underestimated both of you. I find your discussion of this topic fascinating and informative. I realise that I habitually attempt to keep my posts relatively short-partly because I fear I'll bore people and partly due to just running out of steam, but pray, please do continue guys! I still find myself firmly sitting on the fence on this one and your well reasoned arguments on this topic are the best I've seen in years, bar none. Persuade me, the common man. (OK, not that common) But, seriously, this has long been a dilemma for me. I want to be merciful if possible, but as so many others, if anything happened to my people I very much fear I'd quickly adopt the "hang 'em high" position myself. My sister was in the neighboring dorm room in Florida when Bundy pulled his shenanegans, so I've already had one near miss. Quite frankly, I seriously doubt the world will miss him! At the same time, I find the idea of executing someone, only to later discover his/her innocence to be completely intolerable. So, "lay on, McDuff", convince me!    the vast majority of condemed inmates never appeal on their being inocent rather law procedure and their mental status at time of the crime |
|
|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 12, 2004 16:47:51 GMT -5
the vast majority of condemed inmates never appeal on their being inocent rather law procedure and their mental status at time of the crime Punctuation is our friend. Plenty of the condemned do appeal on the innocence. The law procedure they are appealing is general some law that kept exonerating evidence out of the case. This might include DNA, fingerprints, ali bis, witnesses, etc. Prosecutors don't like to let people go once the police catch them, and they do try to keep evidence out if they think it hurts their case. Many other prisoners appeal because there is now new evidence available that would overturn the verdict. Usually this would be DNA evidence or something scientific that was not available when they were convicted. |
|
|
|
Post by Cheneysmyhero on Nov 12, 2004 16:59:08 GMT -5
I wnted to add. A Hucklebuck can't exactly file and appeal that says "I'm innocent stupid!" because they courts frown on that for some reason. You have to have some reason why the court should rehear the case. That is why they are always appealing procedure or mental state. Don't get me wrong tough. I say if the guy is areal TurdF you ought to hang him in public square for all to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by SatanIncarnate on Nov 14, 2004 8:05:20 GMT -5
I wnted to add. A Hucklebuck can't exactly file and appeal that says "I'm innocent stupid!" because they courts frown on that for some reason. You have to have some reason why the court should rehear the case. That is why they are always appealing procedure or mental state. Don't get me wrong tough. I say if the guy is areal TurdF you ought to hang him in public square for all to watch. This guy has his head on straight. What happened to him? |
|
sadly, Im torn on this issue. Sometimes Im more pro sometimes Im more against. Its so hard--especially when its personal. But...morally...I know its wrong to take any life. Even in self defense...just try to get away.
