Ursa Majoris Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Who? idiots I am sure. Some say there can NEVER be 100% certainty. FWIW, I'm with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Some say there can NEVER be 100% certainty. FWIW, I'm with you. I thought the same thing when I typed the 100%. There is a line but the difficulty comes when you have to figure out where that line is. Kill one innocent person and it is wrong. Kill 100's or 1000's of guilty people and all is good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'm curious how one sets the legal standard at 100%? Is this one of those, 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it' situations? And even if a 100% legal standard could be created, there are cases where prosecuting attorneys have kept back evidence that exonerated a client. There are times when I feel insulted when I am called a 'dimwit.' There are other times when it actually fills me with a sense of contentment. Let's just say I am content to disagree with some of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Ain't no justice like revenge justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'm curious how one sets the legal standard at 100%? Is this one of those, 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it' situations? And even if a 100% legal standard could be created, there are cases where prosecuting attorneys have kept back evidence that exonerated a client. There are times when I feel insulted when I am called a 'dimwit.' There are other times when it actually fills me with a sense of contentment. Let's just say I am content to disagree with some of you. +1 Well said, uncle stevie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsnottatooma Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'm curious how one sets the legal standard at 100%? Is this one of those, 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it' situations? And even if a 100% legal standard could be created, there are cases where prosecuting attorneys have kept back evidence that exonerated a client. There are times when I feel insulted when I am called a 'dimwit.' There are other times when it actually fills me with a sense of contentment. Let's just say I am content to disagree with some of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'm curious how one sets the legal standard at 100%? Is this one of those, 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it' situations? And even if a 100% legal standard could be created, there are cases where prosecuting attorneys have kept back evidence that exonerated a client. There are times when I feel insulted when I am called a 'dimwit.' There are other times when it actually fills me with a sense of contentment. Let's just say I am content to disagree with some of you. u need to make your life simpler with just a black and white answer for everything,then you don't have to worry about crazy things that may or may not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'm curious how one sets the legal standard at 100%? Is this one of those, 'I can't describe it but I know it when I see it' situations? And even if a 100% legal standard could be created, there are cases where prosecuting attorneys have kept back evidence that exonerated a client. There are times when I feel insulted when I am called a 'dimwit.' There are other times when it actually fills me with a sense of contentment. Let's just say I am content to disagree with some of you. I don't think anyone is saying that all cases are black or white. That would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, it is equally ridiculous to oppose the death penalty on the basis that NOTHING is ever black or white when clearly that's not the case. There are far better anti-capital punishment arguments than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 and those would simply be dimwits that oppose cap punishment. so if you oppose capital punishment , you are a dimwit ? Coming from you i can almost take this as a compliment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I don't think anyone is saying that all cases are black or white. That would be ridiculous. Nevertheless, it is equally ridiculous to oppose the death penalty on the basis that NOTHING is ever black or white when clearly that's not the case. There are far better anti-capital punishment arguments than that. My primary argument against the death penalty is that if killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. I also do not believe it sends the correct message to society. I've used this example in the past: Let us suppose that my son is a bully who is picking on smaller children. Do I teach him it is wrong to hit people smaller than him by spanking him? Or by spanking him am I simply reinforcing his belief that if someone is bigger/stronger, he can do as he wishes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) My primary argument against the death penalty is that if killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. I also do not believe it sends the correct message to society. I've used this example in the past: Let us suppose that my son is a bully who is picking on smaller children. Do I teach him it is wrong to hit people smaller than him by spanking him? Or by spanking him am I simply reinforcing his belief that if someone is bigger/stronger, he can do as he wishes? i know we both agree strongly on this point ...well said I also believe that if you are a person of faith (speaking on the faith that i am which is Christian ) , there is no way that i could agree with Capital Punishment ...who are we to take a life ? Belief founded on fact God creates all life so we are not in a position to take one intentionally Edited December 23, 2009 by isleseeya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 (edited) i know we both agree strongly on this point ...well said I also believe that if you are a person of faith (speaking on the faith that i am which is Christian ) , there is no way that i could agree with Capital Punishment ...who a re we to take a life ? Belief founded on fact God creates all life so we are not in a position to take one intentionally you believe in and base decisions on something that isnt there. thats a great way to make decisions and form opinions. Edited December 23, 2009 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 My primary argument against the death penalty is that if killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. I also do not believe it sends the correct message to society. I've used this example in the past: Let us suppose that my son is a bully who is picking on smaller children. Do I teach him it is wrong to hit people smaller than him by spanking him? Or by spanking him am I simply reinforcing his belief that if someone is bigger/stronger, he can do as he wishes? so are you saying that if we kill people for killing people, that we will be reinforcing its ok to kill people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 so are you saying that if we kill people for killing people, that we will be reinforcing its ok to kill people? As I am a dimwit, I do not expect that I can communicate the concept to you in such a manner that you can comprehend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 As I am a dimwit, I do not expect that I can communicate the concept to you in such a manner that you can comprehend it. lol. once again you have no reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 As I am a dimwit, I do not expect that I can communicate the concept to you in such a manner that you can comprehend it. That's gonna leave a mark... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I know someone who has been locked up for the past 15 years or so for "molesting his girlfriends daughter" and was only accused of doing so because the daughter didn't want him and her mother to be together and then later confessed... but he was locked up already and it was an election year - so they decided to make an example out of him... boy it would suck if he was "tortured, then killed" for something that he never did because the little girl took some time before she confessed.... there are flaws in everything and unless you have irrefutable proof, you can't operate like this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 so are you saying that if we kill people for killing people, that we will be reinforcing its ok to kill people? dmarc, your posts indicate you know full well that government does almost nothing right. Why give them this power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 dmarc, your posts indicate you know full well that government does almost nothing right. Why give them this power? Bingo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 dmarc, your posts indicate you know full well that government does almost nothing right. Why give them this power? who says they would have the sole power? the judicial system would still be there. trials, facts, videos, confessions, dna, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 you believe in and base decisions on something that isnt there. thats a great way to make decisions and form opinions. So you are also saying there is no God ? and no need to beleive in God ? ah ... ok good luck with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 So you are also saying there is no God ? and no need to beleive in God ? ah ... ok good luck with that i have my doubts. but thats for another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Just curious, and I'm not looking to be argumentative as much as I really just want to understand...for those who think capital punishment is wrong because there may be a possibility of "error" in the verdict, how would you change the definition of "reasonable doubt" and the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which implies a moral certitude? For those of you who think capital punishment is wrong because it's inhumane or somehow areligious, how would you justify a lesser punishment as equitable to the victims, especially those who have been raped or the families of those who have murdered (not "killed" as somebody earlier termed it)? And how do you explain that if given a choice of life in prison or execution, my gut feeling tells me most convicted individuals would choose life in prison - so why further oblige their wants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isleseeya Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Just curious, and I'm not looking to be argumentative as much as I really just want to understand...for those who think capital punishment is wrong because there may be a possibility of "error" in the verdict, how would you change the definition of "reasonable doubt" and the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," which implies a moral certitude? For those of you who think capital punishment is wrong because it's inhumane or somehow areligious, how would you justify a lesser punishment as equitable to the victims, especially those who have been raped or the families of those who have murdered (not "killed" as somebody earlier termed it)? And how do you explain that if given a choice of life in prison or execution, my gut feeling tells me most convicted individuals would choose life in prison - so why further oblige their wants? I am in the group that is Bold in your original text Justifying a punishment through prison , life sentence , solitary , etc is the form that i would agree with rather than Execution For a family who lost a loved one to a violent crime , the punishment will not bring the person back ... It should be used so that criminal is removed from society and so they can not hurt anyone else ...It should be a reminder daily to them of what they did and there life behind bars be unpleasant and extremely difficult ...and lastly shomehow , someway , the criminal has a chance to repent , reform and change ...not so that he can be put back in society but so that even in prison he can do something positive still in life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 who says they would have the sole power? the judicial system would still be there. trials, facts, videos, confessions, dna, etc. All of which are still instruments of government. Prosecutors can mislead, cops can lie, defenders can be incompetent, judges can have any number of emotional stakes. Don't get me wrong, if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night I'll shoot them dead and be just fine with that. But I just don't trust the government enough to give them that much power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.