untateve 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? I do not think you can have a legal standard that asserts 100% certainty.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)? For me, if killing is wrong, killing is wrong. Put bluntly, if I lost a loved one to a violent crime, there is no punishment that I feel would be "equitable.' I would prefer that the guilty individual spend out his life in prison. 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? Some would certainly choose life in prison over death. If you have spent any time in a prison, I think your view in this regard might change. For myself, I would inject myself with the death drugs rather than spend life in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 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 Thanks isleseeya, your thoughts obviously come from a wonderful spiritual resolve. My problem is that I have been on both sides of the question, "What can I do to help?", after a felonious trajedy. And the first response is like you suggested - You can put me in the same position my family and I were in before the crime was committed. But that can't happen so the next reponse is usually - Make the murderer/rapist/molester/etc. pay for what they did, and they don't mean pay by having a difficult life in prison, even long after the act was committed. So economics and arguments over the impact capital punishment has as a deterrent to crime aside, if the victims can't be made emotionally and physically "whole," then I think its society's obligation to get them as close as we can to that, and not diminish the victims' wants or needs in favor of the criminals'. At the very least it provides closure to many victims where life in prison does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Thanks isleseeya, your thoughts obviously come from a wonderful spiritual resolve. My problem is that I have been on both sides of the question, "What can I do to help?", after a felonious trajedy. And the first response is like you suggested - You can put me in the same position my family and I were in before the crime was committed. But that can't happen so the next reponse is usually - Make the murderer/rapist/molester/etc. pay for what they did, and they don't mean pay by having a difficult life in prison, even long after the act was committed. So economics and arguments over the impact capital punishment has as a deterrent to crime aside, if the victims can't be made emotionally and physically "whole," then I think its society's obligation to get them as close as we can to that, and not diminish the victims' wants or needs in favor of the criminals'. At the very least it provides closure to many victims where life in prison does not. I would argue, long term, no punishment brings closure to the victim's family. The victim's life is taken prematurely and no punishment can ever change that. I am not well read in this area but I would be interested in hearing what victim family members report a year after the execution of the defendant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apathy Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Some would certainly choose life in prison over death. If you have spent any time in a prison, I think your view in this regard might change. For myself, I would inject myself with the death drugs rather than spend life in prison. I've never spent time in prison and I'm trying hard to keep it that way. It's not so much what you would choose in hindsight as much as: (1) most convicted murderers and rapists are going to choose life in prison over death if given the choice. Obviously we don't give them the choice but appease their wants if (2) the victim or victim's family gets closure from ending the criminal's life? You and I disagree about this second point because I've also dealt with premature loss and might actually have to spend time in prison if left alone with the criminal. I'd also comment that released murderers and rapists have been known to commit the same crime. To isleseeya's point - he's got them all serving w/o chance of parole so may be that's how we resolve that issue. As for the legal standard...no, you're right - there may not be unequivocal evidence of a person's guilt but the standard is what it is and it calls for evidentiary and moral certainty so how do we maintain the standard (whether you agree with it or not) but then question the level of punishment out of skepticism about the verdict yielded by the standard? I'm not saying there's a right answer, I'm just curious as to how some of you reconcile the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted December 23, 2009 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? I don't know. I'm only really interested in defending the position that there ARE 100% certainties. Whether or not they should be subject to capital punishment is a debate with many more facets than the narrow one I'm trying to keep focused on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I don't know. I'm only really interested in defending the position that there ARE 100% certainties. Whether or not they should be subject to capital punishment is a debate with many more facets than the narrow one I'm trying to keep focused on. I'm sure we could pick a case where there is 100% certainty that the accused is guilty. However, how do we come up with a legal standard that defines this? How would you word a legal standard that insures 100% certainty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Some would certainly choose life in prison over death. If you have spent any time in a prison, I think your view in this regard might change. For myself, I would inject myself with the death drugs rather than spend life in prison. im with you there but iam actually against it because its more expensive to kill someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 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. the judicial system is part of the government. how many hundreds of stories would you like me to link to where the judicial system got it wrong? do you think any jury of decent human beings has ever sentenced a man to die when they didn't feel 100% sure he was guilty? and yet all these stories of wrongful convictions just keep piling up. that should tell you that whether the legal system calls the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" or "100% certainty" or whatever other slogan makes you feel better about it, the government is still going to end up killing innocent people in its custody. whether you call the standard 100% or 110% or 1000%, in practice the legal system will come up way short of it -- and that fact is the only 100% certainty in ANY of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 the judicial system is part of the government. how many hundreds of stories would you like me to link to where the judicial system got it wrong? do you think any jury of decent human beings has ever sentenced a man to die when they didn't feel 100% sure he was guilty? and yet all these stories of wrongful convictions just keep piling up. that should tell you that whether the legal system calls the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" or "100% certainty" or whatever other slogan makes you feel better about it, the government is still going to end up killing innocent people in its custody. whether you call the standard 100% or 110% or 1000%, in practice the legal system will come up way short of it -- and that fact is the only 100% certainty in ANY of this. which is why im saying there would need to be a very very high bar to clear. an uncoerced confession, clear video or pictures, dna, other physical evidence, etc. if you go around thinking all prosecutors are bad and all cops are bad, why even walk out of your house in the morning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 the judicial system is part of the government. how many hundreds of stories would you like me to link to where the judicial system got it wrong? do you think any jury of decent human beings has ever sentenced a man to die when they didn't feel 100% sure he was guilty? and yet all these stories of wrongful convictions just keep piling up. that should tell you that whether the legal system calls the standard "beyond reasonable doubt" or "100% certainty" or whatever other slogan makes you feel better about it, the government is still going to end up killing innocent people in its custody. whether you call the standard 100% or 110% or 1000%, in practice the legal system will come up way short of it -- and that fact is the only 100% certainty in ANY of this. Did Dahmer kill those people? YES Did the dude that shot the people at Fort Hood kill those people? YES These are the cases where these criminals should be put to death. For people who say it costs more - for Dahmer and the Fort Hood dude they get no appeal - it is a slam shut case and they are killed immediately with very little cost. It is not cut and dry for every murder case but it sure is for some and those people don't deserve to live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 Did Dahmer kill those people? YES Did the dude that shot the people at Fort Hood kill those people? YES These are the cases where these criminals should be put to death. For people who say it costs more - for Dahmer and the Fort Hood dude they get no appeal - it is a slam shut case and they are killed immediately with very little cost. It is not cut and dry for every murder case but it sure is for some and those people don't deserve to live. +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 It would be great if our judicial system was just as barbaric as the bad guys. Things would be so much better then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted December 24, 2009 Author Share Posted December 24, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091224/ap_on_...n_abuse_charges torture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 if you go around thinking all prosecutors are bad and all cops are bad, why even walk out of your house in the morning? I work with prosecutors and cops. I don't think they're all bad, quite the contrary. I just also know they aren't all perfect. 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.