C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
It's "reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. In civil cases, liability is determined, and usually by preponderance of evidence (which side is more believable) rather than "resonable doubt."
Ura: By that definition, almost every country is "modern", which I don't think is. Just because they have an airport doesn't make them "modern". I think most technological advances DO make it modern because it represents "progress" which is "what the standard is for the majority today". You could put it bluntly and say it's the "haves" vs the "have-nots".
For instance, is having indoor plumbing considered modern?
What about socialogical issues such as women's rights (for instance)? Is suffrage considered modern? Or having the same opportunities as men?
I'm not sure exactly what criteria determines a "firt-world" country vs a "third-world", but probably being "modern" is one of them.
For instance, is having indoor plumbing considered modern?
What about socialogical issues such as women's rights (for instance)? Is suffrage considered modern? Or having the same opportunities as men?
I'm not sure exactly what criteria determines a "firt-world" country vs a "third-world", but probably being "modern" is one of them.
Killer Joe
New member
The "Death Penalty" is a neccesary evil in our society. However, I believe that only eye-witnessed crimes be tried for the death penalty, and at that, multiple witnesses.
It costs the gov't somewhere between $25,000 to $30,000 a year to house inmates, I have an idea:
How about we make a deal with Turkey or some third world country to house our perpetual criminals for a fraction of the cost? Say, $15,000 for each (a one-time payment), for each prisioner they can house. It is so nasty in third world prisons that there may be a decrease in criminal activity. Strip them of their US rights, tell those countries that we no longer are responsible for them.
Maybe.
It costs the gov't somewhere between $25,000 to $30,000 a year to house inmates, I have an idea:
How about we make a deal with Turkey or some third world country to house our perpetual criminals for a fraction of the cost? Say, $15,000 for each (a one-time payment), for each prisioner they can house. It is so nasty in third world prisons that there may be a decrease in criminal activity. Strip them of their US rights, tell those countries that we no longer are responsible for them.
Maybe.
G
Gizmo
Guest
The current words used are 'Developed Nation' And Developing Nation'. The old phrases of 'third world' etc were felt to be demeaning and so they settled for 'developing'. However in the same way on this issue the difference is not just how developed the nation is, but also it`s cultural heritage and how it views the sanctity of life - liberal democracy is a western invention after all, even in developed Eastern nations they might not consider the death penalty unwarranted.
As for why we got rid of death penalty. I think that it`s partly 1) it offends liberal sensibilities, and 2) the risk of killing innocent people was believed to be too great.
Given the number of people who have been proven in the past ten years to have been basically stitched up by police manufacturing evidence this seems like a pretty good idea to me. Just because somebody is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, doesn`t mean they actually did it - it might just mean that the police did a good job of falsifying evidence and the state-appointed attorney wasn`t that bothered.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
fuzzy: This is about murder.
I agree completely with Sammy Dead-O.
Let's say someone in my family killed someone.
Then if I still didn't want the family member to be killed, despite incontrovertible evidence I would seem to be a dangerous, selfish sociopath who ignores his civic and moral responsibilities. According to the way society is heading, I should want him/her to die.
Does that not seem sadistic to any of you?
Now consider this:
People in the world grew up differently than you did.
They may have had different experiences, and have different value systems.
For this reason, some of them may easily misdirect rage or anguish.
If you do not know what any such person has gone through and you can not honestly say that if you had the same personality and past you would not do the same thing, you can not 'punish' them with death - you couldn't really punish them at all, in fact, but certainly not with death.
The problem is that most people think of this issue as black and white, as 'we the upstanding citizens of the United States' vs. 'a psychotic diseased killer who won't stop until he destroys everything,' when in reality it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
I can understand that people may be inclined to think this; after all, that's in line with what the government has been telling people to think since the 80s, when Reagan trashed the education system.
People in most of the world typically have a medieval and very carnal mindset toward many things, and this is a prime example.
What we have to realize, if we intend to improve morally and ethically, is that no one is anyone's enemy.
Because you may not think in terms of that, this might have made no sense to you. However, I ask this:
The government executes people like Timothy McVeigh and Juan Garza because (presumably) the government thinks that these people are horrible, and that what they did represents the worst act anyone could do in society - murder.
Then the government kills them?
I agree completely with Sammy Dead-O.
Let's say someone in my family killed someone.
Then if I still didn't want the family member to be killed, despite incontrovertible evidence I would seem to be a dangerous, selfish sociopath who ignores his civic and moral responsibilities. According to the way society is heading, I should want him/her to die.
Does that not seem sadistic to any of you?
Now consider this:
People in the world grew up differently than you did.
They may have had different experiences, and have different value systems.
For this reason, some of them may easily misdirect rage or anguish.
If you do not know what any such person has gone through and you can not honestly say that if you had the same personality and past you would not do the same thing, you can not 'punish' them with death - you couldn't really punish them at all, in fact, but certainly not with death.
The problem is that most people think of this issue as black and white, as 'we the upstanding citizens of the United States' vs. 'a psychotic diseased killer who won't stop until he destroys everything,' when in reality it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
I can understand that people may be inclined to think this; after all, that's in line with what the government has been telling people to think since the 80s, when Reagan trashed the education system.
People in most of the world typically have a medieval and very carnal mindset toward many things, and this is a prime example.
What we have to realize, if we intend to improve morally and ethically, is that no one is anyone's enemy.
Because you may not think in terms of that, this might have made no sense to you. However, I ask this:
The government executes people like Timothy McVeigh and Juan Garza because (presumably) the government thinks that these people are horrible, and that what they did represents the worst act anyone could do in society - murder.
Then the government kills them?
S
Sammy Dead-O
Guest
What a great phrase. Those final five words pretty much sum up the way I wish I could feel all the time.
S
Sleepy
Guest
in a society like ours it's dog eat dog man so in a way everyone is everyone else's enemy. That the ones who resort to murder can be executed for their crime is a source of comfort to me considering everything.I like Yellowjackets idea too.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
Five Reasons Why You Should Oppose the Death Penalty
This is a link to a page from the Campaign to End the Death Penalty website.
To summarize:
1- The death penalty is racist.
2- The death penalty punishes the poor.
3- The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
4- The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.
5- The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."
How strange is it that a country which purports to be a bastion of morality and civilization at its best would persist in killing its citizens?
Even in a case a seemingly clear-cut as the recent McVeigh execution, the government has only succeeded in making him a martyr to those who agree with his anti-government views.
This is a link to a page from the Campaign to End the Death Penalty website.
To summarize:
1- The death penalty is racist.
2- The death penalty punishes the poor.
3- The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
4- The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.
5- The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."
How strange is it that a country which purports to be a bastion of morality and civilization at its best would persist in killing its citizens?
Even in a case a seemingly clear-cut as the recent McVeigh execution, the government has only succeeded in making him a martyr to those who agree with his anti-government views.
D
Dementia
Guest
To answer Sammy......
I know I'll be in the minority here...my bleeding-heart liberal tendencies often are...but I'll just mention that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases. It's a matter of life's sacredness to me. I don't believe that one person's decision to end another's life can remove an absolute truth like that from the world.
I don't get the conplete sacredness of life thing. It seems to be idealism and just a little bit away from naivity. Some life isn't sacred. Some life sucks. Fact of life. Let me get in a low blow here. Little over used example here, but if you had the chance to go back and kill Hitler before he started all that crap would you?
Counter: What if one of my loved ones were murdered? Wouldn't I want the killer to be executed?
Well, maybe I would, but I shouldn't, and that's enough for me to rest on this belief for now.
Then what exactly SHOULD we do? I get the fact that we can rehibilitate them and what not, but remember the old fashioned way of doing things? You pay for your actions. You do something. You pay for it.
And beyond that, in most cases, our justice system is too screwed up to handle it "fairly," even if I agreed with its use. I'll seek out some numbers if anyone's interested, but as far as I know, being poor and black puts a big "death row" target on a murderer's forehead.
Yes, nasty thing that....what would you say should happen to the bigots that sentance the man to die. Oh, nothing? Just like every other person who does something wrong. No one should pay for what they do I guess.
I'm sure I'll get some semi-flames for posting this; I'm not all that interested in debating, since I don't know how far I can extend the argument beyond my own heart, and since I'm not on here all that often of late. Still, I wanted the view to be represented here.
I understand. And I truly, HONESTLY from the bottom of my heart wish I could agree with you, but I refuse to believe that someone should not pay for THIER actions
Thanks.
No problem
I know where your coming from. I wish I could see things the same way.
To answer TICM.......
Let's say someone in my family killed someone.
Then if I still didn't want the family member to be killed, despite incontrovertible evidence I would seem to be a dangerous, selfish sociopath who ignores his civic and moral responsibilities. According to the way society is heading, I should want him/her to die.
Does that not seem sadistic to any of you?
I would not see you as a "dangerous, selfish sociopath". I would however see you as someone who has let thier emotions clog what's right and wrong. What would you suggest that they do with that family member that did this crime?
Now consider this:
People in the world grew up differently than you did.
They may have had different experiences, and have different value systems.
For this reason, some of them may easily misdirect rage or anguish.
If you do not know what any such person has gone through and you can not honestly say that if you had the same personality and past you would not do the same thing, you can not 'punish' them with death - you couldn't really punish them at all, in fact, but certainly not with death.
Here it is again. It's not my fault...it's eveyone else's. Yes, EVERYONE is molded by how they are raised, but that does NOT negate the fact that THEY are the ones who did it. Who should we blame? Society? Society is just a bunch of people rolled together. Aren't people the ones we're not sposed to be punishing?
The problem is that most people think of this issue as black and white, as 'we the upstanding citizens of the United States' vs. 'a psychotic diseased killer who won't stop until he destroys everything,' when in reality it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
I can understand that people may be inclined to think this; after all, that's in line with what the government has been telling people to think since the 80s, when Reagan trashed the education system.
People in most of the world typically have a medieval and very carnal mindset toward many things, and this is a prime example.
What we have to realize, if we intend to improve morally and ethically, is that no one is anyone's enemy.
Thank you. I like being called a sheep. I'd like to think of myself as a little more intelegent then that. I t seems you are sterotyping society in the same way you acuse society of steriotyping criminals?
Because you may not think in terms of that, this might have made no sense to you. However, I ask this:
The government executes people like Timothy McVeigh and Juan Garza because (presumably) the government thinks that these people are horrible, and that what they did represents the worst act anyone could do in society - murder.
Then the government kills them?
I would make the point that the worst act anyone in society could commite is murdering INNOCENT people. Or at least that was the case with Timmy. The other guy sounds like the people he murdered were not innocent. I am trying not to look at this way, but you are comparing little babies being blown up to a guy being painlessly executed. I am sorry, but when I look at it that way I get kinda mad.
And last, and most certaninly least, Mutant Turtle......I CAN call you Mutant Turtle can't I. Tank ya very much......
This is a link to a page from the Campaign to End the Death Penalty website.
To summarize:
1- The death penalty is racist.
2- The death penalty punishes the poor.
3- The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
4- The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.
5- The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."
How strange is it that a country which purports to be a bastion of morality and civilization at its best would persist in killing its citizens?
How strange it is that you are defending those who commite the crime you are so much against. Both sides have pointless ironies that add nothing to the argument.
Even in a case a seemingly clear-cut as the recent McVeigh execution, the government has only succeeded in making him a martyr to those who agree with his anti-government views.
If someone is crazy enough to do it they are gonna do it regardless of whether they have a dead martyr or a martyr in prison.
I know I'll be in the minority here...my bleeding-heart liberal tendencies often are...but I'll just mention that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases. It's a matter of life's sacredness to me. I don't believe that one person's decision to end another's life can remove an absolute truth like that from the world.
I don't get the conplete sacredness of life thing. It seems to be idealism and just a little bit away from naivity. Some life isn't sacred. Some life sucks. Fact of life. Let me get in a low blow here. Little over used example here, but if you had the chance to go back and kill Hitler before he started all that crap would you?
Counter: What if one of my loved ones were murdered? Wouldn't I want the killer to be executed?
Well, maybe I would, but I shouldn't, and that's enough for me to rest on this belief for now.
Then what exactly SHOULD we do? I get the fact that we can rehibilitate them and what not, but remember the old fashioned way of doing things? You pay for your actions. You do something. You pay for it.
And beyond that, in most cases, our justice system is too screwed up to handle it "fairly," even if I agreed with its use. I'll seek out some numbers if anyone's interested, but as far as I know, being poor and black puts a big "death row" target on a murderer's forehead.
Yes, nasty thing that....what would you say should happen to the bigots that sentance the man to die. Oh, nothing? Just like every other person who does something wrong. No one should pay for what they do I guess.
I'm sure I'll get some semi-flames for posting this; I'm not all that interested in debating, since I don't know how far I can extend the argument beyond my own heart, and since I'm not on here all that often of late. Still, I wanted the view to be represented here.
I understand. And I truly, HONESTLY from the bottom of my heart wish I could agree with you, but I refuse to believe that someone should not pay for THIER actions
Thanks.
No problem
I know where your coming from. I wish I could see things the same way.To answer TICM.......
Let's say someone in my family killed someone.
Then if I still didn't want the family member to be killed, despite incontrovertible evidence I would seem to be a dangerous, selfish sociopath who ignores his civic and moral responsibilities. According to the way society is heading, I should want him/her to die.
Does that not seem sadistic to any of you?
I would not see you as a "dangerous, selfish sociopath". I would however see you as someone who has let thier emotions clog what's right and wrong. What would you suggest that they do with that family member that did this crime?
Now consider this:
People in the world grew up differently than you did.
They may have had different experiences, and have different value systems.
For this reason, some of them may easily misdirect rage or anguish.
If you do not know what any such person has gone through and you can not honestly say that if you had the same personality and past you would not do the same thing, you can not 'punish' them with death - you couldn't really punish them at all, in fact, but certainly not with death.
Here it is again. It's not my fault...it's eveyone else's. Yes, EVERYONE is molded by how they are raised, but that does NOT negate the fact that THEY are the ones who did it. Who should we blame? Society? Society is just a bunch of people rolled together. Aren't people the ones we're not sposed to be punishing?
The problem is that most people think of this issue as black and white, as 'we the upstanding citizens of the United States' vs. 'a psychotic diseased killer who won't stop until he destroys everything,' when in reality it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.
I can understand that people may be inclined to think this; after all, that's in line with what the government has been telling people to think since the 80s, when Reagan trashed the education system.
People in most of the world typically have a medieval and very carnal mindset toward many things, and this is a prime example.
What we have to realize, if we intend to improve morally and ethically, is that no one is anyone's enemy.
Thank you. I like being called a sheep. I'd like to think of myself as a little more intelegent then that. I t seems you are sterotyping society in the same way you acuse society of steriotyping criminals?
Because you may not think in terms of that, this might have made no sense to you. However, I ask this:
The government executes people like Timothy McVeigh and Juan Garza because (presumably) the government thinks that these people are horrible, and that what they did represents the worst act anyone could do in society - murder.
Then the government kills them?
I would make the point that the worst act anyone in society could commite is murdering INNOCENT people. Or at least that was the case with Timmy. The other guy sounds like the people he murdered were not innocent. I am trying not to look at this way, but you are comparing little babies being blown up to a guy being painlessly executed. I am sorry, but when I look at it that way I get kinda mad.
And last, and most certaninly least
, Mutant Turtle......I CAN call you Mutant Turtle can't I. Tank ya very much......This is a link to a page from the Campaign to End the Death Penalty website.
To summarize:
1- The death penalty is racist.
2- The death penalty punishes the poor.
3- The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.
4- The death penalty is not a deterrent to violent crime.
5- The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."
How strange is it that a country which purports to be a bastion of morality and civilization at its best would persist in killing its citizens?
How strange it is that you are defending those who commite the crime you are so much against. Both sides have pointless ironies that add nothing to the argument.
Even in a case a seemingly clear-cut as the recent McVeigh execution, the government has only succeeded in making him a martyr to those who agree with his anti-government views.
If someone is crazy enough to do it they are gonna do it regardless of whether they have a dead martyr or a martyr in prison.
Chaos Turtle: I'm going to have to question you like I did with MrUSA, in that using a site that obviously promotes anti-death penalty is suspect in of itself.
Plus, there was an article in the Post yesterday about a new study that showed minorities were NOT overly represented on death row. I didn't get to read the actual report though; it wasn't included. It did also say that the group that did the study "ignored" factors that would have undermined it, so perhaps it's suspect. It might be good to look at though.
2. Again, it doesn't give specifics of how many cases that were court-appointed defenders actually went to death row. And it just gives a generality of "if you can afford good legal representation, you won't go to death row". So what is "good"? A lawyer working $50/hour? $100/hour?
3. This I can't find any problems with.
4. What study exactly and how recent is the data?
5. I'm not sure how linking underage and mentally retarded patients is "cruel and unusual punishment". I'm thinking more in terms of lethal injection vs draw and quarter or something.
1. Of the reasons they give, I'd need to know more. What was the makeup of the juries? Were they majority-white for black defendents and majority-white for white defendents (which is what it seems to imply)? Or were some majority-black for black defendents? And of how many?
Plus, there was an article in the Post yesterday about a new study that showed minorities were NOT overly represented on death row. I didn't get to read the actual report though; it wasn't included. It did also say that the group that did the study "ignored" factors that would have undermined it, so perhaps it's suspect. It might be good to look at though.
2. Again, it doesn't give specifics of how many cases that were court-appointed defenders actually went to death row. And it just gives a generality of "if you can afford good legal representation, you won't go to death row". So what is "good"? A lawyer working $50/hour? $100/hour?
3. This I can't find any problems with.
4. What study exactly and how recent is the data?
5. I'm not sure how linking underage and mentally retarded patients is "cruel and unusual punishment". I'm thinking more in terms of lethal injection vs draw and quarter or something.
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
I haven't read any replies since my post (except Spiderman's) but I figured it would be fair to put up an opposing viewpoint. This one, in fact, refers specifically to the "5 reasons" posted earlier, and somewhat systematically refutes them.
The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible? by Casey Carmical
Now, please note that I haven't stated my own views on this subject. I have very mixed feelings on the issue, and like to think myself wise enough to know that I simply don't have all the facts. There are just too many factors. I think though, in consideration of the possibility that people are wrongly or unfairly executed, that the death penalty is simply too final a solution to apply except in cases when there is absolutely no doubt that the condemned is guilty and, moreover, guilty of a truly heinous crime, in which there was clear intent to cause the death of the victim, and where there are no mitigating factors (such as the accused being mentally retarded, provocation, etc).
Here's another site with lots of information presented in a less-biased format (though it should be noted that the board of directors of the organization are almost all working for capital punishment reform at one level or another):
Death Penalty Information Center
The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible? by Casey Carmical
Now, please note that I haven't stated my own views on this subject. I have very mixed feelings on the issue, and like to think myself wise enough to know that I simply don't have all the facts. There are just too many factors. I think though, in consideration of the possibility that people are wrongly or unfairly executed, that the death penalty is simply too final a solution to apply except in cases when there is absolutely no doubt that the condemned is guilty and, moreover, guilty of a truly heinous crime, in which there was clear intent to cause the death of the victim, and where there are no mitigating factors (such as the accused being mentally retarded, provocation, etc).
Here's another site with lots of information presented in a less-biased format (though it should be noted that the board of directors of the organization are almost all working for capital punishment reform at one level or another):
Death Penalty Information Center
Thanks Chaos Turtle for putting up those links. I have questions/cpmments for the "rebuttal" one as well.
First, the statement that "killing is justified when used in self-defense" is debatable.
1 & 2. I noticed the link to that Justice report I was talking about
3. Never thought about that.
4. While what he says makes sense, I was under the impression that it's also supposed to deter crime from future murderers, not just stop the ones committed by the person on death row.
5. I'm not sure why justifying that the Founders were all for the death penalty means it's still not cruel and unusual punishment.
First, the statement that "killing is justified when used in self-defense" is debatable.
1 & 2. I noticed the link to that Justice report I was talking about
3. Never thought about that.
4. While what he says makes sense, I was under the impression that it's also supposed to deter crime from future murderers, not just stop the ones committed by the person on death row.
5. I'm not sure why justifying that the Founders were all for the death penalty means it's still not cruel and unusual punishment.
M
mogg bomber
Guest
I can see reasons why people support it, but it's not enough for me. First of all, I think any form of killing is wrong, be it murder or the death penalty. It makes the government look like hypocrites. And second of all, how do we know they're guilty? I mean we can have a good idea, but how we can really know? If even only one innocent person is killed, that's too many. This is only one of many reasons why I really don't like president Bush.
C
Cateran Emperor
Guest
Did you ever notice how the villian in a James Bond movie never actually orders Bond dead immediately? They either throw him in a cell somewhere with an inept guard, or they invent some ludicrously elaborate way to kill him over time and go away, imagining that all will go well.
Of course you have, everyone has noticed that. Since school is finally out, my mind has plenty of time over the next week for pointless philosophical discussions like that. So what does this have to do with anything at all?
Think about it: Using Zadok's original example, a random terrorist blows up San Francisco and for some reason we do end up giving him life in jail. He is going to die anyway, so why do we not kill him now? So he can have a chance to escape? So that people can organize protests and say that he was "not in his right mind?" All we are doing is giving him chances to do further damage to the nation's well being. What is the point?
I have no idea, I am just posing a hypothetical question here.
Of course you have, everyone has noticed that. Since school is finally out, my mind has plenty of time over the next week for pointless philosophical discussions like that. So what does this have to do with anything at all?
Think about it: Using Zadok's original example, a random terrorist blows up San Francisco and for some reason we do end up giving him life in jail. He is going to die anyway, so why do we not kill him now? So he can have a chance to escape? So that people can organize protests and say that he was "not in his right mind?" All we are doing is giving him chances to do further damage to the nation's well being. What is the point?
I have no idea, I am just posing a hypothetical question here.
T
Thallid Ice Cream Man
Guest
There are those of us who don't think you should kill someone "evil" just to get them out of the way (which is all the death penalty is really doing to the convicted).
C
Chaos Turtle
Guest
I'm not sure if your James Bond analogy is meant to be serious, but...
The best reason for not executing a prisoner is that the prisoner may later be exonerated. I can see why someone who is confessed and unrepentant might be an exception, but it's my view that one exception just leads to another.
He didn't confess, but he's obviously guilty? Kill him.
She's clearly mad with grief, but she killed her baby? To Hell with her.
In time, you have a system (like ours) where people are exonerated after their executions, carried out more-or-less because public opinion weighed heavily against them.
The best reason for not executing a prisoner is that the prisoner may later be exonerated. I can see why someone who is confessed and unrepentant might be an exception, but it's my view that one exception just leads to another.
He didn't confess, but he's obviously guilty? Kill him.
She's clearly mad with grief, but she killed her baby? To Hell with her.
In time, you have a system (like ours) where people are exonerated after their executions, carried out more-or-less because public opinion weighed heavily against them.
L
Landkiller
Guest
I find the death penalty personally repugnant. In every modern nation except the U.S., the death penalty has already been done away with. It's not that a person cannot deserve death, but that the state should NEVER decide who lives and who dies. Period.
The United States is a subject about which I have mixed emotions. While the political system is fine, and the economy is great, ignorant views and outdated ideas seem to live on far too long. I think the death penalty will be on it's way out within 50 years.
The United States is a subject about which I have mixed emotions. While the political system is fine, and the economy is great, ignorant views and outdated ideas seem to live on far too long. I think the death penalty will be on it's way out within 50 years.