Thread: A Little Payback At 9PM Tonight

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

I don't care if it NEVER deters another murderer! It's sure deterring this scumbag!
My answer to a man who claims diminished capacity..."You were crazy when you brutally murdered your victim, so you'll STILL be crazy when we fry you!"

Jeeter

While I agree that there was no doubt of guilt in the current case... On top of the inefficiency of death penalty as a deterrent... I am extremely uneasy about capital punishment with the amount of death row convicts that have been exonerated while waiting for execution. Would you rather execute innocent people or keep criminals alive in jail at a cost to society?

This recent published article is somewhat relevant to the question:
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Originally Posted by MichaelP

While I agree that there was no doubt of guilt in the current case... On top of the inefficiency of death penalty as a deterrent... I am extremely uneasy about capital punishment with the amount of death row convicts that have been exonerated while waiting for execution. Would you rather execute innocent people or keep criminals alive in jail at a cost to society?

This recent published article is somewhat relevant to the question:
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

No one would want to execute innocent people, at least I couldn't imagine that anyone would. OTOH, when it is a heinous crime and the perpetrator is guilty without any question I am 100% for it.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

No one would want to execute innocent people, at least I couldn't imagine that anyone would. OTOH, when it is a heinous crime and the perpetrator is guilty without any question I am 100% for it.

Well, that's where it gets tricky. Of course no one WANTS to execute the innocent (well, except for the murderers...I guess they do). The question is "without any question," in your statement. Our legal system has the "resonable doubt" standard. This is a legal term, and does NOT mean the complete and total lack of any doubt. On top of that, the legal system is (gasp!) not perfect...I mean, you all believe in your deepest heart that OJ is not guilty, right?
Would you support a STRONGER standard than "reasonable doubt" for capital cases? Man, would that ever put the whole system into question. Not sure it's a terrible idea, but it would require the creation of an entire new type of law! What about petty crimes, should the standard be lower? A sliding scale of doubt, depending on the possible punishment? I think it is probably unworkable.

Would you PREFER to execute ONE innocent man than allow 1000 guilty men to stay alive serving life without parole? I would not. I know there are some who WOULD, and I don't judge them, as they believe it is the cost of a well ordered society that an imperfect system like this is better than an imperfect system that would allow these men to breathe our air for one more minute.

Much to think about. Am I glad this ONE PARTICULAR beast is gone from among us? Yes. Do I agree withthe goverment using the death penalty as it curretnly exists within our systam as it curretnly functions? NO.

"Let the punishment fit the crime"

The problem with our system is that lawyers stretch the appeals procedures to the max for personal benefit.

Originally Posted by Navaja

"Let the punishment fit the crime"

The problem with our system is that lawyers stretch the appeals procedures to the max for personal benefit.

Some of them do for sure. With others I think it is philosophical. I keep hearing that the lawyer for the Ft. Hood shooter feels his client cannot get a fair trial because of the media coverage. I'm not qualified to read minds but my guess is that the lawyer is one of those who is against capital punishment under any circumstances. Quite frankly I can't see why they are even going through the formality of a trial. The guy did it no question. Stand him up against a wall and give it the ready, aim, fire.

If there is reasonable doubt in any case I wouldn't want a person convicted but when there is none ? Hell, Lee Harvey Oswald was convicted and he never even had a lawyer or went to trial... but that is another story.

I think some prosecutors dont mind executing innocent people to preserve the conviction record....

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

Well, that's where it gets tricky. Of course no one WANTS to execute the innocent (well, except for the murderers...I guess they do). The question is "without any question," in your statement. Our legal system has the "resonable doubt" standard. This is a legal term, and does NOT mean the complete and total lack of any doubt. On top of that, the legal system is (gasp!) not perfect...I mean, you all believe in your deepest heart that OJ is not guilty, right?
Would you support a STRONGER standard than "reasonable doubt" for capital cases? Man, would that ever put the whole system into question. Not sure it's a terrible idea, but it would require the creation of an entire new type of law! What about petty crimes, should the standard be lower? A sliding scale of doubt, depending on the possible punishment? I think it is probably unworkable.

Would you PREFER to execute ONE innocent man than allow 1000 guilty men to stay alive serving life without parole? I would not. I know there are some who WOULD, and I don't judge them, as they believe it is the cost of a well ordered society that an imperfect system like this is better than an imperfect system that would allow these men to breathe our air for one more minute.

Much to think about. Am I glad this ONE PARTICULAR beast is gone from among us? Yes. Do I agree withthe goverment using the death penalty as it curretnly exists within our systam as it curretnly functions? NO.