Originally posted by Starhawk
In your opinion yes, but I do not agree. And yes certain is enough. And I believe they deserve to be executed for what they do.
Precisely for what they do, and if a man didn't do this, he's being executed for nothing.
Certain is not enough when you are putting people to death. You need to be 100% factually right, and that doesn't happen, or doesn't happen enough, for there to be a death penalty.
The more you speak the more obvious it is that you're no lawyer.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely for what they do, and if a man didn't do this, he's being executed for nothing.Certain is not enough when you are putting people to death. You need to be 100% factually right, and that doesn't happen, or doesn't happen enough, for there to be a death penalty.
The more you speak the more obvious it is that you're no lawyer.
-AC
No I am a law student and there is plenty of both law students and lawyers who support capital punishment. Many of my classmates have agreed that we need to push for it's restoration.
Originally posted by StarhawkPlease define the legal term “smoking gun”. I know what it means to the general public but I’ve never heard this as a “legal term”. However you want the proof to be raised to “beyond doubt” so you would need a “smoking gun” for every conviction that you seek so the ones that currently get the death sentence would only get jail time and that happens MUCH more frequently so your number again still drop.
There have been many cases where they are certain the person committed the crime (had the "smoking gun" in legal terms). And in those cases, they would now have the ability to have them executed.
Originally posted by StarhawkI still can’t believe that you are a law student, pre-law yes but not actually in law school.
No I am a law student and there is plenty of both law students and lawyers who support capital punishment. Many of my classmates have agreed that we need to push for it's restoration.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Please define the legal term “smoking gun”. I know what it means to the general public but I’ve never heard this as a “legal term”. However you want the proof to be raised to “beyond doubt” so you would need a “smoking gun” for every conviction that you seek so the ones that currently get the death sentence would only get jail time and that happens MUCH more frequently so your number again still drop.
It means they have enough evidence to remove all doubt. And since we have no death penalty at the present time, the numbers could only rise.
Originally posted by StarhawkI still want to show me where that is a “legal term”, I did a quick search and couldn’t find it. OK, if you don’t have a death penalty it would “go up” from 0.
It means they have enough evidence to remove all doubt. And since we have no death penalty at the present time, the numbers could only rise.
Originally posted by Starhawk
No I am a law student and there is plenty of both law students and lawyers who support capital punishment. Many of my classmates have agreed that we need to push for it's restoration.
I've seen better death penalty arguments than yours, ones that you can at least say "I see where you are coming from, at least.".
You constantly lack even the most basic of sense.
Originally posted by Starhawk
It means they have enough evidence to remove all doubt. And since we have no death penalty at the present time, the numbers could only rise.
It means if someone is standing there with a smoking gun, over a dead body, they clearly did it.
That's not the case is it? It's like turning up to a car crash, seeing paramedics and saying "THEY CRASHED THOSE CARS!".
-AC
"Twenty Years of Abolition: the Canadian Experience
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.
The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.
All of Canada's national political parties formally oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty, with the exception of the Reform Party which supports a binding national referendum on the issue.
A motion to reintroduce capital punishment was debated in the House of Commons in 1987. On June 30, the motion was soundly defeated on a free vote (148-127), despite public opinion polls indicating majority support for the death penalty.
A national poll conducted in June, 1995 found that 69% of Canadians moderately or strongly favoured the return of the death penalty, exactly the same level of support as 20 years ago. However, other surveys suggest that this abstract support is 'a mile wide and an inch deep'. In 1996, a cross-section of 1500 Canadians were asked to name the major concerns and issues facing the country; not one named reinstatement of the death penalty as a priority. (For comparison, a similar sample in the USA would be 15,000 individuals; polls of this size are considered to be accurate within 2.5 percentage points 95% of the time). "
http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php
😉
Originally posted by StarhawkI never said that I was against it, I feel that there are reason for it and reason against it all I’m saying is that your reasons and why you want to is flawed and done just out of despise and vengeance.
There have been cases where they have had enough to meet the burden of proof.I understand your are against it and I in no way expect you to change your mind on the subject but neither will I.
The death penalty has never been a successful deterrent due to the lack of support given to it by the legal community. And it's not just about deterrence, that is only one of the goals of punishment, another one is societal retribution.
The point is these crimes are so savage and cruel that it is justified, and they can never repair or make up for the damage they caused.
Originally posted by chithappens
I break a priceless vase that I can't replace so I guess I could be executed.There are plenty of situations like that such as adultery where you can not take it back.
That is subjective.
Yes you can work to replace the cost to the owner. And as I said it also has to do with the level of savagery and cruelty involved.
Originally posted by Starhawk
There have been cases where they have had enough to meet the burden of proof.I understand your are against it and I in no way expect you to change your mind on the subject but neither will I.
Some cases simply isn't enough, and there is always room for doubt to be thrown on any verdict. Death is not something we need in the world's courts, especially since we can never be THAT certain.
And even if we could, which we can't, so what? "Killing is bad, we're gonna kill you.". So what? There will ALWAYS be murderers, rapists, paedophiles. You can't kill them until there is none left, it solves nothing.
-AC
Originally posted by Starhawk
The death penalty has never been a successful deterrent due to the lack of support given to it by the legal community. And it's not just about deterrence, that is only one of the goals of punishment, another one is societal retribution.The point is these crimes are so savage and cruel that it is justified, and they can never repair or make up for the damage they caused.
Originally posted by Starhawk
Yes you can work to replace the cost to the owner. And as I said it also has to do with the level of savagery and cruelty involved.
You can't replace priceless if you are a construction worker, for example. There are different situations where that is a weak argument.
According to you, people who commit adultery are the same because they can not make up the "damage."