Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty?
I'm for it, but only for instances where there is concrete evidence of guilt (like multiple video recordings of the event in question which clearly prove guilt). Physical evidence can be mishandled, misconstrued, or outright planted and witness testimony can be inaccurate. More times than not the camera (or multiple cameras from various angles recording the same event) doesn't lie, and that combined with corroborating physical evidence would make the conviction airtight. If there's videos of a suspect committing a homicide or other crime which warrants capital punishment and their dna is also at the scene of the crime I'd have no issue with the execution proceeding.
Originally posted by Tattoos N ScarsConsidering I have yet to experience a situation like that I don't know what I would want.
Let's make it personal here. A serial killer clocks you from behind and ties you up in a chair. He rapes and murders tour wife and kids in front of you. He knocks you out again and unties you. You wake up to a video recording of the event. The police eventually arrest him and send him to prison. Would you want him to have the death penalty?
But at the same point I would probably just be wanting revenge if I said I wanted them dead. Revenge and justice are not the same thing. And ultimately I would hope I would be okay of the person just got a life sentence and that would be justice enough because I don't want to be a blood thirsty person.
Originally posted by Newjak
Considering I have yet to experience a situation like that I don't know what I would want.But at the same point I would probably just be wanting revenge if I said I wanted them dead. Revenge and justice are not the same thing. And ultimately I would hope I would be okay of the person just got a life sentence and that would be justice enough because I don't want to be a blood thirsty person.
I have a son. I watched him come out of the womb and cur the umbilical cord. If someone raped and murdered him or my wife in front of me, I'd make sure I found him before the police did. I'd kill him there and save the taxpayers money. If I get caught and go to prison over it, so be it. My life would be effectively over anyway.
In sum, I agree with Delph. Indisputable evidence should allow for death penalty.
Originally posted by Tattoos N ScarsAnd what does killing the person personally give you?
I have a son. I watched him come out of the womb and cur the umbilical cord. If someone raped and murdered him or my wife in front of me, I'd make sure I found him before the police did. I'd kill him there and save the taxpayers money. If I get caught and go to prison over it, so be it. My life would be effectively over anyway.In sum, I agree with Delph. Indisputable evidence should allow for death penalty.
It won't bring back your child or wife.
I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.
The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.
If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.
I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.
If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I'm talking about the obvious.
Heinous crime committed.
Motives established.
Witnesses.
Irrefutable evidence.
Guilty admission.
Yeah, but that again hand waves the process. How is "obvious" decided. Say we have a trial, can the judge at the end then say "and I feel this one's pretty obvious, so I'm not gonna allow the standard process to check whether this trial and I made a mistake, the execution is next Tuesday."?
Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Against.We should use them for human experimentation. Look how far the Nazi's brought forward science.
I'd actually be totally fine with a nazi style concentration camp for murderers. Prison should be hell, not a place where you work out, watch tv, and do some light reading. Again I am talking specifically only about killers though.
Originally posted by Surtur
I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.
If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.
I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.
If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.
Yeah, I don't think having unrepentant murderers in a prison population is practical. If it's an irrefutable conviction their prison stay should be minimal. They should essentially only be in custody until a short period after the trial ends. Maybe 30-60 day window after the trial, max, for cases where there's no possibility of an appeal to overturn a conviction.
Originally posted by Surtur
I say definitely check if a mistake is made. Just don't take a decade to do it.
Well, that would make the processes more expensive though and of course clog up the rest of the system making other things slower.
Basically what the US is currently doing is make as sure as reasonably possible that the death penalty is justified.
You guys who say "just make it faster" basically have two main options to change this 1) keep the same system but speed it up, spending the same or more money and resources on the cases, putting other cases on hold instead, and additionally due to cutting the time making the outcome less certain to be just 2) do not keep the current system of checks in place and lower the threshold for who gets killed massively, thereby increasing the amount of innocent people that are killed by the system, but save some money in the process.
I'm wondering which one either of you propose and how exactly you want the system to work, cause all I hear is the generality of "make obvious cases faster" without any concrete implementation or discussion of the pros and cons.
Originally posted by MF DELPH
Yeah, I don't think having unrepentant murderers in a prison population is practical. If it's an irrefutable conviction their prison stay should be minimal. They should essentially only be in custody until a short period after the trial ends. Maybe 30-60 day window after the trial, max, for cases where there's no possibility of an appeal to overturn a conviction.
Do you want to significantly decrease the possibility for appeals, mistrials and pardons then?
Originally posted by Surtur
I find life valuable too. That is why I think if you take it without just cause you don't deserve to live. Even being in prison and in solitary for 24 hours a day eating only stale bread and water would be too good for such a person. The sad truth is some murderers live better then some of our veterans.The problem with the death penalty to me is the chance of it being done to someone who is innocent. But to me every case is different, so if you have a murder with a bunch of DNA evidence and the person even admits they are guilty of the crime..I don't see any reason they should spend 10 years in the system before they get put down.
If someone has a legitimate case for an appeal I am not against that, but I would want some kind of evidence or valid reason to go forward with such a thing. There are such a thing as clean cut cases. These people don't need to be in the system for 10 years.
I know what I say next will be controversial, but to me prison should be something that you'd actually rather get executed then spend your life there. At least when it comes to murderers. So I am not saying treat low level criminals horribly, but personally I wouldn't want to spend life in prison if I was in solitary 99% of the time and only got bread and water..which is what I think should be done to killers. I believe in rehabilitation for criminals..the ones who deserve it. Murderers deserve nothing.
If you're going to keep them in prison forever then make it as shitty an experience as possible. They don't need to be watching movies or reading books or working out. Maybe give them a picture of the person they killed to stare at.
I'd put child molesters in the same category too. I agree with you. We waste valuable text money to keep people housed and fed for life. They live like kings compared to homeless people. I see no justice in that.
Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
I'd put child molesters in the same category too. I agree with you. We waste valuable text money to keep people housed and fed for life. They live like kings compared to homeless people. I see no justice in that.
The conclusion that you should draw from that is that homeless people should be treated better.
Originally posted by Newjak
And what does killing the person personally give you?It won't bring back your child or wife.
I think Doc Holliday put it best in Tombstone. It's not justice he seeks, but the Reckoning. No, it will not bring my family back, and i'd still feel like crap after, but I'd know for sure he'd never do this to anyone else again. You mess with a man's family, there are consequences.
Also, I wouldn't want him to rot in prison while my taxes help shelter and feed him.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The conclusion that you should draw from that is that homeless people should be treated better.
From Surtur's post?
I agree with what he said and added the homeless bit in. Why should inmates live better than homeless people or poor working families that can not eat 3 meals a day and worry about possibe eviction?
Originally posted by Tattoos N ScarsAnd you would be okay being the one to pull the switch that killed the person?
I think Doc Holliday put it best in Tombstone. It's not justice he seeks, but the Reckoning. No, it will not bring my family back, and i'd still feel like crap after, but I'd know for sure he'd never do this to anyone else again. You mess with a man's family, there are consequences.Also, I wouldn't want him to rot in prison while my taxes help shelter and feed him.
Like I said I feel that a mark of society and a culture is how they treat their prisoners regardless of their emotions on the subject.
I think it is okay to lock someone away not because I don't believe people don't deserve to die but because I don't want to be the executioner to another human being. I feel nobody should want to be that.
Originally posted by Newjak
And you would be okay being the one to pull the switch that killed the person?Like I said I feel that a mark of society and a culture is how they treat their prisoners regardless of their emotions on the subject.
I think it is okay to lock someone away not because I don't believe people don't deserve to die but because I don't want to be the executioner to another human being. I feel nobody should want to be that.
Off topic a little, but how do you feel about war. As a soldier, that is what you are instructed to do...take another man's life on the battlefield.