Are you for or against the death penalty in the U.S.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
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?

This is loaded though. An individual that experienced that, he/she would be emotionally invested and would most certainly want some kind of retribution or revenge, it's human nature. I would, you would, can't imagine many people who wouldn't.

The state/government needs to not be emotionally invested when making the decision on taking a life. It has to be done from a purely ethical and logical standpoint.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you want to significantly decrease the possibility for appeals, mistrials and pardons then?

I suppose it would as a byproduct, but my position is that the burden of proof for capital punishment has to be extremely high for it to be an option in the first place (as in irrefutable evidence), so if that burden is met (100% concrete evidence of guilt) there shouldn't, and wouldn't, be a possibility of appeal. But that means every I's been dotted, every T's been crossed, and there was no mistakes made by investigators or in the lab. Mistrials can occur due to mistakes made on the part of members of the jury or the lawyers involved in the case which has nothing to do with the actual evidence which would prove the defendant's guilt, and an executive office pardon would override a judge anyway (though, if the evidence is irrefutable, the executive issuing the pardon would have some serious explaining to do). I'm just saying that if the judge sentences death the case has to be completely solid.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
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 you're missing the point. No one should have the right to kill, and the government shouldn't be an exception to that.

Originally posted by Tattoos N Scars
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.

Now as to war. I hate the concept of war. I wish we didn't have to have soldiers or militaries and maybe some day we will. Until that time we need to be able to defend ourselves with a properly trained military. Still I hope war can be the last answer instead of people's go to choice.

I also think asking people to take another life is horrible. And soldiers that have to get a toll taken on them.

Originally posted by Astner
If someone stole my wallet I'd want their entire family executed. Preferably through some painful method like flaying or burning. My point is that as a victim I'm not in the right state of mind to determine a fit punishment.

But you're missing the point. No one should have the right to kill, and the government shouldn't be an exception to that.

Nice reference to Soul Reaver

Originally posted by Robtard
This is loaded though. An individual that experienced that, he/she would be emotionally invested and would most certainly want some kind of retribution or revenge, it's human nature. I would, you would, can't imagine many people who wouldn't.

The state/government needs to not be emotionally invested when making the decision on taking a life. It has to be done from a purely ethical and logical standpoint.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the death penalty.

OT: Took you this long to see 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I suppose it would as a byproduct, but my position is that the burden of proof for capital punishment has to be extremely high for it to be an option in the first place (as in irrefutable evidence), so if that burden is met (100% concrete evidence of guilt) there shouldn't, and wouldn't, be a possibility of appeal. But that means every I's been dotted, every T's been crossed, and there was no mistakes made by investigators or in the lab. Mistrials can occur due to mistakes made on the part of members of the jury or the lawyers involved in the case which has nothing to do with the actual evidence which would prove the defendant's guilt, and an executive office pardon would override a judge anyway (though, if the evidence is irrefutable, the executive issuing the pardon would have some serious explaining to do). I'm just saying that if the judge sentences death the case has to be completely solid.

See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Yeah, that pretty much sums up how I feel about the death penalty.

OT: Took you this long to see 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'?

👆

Saw it in the theaters opening week. Happens to be one of my favs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

If we need to spend more money to do it then I would actually..be for that. Since these people don't have the right to live anymore. You forfeit that once you take a life without cause. I don't want them chilling in prison watching the lord of the rings. I'd rather spend more money then allow murderous pieces of shit roam comfortably in a prison with 3 meals a day, books, and other activities to do.

But then I also said if you can't kill them then make their stay in prison horrible. Solitary confinement, bread and water...and nothing else. They don't get comforts of any kind, not unless they resurrect who they killed. A murderer deserves nothing else. So if it's too much trouble to kill these shitheads quickly, then take away all their comforts, we could save money that way. Whatever little comforts they are afforded need to disappear.

Basically my motto is if killing them quickly is too expensive then lets just make sure we make their stay in prison an experience that makes them wish we had killed them. This might sound harsh, but I have zero tolerance for killers. Thinking about what you said about the cost of killing them quickly..perhaps for now the best option is to just make their stay in prison as horrible as possible.

Originally posted by Surtur
If we need to spend more money to do it then I would actually..be for that. Since these people don't have the right to live anymore. You forfeit that once you take a life without cause. I don't want them chilling in prison watching the lord of the rings. I'd rather spend more money then allow murderous pieces of shit roam comfortably in a prison with 3 meals a day, books, and other activities to do.

But then I also said if you can't kill them then make their stay in prison horrible. Solitary confinement, bread and water...and nothing else. They don't get comforts of any kind, not unless they resurrect who they killed. A murderer deserves nothing else. So if it's too much trouble to kill these shitheads quickly, then take away all their comforts, we could save money that way. Whatever little comforts they are afforded need to disappear.

Basically my motto is if killing them quickly is too expensive then lets just make sure we make their stay in prison an experience that makes them wish we had killed them. This might sound harsh, but I have zero tolerance for killers. Thinking about what you said about the cost of killing them quickly..perhaps for now the best option is to just make their stay in prison as horrible as possible.

I'm not saying they need resorts but to go out of your way to make their life miserable seems like a horrendous thing to wish upon another human being whether they deserve it or not.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

I'm talking about the initial investigation T's and I's leading up to the initial indictment, and as I said before, the irrefutable evidence would be along the lines of a recording of the criminal act which is corroborated by physical and other secondary evidence. If that burden of proof is met, airtight, in the initial trial, and a conviction is reached, then 30-60 days later the defendant is being executed, and due to the caliber of the case, there wouldn't be merit for appeal.

That is not what we have currently. Currently people sentenced to death will sit on Death Row 10+ years while various appeals are made and denied. I'm saying the case against someone that puts them on Death Row needs to be so tight they're executed 30 to 60 days later, or they wouldn't be on Death Row in the first place.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I'm talking about the initial investigation T's and I's leading up to the initial indictment, and as I said before, the irrefutable evidence would be along the lines of a recording of the criminal act which is corroborated by physical and other secondary evidence. If that burden of proof is met, airtight, in the initial trial, and a conviction is reached, then 30-60 days later the defendant is being executed, and due to the caliber of the case, there wouldn't be merit for appeal.

That is not what we have currently. Currently people sentenced to death will sit on Death Row 10+ years while various appeals are made and denied. I'm saying the case against someone that puts them on Death Row needs to be so tight they're executed 30 to 60 days later, or they wouldn't be on Death Row in the first place.

Who would decide that there is no merit for appeal and how would we ensure that this is not abused?

Originally posted by Newjak
Now as to war. I hate the concept of war. I wish we didn't have to have soldiers or militaries and maybe some day we will. Until that time we need to be able to defend ourselves with a properly trained military. Still I hope war can be the last answer instead of people's go to choice.

I also think asking people to take another life is horrible. And soldiers that have to get a toll taken on them.

👆

I, too, hope that, one day, humans look upon war as a primitive and disgusting behavior we used to have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, the thing is with all your caveats I believe the system you'd end up with is the system we actually have. Making sure that all the t's are crossed and i's are dotted is what takes so long and costs so much.

No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.

But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.

But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?

Well, you are right that it is flawed in reality, but in theory it is the system we have. Convictions have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", and we have multiple failsafes to ensure that the trial didn't go wrong.

As for your last question, I think the reason to waste resources on a "wasted human" is because society should hold human life as precious. Condoning and using the death penalty sends a message that degrades the sanctity of all life, and I do not think it should be done. Additionally I don't think the government should have that power either.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Who would decide that there is no merit for appeal and how would we ensure that this is not abused?

The video of the suspect (who is clearly identifiable on the video) killing the victim, with the recovered clothing of the suspect covered in their victim's dna, further corroborated with the suspects and victims DNA at the scene of the homicide, and the suspects fingerprints on the recovered murder weapon, all as depicted in the video of the act, would make that decision. The concrete evidence of guilt removes the merit of appeal.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
The video of the suspect (who is clearly identifiable on the video) killing the victim, with the recovered clothing of the suspect covered in their victim's dna, further corroborated with the suspects and victims DNA at the scene of the homicide, and the suspects fingerprints on the recovered murder weapon, all as depicted in the video of the act, would make that decision. The concrete evidence of guilt removes the merit of appeal.

Well, again, someone has to decide that the evidence met the threshold to suspend appeal, who do you think should be the person (or committee) with that power?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not the system we currently have in the US. Circumstantial evidence and eye-witness testimonies have resulted in my wrongful executions under that system. The burden of proof being at 100% would have to be absurdly high and almost no executions could occur, that occur, currently. For example, their DNA is all over the crime scene and they were caught on camera committing the murder (and it was proven, with digital forensics, that the footage was not tampered with): 100% proof and evidence.

But my requirement is just a step further. The criminal ALSO has to be unrepentant and/or fails to actually do any rehabilitation efforts.

If they are of sound mind, execute them. Get rid of that scum. Why waste resources on a clearly wasted human?

👆

I personally wouldn't add the repentant/sound mind requirements. Only saving grace would be self defense. I'd execute murderers with psychological disorders as well. Insanity is tragic, but it wouldn't stay my hand.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, again, someone has to decide that the evidence met the threshold to suspend appeal, who do you think should be the person (or committee) with that power?

That would be the judge since the sentencing comes after the conviction and the only way capital punishment could occur was if the burden of proof was met.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
That would be the judge since the sentencing comes after the conviction and the only way capital punishment could occur was if the burden of proof was met.

Doesn't that seem ripe for abuse though? The person whose sentencing is meant to be tested by an appeals process gets to decide whether his sentence gets tested.