BF2S Forums Still opposed to proper sentences?

We need a " will it blend " episode.

A booming industry could be created if somebody came up with an instant gooifying way to kill people. Like a oversided blender. One that shredded people so instantaneously upon the flick of the switch that caused no pain whatsoever.

I don't support death penalty, except in extreme cases, and this case is one of those.  Fuck them.

Im opposed to you

Well Hurricane, I think you're misunderstood.  Hardly anyone thinks life sentences should be abolished, including the vast majority of people who are against the death penalty.

Spearhead wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

would seem to me that they are 100% guilty so what is there to appeal?

Completely wrong.

My father represents death row inmates for the state of Florida.  He knows most of them are murderers.  But they deserve the right to a fair trial, and his mind, and mine as well, killing an inmate is cruel and unusual punishment.

Although we're both against the death penalty, extremely heinous (sp?) crimes should be punished and their offenders should be executed (including political leaders who commit genocide).  But only after every single motherfucking piece of evidence is looked over top to bottom.

Hurricane, if you knew how many innocent people have been executed for murder in the US, you would at least support people like my dad who go over their cases. 

No one, I mean NO ONE, is ever 100 percent guilty.

If they're murderers and they've been convicted of murder, how was the trial not fair? Those people wouldn't fall into the "innocent people" category.

And please explain how NO ONE is ever 100% guilty. That's like saying NO ONE is ever 100% pregnant.

I'm in support of the death penalty, but I can understand the opposition to it as well.

There are many issues with how the death penalty is administered in this country.

1) Minorities generally receive the death penalty far more often for the same crimes as whites commit.

2) There have been a few executions of innocent people in the past as well.  Hopefully, DNA testing from here on will minimize false convictions and will help us release the wrongly convicted that are currently in jail.

3) The cost of execution is remarkably high in its current form.  Reforms in the appeals process should serve to lower these costs though.

4) The 4th issue with the death penalty involves the general principle of how much trust you put in the government.  Libertarians generally oppose the death penalty because of the amount of trust it takes to assume that the government is competent enough to correctly convict people before executing them.  As mentioned in the 2nd point, the fact that some innocents have been executed is a sign to many that the government cannot be trusted with the ability to decide whether a person lives or dies for their alleged crimes.

Spearhead wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

Completely wrong.

My father represents death row inmates for the state of Florida.  He knows most of them are murderers.  But they deserve the right to a fair trial, and his mind, and mine as well, killing an inmate is cruel and unusual punishment.

Although we're both against the death penalty, extremely heinous (sp?) crimes should be punished and their offenders should be executed (including political leaders who commit genocide).  But only after every single motherfucking piece of evidence is looked over top to bottom.

Hurricane, if you knew how many innocent people have been executed for murder in the US, you would at least support people like my dad who go over their cases. 

No one, I mean NO ONE, is ever 100 percent guilty.

If they're murderers and they've been convicted of murder, how was the trial not fair? Those people wouldn't fall into the "innocent people" category.

And please explain how NO ONE is ever 100% guilty. That's like saying NO ONE is ever 100% pregnant.

You're not looking at this from a realistic mindset.

As a lawyer repsenting a murderer, you don't know whether or not they really are a murderer, unless they confessed to it.  So, unless you know something no one else knows, as an outsider to every case, in THIS country, you NEVER assume anyone is 100 percent guilty. 

"Innocent people".  You quote that as though that's a ridiculous claim.  What's ridiculous is that dozens, maybe even over a hundred (I'll look it up, I can't remember the figure now.), people have been executed by our government and then later found not guilty through further evidence.  Often times, our government would rather convict an innocent person and call it a day rather than spend more money and effort to find the real killer.  (Oddly enough, these people are the same first ones to say government doesn't work)

Note the highlighted text and then re-read my post.

If they are death row inmates, then they have been convicted of murder. You said yourself that your dad knows most of them are murderers. Yet then you turn around and talk about the number of innocent people executed every year. Then you say NO ONE is ever 100% guilty.

The last two statements are contradictory with your first statement about the inmates.

I don't assume guilt. I am a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty. But once proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, why would anyone work to free someone on what is obviously a technicality that in no way changes whether they committed the crime (obviously, excoriating DNA evidence does not fall into that category)? Maybe your dad doesn't do that. If so, he's in the minority of lawyers in that line of business.

Spearhead wrote:

When I say, no one is ever 100 percent guilty, I explained what I meant.  I mean as a lawyer defending said person, or as someone who has no connection to the case, you cannot assume even convicted people are guilty.

But that's not what you said. I agree that if a lawyer is going to defend someone, they should not make a presumption of guilt. I believe that would get them disbarred, would it not?

You are talking about before conviction...I was talking about after conviction.

Spearhead wrote:

and believe it or not, some innocent people convicted of murder wouldn't have been if their lawyers had been doing their job properly in the begining.

Oh, don't worry--I certainly believe that.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-02-23 19:11:59)