see? everyone winsCameronPoe wrote:
Death is not a punishment in comparison with a lifetime's incarceration. Especially when you're a paedo.
prisoners will kill him anyway, so why not make it a little more humane?
prisoners will kill him anyway, so why not make it a little more humane?
I think that those up for the death penalty get extra appeals or something. Like, appeals to remove the death penalty and have life in prison, etc...S.Lythberg wrote:
and life in prison people don't appeal?
Our legal system is designed to make lawyers rich...
It's all a bunch of bullshit.
Unless you're wrongfully convicted.SenorToenails wrote:
I think that those up for the death penalty get extra appeals or something. Like, appeals to remove the death penalty and have life in prison, etc...S.Lythberg wrote:
and life in prison people don't appeal?
Our legal system is designed to make lawyers rich...
It's all a bunch of bullshit.
Something four times the diameter of his anus? May we use your ego then? ZING!CameronPoe wrote:
Death is not a punishment in comparison with a lifetime's incarceration. Especially when you're a paedo. I thought the US legal system was governed on the basis of 'an eye for an eye' anyway - in which case he should be anally raped using something four times the diameter of his anus.
And what about when every single sign points to "yes" and even the person admits they did it?Masques wrote:
Unless you're wrongfully convicted.SenorToenails wrote:
I think that those up for the death penalty get extra appeals or something. Like, appeals to remove the death penalty and have life in prison, etc...S.Lythberg wrote:
and life in prison people don't appeal?
Our legal system is designed to make lawyers rich...
It's all a bunch of bullshit.
Extra appeals because you were sentenced to the stricter punishment? I think that's bullshit. If the system is good enough to put someone in prison for life with no chance of parole, why is it not good enough to take a life? Why should those with the death penalty get more appeals than others are eligible for?Masques wrote:
Unless you're wrongfully convicted.
If later on new evidence arises you can release someone on a life sentence. If you didn't look hard enough for the evidence that could save someone on death row, if it turns up later you're too late.SenorToenails wrote:
Extra appeals because you were sentenced to the stricter punishment? I think that's bullshit. If the system is good enough to put someone in prison for life with no chance of parole, why is it not good enough to take a life? Why should those with the death penalty get more appeals than others are eligible for?Masques wrote:
Unless you're wrongfully convicted.
Have the other inmates perform community service by 'playing' with him in front of a live audience in a sports stadium.
But the problem with all of this is that sometimes people are imprisoned without proof other than hearsay.
But the problem with all of this is that sometimes people are imprisoned without proof other than hearsay.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-15 15:17:29)
Then why have the death penalty at all?PureFodder wrote:
If later on new evidence arises you can release someone on a life sentence. If you didn't look hard enough for the evidence that could save someone on death row, if it turns up later you're too late.
Wait, what? Do you have an example of where someone is convicted of a crime by nothing other than hearsay?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Have the other inmates perform community service by 'playing' with him in front of a live audience in a sports stadium.
But the problem with all of this is that sometimes people are imprisoned without proof other than hearsay.
Perhaps an overstatement. One of my childhood buddies, who is currently undergoing a retrial, has always sworn up and down that he didn't do it, even when 'admitting' it would've gotten him a lighter sentence. I didn't know about the trial until afterwards, but his grandfather said most of it was nonsense. If they had him dead to rights, I don't see why he'd still be fighting it.SenorToenails wrote:
Wait, what? Do you have an example of where someone is convicted of a crime by nothing other than hearsay?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Have the other inmates perform community service by 'playing' with him in front of a live audience in a sports stadium.
But the problem with all of this is that sometimes people are imprisoned without proof other than hearsay.
People should be a bit more suspicious, especially where divorce is concerned.
Also, a paraphrase from a number of articles on other cases:
"He confessed during questioning, which he later claimed was coercive."
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-15 15:27:15)
Once again, if 100% of people convicted of a crime are guilty then there would be no reason for appeals. Since that is obviously not the case (prosecutors can withhold evidence, witnesses can recant testimony, etc...this has happened too many times to count) the appeals process is required. Otherwise confidence in the justice system (rife with problems as it already is) plummets.SenorToenails wrote:
Then why have the death penalty at all?PureFodder wrote:
If later on new evidence arises you can release someone on a life sentence. If you didn't look hard enough for the evidence that could save someone on death row, if it turns up later you're too late.
As to your question of the necessity of the death penalty, I don't buy arguments that it deters murder and other violent crimes. I would argue, quite simply that some people can't be reformed. However, a strong appeals process is necessary due to flaws in the system at numerous points.
No argument from me. I understand the pitfalls of the system, and I have no desire to see anyone fall subject to them. I was not questioning the need for appeals. I was questioning the extra appeals that death row inmates get.Masques wrote:
Once again, if 100% of people convicted of a crime are guilty then there would be no reason for appeals. Since that is obviously not the case (prosecutors can withhold evidence, witnesses can recant testimony, etc...this has happened too many times to count) the appeals process is required. Otherwise confidence in the justice system (rife with problems as it already is) plummets.
I agree that the deterrence argument is pretty much crap.Masques wrote:
As to your question of the necessity of the death penalty, I don't buy arguments that it deters murder and other violent crimes. I would argue, quite simply that some people can't be reformed. However, a strong appeals process is necessary due to flaws in the system at numerous points.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pd … 802cjb.pdfSenorToenails wrote:
Wait, what? Do you have an example of where someone is convicted of a crime by nothing other than hearsay?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Have the other inmates perform community service by 'playing' with him in front of a live audience in a sports stadium.
But the problem with all of this is that sometimes people are imprisoned without proof other than hearsay.
Not necessarily an example as such, but if someone has poor counsel (a typical problem with public defenders) they may not raise the proper objection to hearsay evidence and such evidence can (and has) affected the trial outcome.
Given the permanence of death, there is little room for error with wrongful murder convictions. Usually appeals are restarted when new evidence comes to light or a witness recants or some kind of prosecutorial misconduct is unearthed.SenorToenails wrote:
No argument from me. I understand the pitfalls of the system, and I have no desire to see anyone fall subject to them. I was not questioning the need for appeals. I was questioning the extra appeals that death row inmates get.
At bottom it's just to be sure.
And the appeals process caught that. I know appeals are needed, as the system is only as perfect as the people it consists of.Masques wrote:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03310802cjb.pdf
Not necessarily an example as such, but if someone has poor counsel (a typical problem with public defenders) they may not raise the proper objection to hearsay evidence and such evidence can (and has) affected the trial outcome.
Then why bother having it as a punishment? It seems like it's more of a pain in the ass to execute them than it is to lock 'em up for life.Masques wrote:
Given the permanence of death, there is little room for error with wrongful murder convictions. Usually appeals are restarted when new evidence comes to light or a witness recants or some kind of prosecutorial misconduct is unearthed.
At bottom it's just to be sure.
Edit: I'm not intending to argue in circles. Sorry if it seems that way.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-15 15:45:35)
National priorities I suppose...SenorToenails wrote:
Then why bother having it as a punishment? It seems like it's more of a pain in the ass to execute them than it is to lock 'em up for life.Masques wrote:
Given the permanence of death, there is little room for error with wrongful murder convictions. Usually appeals are restarted when new evidence comes to light or a witness recants or some kind of prosecutorial misconduct is unearthed.
At bottom it's just to be sure.
Edit: I'm not intending to argue in circles. Sorry if it seems that way.
since you will always kill innocent people (perhaps YOU!), the death penalty sucks. although i admit, that there are people who deserve to die...
I say we just use the Judge System of the Judge Dredd comics. Police, Judge, Jury, and Executioner of necessary all in one badass package.
How about "death to the death penalty"?