Death Penalty:Inhumane or not? - Page 93

rstones199 · #**921** (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reiver

Its described in your subsequent comment...

Thanks for clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reiver

By eliminating their victim they would be minimising the risk of a successful conviction and receiving the death penalty. Without a distinction between rape and murder punishments, the rational decision is to kill the victim. We have to assume all rapists are cretinous (or highly moral) to suggest otherwise.

Eliminating the victim would not diminish the risk of a successful conviction. At least not today with all the forensic/DNA evidence that is admissible in court today. 100 years I would be more inclined to believe this.

Also you are assuming that people who commit rape are rational people. In the state of California, the maximum sentence for rape is 8 years in prison. Committing rape and being sentenced up to 8 years in prison is not rational to me.

Reiver · #**922** (**permalink**) 10-31-2009, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rstones199

Eliminating the victim would not diminish the risk of a successful conviction.

Of course it does. A victim is able to guarantee that the crime is reported and also appear for the prosecution, increasing the probability of receiving the death penalty.

Quote:

Also you are assuming that people who commit rape are rational people.

It continues to be foolhardy to assume that all rapists are cretinous. We can expect rapists to appreciate that the marginal costs from also murdering their victim would be zero.

Quote:

Committing rape and being sentenced up to 8 years in prison is not rational to me.

I hope it isn't! However, rapists are certainly able to compare benefits and costs. For example, if we reduced sentences, we can expect more rapists!

Viv · #**923** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

I'm not clutching at straws, and here is your proof.

As you yourself said if a theif was killed by a murderer in prison it would be the prison system that failed.
If the prison system is incapable of preventing a murderer from killing inside a prison then how can they be relied on to think that a murderer should have a second chance?

We all know that prisoners are killed in prison.

The point made was the prison service is charged with preventing murder.

Quote:

We also know that plea bargans are struck by lawyers for less than life sentences 1 to 5 or 5 to 10 years and when a muderer gets out society is supposed to trust the reabilitation of the murderer done by the prison system which you yourself said maybe flawed???

You are discussing how thing are in the US system. I'm not US. But...the issues you're raising are not justification for a death penalty. They are just more flaws in your system which should be corrected.

By the way, if your system already supports the death penalty, why is a murderer freed at all?

Quote:

With the death penalty with undeniable proof there is no mistakes.

There are mistakes... in prosecution of justice and innocent people are convicted of murder. That is the overarching reason for not supporting the death penalty.

In cases of undeniable proof, I think those people would not usually be released to kill again. Even in such cases, for example cases like Ted Bundy, evidence is not enough to justify the death penalty. Google 10 Rillington Place, for evidence even a "serial killer" can be wrongly convicted.

Quote:

The year 2000 will mark 50 years from the conviction and execution of Timothy Evans for the murder of his baby daughter, a crime for which he received a free pardon in 1966. Irrespective of whether Evans was guilty or not, it is almost certain that had the jury known at the time of his trial that Christie, the other male occupant of the house (and chief prosecution witness) was a murderer, they could not have convicted him. Despite the pardon, many people remain convinced that Evans did indeed murder his daughter - others feel sure that he murdered his wife, a crime to which Christie later confessed. Evans also has his champions - those who believe passionately in his innocence of both crimes. http://www.parmaq.com/truecrime/Rillington.htm

presluc · #**924** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sir John

I don't see any moral problem with killing a murderer or a rapist, but the problem with the death penalty is that it is irreversable. If the justice system screws up, than you've killed an innocent man. If you imprison someone, you can at least let him out and make up his lost wages.

Innocent victims of murderers don't get that luxury.
Once a murderer kills them they are dead there is no chance.
Should a murderer that has been caught and confessed get the same?

I will admit if there is circumstancial evedince or doubt maybe then you will have life in prison over the death penalty.
However if a murderer confesses and there if no doubt about the evidence WELL?

presluc · #**925** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viv

The point made was the prison service is charged with preventing murder.

You are discussing how thing are in the US system. I'm not US. But...the issues you're raising are not justification for a death penalty. They are just more flaws in your system which should be corrected.

By the way, if your system already supports the death penalty, why is a murderer freed at all?

There are mistakes... in prosecution of justice and innocent people are convicted of murder. That is the overarching reason for not supporting the death penalty.

In cases of undeniable proof, I think those people would not usually be released to kill again. Even in such cases, for example cases like Ted Bundy, evidence is not enough to justify the death penalty. Google 10 Rillington Place, for evidence even a "serial killer" can be wrongly convicted.

No the point made that the prison service is not only charged with preventing murder, but also with reabilitation of the prisoner wether it's grand theft, larceny or tax evasion. all are to be reabilitated before their paroll is up.
However if the prison syteme can not prevent murder from being done in their own place WELL?

No matter where you are if a murderer decides to kill an innocent person they should pay the price, if you think it is being cared for by the country that is your oppinion I say death.

There are mistakes when a murderer decides to kill an innocent person that to me is a mistake the murderer had a choice the innocent victim did not.

If as you say undeinable proof is not enough to justify the death penalty.

However murderers need no proof or exuse at all.

While the innocent victims are still dead.

chaserehn · #**926** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 10:56 AM

If the defendant is PROVEN guilty and the crime is so horrible their is no hope for the defendant to once again be a productive member of his community then i do believe the death penalty has its place. Once again i feel the defendant must be proven guilty.

presluc · #**927** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaserehn

If the defendant is PROVEN guilty and the crime is so horrible their is no hope for the defendant to once again be a productive member of his community then i do believe the death penalty has its place. Once again i feel the defendant must be proven guilty.

I can agree with that, but I can not agree with outlawing the death penalty while innocent victims go on being murdered.

chaserehn · #**928** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by presluc

I can agree with that, but I can not agree with outlawing the death penalty while innocent victims go on being murdered.

It would be a poor use of my money to simply put someone in jail for life. Why do i want to support the slim of the earth for 50 years or more?

I do however fear the state more then any criminal or organization. If the state has the power to kill we must know exactly when, why, how, who, and all the other loose ends that a tyrant would love to abuse. The state is the enemy of all Liberty loving people and it must never be trusted.

s0mbo · #**929** (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 09:27 PM

The purpose of the legal system is not vengeance, its justice
Justice is morality concept, so:
Let's look at the death penalty from a moral standpoint
You state that killing people is wrong, so you punish people who kill
That's how the law works in regards to murder
It's a rule system of morality, the rule being "Do not murder" with murder defined as killing with intent (intent to harm, for second degree murder). When you execute someone, you are killing them, and you have intent to kill them.
You are breaking your own rule, which means your structure you define as justice is not universal, and therefore bad

presluc · #**930** (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaserehn

It would be a poor use of my money to simply put someone in jail for life. Why do i want to support the slim of the earth for 50 years or more?

I do however fear the state more then any criminal or organization. If the state has the power to kill we must know exactly when, why, how, who, and all the other loose ends that a tyrant would love to abuse. The state is the enemy of all Liberty loving people and it must never be trusted.

If the people are united no tyrant could abuse them for very long that's been tried in America.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode