rdhopkins2
Carpe Diem
I heard reports the sniper is permanently paralysed.
As for pain free execution lethal injection, suggest you google the process.
As for pain free execution lethal injection, suggest you google the process.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lock him up for life and put him under intensive investigation, try and learn something about what makes someone like that tick. What a case study that would be, youd get all sorts of valuable psychological insight.
So that what? The next time a homicidal maniac is apprehended we can say that he/she is the same? What good will it do to know how they 'tick'
They can't be convicted or sentenced according to a hunch, only on the facts presented, tested and proven.
I used to be all gung ho for the death penalty, but it's funny how as you get older, you think more and you see things differently.
I work in a place where there are currently a number of people, where there is absolutely not a shadow of a doubt as to their crimes/acts, that I would think that the death penalty would be appropriate for. I've never considered it to be a deterent, I just see it as punishment plain and simple.
There are 2 problems I have with the death penalty.
No matter how miniscule the likelihood may be, what if an innocent person was executed? Once you've fried them, injected them, hung them or shot them it's too late to say, 'Oops, sorry about the Chief'.
Under what circumstances would the death penalty be asked for? Who decides and are those parameters rigid or are they fluid?
There used to be a football competition called the VFL. One day in the 80s they introduced a thing called the video camera to catch behind the play acts of thuggery. IIRC when it was introduced we the public were assured that it would only be used to capture behind the play king hits etc.
Where are we with it now?
Boundaries are pushed and tested all the time. If the death penalty were to be introduced only for certain crimes and there had to be a number of boxes ticked before the death penalty was sought, where, over time, could we end up?
Personally I think that Natural Life with no possibility of parole would be a much worse punishment. It's not as absolute but would be worse nonetheless. The only problem I see then is that it could be upto $80,000 per year for 30, 40 or 50 years.
The fact that a legal system can be imperfect is an argument in itself. You can't design a perfect legal system, so there is always a chance that ut will convict and kill innocent people.
And let guilty people off...
What's worse? Executing an innocent person, or letting a person guilty of a henious crime (who would otherwise be executed) walk free?
I say that argument is moot as it's a zero-sum excersise.
Also, hypothetically, if there were a 100% accurate system, what would be your position then? (this is not just directed to you BP, but to anyone)
Absolutely executing an innocent person. I can't believe you'd even need to ask that. What if it was your son or daughter or mother or father who was wrongly convicted?
If there was a 100% accurate system I would be all for it and for quite a number of offences too.
Again though, is there a set list of offences that would carry the death penalty?
Well, I'd suggest one reason would be that if they were subsequently found to be innocent, they could at least be released from prison.I've never understood the argument about needing 100% certainty for capital punishment to be acceptable. Those same people often argue that it is a greater punishment to lock a prisoner up for life. If that is the case, then why do we not need 100% proof to hand out "never to be released sentences".
On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.
I've never understood the argument about needing 100% certainty for capital punishment to be acceptable. Those same people often argue that it is a greater punishment to lock a prisoner up for life. If that is the case, then why do we not need 100% proof to hand out "never to be released sentences".
A jury is required to find a defendent guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The judge issuing the sentence is not required to estimate the likelihood that the jury got it wrong, the judge's job is to allocate an appropriate punishment, since guilt has already been determined.
On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.
Because if you lock someone up for life, and then 20 years down the track discover that you made a mistake you can release them and to a degree correct an error.
Because if you lock someone up for life, and then 20 years down the track discover that you made a mistake you can release them and to a degree correct an error.
Once someone is in the ground you can't dig them back up.
Of course in the situation you cite above it is a travesty.And if they remain in jail for the term of their natural life, while innocent ? If this is supposedly "worse for the prisoner than capital punishment", then an even greater travesty has occurred, according to that argument.
And let guilty people off...
What's worse? Executing an innocent person, or letting a person guilty of a henious crime (who would otherwise be executed) walk free?
I say that argument is moot as it's a zero-sum excersise.
Also, hypothetically, if there were a 100% accurate system, what would be your position then? (this is not just directed to you BP, but to anyone)
On face value, it appears absurd to compare killing an innocent with letting a murderer be found not guilty. But if the acquitted murderer then kills another person in society, an innocent, then the net result is the same or possibly worse.
Strawman argument.
The choice is between life imprisonment and execution not between execution and release.
If you convict an innocent person, imprisonment at least allows them the ability to be freed should further evidence come to hand.
If you don't convict a guilty person then walk free regardless of whether the potential sentence was imprisonment or execution.
Fair point (though I don't think the argument is a strawman), and I'd agree in part with you (hence my sitting on the fence position) however,
We know something is fallible (the justice system), yet we choose to punish people regardless.
Restricting 'certain types' of punishments because the system behind it is fallible is rather abitrary. Either we don't punish or we do.
Example. We have a person facing trial for torturing and murdering children. Assuming the worst case and justice system fails - either; a. a guilty person walks free (possibly to kill again), or b. an innocent person is sentanced to Death or c. an innocent person is sentanced to life in prison.
In my opinion:
c. is better if they are later found innocent.
c. is worse if they are never found innocent.
I guess my point was people using the justice system itself as an argument against CP yet I think they should be separately discussed as ALL punishments are based off it regardless.
Forgetting the system behind it, what about the "punishment of death" itself?
Hypothetically assume a future 100% accurate system (we'd have to be what 99.99% accurate now wouldn't we?) What would your position be then? Nobody has answered this.
No, I'd take the bullet, and I'm not shitting you. a LIfe in jail for a wrongful conviction is worse than a quick death. Its quite understandable why people commit suicide in there.Doubtful. Were you given the choice right now of going to prison forever even without the hope of it ever being overturned or being taken out the back and shot I know you would pick prison.
Agreed.Yes but some punishments are able to be overturned and at least partially compensated for in the event of error. Execution isn't one of those.
ButStill no, as I believe that to forceably take the life of a person who doesn't pose an immediate threat to anyone is not a power than anyone should ever have.
Perhaps not now, but you reckon in 100 years we wont be able to at least have some kind of memory reading technology, combined with DNA evidence, combined with detection of lies, video surveillance etc.Nobody may have responded to you on this question before because it is irrelevant. It is an improbable hypothetical situation of 100% certainty that cannot exist.
The possibility of even one innocent person being executed by the state is more than enough reason to oppose capital punishment.
No, I'd take the bullet, and I'm not shitting you. a LIfe in jail for a wrongful conviction is worse than a quick death. Its quite understandable why people commit suicide in there.
Agreed.
But
As I said, I'm not sure if I can possibly defend not executing the absolute worst of us human beings considering the utter contempt we treat everything NOT human. What's so special about us humans that warrant being 'above' death, when the dinner you ate last night probably contained a creature far more deserving of life on this planet? It did nothing, yet we execute it for no crime other than it tasting good.
Perhaps not now, but you reckon in 100 years we wont be able to at least have some kind of memory reading technology, combined with DNA evidence, combined with detection of lies, video surveillance etc.
And what about ones that we are 100% on? Admission of guilt, caught on camera/red handed, I’m talking 100 open and shut guilty. Of heinous crimes. Martyn Bryant style guilty. We STILL can’t be confident enough?
That’s just not logical. I believe there ARE cases of 100% guilt. I find its like applying a broad brush approach to something that should be case by case.
A fair comment.
But then again, innocent people get f*cked over all the time. Whether it being hit by a car, or a random case of bad luck or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I know that's not "justification", but just my perspective of this big hairy universe we live in.
Blindly dismissing all possible cases of it because of the remotest of remote chances, I kind of seem like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me, so to speak. That just seems so black and white. Surely nowdays with the checks and balances in cases prove things within a shadow of a doubt, especially in serious cases such as what would be considered a death penalty? Maybe for extra seriousness, the judge/jury can be convicted if the decision is later found to be incorrect?
But yeah I said before, I'm on the fence. I'm not at all against the punishement 'morally or ethically', but you're right if I had to object it would be the possibility of wrong conviction.
I find this interesting discussion personally.