|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 14, 2010 8:21:59 GMT -6
So, I suck at making up poll questions. Be that as it may, I will just stick to the discussion and not try to make a poll.
I have been here for just over a year now and had the chance to discuss, debate, argue and scream at many here (and some now gone) over the core topic of this board. And here are some conclusions I have reached.
The debate really comes down to a few basic points:
Morality: Is it moral to kill someone back in the name of justice?
Mental Health: or state of mind during the event and the long term incarceration with pending doom at the end qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.
Suitable punishment: It is suitable punishment to pay for the crime of murder with forfeiture of your life
These topics seem to garner the most passionate, vicious and heated discussions. All other arguments wither after a few exchanges especially those that use information (I shy away from using the words statistics and facts since both can be manipulated by either side to present a case). It seems to be these points because of their nature as philosophical rather than scientific elicit the most heated responses. At the end of the day, I feel this drives all other arguments. It is an emotion (or philosophy) debate plain and simple.
Here is the discussion point (hopefully) what is your dominant driver? For me it is suitable punishment. I feel very strongly that one should forfeit their life as punishment for the murdering another. Morality does not come into play. You committed a crime, were tried and the punishment handed down. Morality came into play during the commission of the crime. Mental health - to me most (not all but most) determinations of state of mind are hypothetical or subjective. The professional retained to determine this state of mind does so after the fact (in most cases) and therefore cannot know beyond their best professional guess what the state of mind truly was during the crime. My personal experience was after the fact, after the crime and after the investigation. The case was presented and from my chair I attempted to divorce myself from the emotions of the case (prosecution and defense) and look at the evidence at hand. Then make a determination to whether this crime, after determination of innocence/guilt, met the criteria as suitable punishment.
What is your dominant driver for your position? Feel free to add any that I missed.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 14, 2010 9:45:58 GMT -6
I don't know that mine fits so neatly into any of those categories, but here's my primary position: I do not believe that we, as fallible human beings (and seemingly even more fallible government entities) have the right to determine who lives and who dies. Immediate self-defense or defense of another is an exception, because it is what is necessary to prevent another person from making that determination. Taking someone's life who is alone behind bars is not immediate self-defense.
I agree with you that the debate really boils down to opinion and emotion. All of the pro arguments that you posted, and my argument, come down to what each individual feels is right. Morality and suitable punishment can be argued from either side. "Justice" to me means making something right and fair and once an innocent life is taken (the murder victim) there is no making that right or fair. Even an appeal to justice is an emotional one.
Mental health is somewhat subjective, you're right. However, like anything else in a murder trial, it comes down to evidence. Nobody can say with 100% certainty what a person's mental state was at the time of the crime, but the professionals look at all the evidence available to determine what they believed was going on in the person's head at the time. Honestly, though, the person who has demonstrated that level of mental illness (which is rare) needs to be hospitalized for the rest of their life.
(And so help me God, if the mental health debate here goes the way of the other thread, I may need some serious treatment myself.)
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Feb 14, 2010 9:56:01 GMT -6
For me it is simply about giving the Devil his due and vanquishing evil back into the fire from whence it was born. Executions also provide social catharsis in that they reaffirm our collective moral belief that murder is unequivocally wrong and will not be tolerated in our communities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 11:22:43 GMT -6
I always believed the DP was the right and just sentence for murder. But I never really thought about why until I was standing in that hospital room. Looking at her wounds, seeing what I saw, I knew without any doubt that anyone who could do that to someone so kind and gentle as our Beth - that they would always be a danger anywhere, even in prison. And once I could start to even think half straight again, I began to think about why the DP.
Over the years I've decided that it is the closest thing to a proportional sentence that we as a merciful society can impose, and as the most serious penalty, the one that will truly stop the criminal forever 100% guaranteed, it is the best one to show those who even might be deterred, that we are very serious about it when the law says you do not murder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 13:42:32 GMT -6
I largely agree with Phatkat.
My opposition is based on a belief that we don't have a right to kill except when killing is necessary.
But, more goes into it than just that. *If* I were to support (or consent to) execution, I would have to believe doing so was at least done with a degree of fairness and of our desire to (blindly) take those out of the world who took innocents out the world wrongfully.
Over the years, I have too often heard the same people who argue about the rightness of removing those who've taken innocents out this world, only to hear them argue that some of them shouldn't be executed because......................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 17:12:16 GMT -6
I knew without any doubt that anyone who could do that to someone so kind and gentle as our Beth - that they would always be a danger anywhere, even in prison. And once I could start to even think half straight again, I began to think about why the DP. . The problem with arguing that the death penalty is worthwhile because such offenders would always be a future danger is quite hazardous, because you will always find people arguing that just because they commit murder in even the most horrible circumstances doesn't mean they could be a future danger. I am not saying those people are correct, or their argument has validity, I am only saying that people will argue that. An example, from the area where I grew up. In 1993, Jeffrey Gilham murdered his parents and brother in the Southern Suburbs of Sydney. There is evidence that exists to suggest Jeffrey Gilham had planned this crime weeks in advance. He had planned the scenario that his brother had killed their parents, and he had killed his brother in an act of provocation or self defence. The police, originally accepted this argument and Jeffrey Gilham plead to manslaughter, and was sentenced to a good behaviour bond. He planned that he would only have to cop a short sentence for Christophers death, and he could convince the police Christopher was guilty of the murder of his parents. You could conclude this is the act of an extremely dangerous individual. In 2008 Jeffrey Gilham was convicted of murdering his parents. In the interim, he graduated from University, he married, and had several children. He also was able to hold down a job. He was able to keep a job , and throughout his trials (The first ended with hung jury, the second trial with a conviction)and he had strong support from numerous people. After he was convicted, the Crown submitted that he would dangerous in the future. The judge rejected this, apparently the Crown needed to show more then the fact he committed this crime to prove future dangerousness. However the judge still sentenced Gilham to Life becasue the interest of the community in deterrence and retribution could only be met, by the imposition of a life sentence. The Crown couldn't explain why Gilham, a happily married man had committed this horrible crime over a decade ago. They could only exclude the crime was a result of some psychiatric distrubance. If I understand correctly, a jury must make a finding of future dangerousness before a death penalty can be imposed in Texas. So I would wonder would Gilham be subject to the death penalty if he were tried in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 14, 2010 17:59:14 GMT -6
I believe it is the right punishment for the crime, I am sorry that more are not executed because it is the right punishment for the crime. I do not like LWOP because too often it is not just as the DP is not used enough, LWOP is all together too often not LWOP at all.
As to the morals of it all that is strictly an individual thing and if one finds it morally unacceptable to kill a murderer that is that, if on the other hand one can kill a murder that is also that. One moral is no better than the other, except in the minds of some of the people holding that their view is superior.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 18:00:04 GMT -6
I knew without any doubt that anyone who could do that to someone so kind and gentle as our Beth - that they would always be a danger anywhere, even in prison. And once I could start to even think half straight again, I began to think about why the DP. . The problem with arguing that the death penalty is worthwhile because such offenders would always be a future danger is quite hazardous, because you will always find people arguing that just because they commit murder in even the most horrible circumstances doesn't mean they could be a future danger. I am not saying those people are correct, or their argument has validity, I am only saying that people will argue that. An example, from the area where I grew up. In 1993, Jeffrey Gilham murdered his parents and brother in the Southern Suburbs of Sydney. There is evidence that exists to suggest Jeffrey Gilham had planned this crime weeks in advance. He had planned the scenario that his brother had killed their parents, and he had killed his brother in an act of provocation or self defence. The police, originally accepted this argument and Jeffrey Gilham plead to manslaughter, and was sentenced to a good behaviour bond. He planned that he would only have to cop a short sentence for Christophers death, and he could convince the police Christopher was guilty of the murder of his parents. You could conclude this is the act of an extremely dangerous individual. In 2008 Jeffrey Gilham was convicted of murdering his parents. In the interim, he graduated from University, he married, and had several children. He also was able to hold down a job. He was able to keep a job , and throughout his trials (The first ended with hung jury, the second trial with a conviction)and he had strong support from numerous people. After he was convicted, the Crown submitted that he would dangerous in the future. The judge rejected this, apparently the Crown needed to show more then the fact he committed this crime to prove future dangerousness. However the judge still sentenced Gilham to Life becasue the interest of the community in deterrence and retribution could only be met, by the imposition of a life sentence. The Crown couldn't explain why Gilham, a happily married man had committed this horrible crime over a decade ago. They could only exclude the crime was a result of some psychiatric distrubance. If I understand correctly, a jury must make a finding of future dangerousness before a death penalty can be imposed in Texas. So I would wonder would Gilham be subject to the death penalty if he were tried in Texas. I don't think I can answer that for you except to say I don't see why not, what a freaking psychopath, to do that to his own family. But I am no attorney, I only have my opinions here. But that wasn't what I said was my main reason for supporting the DP either, which is the subject of this thread. That was in the second paragraph of my post. What you quoted was the feeling that got me started to really thinking about why it might be right or not. I still feel it's true in our case. But, that is one part of the Texas law that I don't really believe should even be necessary given the nature of capital crimes
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 14, 2010 18:55:56 GMT -6
For me it remains my position that no man or collective is fit to be the determiner of who should live and who should die. From my knowledge of human life, none of us is perfect. Systems created by man are generally corrupt and punishments not given out fairly and evenly. There are simply too many variables including political considerations and influences at work to allow it to be so. Money talks in the US and the death penalty is the preserve of those who have neither money nor influence. I do however believe LWOP can be a viable alternative. I am not anti punishment or containment for those who would take innocent life.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Feb 14, 2010 19:25:05 GMT -6
It's just a matter of basic fairness for me. Everyone knows that in most states if you commit a horrendous crime that results in a person or persons death, we might just strap you down to a gurney and kill you. What's not fair about that?
I do believe to some extent in the future dangerousness argument, too. We seen too many examples of perpetrators who've killed, got out of prison somehow, and then killed again, not to mention the safety of other prisoners and the prison staff. LWOP doesn't exist. and no executed person has ever committed another crime.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 14, 2010 20:52:11 GMT -6
I'm an anti, I've always leaned that direction. When I started looking on the internet to find more information about the death penalty, I came across the CCADP board. I was totally disgusted and knew that their point of view, was not mine, and I questioned my stance.
After looking further, I came across this board and lurked for a long time before I posted. I was immediately sympathetic to the MVS, but I still could not take that final step and agree with execution. Part of this is because I lost a child and I know the pain of that loss. I find myself unable to support infliction of that pain on another, and create more victims.
I also think that the death penalty is torture mentally. I don't believe it's right to judge a person and their life on the worst act of that life. People make terrible, terrible choices, drugs and alcohol. Broken families, abuse and poverty all contribute to crime. I'm not making excuses for what they did, punish them, lock them away, but to me, killing is wrong. I also don't like the fact that my government is in the business of executing its citizens.
But the final confirmation of my status has come from Lady. She represents the other side of the equation, and no matter what her brother did, she should not be punished and she is, every day, that to me is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 21:42:03 GMT -6
The problem with arguing that the death penalty is worthwhile because such offenders would always be a future danger is quite hazardous, because you will always find people arguing that just because they commit murder in even the most horrible circumstances doesn't mean they could be a future danger. I am not saying those people are correct, or their argument has validity, I am only saying that people will argue that. The problem, I think, with that argument is the evidence that makes it a silly assertion. *If* we can house them for 10 or 15 or 20 years before we kill them, without them killing, then they'd only be a danger if released.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 23:10:29 GMT -6
Truly Pro Here, so if you are Anti, you can skip my rant. I was there when my Mother was Murdered on July 20th, 1994, less than 30 feet from where she fell, they dragged me away before I saw details but I knew she was dead. But since I can Not identify the murderer, this gives his wife (Scumpal who married him 14 years AFTER my mother's Murder while he was on death row) the right to stalk my family and actually villify them on the world wide net. She says her children are his children, and I know that she didn't even know him in 1994. He was arrested 3 days AFTER my mother was MURDERED. She Married him within the last 5 years. I refuse to go on the ANTI Death Penalty website, but my sisters go there. They are trying to tell our side of the story, and I love them for that. But since I was a witness to the murder, I can't go there and hear that my Mother's Murderer's WIFE is telling the world that he is innocent. I just can't hear her defend him. My Question to everyone, Anti and Pro alike, should I go on that website? I have been in the system 15 years , testifying, protesting to the other 4 who were a part of the robbery. I have been at every hearing and court date that has been on the dockett. Is anyone out there that has had a similar experience? Please email me if you have had a similar experience.
Darla
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2010 23:22:51 GMT -6
I forgot to add, and the Anti's will fall all over this, he got the death penalty, and this month, it was overturned and he was commuted to life. You know what? I am just asking the pros for support. I have had support before it was commuted and I am really feeling that I was let down by the system, so I am going to be honest. I won't be receptive of the Anti arguement at the moment. But I do intend to stay with this website. I have been so sick for the past 2 weeks, physically and mentally exhausted. For all of you Pros out there, Google Dudley Sharp! He has been a Godsend!
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 14, 2010 23:35:36 GMT -6
Yes, it is our duty to uphold justice in a manner befitting the crime. It is not as if the death penalty is issued to jaywalkers. Some may be concerned over the small percentage of innocent people who have fallen victim to the justice system and have been wrongfully executed. I might remind those people that in the defense of freedom and justice, in warfare, which is exactly where we are at with punishment, there will no doubt be innocent lives taken. The principle, however, remains untarnished.
I don't believe that there has ever been an argument as to whether LWOP should be totally abandoned in favor of capital punishment exclusively. Has there? I challenge that this has anything to do with emotion or philosophy; this is strictly business between law enforcement, God and the offender. The person has created a debt which must be repaid in some form greater than or equal to the debt incurred.
In my opinion, it does not matter in the least what mental state the offense was dictated by. Every one of us harbors the desire to exercise extreme violence at some point in our lives, and for the large majority of us that know full well the consequences, we know that there's very little on this Earth that's worth dying for. If one cannot maintain control of oneself in the face of recklessness or selfish desire, if not for the sake of their victim, then for his own life's sake, then the weakness has subdued him to death.
It's interesting, phatkat, that you support the immediate self-defense killings of the unrighteously assaultive - as if one person can adequately substitute for judge, jury, and counsel.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 15, 2010 4:36:01 GMT -6
For my part, I want as little killing done on my behalf as possible. Both sides of the argument have flaws in this respect, murderers do kill again, innocents have been executed. The crucial factor for me is that we as a collective should act with our most compassionate and cautious instincts so that a tone is set for society within which the individual is encouraged, from birth, to reject violence. I've heard lots of very credible pro arguments (particularly here) but noone seems to be able to explain why Britain which is poorer, has no DP, is more overcrowded and favours rehabilitative sentences has a significantly lower murder rate than America. It's getting worse here, for sure, but after forty years without the DP pros would surely expect my country to be have a higher murder rate than the U.S ?
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 15, 2010 5:18:50 GMT -6
Yes, it is our duty to uphold justice in a manner befitting the crime. It is not as if the death penalty is issued to jaywalkers. Some may be concerned over the small percentage of innocent people who have fallen victim to the justice system and have been wrongfully executed. I might remind those people that in the defense of freedom and justice, in warfare, which is exactly where we are at with punishment, there will no doubt be innocent lives taken. The principle, however, remains untarnished. I don't believe that there has ever been an argument as to whether LWOP should be totally abandoned in favor of capital punishment exclusively. Has there? I challenge that this has anything to do with emotion or philosophy; this is strictly business between law enforcement, God and the offender. The person has created a debt which must be repaid in some form greater than or equal to the debt incurred. In my opinion, it does not matter in the least what mental state the offense was dictated by. Every one of us harbors the desire to exercise extreme violence at some point in our lives, and for the large majority of us that know full well the consequences, we know that there's very little on this Earth that's worth dying for. If one cannot maintain control of oneself in the face of recklessness or selfish desire, if not for the sake of their victim, then for his own life's sake, then the weakness has subdued him to death. It's interesting, phatkat, that you support the immediate self-defense killings of the unrighteously assaultive - as if one person can adequately substitute for judge, jury, and counsel. Serious mental illness is nmot the same thing as merely being selfish or unwilling to control ones basic instincts. Its in a totally different league altogether, like comparing apples and oranges.
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 15, 2010 5:22:57 GMT -6
What's your point, moron?
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 15, 2010 5:45:11 GMT -6
What's your point, moron? I may be wrong but I think he is saying that lack of restraint is a character flaw and defines criminal behaviour. On the other hand if a person has a chemical imbalance or injury which precludes the brain from excercising restraint then the problem is clinical rather than criminal.
|
|
|
Post by mcbox on Feb 15, 2010 5:52:30 GMT -6
I see. However, whether the person is suffering from mental illness or otherwise which allows them to unjustifiably kill, then off with their heads! I would have included this in my original post under this thread, but I was attempting to steer away from this subject. Thank you, Felix, for twisting my arm back into the inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 15, 2010 7:09:40 GMT -6
Truly Pro Here, so if you are Anti, you can skip my rant. I was there when my Mother was Murdered on July 20th, 1994, less than 30 feet from where she fell, they dragged me away before I saw details but I knew she was dead. But since I can Not identify the murderer, this gives his wife (Scumpal who married him 14 years AFTER my mother's Murder while he was on death row) the right to stalk my family and actually villify them on the world wide net. She says her children are his children, and I know that she didn't even know him in 1994. He was arrested 3 days AFTER my mother was MURDERED. She Married him within the last 5 years. I refuse to go on the ANTI Death Penalty website, but my sisters go there. They are trying to tell our side of the story, and I love them for that. But since I was a witness to the murder, I can't go there and hear that my Mother's Murderer's WIFE is telling the world that he is innocent. I just can't hear her defend him. My Question to everyone, Anti and Pro alike, should I go on that website? I have been in the system 15 years , testifying, protesting to the other 4 who were a part of the robbery. I have been at every hearing and court date that has been on the dockett. Is anyone out there that has had a similar experience? Please email me if you have had a similar experience. Darla I'm sorry this is happening to you Darla, who is their right mind would want their children's father to be a murderer? I can't answer what I would do it your situation, however, I don't think I could bear to read her lies and manipulations. I've often read that pen pals become like the murderers they associate with, seems, once again, to be true in your case. I don't believe death row inmates should be allowed to marry, in my opinion, visitors should be restricted to immediate family and clergy.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Feb 15, 2010 7:40:46 GMT -6
I see. However, whether the person is suffering from mental illness or otherwise which allows them to unjustifiably kill, then off with their heads! I would have included this in my original post under this thread, but I was attempting to steer away from this subject. Thank you, Felix, for twisting my arm back into the inevitable. I don't think that is too well thought out. Surely the law should recognise the appalling nature of somebody who could have restrained themselves and didn't? Your way implies that they are no worse than people who didn't have that option.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Feb 15, 2010 8:23:31 GMT -6
It's interesting, phatkat, that you support the immediate self-defense killings of the unrighteously assaultive - as if one person can adequately substitute for judge, jury, and counsel. There is a difference between sitting in a courthouse after the fact and deciding whether a person deserves to live or die, and doing what is necessary to preserve one's own life if someone is threatening it. I would kill to defend myself or another, not to punish the attacker or because they deserve it (as the argument goes for the DP), but to keep innocent people safe. That would only be in cases where there was immediate danger and no other choice.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 15, 2010 8:32:32 GMT -6
So, a quick count and recap so far (I love numbers).
11 people provided an answer I could decipher (sorry cyclone I couldn't see where you gave your position). Six leaned towards just punishment, five towards morals (as best as I could tell). Interestingly enough, all anti's except one listed morals or something that could be placed in that category while all pro's listed just punishment. For the sake of my summary I listed the right of a gov't or a party of the gov't to kill on one's behalf as morals.
There was a discussion on how mental health could play in the sentencing, but not in the dominant drivers - interesting.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 15, 2010 8:34:06 GMT -6
Truly Pro Here, so if you are Anti, you can skip my rant. I was there when my Mother was Murdered on July 20th, 1994, less than 30 feet from where she fell, they dragged me away before I saw details but I knew she was dead. But since I can Not identify the murderer, this gives his wife (Scumpal who married him 14 years AFTER my mother's Murder while he was on death row) the right to stalk my family and actually villify them on the world wide net. She says her children are his children, and I know that she didn't even know him in 1994. He was arrested 3 days AFTER my mother was MURDERED. She Married him within the last 5 years. I refuse to go on the ANTI Death Penalty website, but my sisters go there. They are trying to tell our side of the story, and I love them for that. But since I was a witness to the murder, I can't go there and hear that my Mother's Murderer's WIFE is telling the world that he is innocent. I just can't hear her defend him. My Question to everyone, Anti and Pro alike, should I go on that website? I have been in the system 15 years , testifying, protesting to the other 4 who were a part of the robbery. I have been at every hearing and court date that has been on the dockett. Is anyone out there that has had a similar experience? Please email me if you have had a similar experience. Darla I don't know what website you are referring to but most of them will just delete your comments or ban you. It's funny in that when the scumpals go to pro websites they expect people not to say anything bad, i.e., the truth, about their rapist/murderer boyfriends. There are plenty of other places to post your own thoughts on the murderer, his wife, and your experiences. You may even want to create a tribute site to your mother.
|
|
mike5
Banned
Ai! Ai! Ai! Ai! Ay!
Posts: 3,662
|
Post by mike5 on Feb 15, 2010 8:35:57 GMT -6
I forgot to add, and the Anti's will fall all over this, he got the death penalty, and this month, it was overturned and he was commuted to life. You know what? I am just asking the pros for support. I have had support before it was commuted and I am really feeling that I was let down by the system, so I am going to be honest. I won't be receptive of the Anti arguement at the moment. But I do intend to stay with this website. I have been so sick for the past 2 weeks, physically and mentally exhausted. For all of you Pros out there, Google Dudley Sharp! He has been a Godsend! Dudley Sharp is very good. I especially appreciate his comments on various forums.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Feb 15, 2010 8:45:23 GMT -6
I have been puting a lot of thought into my answer for this "poll."
Morality--The Death Penalty is totaly moral. It is society's way of protecting us from people that cannot be trusted to live among us and obey the laws we all agree to live by. "Thou shall not kill" does not apply to murderers because the state says we, if a death penalty state, have the right, obligation, and duty to remove you forever from any society because you are such a danger. And I do not care if the guys behavior was good behind bars, there was nothing for him to do unless he was involved in drugs or whatever.
Mental Health--I will be the first to say that prisons are become the new "dumping ground" for people with mental health issues. Most of these are not violent, who want to do their crime and get out. The ones that murder, however, again, have lost their right to live in society because they are a danger. Even with treatment, some either cannot or will not change and accept responsibility for what they did, even it they were delusional.
The death penalty is the proper punishment for murder. The killing of another person, either for personal gain, or in the act of another crime, or because a person is being paid to kill, is still murder. All of those are punishable by death. Even the murder of another inmate in prison is punishable by death.
As far as the sites like PTO where they claim to "support" inmates and all, they are looking through life with rose-coloured glasses. The ones they support would kill them if they could and their families.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 15, 2010 8:46:31 GMT -6
There is a difference between sitting in a courthouse after the fact and deciding whether a person deserves to live or die, and doing what is necessary to preserve one's own life if someone is threatening it. I would kill to defend myself or another, not to punish the attacker or because they deserve it (as the argument goes for the DP), but to keep innocent people safe. That would only be in cases where there was immediate danger and no other choice. There is definitely a difference between sitting in a courthouse (jury box) and facing a life or death situation and I will not disagree with your right to defend yourself or others with deadly force. However, I would point out that your comments... ...is the same thing that the juries are told by the prosecution. By sentencing this person to death they are "keeping people safe and preventing immediate (or imminent) danger". When a jury awards the DP there is a good chance that this is a deciding or assisting factor for some of those jurors.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Feb 15, 2010 9:00:45 GMT -6
Ultimately the DP for me is about revenge. I am generally a forgiving person and lord knows we all have made mistakes. But when a POS goes out and MURDERERS someone, well, then my forgiveness comes up short. I want that murdering a$$hole to pay the ultimate price, and I have no qualms about gloating over his execution. It may sound rough, but how many people do you know who murder? Not many people cross that line. But for those who do, I have no problem with judicially authorized lethal vengeance. I am not afraid to call it such, either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2010 9:20:39 GMT -6
So, a quick count and recap so far (I love numbers). 11 people provided an answer I could decipher (sorry cyclone I couldn't see where you gave your position). Six leaned towards just punishment, five towards morals (as best as I could tell). Interestingly enough, all anti's except one listed morals or something that could be placed in that category while all pro's listed just punishment. For the sake of my summary I listed the right of a gov't or a party of the gov't to kill on one's behalf as morals. There was a discussion on how mental health could play in the sentencing, but not in the dominant drivers - interesting. There's two problems with the 'just' argument.
|
|