|
Post by RFisher on Jan 14, 2011 8:42:09 GMT -6
I realize that few Anti's throw parties when a murderer is not executed and no Anti's of worth try to excuse the actions of a murderer.
However, Anti's do publicly praise and proclaim the fact that murderers are not executed in Anti DP states. At risk of offending any English Lecturer by the use of an uncommon definition, that is a celebration of a fact or event as well.
Though I absolutely don't agree with it, I see how someone may argue that we should not execute a murderer who has only murdered one person - as long as that person is not a child or some other defenseless person.
I do not see how you can argue that a murderer who has murdered a child, another defenseless person or a MORE than one person should be allowed to live and murder again.
What is the most inexplicable thing is how anyone can justify not executing a murderer who had been given a sentence of LWOP and then went on to murder again one or more times. How high does the body count of innocent victims have to go before one finally realizes a murderer has to be executed? Does it take as many innocent people as Hitler had murdered before one finally agrees that such murderers be executed?
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 14, 2011 8:49:29 GMT -6
Since only proponents of the death penalty are eligble to serve on a jury trying a capital case, how can antis be to blame?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 14, 2011 8:56:16 GMT -6
Since only proponents of the death penalty are eligble to serve on a jury trying a capital case, how can antis be to blame? Sort of true. I think the question is whether the juror would be will to consider the DP. So if someone said he would never sentence someone to death, he'd be off. But if someone said they'd always send a murder to DR, he'd be off too. Theoretically, it is possible for an anti to sit on a jury in a capital case, provided the anti said he would follow the law.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 14, 2011 8:58:41 GMT -6
Since only proponents of the death penalty are eligble to serve on a jury trying a capital case, how can antis be to blame? It doesn't matter who sits on a jury in an Anti DP state, as the DP can not be considered.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 9:09:51 GMT -6
Um. Anyone who has been murdered was equally defenseless. As evidence of that is the fact they're dead.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 14, 2011 9:15:06 GMT -6
Um. Anyone who has been murdered was equally defenseless. As evidence of that is the fact they're dead. A child is less able to defend him/her self than an adult, wouldn't you say? A person who is disabled is less able to defend him/her self, wouldn't you say? I could go on and on with other examples, but you get my drift.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 9:18:16 GMT -6
Since all murder victims are dead, I think they were unable to defend themselves, since if they were able to defend themselves, they wouldn't be dead.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jan 14, 2011 9:22:41 GMT -6
Um. Anyone who has been murdered was equally defenseless. As evidence of that is the fact they're dead. Wrong, no need to say more. Think you got RFisher's drift
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Jan 14, 2011 9:39:46 GMT -6
I realize that few Anti's throw parties when a murderer is not executed and no Anti's of worth try to excuse the actions of a murderer. However, Anti's do publicly praise and proclaim the fact that murderers are not executed in Anti DP states. At risk of offending any English Lecturer by the use of an uncommon definition, that is a celebration of a fact or event as well. Though I absolutely don't agree with it, I see how someone may argue that we should not execute a murderer who has only murdered one person - as long as that person is not a child or some other defenseless person. I do not see how you can argue that a murderer who has murdered a child, another defenseless person or a MORE than one person should be allowed to live and murder again. What is the most inexplicable thing is how anyone can justify not executing a murderer who had been given a sentence of LWOP and then went on to murder again one or more times. How high does the body count of innocent victims have to go before one finally realizes a murderer has to be executed? Does it take as many innocent people as Hitler had murdered before one finally agrees that such murderers be executed? As an anti I can see the arguement for killing an incarcerated murderer who goes on to continue killing inside a prison, In my opinion if they manage that, there is an arguement that such an execution would be direct self defence. However the example you use above are all extreme cases and you appear to trying to illustrate the extreme in order to argue that killing a person who has murdered once is justified?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Jan 14, 2011 10:07:07 GMT -6
Since only proponents of the death penalty are eligble to serve on a jury trying a capital case, how can antis be to blame? Sort of true. I think the question is whether the juror would be will to consider the DP. So if someone said he would never sentence someone to death, he'd be off. But if someone said they'd always send a murder to DR, he'd be off too. Theoretically, it is possible for an anti to sit on a jury in a capital case, provided the anti said he would follow the law. The question was (paraphrasing) would you be willing to -or- could you consider recommending a sentence of death in this case given the evidence, requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt (blah, blah - all the normal legal mumbo-jumbo disclaimers and comments in order to make the question gray enough cover all bases). This was the question proposed by the defense and prosecution. It has been discussed here before and there were several anti's who posted they would provide an affirmative answer to the question just to have a chance of getting on the jury.
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 14, 2011 10:17:11 GMT -6
Sort of true. I think the question is whether the juror would be will to consider the DP. So if someone said he would never sentence someone to death, he'd be off. But if someone said they'd always send a murder to DR, he'd be off too. Theoretically, it is possible for an anti to sit on a jury in a capital case, provided the anti said he would follow the law. The question was (paraphrasing) would you be willing to -or- could you consider recommending a sentence of death in this case given the evidence, requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt (blah, blah - all the normal legal mumbo-jumbo disclaimers and comments in order to make the question gray enough cover all bases). This was the question proposed by the defense and prosecution. It has been discussed here before and there were several anti's who posted they would provide an affirmative answer to the question just to have a chance of getting on the jury. I'd do that. Makes Stormy very cross, but I'd do it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Jan 14, 2011 10:28:17 GMT -6
The question was (paraphrasing) would you be willing to -or- could you consider recommending a sentence of death in this case given the evidence, requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt (blah, blah - all the normal legal mumbo-jumbo disclaimers and comments in order to make the question gray enough cover all bases). This was the question proposed by the defense and prosecution. It has been discussed here before and there were several anti's who posted they would provide an affirmative answer to the question just to have a chance of getting on the jury. I'd do that. Makes Stormy very cross, but I'd do it. That would be a mistake. Trust me, you don't want to sit through all the boring crap that goes along with jury duty. Tell them you can judge guilt by looking at the shape of the defendant's skull. The goal is to NOT be selected as juror, unless you want to sit through a bunch of legal proceedings for $40 a day.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 14, 2011 10:49:58 GMT -6
A child is less able to defend him/her self than an adult, wouldn't you say? A person who is disabled is less able to defend him/her self, wouldn't you say? I could go on and on with other examples, but you get my drift. Unless a capable (unarmed) adult is Superman, if a killer has a gun, then they too would be less likely to defend themselves, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 14, 2011 11:38:43 GMT -6
I'd do that. Makes Stormy very cross, but I'd do it. That would be a mistake. Trust me, you don't want to sit through all the boring crap that goes along with jury duty. Tell them you can judge guilt by looking at the shape of the defendant's skull. The goal is to NOT be selected as juror, unless you want to sit through a bunch of legal proceedings for $40 a day. I guess I'd come up with a story of my father being abused by a Jewish loan shark and later beaten to pulp by a half-black-half-Latino homosexual together with the guy's Asian boyfriend of Muslim faith.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 14, 2011 12:33:03 GMT -6
I realize that few Anti's throw parties when a murderer is not executed and no Anti's of worth try to excuse the actions of a murderer. However, Anti's do publicly praise and proclaim the fact that murderers are not executed in Anti DP states. At risk of offending any English Lecturer by the use of an uncommon definition, that is a celebration of a fact or event as well. Though I absolutely don't agree with it, I see how someone may argue that we should not execute a murderer who has only murdered one person - as long as that person is not a child or some other defenseless person. I do not see how you can argue that a murderer who has murdered a child, another defenseless person or a MORE than one person should be allowed to live and murder again. What is the most inexplicable thing is how anyone can justify not executing a murderer who had been given a sentence of LWOP and then went on to murder again one or more times. How high does the body count of innocent victims have to go before one finally realizes a murderer has to be executed? Does it take as many innocent people as Hitler had murdered before one finally agrees that such murderers be executed? As an anti I can see the arguement for killing an incarcerated murderer who goes on to continue killing inside a prison, In my opinion if they manage that, there is an arguement that such an execution would be direct self defence. However the example you use above are all extreme cases and you appear to trying to illustrate the extreme in order to argue that killing a person who has murdered once is justified? No, they aren't all extreme cases because I mentioned "goes on to murder one or more people" after incarcerated on LWOP. You seem to be agreeing with it in this post.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 14, 2011 12:34:46 GMT -6
A child is less able to defend him/her self than an adult, wouldn't you say? A person who is disabled is less able to defend him/her self, wouldn't you say? I could go on and on with other examples, but you get my drift. Unless a capable (unarmed) adult is Superman, if a killer has a gun, then they too would be less likely to defend themselves, wouldn't you say? That's true, but of course not as much as a child or a disabled person in your scenario.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 13:46:55 GMT -6
A child is less able to defend him/her self than an adult, wouldn't you say? A person who is disabled is less able to defend him/her self, wouldn't you say? I could go on and on with other examples, but you get my drift. Personally, I have some reservations about this kind of argument. While granted, a child or handicapped person might have less skills to escape a murderer I have concerns that comparing one kind of innocent murdered victim to another may come across as making one kind of innocent victem more worthy of a the fullest extent of justice than another. I do not believe you are intending to do this, I think your arguments and attempting to see cases at different angles is well meaning. It's just that the style of argumentation itself can come across that way even when not intentional. I think a murderer who viciously kills a 28 year old woman who was minding her business just trying to get to work on time deserves the exact same kind of punishment that a murderer might get for killing a child or handicapped person. In either case, the crime was particularly cruel, heinous, and the loss of the loved one and how they died, hurt the families of any of these kinds of victims just the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 15:26:46 GMT -6
The question was (paraphrasing) would you be willing to -or- could you consider recommending a sentence of death in this case given the evidence, requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt (blah, blah - all the normal legal mumbo-jumbo disclaimers and comments in order to make the question gray enough cover all bases). This was the question proposed by the defense and prosecution. It has been discussed here before and there were several anti's who posted they would provide an affirmative answer to the question just to have a chance of getting on the jury. I'd do that. Makes Stormy very cross, but I'd do it. I could do, too........... *if* I believed we'd done all we could to prevent that murder after incarceration. I don't believe it, and there's the rub. For example, we've been told here that LWOP prisoners in TX are kept in general population. Is that the best we can do? Really? ........... Or do we do it hoping they'll kill again so that we can kill them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2011 15:31:49 GMT -6
Unless a capable (unarmed) adult is Superman, if a killer has a gun, then they too would be less likely to defend themselves, wouldn't you say? That's true, but of course not as much as a child or a disabled person in your scenario. From what I've read, about 65% of murder victims are killed with a firearm, so every one of them could well be from a distance. How is a perfectly healthy adult individual less vulnerable than a child or handicapped person in that case?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Jan 14, 2011 18:17:58 GMT -6
Unless a capable (unarmed) adult is Superman, if a killer has a gun, then they too would be less likely to defend themselves, wouldn't you say? That's true, but of course not as much as a child or a disabled person in your scenario. Of course an armed person in a wheelchair will more able to defend him or herself than an able bodied person without one. www.chemicalbiological.net/woman%20in%20wheelchair%20shoots%20mugger.html
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 17, 2011 11:17:29 GMT -6
That's true, but of course not as much as a child or a disabled person in your scenario. From what I've read, about 65% of murder victims are killed with a firearm, so every one of them could well be from a distance. How is a perfectly healthy adult individual less vulnerable than a child or handicapped person in that case? Some adults can better fight off a person with a gun. Unless the gun shot wound is to the head causes a person to bleed out quickly, adults can survive gun shot wounds better than children.
|
|
|
Post by RFisher on Jan 17, 2011 11:20:00 GMT -6
A child is less able to defend him/her self than an adult, wouldn't you say? A person who is disabled is less able to defend him/her self, wouldn't you say? I could go on and on with other examples, but you get my drift. Personally, I have some reservations about this kind of argument. While granted, a child or handicapped person might have less skills to escape a murderer I have concerns that comparing one kind of innocent murdered victim to another may come across as making one kind of innocent victem more worthy of a the fullest extent of justice than another. I do not believe you are intending to do this, I think your arguments and attempting to see cases at different angles is well meaning. It's just that the style of argumentation itself can come across that way even when not intentional. I think a murderer who viciously kills a 28 year old woman who was minding her business just trying to get to work on time deserves the exact same kind of punishment that a murderer might get for killing a child or handicapped person. In either case, the crime was particularly cruel, heinous, and the loss of the loved one and how they died, hurt the families of any of these kinds of victims just the same. I understand your reservations and I agree that the DP is the approprate penalty for murder no matter who the victim is.
|
|
|
Post by Potassium_Pixie on Jan 24, 2011 8:51:31 GMT -6
I really wish that people that kill others would get the DP for ALL murders, so I don't really get why some murderers get death and others get a slap on the wrist.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jan 24, 2011 12:51:44 GMT -6
I really wish that people that kill others would get the DP for ALL murders, so I don't really get why some murderers get death and others get a slap on the wrist. Well, first, it depends on where you are located as only certain countries and states have the DP. Second, not all murders are classified as DP murders. Felony murder for example gets the DP..same as first degree murder. Third, there are often deals done that remove the DP from the table. This in my view is done to spare a trial as for example they plead guilty in lieu of the DP, or for that matter risking the DP. Fourth, juries have influence. Some might sentence to death, others might not...its a 50/50 chance...but then again you could probably predict based on the case how a jury is going to vote. and finally as to your comment about slap on the wrist, well it depends. See I think serving less then seven to fifteen years is a slap on the wrist--I mean LWOP is sufficient in lieu of the DP. But I wouldn't classify LWOP as a slap on the wrist...I think it is fitting again in lieu of the DP. What you should really question is why it takes so long to execute someone who is sentenced to death. Up until they are executed, they are pretty much serving a LWOP sentence.
|
|