|
Post by fuglyville on Mar 6, 2012 0:45:37 GMT -6
Still, it's important to remember that to avoid breach of the 8th amendment or to avoid the deaths of innocent people are always more important than the victims - sounds harsh, but still. As stated before - to deal with the anguish and grief among the murder victims is a mental health and social services issue, NOT something the courts should be responsible for. Thus it's important that measures to "speed up" the process does not limit the appeals process in a way which potentially might compromise the right to be treated in accordance with the laws of the state. Even people who commit horrible acts of violence, has the right to be treated as human beings.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 26, 2012 19:39:08 GMT -6
If, in the heat of the moment, there is no other choice and lives are at stake, I'd say murder is defensible. If the offender is incapacitated, captured or in other ways unable to do further harm - it's not, and while the situation may serve as a mitigating factor the murderer should still be prosecuted for murder. Thus - if you catch the murderer with the obvious intent of murder and killing is the only way of stopping him or her, the killer should avoid prosecution. On the other hand, if a murder has been committed but the murderer is incapable(due do lack of weapon, injuries etc.) of committing further harm it should be prosecuted as murder, with the situation being a possible slightly mitigating factor. Point being: The lust for blood, revenge and general anger is no excuse for killing people - neither for ordinary people, nor for the government(the death penalty).
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 21, 2011 18:00:01 GMT -6
When it comes to benefits for humanity, an execution is just about as beneficial as a car accident. If anything, the costs caused by the capital punishment legalities makes an execution even less beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 20, 2011 21:40:36 GMT -6
Well... When diplomacy doesn't work, we have to use other ways. And like it or not, trade control may be among the most effective ways to force the U.S. authorities to think twice about whether satisfying the thirst for blood is really worth it. Besides, it's worth remembering that the European Commision has no obligation to assist the U.S. in killing people. Thus - though this might be called interference, they are in their full right - both legally and morally - to do what they do.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 14, 2011 21:13:42 GMT -6
Hurray! Hopefully, other states will follow.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 7, 2011 14:04:07 GMT -6
Considering the doubt surrounding the case, there doesn't seem to be any other choice. Hopefully - now that the case is finally closed, everyone involved can move on with their lives.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 4, 2011 11:49:29 GMT -6
If the appeals process takes 20 years, that's the time it takes - the one thing that matters, is the importance of avoiding the death of an innocent (and for those who protest - doubts about the conviction=proven innocence, for all practical purposes). Everything else is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Dec 3, 2011 19:16:52 GMT -6
Ultimately, I fail to see the problem... There's a reason for all those appeals, which some people fail to see - the importance of avoiding the execution of a innocent person is always vastly more important than the need for some people to see "justice". As long as they're behind bars they can't do much harm anyhow, so why bother? It seems that some people consider the importance of killing "someone" for the satisfaction of those who thirst for blood more important than a fair system of justice, and that's nothing to be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Nov 4, 2011 6:51:52 GMT -6
Enforced euthanasia would be murder - thus I couldn't see anyone in their right mind supporting it.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 23, 2011 17:15:35 GMT -6
Considering the resources used to prosecute capital cases, pay for the defense and all the separate appeals - is it really worth it? Given the fact that several states are striving with the economy - are there really nothing more meaningful those money could be used for?
An argument often given in favour of the death penalty is that it gives those left behind "peace of mind" and to let them "move on" - with all respect, that's what you have mental health professionals for. If they're given LWOP, that should have the same effect upon those left behind as if the murderer were killed. They have all the right in the world to feel bothered by the state not acting upon their feelings, but that does mean that the state should act upon those feelings . Another argument is "knowing they would never hurt anyone again" - should they do so, that's a matter of failed prison security; it is not and should not be an excuse to kill them. Whether death penalty acts as a deterrent is still nowhere near a proven fact - the statistics seems to say the exact opposite.
Thus - when neither deterrence, economy, protection and those left behind are valid reasons... What's left?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Sept 19, 2011 17:34:24 GMT -6
When the thirst for blood becomes more important than the thirst for justice, our court system becomes meaningless. Obviously, the relatives of the victims have every right to speak out in the media, but they shouldn't matter in the final decision. Should there be any doubt at all, they should let him live. Of course, there are those who would complain - but in those cases, there will be complaints no matter what the decision may be.
I guess my point may be that the court system was not made to support the victims - when someone dies because someone believes they'll find "closure" or "peace", that's not justice... That's murder. The state has a duty to support those who's left behind, but it should be done by councelling or through the mental health care system - an execution is nothing but another meaningless death.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 7, 2011 7:49:02 GMT -6
As long as no new evidence turns up, she's officially innocent - the fact that you may believe otherwise is a matter of your own opinion. What she first and foremost needs now, are protection against those who's still convinced that she "needs to die".
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jul 5, 2011 18:41:34 GMT -6
That's because the Texas system of "justice" is a disgrace to the entire U.S.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 12, 2011 18:37:53 GMT -6
Well - I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, but a prosecution of everyone involved in the decisions around the war is definitely in order.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 12, 2011 16:15:39 GMT -6
Generally, the only relevant factor in deciding parole or clemency should be the risk of another murder. Though it might sound harsh, the family of the victims should have no place in a clemency hearing. They might not agree with it, but the point of any punishment should be to prepare the inmate for a normal life - not revenge, nor retribution. Though it does mean that the victims family might possibly see the inmate again, it also means that society regains a productive member - and that's what matters.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 10, 2011 19:26:26 GMT -6
The answer should be quite simple - if there is any doubt, don't kill them.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 9, 2011 18:23:14 GMT -6
If the prosecution withheld evidence, the trial should be declared a mistrial. The least they could do was to let her live.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jun 9, 2011 17:47:17 GMT -6
As an anti, I'm opposed to capital punishment at all. But as long as there are some doubt, I can't see how anyone in their right mind would want him dead. The worries of the victim's family are the responsibility of social services and health care professionals, not the criminal justice system. As long as he's alive, there are chances that he might get out if proven innocent - you lose that opportunity if you kill him. And that should matter more than the lust for blood.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on May 1, 2011 9:08:29 GMT -6
Not sure if he should be able to sue them personally, but someone should definitely loose their job and/or get prosecuted for gross negligence - when you consider the possible consequences, this is equal to premeditated murder. Whether they thought/felt/believed that he was guilty and that they should "help him get what he deserved", is irrelevant - everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Occasionally it seems that the thirst for blood clouds people's judgement, and they forget the fact that the question of guilt should be proven by fact - and not feelings. If someone knowingly leaves an innocent person to die, that's murder. For a lot of the murder cases, there are - unfortunately - people left behind who cries out for blood and retribution before the case is over and decided. And some prosecutors, judges, jurors and others has got to learn to ignore this - it sounds harsh, but if this causes the execution of an innocent person they're accomplices to murder.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 25, 2011 13:42:09 GMT -6
Fug....?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 25, 2011 6:27:20 GMT -6
You should at least have the right number of syllables:P And... Next time, try to put some effort in it. This is neither meaningful, nor amusing...
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Apr 24, 2011 19:57:37 GMT -6
If it was proven that the money and resources used for prosecuting capital cases, appealing them, building separate death row facilities the cost of the actual executions could be spent on social programs, health, welfare and vocational programs among inmates and other high risk populations and thus contribute to deterring murders(as opposed to capital punishment, which has yet to be proven to act as deterrent) - would you support it?
If you look apart from the cry for revenge from dp supporters(which should be irrelevant) and the need for "closure"/revenge from those left behind (which should be treated by health care personell, and thus be considered irrelevant for the actual sentencing) - deterrence is really the only reason left. And - as dp has yet to be proven to actually act as a deterrent - have you ever considered that those resources could actually be spent wiser? If there were no dp, you wouldn't have to worry about nearly the same amount of expensive appeals, pardons and last-minute delays. The argument that this prohibits murderers escaping or killing someone inside the prison should be considered irrelevant - such events are the result of prison security failures, and should be considered such.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Mar 7, 2011 15:35:59 GMT -6
What's wrong with this? Any and all methods for rescuing innocent people are worth the while. A speedy execution should never be a motive in itself - getting the right person should be the important thing, not getting someone murdered so that the state can feel proud of its ability to deal with crime. As long as someone are alive, they can be rehabilitated and released - once they die, there are no such hope.
I assume certain interest groups for murder victims will go up in arms about this, and they have every right to do so - however, their opinion shouldn't matter in such cases. If they just want to see someone die, they need help from a qualified psychiatric professional - the last thing they need, are the state killing someone for them.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 31, 2011 17:03:27 GMT -6
You might call it interference, but they're in their full right to what they do. To support or contribute to what they have defined as unethical practice, on the other hand, that would definitely be wrong. By all means - the U.S. has every right to proclaim dismay, but the EU has the same right to do as they please. If that interferes with the American sense of "justice", that's their problem. Abolishing capital punishment would solve all that, and someday it will, but until then you're really just making things worse for yourself:P
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 26, 2011 16:52:03 GMT -6
It doesn't prove innocence, but it should cause sufficient doubt to find the defendant innocent.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 23, 2011 19:56:50 GMT -6
Exonerated does not necessarily mean innocence, but it means that there's sufficient doubt. And as long as there's even the slightest doubt about whether they did it, they should be considered innocent. In those cases, the courts decided that the so-called "technicalities" were enough to doubt the conviction. In all cases, it's vastly more important to avoid murdering innocent people than satisfying the lust for blood. When there are even the slightest doubt, that should be all that matters. If the friends and relatives of the victim are more important than avoiding the convictions of innocent people, that's not justice - that's lynching.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Jan 12, 2011 20:04:51 GMT -6
When they have gone without so long, they might as well scrap it and use the money used to handle them for something useful - such as social programs among troubled youths to avoid future crime. As of now, there are - as far as I can see - no chance of the moratorium getting lifted. And in the interest of the common good, getting rid of capital punishment would be the only sane choice for the governor. Obviously there are certain groups who would disagree, but there are disagreements on all political decisions. Hopefully, in this case someone will find the courage to cut through and make what will definitely be an unpopular move, but which ultimately will be regarded as necessary. Probably not now, nor for a few years, but eventually people will realise that they were better off without capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 18, 2010 20:44:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 18, 2010 18:05:57 GMT -6
Just out of interest - do you have any thoughts for the friends and relatives of executed inmates?
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Aug 10, 2010 14:35:02 GMT -6
I suppose that you could call someone capable of murder helpless. Me , I look at it as he put himself there by putting some innocent in the same position that the murderer is enjoying at that moment. As far as I am concerned the results should be the same. I'm from Tucson and we recently had three guys escape, two murderers and one atempted murderer. Thanks to this escape we have AT LEAST two people in New Mexico dead! Need another reason for the death penalty? If inmates escape, the state has failed in their duty to provide a safe, dignified and controlled environment for the inmates, and their duty to protect the outside world. Thus - this is no argument for the death penalty; it's rather an argument for improved security routines, better perimeter security etc. The fact that someone should be fired and stuff improved for this, is obvious - but killing people is never of any use to anyone.
|
|