in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a particular crime, murder of a child for example. Now also suppose that we know that 1% of those convicted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you have decided that the death penalty is a suitable punishment then that 1% figure is collateral damage and acceptable. We have the same in prisons now who are innocent.
in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a part ...[text shortened]... icted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you miss one speck of crap when you're wiping your butt, should you ever bother wiping again?
in the thread Thread 72199 there is a lot of discussion for and against the death penalty for someone who has committed a serious crime.
However I noticed that nobody brought up the issue of the possibility of the person being convicted actually being innocent.
So lets suppose for a moment that death is truly a just punishment for a part ...[text shortened]... icted of the crime are actually innocent, is it still OK to carry out the death penalty on them?
Afterall, it's possible you'll miss another bit.
It might be "OK" to wipe .. but why bother?
Originally posted by jammerLet's continue that analogy, in the role of the guilty person, the speck of crap, in the role of the innocent person, your skin cells. In the role of the death penalty, let's avoid double quilted toilet paper and use sandpaper.
If you miss one speck of crap when you're wiping your butt, should you ever bother wiping again?
Afterall, it's possible you'll miss another bit.
It might be "OK" to wipe .. but why bother?
If you miss one speck of crap when wiping with the crude tool of sandpaper, taking with it a modest 1% of skin (in a 200g dump, that would be 2g of skin, think about that) would you keep wiping til every speck of crap was gone, or go for the more accepted method of using less aggressive tactics, such as normal paper. (in our analogy, let's call this life imprisonment)
Originally posted by agrysonAt the next level .. why wipe at all?
Let's continue that analogy, in the role of the guilty person, the speck of crap, in the role of the innocent person, your skin cells. In the role of the death penalty, let's avoid double quilted toilet paper and use sandpaper.
If you miss one speck of crap when wiping with the crude tool of sandpaper, taking with it a modest 1% of skin (in a 200g dump, th ...[text shortened]... aggressive tactics, such as normal paper. (in our analogy, let's call this life imprisonment)
You'll stink regardless.
Originally posted by agrysonI hadn't thought of it that way. Sacre bleu!
Let's continue that analogy, in the role of the guilty person, the speck of crap, in the role of the innocent person, your skin cells. In the role of the death penalty, let's avoid double quilted toilet paper and use sandpaper.
If you miss one speck of crap when wiping with the crude tool of sandpaper, taking with it a modest 1% of skin (in a 200g dump, th ...[text shortened]... aggressive tactics, such as normal paper. (in our analogy, let's call this life imprisonment)
Originally posted by jammerUhm, I think your personal hygiene is a debate for a whole different thread to this one...
At the next level .. why wipe at all?
You'll stink regardless.
Point being that if you ARE going to support the death penalty, at least don't claim to do so under the banner of Justice, because when the stakes are as high as actually killing someone, one innocent dying is not justice.
Imprison an innocent person, justice can be done when they are proven innocent through compensation or whatever, but if you wish to carry through with your punishment to fit the crime business, then what happens to the judge who condemned an innocent man to death, what justice can be served then?
Originally posted by agrysonThat's justyou not justice.
Uhm, I think your personal hygiene is a debate for a whole different thread to this one...
Point being that if you ARE going to support the death penalty, at least don't claim to do so under the banner of Justice, because when the stakes are as high as actually killing someone, one innocent dying [b]is not justice.
Imprison an innocent person, justice ...[text shortened]... t happens to the judge who condemned an innocent man to death, what justice can be served then?[/b]
The anal ogy fits. By not wiping you avoid the error of killing an innocent turdette and leave a steaming load in your drawers.
By not executing a load of scum to save one innocent, you leave open the chance of more murders by these.
Execute those convicted of capital crimes because it is just to do so AND you will prevent these murderers from ever killing again.
You might want to look up "crime" and "mistake", i'm pretty sure intent has something to do with it.
Originally posted by jammerIf they are dead, or locked up, the result is the same as regards re-offence. If they are successfully rehabilitated, same deal, if not, keep em locked up. The difference between dead and locked up, is the dead bit.
That's justyou not justice.
The anal ogy fits. By not wiping you avoid the error of killing an innocent turdette and leave a steaming load in your drawers.
By not executing a load of scum to save one innocent, you leave open the chance of more murders by these.
Execute those convicted of capital crimes because it is just to do so AND you will prevent t ...[text shortened]... want to look up "crime" and "mistake", i'm pretty sure intent has something to do with it.
IF a mistake is made, you can go back and repair it, thus no innocent dead, but all the baddies still locked up.
You can't do algebra with human life. If you were that one innocent guy, I'm sure you'd change your mind.
As few people listened to me then, I doubt many people will listen to me now, but the subject was relevant.
Thread 63133
***
Capital punishment does not deter crime.
FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states in the United States who have abolished the death penalty have homocide rates below the national average.
Capital punishment costs more than life imprisonment.
One legislative audit found that death penalty cases averaged 70% more expensive than life imprisonment cases. The average cost of a life imprisonment case: $740,000; the average cost of a death penalty case, including cost of execution: $1,260,000.
Capital punishment is often given to innocent people and is obviously irreversible.
Since 1973, more than 120 people have been released from death row due to wrongful convictions. In 2003 alone, 10 people were released because of wrongful convictions.
Capital punishment is racially and socio-economically biased, in addition to being arbitrary.
Around 80% of all death sentences are issued when the victim is white. In addition, one study in Pennsylvania in 1998 found that African Americans received the death penalty four times as often as people of other races. Thirdly, 95% of death row inmates cannot afford their own attorney, and court-appointed attorneys are often overwhelmed, underpaid, and underexperienced. Finally, the death penalty is arbitrary because only two percent of defendants convicted of crimes eligible for the death penalty receive it.
124 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty.
While 124 countries worldwide have abolished the death penalty, the United States, China, Iran, and Viet Nam account for 97% of the world's executions. Does the U.S. really consider itself on the front of human rights in alliance with China, Iran, and Viet Nam? Thirdly, nearly every European country has completely abolished the death penalty, in addition to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, and South Africa.
Capital punishment is hypocritical.
Why should the government punish unethical, premeditated crimes with unethical, premeditated murder?
***
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/factsheets/
http://www.msu.edu/~millettf/DeathPenalty/
http://nodeathpenalty.org/content/index.php
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/end_death_penal.html
http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html
Originally posted by wittywonkaCapital punishment does deter crime. Once you fry their butts they will never kill again. It costs more because of puke lawyers who drag out the trial most of the time knowing their client is a murderer. They should let the family of the victim decide whether to kill the SOB or not. I wonder what the percentage rate would be then for the executuion of said individual.
As few people listened to me then, I doubt many people will listen to me now, but the subject was relevant.
Thread 63133
***
Capital punishment does not deter crime.
FBI data showed that ten of the twelve states in the United States who have abolished the death penalty have homocide rates below the national average.
Capit ...[text shortened]... //blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/end_death_penal.html
http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html
Originally posted by agrysonYou're just wrong.
If they are dead, or locked up, the result is the same as regards re-offence. If they are successfully rehabilitated, same deal, if not, keep em locked up. The difference between dead and locked up, is the [b]dead bit.
IF a mistake is made, you can go back and repair it, thus no innocent dead, but all the baddies still locked up.
You can't do algebra with human life. If you were that one innocent guy, I'm sure you'd change your mind.[/b]
You either missied my point of chose to ignore it.
At least here in the USA, convicted murderers sentenced to lhe DP AND those sentenced to life imprisonment BOTH re-offend and murder WHILE IN PRISON.
Prison guards are murdered, other prisoners are murdered, and murders for hire are arranged from within the confines of death row.
Keeping them locked up does not prevent them from murdering again. It's been done time and again.
You're right though, the difference between them being dead and locked up is the dead bit. You just forgot to mention that those "dead" due to non-executions are often innocent bystanders as opposed to the convicted murders.