Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

The death penalty is wrong, not because some people don't need killing, but because the law is not fairly applied. Prosecutors with agendas often railroad the innocent, resulting in the taking of innocent people's lives. The rich buy their way out, with fancy lawyers, who are able to subvert justice. Predjudice convicts almost as often as evidence. Honest mistakes convict the innocent. No way a death penalty ought to be available.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote, on an abortion thread.....

real life wrote:

You have admitted that abortion should be allowed even if the unborn is a living human being. How can you make a rationale for killing a living human being for the sake of convenience?

Capital punishment is not done on the basis of one person's opinion or what is or isn't their desire.

It's not done for the convenience of one person, or by one person.

It is a collective act of society to punish one who has committed a crime, usually murder.

A convicted criminal has been tried by a jury of his peers, and been found guilty of a heinous crime, has had the right to self defense, and the opportunity to introduce evidence in his favor, as well as the right to numerous appeals.

Do you see the difference between this and the killing of an innocent person who has NOT had due process, had NO opportunity to defend himself or have another present evidence in his favor, had NO right of appeal, and wasn't convicted or even accused of a crime in the first place? No, probably you can not.

Communally or individually,

real life wrote:

How can you make a rationale for killing a living human being for the sake of convenience?

??

0 Replies

Did you simply quote my reply, but not read it?

CP is not done for convenience. And certainly not for the convenience of one person.

CP is done to punish for specified heinous criminal acts , and only then after due process, trial by jury, right to defend oneself and have legal counsel to represent as well, numerous appeals, etc.

This process takes years.

Quite a difference, but probably too subtle for you to pick up on.

So perhaps we should just agree that they ARE the same after all, and after the fetus has had a trial, and numerous appeals and several years while due process is running it's course --- if the mother still wants to abort the fetus, well I guess it's had it's chance.

Or if we're talking a tradeoff, I would gladly commute the sentences of all death row inmates to life in prison without chance of parole if it meant that abortion would also be banned, thus saving millions of lives per year worldwide.

How's that for compromise?

0 Replies

Many people have been put to death who were innocent. It happened frequently before the advent of DNA testing. I personally know of a man who was imprisoned for 10 years for a rape ge didn't commit. The problem here is that there was no DNA evidence. Not a scintilla of evidence at all except for the testimony of the "victim". Eventually he was freed when a second jury decided there was not enough evidence for a conviction -- 10 years later!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Did you simply quote my reply, but not read it?

CP is not done for convenience. And certainly not for the convenience of one person.

CP is done to punish for specified heinous criminal acts , and only then after due process, trial by jury, right to defend oneself and have legal counsel to represent as well, numerous appeals, etc.

This process takes years.

Quite a difference, but probably too subtle for you to pick up on.

So perhaps we should just agree that they ARE the same after all, and after the fetus has had a trial, and numerous appeals and several years while due process is running it's course --- if the mother still wants to abort the fetus, well I guess it's had it's chance.

Or if we're talking a tradeoff, I would gladly commute the sentences of all death row inmates to life in prison without chance of parole if it meant that abortion would also be banned, thus saving millions of lives per year worldwide.

How's that for compromise?

How dare you presume to trade with people's lives?

Perhaps you could start by saving the lives you can save, instead of taking them?

A good compromise would be if you were against capital punishment, I might find your "precious individual life" arguments against abortion to be at least consistent with your own logic.

So then, do you have any MEDICAL evidence that a criminal is not a living human being?

0 Replies

EorI, Real and his ilk lost on logic a long time ago. Another contradiction in their stance only enforces what's been known about their stance on saving the embryo, because it's a baby. They care less about the "living."

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
Did you simply quote my reply, but not read it?

CP is not done for convenience. And certainly not for the convenience of one person.

CP is done to punish for specified heinous criminal acts , and only then after due process, trial by jury, right to defend oneself and have legal counsel to represent as well, numerous appeals, etc.

This process takes years.

Quite a difference, but probably too subtle for you to pick up on.

So perhaps we should just agree that they ARE the same after all, and after the fetus has had a trial, and numerous appeals and several years while due process is running it's course --- if the mother still wants to abort the fetus, well I guess it's had it's chance.

Or if we're talking a tradeoff, I would gladly commute the sentences of all death row inmates to life in prison without chance of parole if it meant that abortion would also be banned, thus saving millions of lives per year worldwide.

How's that for compromise?

How dare you presume to trade with people's lives?

Perhaps you could start by saving the lives you can save, instead of taking them?

A good compromise would be if you were against capital punishment, I might find your "precious individual life" arguments against abortion to be at least consistent with your own logic.

So then, do you have any MEDICAL evidence that a criminal is not a living human being?

I have never claimed that the criminal was not a living human being.

You , on the other hand, are on record stating that even a newborn is not a living human being because it cannot build a fire, it cannot produce music and literature.

Yeah how dare I. You who approve of the bloody butchering of innocent children, but cry about murderers' 'right to live'.

Yes , I dare. I would gladly commute the sentences of the criminals on death row to save the lives of millions of children.

You wouldn't. It's more important for you that a woman not be inconvenienced for a few months than that a human being gets his/her chance to live 70 years.

Then you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that women will think you a sensitive and enlightened guy, rather than the illogical political panderer and demagogue that you are.

Yes I dare.

Your phony posturing is so nauseating that your ego cannot see the ridiculous twisting of logic when you deny even a newborn their personhood.

Go ahead and sneer.

Yes I dare.

0 Replies

real life, this isn't the thread to beat on those of us "who approve of the bloody butchering of innocent children" Rolling Eyes

There are several others running in which you can (and do) do just that.

This is the thread to defend your other position.... that life is not all that important after all, and that you have the right to take it from others if they commit crimes that you feel are deserving of the ultimate irreversable penalty.

Now, you claim you have even more right to take a person's life than that person's mother...because you judge them unworthy.

0 Replies

Yes, and I've answered your question, but you keep bringing abortion back into it.

0 Replies

I just think the stark hypocrisy is important.

0 Replies

And you've done an excellent job of highlighting your hypocrisy.

The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty.

You, who say you oppose the death penalty, actually approve of applying it to the innocent.

0 Replies

real life:
"The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty."

Do you accept that innocent people are sometimes put to death?
(I'm referring to CP, of course.)

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life:
"The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty."

Do you accept that innocent people are sometimes put to death?
(I'm referring to CP, of course.)

I've been wondering why he ignores this issue.

0 Replies

It's one of those "you can't have it both ways" kind of position that he's trying to support.

0 Replies

I rewatched The Green Mile recently and was really stricken with the execution scenes and some comments.

The little Cajun was horribly murdered on purpose--for those who may not have seen it or forgotten--the execution is intentionally botched and he dies a horrific, drawn out death.

For reasons to forward the plot, the Tom Hanks character says "It was a successful execution. Edward Delacroix is dead." Although the people who gathered in the room to witness the execution had thrown up all over the place and were banging on the door to get out.

He was right. What did they want to see? Why weren't they pleased?

The scenes really resonated moreso this time than before.

Who wants to see an execution? I don't understand. Even if someone you love has been murdered--who does it help to see that? Who would want to make it happen? I wonder if people really think seriously about it when they support CP.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life:
"The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty."

Do you accept that innocent people are sometimes put to death?
(I'm referring to CP, of course.)

Yes, and the innocent are sometimes imprisoned as well. But we don't argue for the abolition of prison on the basis of such mistakes.

DNA will go a long way toward avoiding such errors in the future , but it may still happen.

Innocent people are shot and killed by police accidentally when a warrant is served on the wrong address, or the wrong car is pulled over and the driver panics.

But we don't argue for the abolition of warrants, or the abolition of police stops on the basis of these mistakes.

We demand , rightly so, that correct procedures be followed and proper safeguards in place.

As long as you rely on humans to work in law enforcement, human errors will be made, however.

0 Replies

RL--

Stop approving killing. K?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
real life:
"The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty."

Do you accept that innocent people are sometimes put to death?
(I'm referring to CP, of course.)

Yes, and the innocent are sometimes imprisoned as well. But we don't argue for the abolition of prison on the basis of such mistakes.

What's your point? We're not discussing the abolition of prison.

Quote:

Innocent people are shot and killed by police accidentally when a warrant is served on the wrong address, or the wrong car is pulled over and the driver panics.

But we don't argue for the abolition of warrants, or the abolition of police stops on the basis of these mistakes.

What is the relavence? We are not discussing the abolition of warrants or the abolition of police stops.

Quote:

We demand , rightly so, that correct procedures be followed and proper safeguards in place.

God damn, that's an evil sounding sentence.

Quote:

As long as you rely on humans to work in law enforcement, human errors will be made, however.

That's cold, man.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
real life:
"The innocent shouldn't suffer the death penalty."

Do you accept that innocent people are sometimes put to death?
(I'm referring to CP, of course.)

Yes, and the innocent are sometimes imprisoned as well. But we don't argue for the abolition of prison on the basis of such mistakes.

It must be difficult to apologise to someone who you wrongly imprisoned. At least, if you kill them, you only have to apologise to their families...and hey, they'll get over it eventually.

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you for or against the traditional method of capital punishment?

[Caveat: This thread is only about CP; not proof of guilt/innocence - which should be a separate topic. In other words: Said person has been found guilty of a crime such as murder, rape, etc. by our judicial system and no more appeals are available...] You are deciding if guilty person should be killed - or not...

If for CP - why?

If against CP - why?

If against CP - what (if anything) should happen to those convicted?

Let me try this another way: Confused

You're a member of the the jury on a murder-trial and guilt/innocence has already been established. (You and all other jurors are in complete agreement that this person heinously murdered another person.) Now comes the time for the jury to recommend the sentence. How do you vote???

0 Replies

Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know