leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 For me, I can't really see a single convincing argument against the death penalty if it is done properly and efficiently. The highlighted italics here is the convincing argument. I'm actually in favour of it for certain, very specific crimes and criminals, but in order to carry out this kind of irrevocable penalty the burden of proof must be absolute. The moment you execute an innocent person, the system collapses. The question is, is there a way to reach a conclusion that someone has committed a crime worthy of the death penalty beyond any doubt whatsoever?
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 If you seriously believe than conviction of a crime means the individual actually committed the crime then it appears society has brainwashed another individual.No I don't think that 100% of convictions are TRUE and proper. nor do I think enough are corrupt or improper, to call the whole system into doubt. If you have so little faith in the justice system, that you jump to the defence of a convicted murderer, over a fairly inoffensive term. (I call people scumbags for a fart that stinks) Then I'm worried for your warped paranoid little mind.
leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 No I don't think that 100% of convictions are TRUE and proper. nor do I think enough are corrupt or improper, to call the whole system into doubt. If you have so little faith in the justice system, that you jump to the defence of a convicted murderer, over a fairly inoffensive term. (I call people scumbags for a fart that stinks) Then I'm worried for your warped paranoid little mind. How many wrong convictions is enough to call the whole system into question?
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 How many wrong convictions is enough to call the whole system into question?More than there is, I'll let you know when I have had enough. It will just be a coincidence if I'm in the dock at the time. Honest.
Voll Blau Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 But surely if you're admitting there are wrongful convictions you're recognising the possibility that the state could execute innocent people?
leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 More than there is, I'll let you know when I have had enough. It will just be a coincidence if I'm in the dock at the time. Honest.Haha, good answer. Personally I'm with Rincewind though in that one is too many. Especially when the penalty is as absolute as ending someone's life.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 But surely if you're admitting there are wrongful convictions you're recognising the possibility that the state could execute innocent people?25 years on death row, is long enough to be sure that no more evidence is likely to arrise.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Haha, good answer. Personally I'm with Rincewind though in that one is too many. Especially when the penalty is as absolute as ending someone's life. You really think sending someone to the rest of their lives in prison is much better, guilty or not?
Rincewind Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 If you were wrongly convicted what would you prefer if there was a chance however small the conviction could be overturned? At least with life if guilty the punishment is correct.
Voll Blau Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 . 25 years on death row, is long enough to be sure that no more evidence is likely to arrise. Give or take a couple of years eh? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/427713/After-40-years-I-m-prisoner-to-a-murder-I-didn-t-commit
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I'm not hanging about to see this thread anymore. It's killing me to say it but I think it's all a bit of a dead issue . . . .
leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 You really think sending someone to the rest of their lives in prison is much better, guilty or not?If there's even the slightest chance he might not be guilty, absolutely. You can let a man out of jail; you can't bring him back to life.I also think life imprisonment works better for absolutely confirmed guilt if the criminal feels remorse, that way they have a long long time to think about what they've done. If they do not and do not have a chance of being rehabilitated whatsoever...then I would consider the death penalty an apt punishment. But for such an absolute punishment, the confirmation of guilt must also be absolute.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 If there's even the slightest chance he might not be guilty, absolutely. You can let a man out of jail; you can't bring him back to life. I also think life imprisonment works better for absolutely confirmed guilt if the criminal feels remorse, that way they have a long long time to think about what they've done. If they do not and do not have a chance of being rehabilitated whatsoever...then I would consider the death penalty an apt punishment. But for such an absolute punishment, the confirmation of guilt must also be absolute. The death penalty is not really about how the convict feels or remorse, its about justice for the victim. If someone killed me, I would want him dead too.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 . Give or take a couple of years eh? http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/427713/After-40-years-I-m-prisoner-to-a-murder-I-didn-t-commit He wasn't proven innocent, just that the origional conviction was unsafe. Under this system using this case a murderer is definately free, under the death penalty the murderer could have got away with it and an illiterate waster would be dead instead. I still think he did it.
leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 The death penalty is not really about how the convict feels or remorse, its about justice for the victim. If someone killed me, I would want him dead too. The whole objective of the justice system is to remove the idea of retribution from the equation and deal with crimes objectively. Wanting someone dead for murdering someone close to you is a perfectly reasonable emotional response, but it would be revenge. Not justice. But that's a different point - anyhow, as I said sentencing someone to a penalty that they cannot be brought back from needs absolute proof of guilt. If we cannot supply absolute proof of guilt, we shouldn't be using absolute punishments.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 The whole objective of the justice system is to remove the idea of retribution from the equation and deal with crimes objectively. Wanting someone dead for murdering someone close to you is a perfectly reasonable emotional response, but it would be revenge. Not justice. But that's a different point - anyhow, as I said sentencing someone to a penalty that they cannot be brought back from needs absolute proof of guilt. If we cannot supply absolute proof of guilt, we shouldn't be using absolute punishments. There are plenty of cases where absolute proof can be provided, but its how you interpret it. How far up do you worry corruption goes before you believe what is presented? If we don't have enough faith in the justice system to execute, then I am not sure we should be sentancing people at all.How would you know?Think Ken, I never said know.
Voll Blau Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 He wasn't proven innocent, just that the origional conviction was unsafe. Under this system using this case a murderer is definately free, under the death penalty the murderer could have got away with it and an illiterate waster would be dead instead. I still think he did it. Well, you've won me over there. Hang the bastard. Good thing I can read and write, otherwise I might struggle if I'm ever wrongly convicted of murder...
Rincewind Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 What I meant was if you were dead what would it matter if your killer was still alive as you would not be around to see.
leicsmac Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 There are plenty of cases where absolute proof can be provided, but its how you interpret it. How far up do you worry corruption goes before you believe what is presented? If we don't have enough faith in the justice system to execute, then I am not sure we should be sentancing people at all.I think that at least if you lock a person up, if it turns out the conviction was wrong you can let them out and give them the rest of their lives. I think corruption isn't a problem so much as simple human fallibility. Our criminal system is based on verdicts reached by a jury of our peers having been shown testimony, and their judgement simply isn't going to be right every single time.
Rincewind Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 There was a case in the early 50's the subject of Let Him Have it. The one who was hanged was mentally under age but from arrest to execution took 3 months. This was partly due to the government at the time wanting to show the youth of the day that crime does not pay and not to do with justice. A last minute appeal was handed in but was sympathized with but dismissed because of the above reason. The one who fired the gun was too young to be hung and has since been released without re offending. I did this as a subject in a night school English course. The lawyer was rubbish and the eye witness saw the incident from across the street in poor light without their glasses. It was not clear whether Let him have it meant hand the gun over or fire.
Guest MattP Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 12 Angry Men Ken, that's what you have just described. You watched the film, it wasn't at nightschool.
Rincewind Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 No it was Let Him Have It. Bentley/Craig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_Him_Have_It
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Well, you've won me over there. Hang the bastard. Good thing I can read and write, otherwise I might struggle if I'm ever wrongly convicted of murder... What makes you think I am trying to convince you?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.