 |
| |
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
No one revokes their right to life. They may, however, put themselves in situations where that right may be temporarily ignored. Your right to life can only be taken from you by due process of law. |
If a person has put himself in a situation in which his right to life can be temporarily be ignored by another person, then that person has, in effect, temporarily revoked his "right" to life for that period. The due process element of that revocation of life comes later, when the jury upholds the defendant's self defense claim.
As for DP, the states have established what the proper due process standards are for administering it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
100% certainty doesnt exsist...and if it does you already are saying that there are people on death row that maybe not committed the crime they are sentenced for...which means the reviewboard can let them go by and MURDER an inoccent |
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.
Besides, 100% certainty does exist. There was no doubt that John Wayne Gacy commited his crimes. None at all. He was a proper candidate for the DP, and he was in fact executed. My only complaint is that he wasn't executed more quickly. He wasted 14 years worth of state resources.
John Wayne Gacy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Gacy is certainly a poster boy for the DP, but he didn't kill any more people while he was in prison those 14 years. He ceased to be a threat to society and became a nobody. There was no useful purpose in executing him, as I've never heard of any serial killers not killing cuz of the death penalty. |
It's good that he didn't kill anyone while in prison, but it's offensive to me that he's getting government food and shelter for 14 years. Why does he deserve it, especially since everyone knew he did it? To me, it's not an issue whether the DP is deterrent or not, as people who intend to commit and do commit capital crimes know that what they are doing will warrant major punishment. They just don't care, and are willing to commit the crime regardless of the punishment. Potential capital criminals would likely be deterrent proof, regardless of whether the punishment is death or life in prison.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge. |
There are reports which say that it is less expensive to keep someone in prison for his whole life (without parole) than to execute him,
mostly because the case are reviewed over and over again before the execution takes place (to be sure that the right person is executed)
And I doubt you would want less reviews of a case (which would make DP cheaper and let it take place sooner) as it would also mean that much more innocents get executed.
So you can say it is much more immoral to have a Death penalty as the money it costs more could be used to better protect the citizens or pay rent and food for homeless or starving people
See also here for example:
http://www.rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=5
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect15.htm
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 11-04-2005 at 21:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
I have seen the studies that indicate that the death penalty is generally not a deterrent but I wondered if it might be a deterrent for folks that are alreay in jail for the rest of their life anyway.
I seem to recall a story about lifers who had no qualms about killing again and again since "what will they do, put me in jail for another life?" I just don't recall where I saw it but it would make sense
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
I didnŽt say that. I merely reacted to Wycoffs redneck "ItŽs coming right at us" attitude... |
Nice to see you're resorting to ad hominems so quickly. Life is not an inviolable right; I've provided a clear example of when it isn't. You have nothing to say, so you use ad hominems.
Last edited by Wycoff on 11-04-2005 at 22:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
Well, IŽd like to think that we have evolved beyond capital punishment in the last 100 or so years... |
Again, unsubstantiated opinion. What does having a death penalty for certain egregious situations have anything to do with "evolving?" You have a different opinion, so of course your opinion is the "evolved" one, right?
quote:
Why should we use DP at all? Killing people doesnŽt solve the problem, it only kills the symptom. If you have an infected finger you donŽt chop it off. You treat it with antibiotics. |
Why put people in prison at all? After all, that's just getting revenge, and it doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited.
quote:
You have a right to defend yourself. But even so, killing in self defence isnŽt a "get out of jail free" card. |
Actually, it is. If you can prove self defense, it is an affirmative defense that serves as a bar to punishment. You don't have to serve any jail time.
quote:
And when you divide people into those who have the right to live and those that deserve to die, youŽre on a slippery slope of fascism. In a civilized society no one can revoke your right to life, no matter how heinous the crime. |
 I was waiting for this. The inevitable Godwinization of the thread. Couldn't you also say that giving the state the power to punish criminals puts you on the slippery slope to Fascism? These murderers have revoked thier own right to life by their actions. No one took it from them. They did so themselves. That's the difference.
Last edited by Wycoff on 11-04-2005 at 22:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Proteus_MST
There are reports which say that it is less expensive to keep someone in prison for his whole life (without parole) than to execute him,
mostly because the case are reviewed over and over again before the execution takes place (to be sure that the right person is executed)
And I doubt you would want less reviews of a case (which would make DP cheaper and let it take place sooner) as it would also mean that much more innocents get executed. |
It's debateable whether that is really true, but I'll treat it as truth for the sake of argument. You identified part of the problem: too many reviews. However, the other part of the problem is that it can be applied too broadly, and includes borderline cases in which, despite a conviction, there are still reasonable doubts. That is why there are so many reviews. If the DP process were streamlined, meaning that if it potentially applied to less people, it would be much less expensive to execute a criminal than to keep the criminal alive for 40+ years.
Here's how I'd do it. In a potential capital case, the prosecutor can support an execution. Then it's up to the judge to decide. Create a high evidentiary bar for when, as a matter of law, executions can be carried out.
Examples of evidence that would meet the higher evidentiary bar: confession + identifying location of bodies + correctly identifying how the victims were killed; defendant has 30 missing people buried in his backyard, confesses that he killed them; defendant captured on tape murdering victim, with DNA evidence coroborating that it was in fact him murdering the victim on the tape. Other factors considered would be severity of the crime (is there evidence that D raped and/or tortured victims prior to murdering them, is there evidence of cannibalism) and victim's class (was the victim particualarly vulnerable because victim was a child, was elderly, was handicapped, was a family member). If a case is completely or almost completely decided by circumstantial evidence, then there can be no death penalty for that defendant.
Judge has to strictly scrutinize evidence before allowing the death penalty sentence. If the evidence doesn't meet the high bar, then the criminal cannot be executed as a matter of law. If bar is satisfied, then the defendant's case is automatically appealed to the state's supreme court. Supreme court reviews all aspects of trial (whether evidentiary bar was satisfactorily met, whether trial was fair, whether defendant's counsel was competant). If the supreme court is not satisfied, then the death penalty is vacated and his case is remanded for sentencing. If the supreme court is satisfied that the defendant qualifies for execution, then the defendant has one month (30 days) to try to come up with a new legal theory. If he cannot, he is executed at the end of the 30 day period.
This system would make a death penalty rare, yet still availiable in the most deserving cases. It would also ensure that the murderer used as little state resources as possible, as the state wouldn't have to keep the defendant alive for decades.
Last edited by Wycoff on 11-04-2005 at 22:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Zoidberg
|
 |
Communist Party of Apolyton
Jan 2002
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
Again, unsubstantiated opinion. What does having a death penalty for certain egregious situations have anything to do with "evolving." You have a different opinion, so of course your opinion is the "evolved" one, right? |
In 18th century England they boiled people in oil as a punishment, or put them in the iron maiden or... They donŽt anymore. ThatŽs evolving. The views on human rights and punishment has changed as we try to understand why people do the things they do. They have evolved. We no longer treat the insane as people posessed by evil spirits or put them in insane asylums to rot. We try to treat them. ThatŽs evolving... Are you with me so far?
quote:
Why put people in prison at all? After all, that's just getting revenge, and it doesn't change the fact that a crime was commited. |
I have nothing against punishment, as long as it isnŽt capital punishment. if you do a crime, you do the time. as simple as that. But since all criminals are socially maladjusted and/or suffer from mental illness they need proper care to be rehabilitated and reintroduced into society. If you kill a man you take away all that heŽsŽever been and all that he ever will be. Granted that some criminals are to ****ed up to ever function in society and they must be put away to protect the rest of us. But again, killing them is no solution. A civilized society must learn to deal even with really disturbed people without resorting to killing. But I speak no universal truths here, just my own views.
quote:
Actually, it is. If you can prove self defense, it is an affirmative defense that serves as a bar to punishment. You don't have to serve any jail time. |
Even if you couldŽve solved the situation otherwise?
quote:
I was waiting for this. The inevitable Godwinization of the thread. Couldn't you also say that giving the state the power to punish criminals puts you on the slippery slope to Fascism? These murderers have revoked thier own right to life by their actions. No one took it from them. They did so themselves. That's the difference. |
I see no difference, people who commit murder are criminals and should be punished. ThereŽs no argument there. But society as a whole must rise above the actions of criminals. The eye for an eye approach to justice is wrong IMO. By killing people in the name of justice we are demeaning ourselves as human beings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This "loophole" allowed Southern states to almost immediately re-enslave Blacks, as they immediately began arresting them for vagrancy, spitting, whatever, and sentencing them to work. Even up to the 1950s, in some Souterhn jurisdictions, when someone needed men for a job, they simply went to the local Democratic Party boss, who then had the sheriff go out and round up some folks, try them, and sentence them to penal work.
Today, companies like Microsoft, TWA, and Starbucks all use convict labor (not exclusively).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-04-2005 19:52
|