Do you believe in death penalty

[BLeGal2]

How, exactly would you determine the difference between someone who has been wrongly convicted and is actually innocent as compared to someone who has been rightfully convicted and is guilty? You would have to determine that to be able to say who gets how many appeals. Both of them have been pronounced guilty...that is why they are in prison. Without the appeals process applied universally, you have no way of discovering who was wrongfully convicted.

Someone who is innocent would have holes in their case. They wouldn't have everything. DNA evidence doesn't get messed up, if it does the scientist that did it has the chance of being sentenced too, so if there is DNA evidence that not only connects the person but is on the scene in a particular place that is not possible to mistake (aka in a women from being raped) then they are rightfully guilty. Its all facts. If the courts don't wait for all of the holes to fill then that sucks for the person, but they should take in to account that they cannot convict someone guilty if they are missing prime evidence. I say if there are holes in the case at all, postpone the trials finish till a later time and till the holes are filled. If they can't fill them then they shouldn't get the death penalty. But for Belia's case they waited 3 years to trial him till every hole was filled--that is how it should be done.

In my opinion if there is DNA in a place that could not be falsely placed then they are guilty and will be rightfully guilty. but i can tell your not gonna take any answer except "there is no way to really know." I think that anyone that gets themselves in a situation of being wrongly accused must have been somewhere they shouldn't have, so they took their chances and now they have to either come up with the proof or face reality.

The guilty criminals should not be given more appeals just so the wrongly accused can keep appealing. they obviously were in the wrong place or did something to be wrongly accused.

 

[Jiro]

all cases are based on circumstantial evidences.

 

[jillio]

Someone who is innocent would have holes in their case. They wouldn't have everything. DNA evidence doesn't get messed up, if it does the scientist that did it has the chance of being sentenced too, so if there is DNA evidence that not only connects the person but is on the scene in a particular place that is not possible to mistake (aka in a women from being raped) then they are rightfully guilty. Its all facts. If the courts don't wait for all of the holes to fill then that sucks for the person, but they should take in to account that they cannot convict someone guilty if they are missing prime evidence. I say if there are holes in the case at all, postpone the trials finish till a later time and till the holes are filled. If they can't fill them then they shouldn't get the death penalty. But for Belia's case they waited 3 years to trial him till every hole was filled--that is how it should be done.

In my opinion if there is DNA in a place that could not be falsely placed then they are guilty and will be rightfully guilty. but i can tell your not gonna take any answer except "there is no way to really know." I think that anyone that gets themselves in a situation of being wrongly accused must have been somewhere they shouldn't have, so they took their chances and now they have to either come up with the proof or face reality.

The guilty criminals should not be given more appeals just so the wrongly accused can keep appealing. they obviously were in the wrong place or did something to be wrongly accused.

Someone who is guilty can have holes in their case. DNA evidence gets contaminated all the time. And you are right, there is no way to really know, which is why your solution won't work. Most people do not put themselves in the position to be wrongly convicted. That is why it is a wrongful conviction.:roll: Whether you want to face it or not, you could easily be picked up and wrongly convicted of a violent crime tomorrow. How would you feel about those appeals, then?

 

[BLeGal2]

Someone who is guilty can have holes in their case. DNA evidence gets contaminated all the time. And you are right, there is no way to really know, which is why your solution won't work. Most people do not put themselves in the position to be wrongly convicted. That is why it is a wrongful conviction.:roll: Whether you want to face it or not, you could easily be picked up and wrongly convicted of a violent crime tomorrow. How would you feel about those appeals, then?

Like i said early three appeals is fine by me. If I can't prove it by then, then that sucks, I will just have to deal. I'm sure I would be upset and want more, but because I wouldn't want a true murderer getting to appeal his whole life I would rather take the penalty and have them have less a chance of being freed then live on where they could continue harming people.

I still stand by my opinion. Besides this thread say do you "believe" in the death penalty. So that means my personal opinion. If you don't agree that sucks. But it won't be changed-- esp not concerning sex offenders. Murders have a chance with me, but not sex offenders at all. My opinion. Deal or don't.

 

[jillio]

Like i said early three appeals is fine by me. If I can't prove it by then, then that sucks, I will just have to deal. I'm sure I would be upset and want more, but because I wouldn't want a true murderer getting to appeal his whole life I would rather take the penalty and have them have less a chance of being freed then live on where they could continue harming people.

I still stand by my opinion. Besides this thread say do you "believe" in the death penalty. So that means my personal opinion. If you don't agree that sucks. But it won't be changed-- esp not concerning sex offenders. Murders have a chance with me, but not sex offenders at all. My opinion. Deal or don't.

Death row inmates don't have unlimited appeals. There is already a limit on the number of appeals they are entitled to. So, the chances that they will spend "their whole life" in the appeals process is slim to none.

You are entitled to your opinion. It certainly isn't my intent to change it. Simply pointing out the holes in the logic you are using to justify it. If you are okay with the chance of executing an innocent person, then you have to live with that on your conscious. Good luck with that. And remember that the consequences of such is also that you forfeit your right to complain should you or another member of your family be unjustly convicted, or God forbid, executed as an innocent.

 

[deafdyke]

I WAS in favor of death penalty, after I get older and wiser I realize that it is not viable solution regardless. I see too many flaws in our judical system. I would support ONLY if there is absolutely zero flaw in judical system.

I do think that the gross majority of cases don't need the death penalty. But I DO believe that we DO need to reserve the death penalty for REALLY severe cases. There are some extremely dangeorous psycopaths out there who are just BEYOND rehabbing.
What if there was an extremely dangerous unrepentant psycopath who it was concretely proved that they had 100% killed?
Or maybe we just need those psycopaths/severe hardcases to be put in solitary for life, like Paul Bernardo. They would just get food through the door, and NO human interaction or perks whatsoever. A living death in other words.

 

[BLeGal2]

I do think that the gross majority of cases don't need the death penalty. But I DO believe that we DO need to reserve the death penalty for REALLY severe cases. There are some extremely dangeorous psycopaths out there who are just BEYOND rehabbing.
What if there was an extremely dangerous unrepentant psycopath who it was concretely proved that they had 100% killed?
Or maybe we just need those psycopaths/severe hardcases to be put in solitary for life, like Paul Bernardo. They would just get food through the door, and NO human interaction or perks whatsoever. A living death in other words.

 

[BLeGal2]

Death row inmates don't have unlimited appeals. There is already a limit on the number of appeals they are entitled to. So, the chances that they will spend "their whole life" in the appeals process is slim to none.

You are entitled to your opinion. It certainly isn't my intent to change it. Simply pointing out the holes in the logic you are using to justify it. If you are okay with the chance of executing an innocent person, then you have to live with that on your conscious. Good luck with that. And remember that the consequences of such is also that you forfeit your right to complain should you or another member of your family be unjustly convicted, or God forbid, executed as an innocent.

In the state of nv they do. That was what I was talking about this whole time. I said that in my very first post.

 

[rockin'robin]

all cases are based on circumstantial evidences.

How can you say that?....Not all of them. When my mother was murdered, he blamed it on my sister, and my sister and I saw it all....She had to "defend" herself for something this man did.....and rehash everything, over and over.....
I was a young girl when this happened, and believe it or not, if I had a gun, I would have shot that M'Fker on the stand in court....

 

[Foxrac]

How can you say that?....Not all of them. When my mother was murdered, he blamed it on my sister, and my sister and I saw it all....She had to "defend" herself for something this man did.....and rehash everything, over and over.....
I was a young girl when this happened, and believe it or not, if I had a gun, I would have shot that M'Fker on the stand in court....

Wow, you will arrest for murder and have fun in prison.

 

[rolling7]

how, exactly would you determine the difference between someone who has been wrongly convicted and is actually innocent as compared to someone who has been rightfully convicted and is guilty? You would have to determine that to be able to say who gets how many appeals. Both of them have been pronounced guilty...that is why they are in prison. Without the appeals process applied universally, you have no way of discovering who was wrongfully convicted.

i like your way of thinking here. Aperson can only be convicted at the time of the trial base on the evidence presented. If ten-twenty years later there happens to be a brand new method of testing of evidence that proves the person has resonable doub then a new trial should be granted. However, that person was not wrongful convicted, only convicted to the best of the jury at the time of the trial.

 

[rolling7]

how, exactly would you determine the difference between someone who has been wrongly convicted and is actually innocent as compared to someone who has been rightfully convicted and is guilty? You would have to determine that to be able to say who gets how many appeals. Both of them have been pronounced guilty...that is why they are in prison. Without the appeals process applied universally, you have no way of discovering who was wrongfully convicted.

i like your way of thinking here. A person can only be convicted at the time of the trial base on the evidence presented. If ten-twenty years later there happens to be a brand new method of testing of evidence that proves the person has resonable doubt then a new trial should be granted. However, that person was not wrongful convicted, only convicted to the best of the jury at the time of the trial.

 

[deafdyke]

granted our justice system is flawed.....but even with that....It does seem like with the "Oh our justice system is flawed" people, that a lot of naive people think that everyone is good at heart. Wrong. There are some DAMN dangerous unrepentant profound sociopaths, who cry " Oh I'm innocent" or " Oh I asked nicely to have sex with her" (when in fact he raped her at knife/gunpoint) or " what's the problem? She's dead"They need to be removed from society. They cannot be rehabbed at ALL.

 

[KarissaMann05]

Wirelessly posted

granted our justice system is flawed.....but even with that....It does seem like with the "Oh our justice system is flawed" people, that a lot of naive people think that everyone is good at heart. Wrong. There are some DAMN dangerous unrepentant profound sociopaths, who cry " Oh I'm innocent" or " Oh I asked nicely to have sex with her" (when in fact he raped her at knife/gunpoint) or " what's the problem? She's dead"They need to be removed from society. They cannot be rehabbed at ALL.

Ditto.

I really don't like the death penalty very much, and I don't agree it need to be completely banned. Some people just dersves (sp) to die...

 

[jillio]

Wirelessly posted



Ditto.

I really don't like the death penalty very much, and I don't agree it need to be completely banned. Some people just dersves (sp) to die...

Is that really man's decision to make? Humans, by nature, make mistakes and are biased. Should we really be deciding who lives and who dies?

 

[deafdyke]

Is that really man's decision to make? Humans, by nature, make mistakes and are biased. Should we really be deciding who lives and who dies?

Thank you Karissa. I'm very libral and GENERALLY against the death penalty.
Not an eye for an eye person. I know from friends who have been in prison that most people in prison simply made a mistake or two. Nothing wrong with that. We shouldn't go back to the Jean Valjean days when you got profound punishment for doing something mild.
BUT, there ARE folks who are just such obvious totally and completely unrepentant sociopaths......There would be a very strict proceedure complete with extensive testing to ensure that only severe sociopaths would get executed. (severe meaning on the level of Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka) Heck, if Saddam got executed there's no reason why we shouldn't execute other psychopaths.

 

[jillio]

Thank you Karissa. I'm very libral and GENERALLY against the death penalty.
Not an eye for an eye person. I know from friends who have been in prison that most people in prison simply made a mistake or two. Nothing wrong with that. We shouldn't go back to the Jean Valjean days when you got profound punishment for doing something mild.
BUT, there ARE folks who are just such obvious totally and completely unrepentant sociopaths......There would be a very strict proceedure complete with extensive testing to ensure that only severe sociopaths would get executed. (severe meaning on the level of Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka) Heck, if Saddam got executed there's no reason why we shouldn't execute other psychopaths.

Again, is that really man's decision to make? Today, we decide that sociopaths don't have a right to life. Tomorrow we decide that schizophrenics don't have a right to life. And so on. It is still man deciding another man's worth.

 

[diehardbiker]

Wait! Sociopath is a medical illness right? Of course it is Mental health, and it falls under medical category.

Then why we prohibit terminal illness patients from assist suicide? Those are under medical category too, and the patient has absolutely certain that they are gonna die soon anyway. Yet assisted suicide is still prohibited and they continue to suffer inhumanely.

I see this as conflict politically.

BUT, there ARE folks who are just such obvious totally and completely unrepentant sociopaths......There would be a very strict proceedure complete with extensive testing to ensure that only severe sociopaths would get executed. (severe meaning on the level of Paul Bernardo and Karla Holmolka) Heck, if Saddam got executed there's no reason why we shouldn't execute other psychopaths.

 

[diehardbiker]

Again, is that really man's decision to make? Today, we decide that sociopaths don't have a right to life. Tomorrow we decide that schizophrenics don't have a right to life. And so on. It is still man deciding another man's worth.

 

[somedeafdudefromPNW]

Wirelessly posted

Saddam is a psychopath? I thought he was just drunk with power?