thank you, master.

hawt

That's a ridiculously dumb line of reasoning for not liking the death penalty

Let me ask you, would you rather see ten murderers and one innocent person put to death, or ten murderers and one innocent person go free?

"e-rage flare up".. hmm... I like that

New Jersey just outlawed it: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/nj....alty/index.html

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Dec 14 2007, 12:27 PM

Why would you ask such a STUPID question? Go take a class in logic, Will. You obviously need to. You're question is completely irrelevant to this thread. I never once said I wanted any of these people to go free (unless found to be innocent of course). I said let them rot in jail. So, yes, I would rather have ten murderers SITTING IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES (not going free....dont even know why that was brought into this) than have one INNOCENT man put to death. I already told you a long time ago I was against the death penalty. I won't march against it, because I don't feel that strongly against it; but when a state outlaws it and starts a trend to move our society away from inhumane acts like this, then yes, I will be a glad. Just like I think abortion is wrong, but won't actively argue against that either. However, the day partial birth abortions were banned, I was very happy.

Additionally, find in my post where I said that was why I'm against it. Nope, can't find it, can you? I am against it because I don't like the idea of humans playing god. I believe that people get what they deserve in the end. Additionally, I feel very sorry for the men and women working in prisons who have to institute the death penalty, like the ones that sit there and tie the person down or the ones that give them the drugs. Its an awful thing to have to do.

10 murderers and one innocent go free.... duh. Thats what our system is built around (freeing guility so that INNOCENT are not punished wrongly)

Seriously, you think executing 1 innocent per 10 is ok? Don't get me wrong, if the error rate is low enough i think you can allow it, but our whole system is about making sure innocents are not punished (hende the "beyond a reasonable doubt"). Why not just lower the requirement to find someone guilty while we are at it.

So what's the real error rate then? It's got to be lower than 1 in 10... I'd guess more like 1 in 1000. Give them one appeal... if they're convicted twice, then sorry they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Is that really a valid reason to be put to death, though? I should hope not

Riiiiiighhht... let's make capital punishment cases in states like Texas more like kangaroo courts.

Kangaroo court?

Are you talking about when an arrest is made, evidence is gathered, witnesses are questioned, charges are filed, the case goes to trial, evidence is submitted, and a jury of 12 people unanimously agrees on a guilty verdict, a judge issues a sentence, an appeal is made later, and again the criminal is found guilty?

Or are you talking about a prisoner on death row filing an appeal close to the time he's to be executed, losing that appeal, filing another appeal the next time he's to be executed, losing that appeal, filing another appeal the next time he's to be executed, losing that appeal, filing another appeal the next time he's to be executed, losing that appeal, filing another appeal the next time he's to be executed, losing that appeal, filing another appeal the next time he's to be executed, losing that appeal

Which scenario describes a kangaroo court? Which scenario is a gross misuse of our justice system?


Appeals should only be allowed in one instance: when new evidence is discovered that might exonerate the defendant. Be it eyewitnesses, physical evidence, DNA evidence, whatever. Appeals without merit are a slap in the face to the justice system, a waste of my tax dollars, and a tool that people on death row use to postpone the inevitable.

I dunno what to say... if a person has been convicted of murder and sentenced to death twice, what are the chances that they're innocent? How can you go... "oh well there's still that remote possibility that it's wrong, so lets let the person rot in jail the rest of their life instead on the dime of the taxpayer." It's not like you can give the guy the 30 years spent in jail back anymore than you can bring him back from the dead.

jurists are never unbiased, just doesnt happen. so being convicted and sentenced to 4 life sentences by juries can still be utterly false and based on emotion and prejudices. i think the whole system is silly and i dont support capital punishment

i think it would be better to just have judges rule in all cases and have more of a way to check corruption and better appellate system

You just did state your stance on the death penalty

Isn't the concept sending someone to jail and taking away their freedoms, in effect, playing god?





I don't feel sorry for them at all. They willingly took a job and they knew exactly what they'd have to do.

Say what!?? You think a jury is biased but a friggin judge wouldn't be!?!?