It's tough to defend such a faith in light of such incidents. One can't expect to be immune from some form of criticism when they permit such atrocities to occur with deafening silence.
Because murder only occurs in Muslim countries? :?
Any country exercising such brutality is open to criticism. For example, I don't disagree with much of what you say regarding some very questionable behaviours on the part of the US. Just don't stop your criticisms there though.
Are you justifying the execution of this woman because she drank water from a well? Or can we agree that such a response is utterly ridiculous and the fact that a society would stand behind it and allow it to happen leaves plenty to be desired. Criticism in this case is more than warranted.
Before this begins to sound like a racist rant, hats off to the two Muslims who did stand up for her and paid with their lives though- they have my complete respect.
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
It's tough to defend such a faith in light of such incidents. One can't expect to be immune from some form of criticism when they permit such atrocities to occur with deafening silence.
Because murder only occurs in Muslim countries? :?
I don't think the statement you are quoting even slightly suggests that was the case, far from it, but more so that if such a nonsensical case was really happening in the states, there would be an outcry, people would be aghast.
the deafening silence was the key part. and a truly appalling part.
lets not forget people are also executed there for adultery, or for having sex with a married man.
Heinous crimes. Perhaps they should be allowed to live how they wish and we shouldn't interfere. But im not sure any of us can really be that callously cold hearted as to not think that what was going on there was insanely wrong.
It's tough to defend such a faith in light of such incidents. One can't expect to be immune from some form of criticism when they permit such atrocities to occur with deafening silence.
Because murder only occurs in Muslim countries? :?
I will say it.
Yes only in todays muslim countries will the government allow a person to be imprisoned for violating segregation laws.
And then sentence them to death.
God put a smile - bluegrass
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
I'm not. Unless the justice system is completely infallible and completely free of corruption, capital punishment shouldn't happen.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
Sometimes conclusive evidence can be false evidence. Again, unless the justice system is infallible and free of corruption, there is always a risk of innocent people being murdered.
Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
Sometimes conclusive evidence can be false evidence. Again, unless the justice system is infallible and free of corruption, there is always a risk of innocent people being murdered.
Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.
Explain to me how the actual scenario I presented as 'conclusive evidence' could be considered 'false evidence'.
Dubious and sinister? Check the definitions for these terms. Then compare them with the definition of justice.
If you feel good about housing Clifford Olson for all those years: paying him cash so he would tell where the bodies of the children rested after he tortured, raped and murdered them; providing him sex dolls; ensuring he received the greatest cancer treatments possible; and other such 'nice' things... then that is your value system. Don't paint me as 'evil' for my value system which seeks an appropriate punishment that meets the crime and I won't paint you as a tissue soft, bleeding heart weakling.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
Sometimes conclusive evidence can be false evidence. Again, unless the justice system is infallible and free of corruption, there is always a risk of innocent people being murdered.
Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.
Explain to me how the actual scenario I presented as 'conclusive evidence' could be considered 'false evidence'.
Dubious and sinister? Check the definitions for these terms. Then compare them with the definition of justice.
If you feel good about housing Clifford Olson for all those years: paying him cash so he would tell where the bodies of the children rested after he tortured, raped and murdered them; providing him sex dolls; ensuring he received the greatest cancer treatments possible; and other such 'nice' things... then that is your value system. Don't paint me as 'evil' for my value system which seeks an appropriate punishment that meets the crime and I won't paint you as a tissue soft, bleeding heart weakling.
That particular scenario doesn't apply to what I said, but there are plenty of other cases that could. When the system is 100% perfect, then at least those who support government sponsored murder would have a case.
I do feel good about keeping killers in prison for life. Absolutely. It's even cheaper than the whole appeals process for death penalty cases, so it saves us money too. I don't give a fuck how they're treated in prison. They're still in prison. My concern is not revenge. It's making sure that these people can't hurt anyone else. The death penalty seems like pure revenge to me, and I don't think our governments should be vengeful. They should be concerned with keeping the population safe, and not murdering people, whoever they may be.
Yes, dubious and sinister. I meant exactly what I said.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
. Keep telling yourself whatever makes it easier to sleep but fact is people will be framed and evidence can easily be wrong and innocents will die. Forget about two wrongs don't make a right and you never want the government to have power to permanently silence.
As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
Sometimes conclusive evidence can be false evidence. Again, unless the justice system is infallible and free of corruption, there is always a risk of innocent people being murdered.
Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.
Explain to me how the actual scenario I presented as 'conclusive evidence' could be considered 'false evidence'.
Dubious and sinister? Check the definitions for these terms. Then compare them with the definition of justice.
If you feel good about housing Clifford Olson for all those years: paying him cash so he would tell where the bodies of the children rested after he tortured, raped and murdered them; providing him sex dolls; ensuring he received the greatest cancer treatments possible; and other such 'nice' things... then that is your value system. Don't paint me as 'evil' for my value system which seeks an appropriate punishment that meets the crime and I won't paint you as a tissue soft, bleeding heart weakling.
Respect your posts and views but criticize argument not the person.
That particular scenario doesn't apply to what I said, but there are plenty of other cases that could. When the system is 100% perfect, then at least those who support government sponsored murder would have a case.
I do feel good about keeping killers in prison for life. Absolutely. It's even cheaper than the whole appeals process for death penalty cases, so it saves us money too. I don't give a fuck how they're treated in prison. They're still in prison. My concern is not revenge. It's making sure that these people can't hurt anyone else. The death penalty seems like pure revenge to me, and I don't think our governments should be vengeful. They should be concerned with keeping the population safe, and not murdering people, whoever they may be.
Yes, dubious and sinister. I meant exactly what I said.
Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?
As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a convictmion.
As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.
I think the general consensus is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to go to prison or be killed. I personally agree with that sentiment. You are fully aware of all the implications that issue has on our right to freedom and liberty, so I don't have to go into that obviously.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.
I think the general consensus is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to go to prison or be killed. I personally agree with that sentiment. You are fully aware of all the implications that issue has on our right to freedom and liberty, so I don't have to go into that obviously.
I have already said I seek 100% certainty before convicting anyone of a crime. My point to illustrating the 2 examples I provided were to illustrate the fact that the law is not ruthlessly detaining people on hunches and suspicions as is sometimes suggested in these discussions.
That particular scenario doesn't apply to what I said, but there are plenty of other cases that could. When the system is 100% perfect, then at least those who support government sponsored murder would have a case.
I do feel good about keeping killers in prison for life. Absolutely. It's even cheaper than the whole appeals process for death penalty cases, so it saves us money too. I don't give a fuck how they're treated in prison. They're still in prison. My concern is not revenge. It's making sure that these people can't hurt anyone else. The death penalty seems like pure revenge to me, and I don't think our governments should be vengeful. They should be concerned with keeping the population safe, and not murdering people, whoever they may be.
Yes, dubious and sinister. I meant exactly what I said.
Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?
No idea what you're talking about re "soft perspective", so I'm just ignoring that. I have no idea how I would feel if that happened to me, and neither do you, but I do NOT think my perspective on this issue would change if it did, and there are MANY people who have had such things happen to their loved ones who do not support the death penalty. I do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
But with more than 250 death row inmates exonerated with DNA evidence, it's impossible to not think about the others who fell through the cracks – especially when looking at a man who almost did.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
I detest murders and couldn't comprehend how Terrible it must feel to loose someone to violent crime and felt as you do but now know killing is wrong and killing one person to seek vengeance is not worth it.
That particular scenario doesn't apply to what I said, but there are plenty of other cases that could. When the system is 100% perfect, then at least those who support government sponsored murder would have a case.
I do feel good about keeping killers in prison for life. Absolutely. It's even cheaper than the whole appeals process for death penalty cases, so it saves us money too. I don't give a fuck how they're treated in prison. They're still in prison. My concern is not revenge. It's making sure that these people can't hurt anyone else. The death penalty seems like pure revenge to me, and I don't think our governments should be vengeful. They should be concerned with keeping the population safe, and not murdering people, whoever they may be.
Yes, dubious and sinister. I meant exactly what I said.
Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?
I have no idea how I would feel if that happened to me, and neither do you, but I do NOT think my perspective on this issue would change if it did, and there are MANY people who have had such things happen to their loved ones who do not support the death penalty. I do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime.
Dr. William Petit changed his stance and viewpoint on capital punishment after his wife and two daughters were taken from him. Understandably so.
You do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime? Provide me with a link that demonstrates such. I would agree that there are some people that feel as you describe... but they are the overwhelming minority.
In the entirety of this thread, I have produced multiple links that have shown the peace and closure victims have felt when their children's murderer is sentenced to death or put to death.
As many examples there might be of people wrongfully convicted... there are examples of people who have committed a crime and walk freely because of the safeguards in place to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.
I think the general consensus is that it's better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to go to prison or be killed. I personally agree with that sentiment. You are fully aware of all the implications that issue has on our right to freedom and liberty, so I don't have to go into that obviously.
I have already said I seek 100% certainty before convicting anyone of a crime. My point to illustrating the 2 examples I provided were to illustrate the fact that the law is not ruthlessly detaining people on hunches and suspicions as is sometimes suggested in these discussions.
The thing is, you're not running the justice system. That's nice that you would only have someone kill the people who were caught red handed... But that isn't how the system works obviously, unless you personally expect to be an eyewitness to the crimes in question, with a video camera. What if witnesses are liars? Or remember things incorectly? What if some racist cop planted evidence or lied under oath? Anyway, the point I'm making is that one shouldn't support the death penalty based on how they think the system SHOULD work, but on how it DOES work.... And that's assuming said person is okay with their government murdering people for revenge.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. Are you okay with a few getting wrongfully killed so you get your vengeance? And if so what percentage is acceptable? 2%. 1%. .05%? If your for the death penalty your for a few innocents to be thrown in the mix.
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
I detest murders and couldn't comprehend how Terrible it must feel to loose someone to violent crime and felt as you do but now know killing is wrong and killing one person to seek vengeance is not worth it.
Your values. I'm okay with you having them. I get my back up when I'm called out on mine that are different than yours- in particular when I feel I am right.
Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?
I have no idea how I would feel if that happened to me, and neither do you, but I do NOT think my perspective on this issue would change if it did, and there are MANY people who have had such things happen to their loved ones who do not support the death penalty. I do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime.
Dr. William Petit changed his stance and viewpoint on capital punishment after his wife and two daughters were taken from him. Understandably so.
You do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime? Provide me with a link that demonstrates such. I would agree that there are some people that feel as you describe... but they are the overwhelming minority.
In the entirety of this thread, I have produced multiple links that have shown the peace and closure victims have felt when their children's murderer is sentenced to death or put to death.
Now Google "victims families against the death penalty". Wow. A lot of results!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Would rather have a hundred scumbags walk free than sacrificing one innocent person.
Then what do we say to a parent whose child was brutally murdered by one of these hundred scumbags who walked free?
The death penalty should be used sparingly, as an ultimate punishment, and only in cases where guilt is assured. Innocents are killed because the death penalty is used far too often.
Your values. I'm okay with you having them. I get my back up when I'm called out on mine that are different than yours- in particular when I feel I am right.
there is no right or wrong here ... unless you claim that the DP serves a bigger purpose ...
this issue is about morality and what kind of society one wants to be part of ...
fore me - violence begets violence ... solving problems by violence only creates more problems ...
Anyway, it seems to me that, aside from the USA, the death penalty is not considered a reasonable option among first world nations concerned with human rights, but considered a very good option among societies that are also very religious, sexist, poor, generally have uneducated populations, and generally work against human rights. I think that is a good measuring stick as to what place the death penalty has in what I think we all consider the direction we want the world's population to go in.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
Any country exercising such brutality is open to criticism. For example, I don't disagree with much of what you say regarding some very questionable behaviours on the part of the US. Just don't stop your criticisms there though.
Are you justifying the execution of this woman because she drank water from a well? Or can we agree that such a response is utterly ridiculous and the fact that a society would stand behind it and allow it to happen leaves plenty to be desired. Criticism in this case is more than warranted.
Before this begins to sound like a racist rant, hats off to the two Muslims who did stand up for her and paid with their lives though- they have my complete respect.
The innocent people incarcerated or executed when innocent is tragic. Nobody can argue this.
The improvements in forensic science have been useful to say the least. These same improvements also diminish the potential for a wrongful conviction in future cases.
Video footage that the murderers often take themselves, being caught red-handed as they are running from the crime scene (such as the Cheshire murders), and sound forensics science and DNA testing do not leave as much room for error as the crude methodology employed in the past.
Ethical viewpoints aside, as much as these improvements have led to overturning wrongful convictions... they also somewhat diminish the argument against capital punishment that insists we cannot execute people for fear of executing the wrong person.
I don't think the statement you are quoting even slightly suggests that was the case, far from it, but more so that if such a nonsensical case was really happening in the states, there would be an outcry, people would be aghast.
the deafening silence was the key part. and a truly appalling part.
lets not forget people are also executed there for adultery, or for having sex with a married man.
Heinous crimes. Perhaps they should be allowed to live how they wish and we shouldn't interfere. But im not sure any of us can really be that callously cold hearted as to not think that what was going on there was insanely wrong.
I will say it.
Yes only in todays muslim countries will the government allow a person to be imprisoned for violating segregation laws.
And then sentence them to death.
God put a smile - bluegrass
No. You are wrong. You cannot definitively say that with the advancements in forensics science: regardless of how good the technology gets there will be innocents put to death. This might be true, but given the developments that have resulted in overturning some sentences and convicting others... it's looking like we are progressing to a point where we can feel very comfortable convicting murderers for their offences.
No percentage is acceptable and this is why I have always said the evidence must be conclusive before sentencing people to death. For example, the Cheshire murderers running from the house, gleefully grinning, high fiving each other after raping the 11 year old and mother before dousing them with gasoline and setting them on fire would qualify. There is no doubt at all about their guilt.
And as for your last general and oversimplified statement... this is like saying if you are opposed to the Death Penalty... you feel more for the murderer than the murdered.
Not to mention the fact that punishing people for murder with murder is a dubious and sinister thing to do.
Explain to me how the actual scenario I presented as 'conclusive evidence' could be considered 'false evidence'.
Dubious and sinister? Check the definitions for these terms. Then compare them with the definition of justice.
If you feel good about housing Clifford Olson for all those years: paying him cash so he would tell where the bodies of the children rested after he tortured, raped and murdered them; providing him sex dolls; ensuring he received the greatest cancer treatments possible; and other such 'nice' things... then that is your value system. Don't paint me as 'evil' for my value system which seeks an appropriate punishment that meets the crime and I won't paint you as a tissue soft, bleeding heart weakling.
That particular scenario doesn't apply to what I said, but there are plenty of other cases that could. When the system is 100% perfect, then at least those who support government sponsored murder would have a case.
I do feel good about keeping killers in prison for life. Absolutely. It's even cheaper than the whole appeals process for death penalty cases, so it saves us money too. I don't give a fuck how they're treated in prison. They're still in prison. My concern is not revenge. It's making sure that these people can't hurt anyone else. The death penalty seems like pure revenge to me, and I don't think our governments should be vengeful. They should be concerned with keeping the population safe, and not murdering people, whoever they may be.
Yes, dubious and sinister. I meant exactly what I said.
The RCMP waited for over a year before they arrested David Shearing for the murder of a family. They had to ensure everything was in place so that when they went to trial, the case was rock solid because anytime there is a shadow of doubt... there is no conviction.
On the Shearing note... thank Gawd we never executed him. You see... he is married now. He has served his 30 years for shooting the parents and grandparents, confining and repeatedly raping the 2 young daughters, and then trying to dispose of the 6 bodies by dousing them and a car in gasoline and burning it. Now... he swears he's all better and he applies for parole every 2 years as he is legally entitled to do. The surviving family members dutifully show up every parole hearing with a petition to keep him behind bars, but many feel that 'softies' who are advocating for him may succeed in granting him parole.
Sherri McLaughlin's murderer is well-known and has been for some time. We cannot convict him for his crime because, as much circumstantial evidence and as much as we know of the violent sex offender, there's just not quite enough to charge him for an awful murder in our area some time ago. Sherri's bike remnants (she was mowed down on her bike before her disappearance) on his vehicle are not enough for a conviction.
http://www.kamloopsnews.ca/article/2011 ... ase-denied
Again, spoken from the 'soft' perspective. You are completely entitled to your opinion which, no doubtedly, would change if you were directly affected by such a crime. Nice and easy to philosophize about fluff when it's not your child with nails driven into his skull after he was raped, huh?
This goes both ways doesn't it?
Geez, man. Are you serious?
I have already said I seek 100% certainty before convicting anyone of a crime. My point to illustrating the 2 examples I provided were to illustrate the fact that the law is not ruthlessly detaining people on hunches and suspicions as is sometimes suggested in these discussions.
Just dubious and sinister, huh? Enough already.
Dr. William Petit changed his stance and viewpoint on capital punishment after his wife and two daughters were taken from him. Understandably so.
You do know that it's been shown that the family members of victims of those who have been murdered by the government for their crimes do NOT tend to find any peace when the death penalty is carried out on the person who committed the crime? Provide me with a link that demonstrates such. I would agree that there are some people that feel as you describe... but they are the overwhelming minority.
In the entirety of this thread, I have produced multiple links that have shown the peace and closure victims have felt when their children's murderer is sentenced to death or put to death.
Your values. I'm okay with you having them. I get my back up when I'm called out on mine that are different than yours- in particular when I feel I am right.
Then what do we say to a parent whose child was brutally murdered by one of these hundred scumbags who walked free?
The death penalty should be used sparingly, as an ultimate punishment, and only in cases where guilt is assured. Innocents are killed because the death penalty is used far too often.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
there is no right or wrong here ... unless you claim that the DP serves a bigger purpose ...
this issue is about morality and what kind of society one wants to be part of ...
fore me - violence begets violence ... solving problems by violence only creates more problems ...