The Death Penalty

1…969799101102…124

Comments

  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    edited September 2015
    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    Post edited by PJfanwillneverleave1 on
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    :lol: . No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).

    Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • JWPearl
    JWPearl Posts: 19,893
    sometimes i wonder if the word justice exists still for the victims when the criminal has not repented or has cause serious lifelong mental or physical injury
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    edited September 2015
    JWPearl said:

    sometimes i wonder if the word justice exists still for the victims when the criminal has not repented or has cause serious lifelong mental or physical injury

    What does repenting look like?
    Post edited by callen on
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    Victims of crime are heard. It's just from the very back of the court room and when they are gasping: once when details about their loved ones surface and a second time when they hear the laughable sentences we typically see.

    And I disagree with your statement about the justice system not having any time for criminals. In Canada, we most certainly do. We roll out the red carpet for our murderers and rapists and give them the best we can under the circumstances. The pendulum has swung way too far and it was pushed by some of the same attitudes on display here.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    Okay, so we are in agreement; on your first point, anyway.

    We may still have a different interpretation of just what your second point means, but overall it's good.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    oftenreading said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    Okay, so we are in agreement; on your first point, anyway.

    We may still have a different interpretation of just what your second point means, but overall it's good.
    Obviously, I'm a hard ass.

    I can accept our laws as they currently stand, but swallowing them is like a swallowing a spoonful of cod liver oil sometimes. If people would leave other people alone... we wouldn't need these discussions about where the bar should be with regards to 'punishment'.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • pdalowsky
    pdalowsky Doncaster,UK Posts: 15,220
    pdalowsky said:

    how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.

    asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?

    no thoughts?
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    pdalowsky said:

    pdalowsky said:

    how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.

    asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?

    no thoughts?
    PD.

    I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.

    Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • pdalowsky
    pdalowsky Doncaster,UK Posts: 15,220
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    pdalowsky said:

    pdalowsky said:

    how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.

    asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?

    no thoughts?
    PD.

    I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.

    Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
    So zero support for the Glossip punishment ?? Even for the guy who committed the actual murder ?
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    oftenreading said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    :lol: . No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).

    Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
    Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    Agree. Think it's important for victims.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    pdalowsky said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    pdalowsky said:

    pdalowsky said:

    how do the pro death penalty advocates feel about the glossip case on the presumption that he is indeed guilty.

    asking someone to kill someone, does that warrant death? or is that punishment only appropriate for the person who actually kills?

    no thoughts?
    PD.

    I've detailed conditions I feel warrant the DP many times.

    Serial/mass... and cases where torture and excessive cruelty are evident... and any case where a child (or children) are the victim(s) of a violent and premeditated homicide.
    So zero support for the Glossip punishment ?? Even for the guy who committed the actual murder ?
    zero support.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    edited September 2015
    callen said:

    oftenreading said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    :lol: . No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).

    Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
    Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    Agree. Think it's important for victims.
    Callen, how did you intend to complete your sentence "see through th". Seems you got cut off.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • PJfanwillneverleave1
    PJfanwillneverleave1 Posts: 12,885
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    Victims of crime are heard. It's just from the very back of the court room and when they are gasping: once when details about their loved ones surface and a second time when they hear the laughable sentences we typically see.

    And I disagree with your statement about the justice system not having any time for criminals. In Canada, we most certainly do. We roll out the red carpet for our murderers and rapists and give them the best we can under the circumstances. The pendulum has swung way too far and it was pushed by some of the same attitudes on display here.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSd70vJTw8Q
  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    oftenreading said:

    callen said:

    oftenreading said:

    PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

    oftenreading said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    callen said:

    Some numbers to support innocent people released due to shitty prosecutions and human inadequacy. And yes now we have DNA but many in jail aren't convicted by DNA and they don't have this saving gift as those released in article below.

    If you are okay with death penalty you are okay with a few innocents thrown In to satisfy your thirst for revenge. No debate on this. Just admit it.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/justice/prisoner-exonerations-facts-innocence-project/index.html

    Here's my question to you:

    If we were 100% assured that through forensic science we would never convict anyone wrongfully again... would you...

    1. Support the application of the DP in cases such as the Cheshire Murders where bondage, rape, torture and murder of the horrific variety occurred?

    2. Refute the application of it and insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve?

    If you choose #2... let's be honest... you care much more about the psychotic killers than you do seeking appropriate justice for the event and for Dr. Petit (he himself a former staunch opponent of the DP who abruptly changed his course of thinking once directly affected). No debate on this. Just admit it.
    3. refute the application of it, but not insist on the same sentence drug dealers serve. apples and oranges.

    it's not "caring about psychotic killers". it is absolutely ridiculous to keep claiming this. I am speaking from an objective position. and you HAVE TO. I'm not looking at the victim, I'm not looking at the criminal.

    justice + emotion = chaos.

    which is why I also disagree with victim impact statements. for the justice system to put, say, a murdered high school coach above, say, a murdered homeless man without family or friends, to me is not blind justice. it's favouritism.

    Yes, I completely agree with the bolded portion. I think that victim impact statements generally do not serve justice. The fact that some victims or family members happen to be more eloquent, or better connected, or more comfortable speaking up in court or to crowds of media should in no way affect the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. that simply makes victims/family doubly victimized. And why do the victim impact statements only seem to be used to make a sentence harsher? What if, for instance, a victim of a crime whose belief system valued forgiveness and compassion submitted a victim impact statement asking that the perpetrator not be punished - would that be given any credence? And if not, why not?
    That is stupid.
    Victims of crime need to be heard and felt.
    The justice system has no time for criminals.

    edit - I really hope that you are not a lawyer.
    Because any lawyer reading this certainly would disagree.
    Any victim would not hire you.
    :lol: . No, I'm not a lawyer - why on earth would you think that? (But FYI, I've heard lawyers express similar sentiments).

    Feel free not to hire me for anything at all, PJfan.
    Think it's more of allowing victims families to begin closure. Probably not fair but needed. I am on victims side. I do though hope the judge can see through th
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    oftenreading said:

    So for those of you strongly advocating for victim impact statements to be taken into account in sentencing - how can you justify this actually making a difference in how someone is sentenced? This puts the onus on the victim of a crime, and/or their family members, to participate in the whole court process even if they can't, or don't want to, for fear that their non-participation would be the reason that the perpetrator got a lesser sentence - to my mind, that's a completely unfair burden to put on someone who is grieving. What about those who are disenfranchised from the legal system? Many groups of individuals have historically (and currently) been badly treated by the legal system; this includes first nations peoples, sex trade workers, immigrants, etc. Now they have to participate in a system that has victimized them in order to see justice for their loved ones? And, as HFD said, what about the homeless or those without any family? No-one to speak for them, so they're less important to the court?

    Justice can not depend on how loudly and how long someone can talk.

    For the record, I'm not advocating for victim impact statements to carry any influence with regards to sentencing. I do think that the opportunity to address the mutant that destroyed your life should be provided to any victim that seeks it in their impossible journey towards closure or comfort of some sort.

    I think the courts and the laws of our land should rule in the interests of victims without them urging anything.
    Agree. Think it's important for victims.
    Callen, how did you intend to complete your sentence "see through th". Seems you got cut off.
    Quoting feature. So "I would hope the judge would see testimonies for what they are and not show favoritism in setting penalties due to number of family members testifying during penalty phase. So killing homeless less time than person with people showing.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Thanks callen.

    I have been reading up on what the effect of the victim impact statements is supposed to be and it seems to be a fine and somewhat blurry line. The judges are required to read and take them into account, but are not supposed to allow them to affect the "quantum" of the sentencing. To make it more complicated, it's clear that the statements have directly impacted the length/severity of sentences at times, as appeal courts have overturned judges' decisions and imposed harsher sentences where it was argued that the judge did not adequately consider the ongoing impact of the crime on the victim, based on the victim impact statements. So to me it's clear that they have had the effect of increasing sentences above what would have been given had no-one submitted such a statement.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Thirty Bills Unpaid
    Thirty Bills Unpaid Posts: 16,881
    I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.

    I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.

    Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • oftenreading
    oftenreading Victoria, BC Posts: 12,856
    Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

    I'm sure the last thing a murderer wants is to have their victim's family speak to how they've been impacted.

    I'm pretty sure murderers would prefer the courts think of the victims as letters string together on a page in the form of a name- a faceless non entity.

    Murderers do their best to minimize their actions seeking as little punishment as possible. I am not in favour of victim impact statements influencing sentences- I'm in favour of courts working on behalf of the victims regardless. From my way of thinking, in my country, I don't think this is being done. Simply put... we are too lenient.

    We go in circles here. My only point is that justice is not being served if it does not also apply to the less popular of the victims.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf

Categories