Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dave

Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty.......

Recommended Posts

I just want what's more painful for him. I'm just not sure if it's executing him or locking him up for the rest of his days.

 

btw Dave you A NIN fan too?

 

Yes I am. However I prefer Johnny Cash's version of Hurt more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I could take that statement, reverse the players, and it would still be just as unanswerable. Like, how is it many right to lifers (for example) can be so pro-life in regards to a child, but so pro-death when it comes to criminals? Sorry, didn't mean to pick on your FC, but it's a bastard of a question (both are). :yes:

 

It doesn't actually work both ways. The concept of innocence comes into play. In both examples, there are clearly innocent parties and clearly guilty parties:

 

Rape example

rape victim = innocent

rapist = guilty

 

Abortion example

fetus = innocent

abortionist = guilty

 

So while I respect your opinion, I think you have to agree that one position consistently supports the innocent while the other position supports the guilty. One position is rational while the other is irrational.

 

To position the argument as one of pro-life versus pro-death is to miss the point. The real issue at hand is whether we apply appropriate punishments to those who commit heinous crimes for the dual purposes of punishing the guilty and protecting society as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abortion example[/u]

fetus = innocent

abortionist = guilty

 

That one is far from being so clear.

But then we're getting into the whole rights of fetus vs right of the woman. I'll pass on that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one is far from being so clear.

But then we're getting into the whole rights of fetus vs right of the woman. I'll pass on that argument.

 

This isn't as unclear as people make it out to be.

 

Assuming the fetus is considered alive at conception it's pretty straight forward:

 

Woman chooses no baby = dead fetus

Woman chooses baby = live fetus

 

Now, before ANYONE jumps in my chili, I know there are some very valid exceptions (rape, incest, danger to woman, failure of birth control, etc). But assuming it was 2 consentual adults who created the baby, it's now a responsibility that was walked into.

 

You can either kill a fetus so you're not inconvienced or you can bring it to term. After that, you can either take responsibility (both parents), or you can give it up for adoption. Killing a fetus because it'll make you feel better or to make your life easier or to escape consequences of your actions seems very irresponsible.

 

Now, the questions of when a fetus is considered 'alive' and what's the best way to prevent young pregnancies in the first place due to hormone filled teenagers is something I don't have the answer for...

 

FastCargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I believe in an eye for an eye, as messed up as the legal system here is I don't think that the death penalty is a good idea. There are too many instances of death row (or life prisoners) being exonerated by DNA evidence. Maybe if the preponderance of evidence is held as a higher standard then and only then should the death penalty be put into effect.

 

I'm conservative and registered Republican, but I know how bad the justice system is broken in my state and something needs to be done. Jail is big business now, it's not about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I mean no disrespect, but I have to disagree with a couple of points, Col5 and FC, specifically the taking into account of pregnancies resulting from rape, health adverse and problematic pregnancies, etc, but I won't bring that up here considering the chasm of difference between how that topic is handled in your county and how it's handled in mine.

 

...And, you know, I don't want to offened either of you because I have a wonderful ability of putting my foot in my mouth. :smile:

 

And you're very right about taking responsibility FC, we've got a case taking place here in my state right now where a little responsibility could have gone a long way. (here

 

 

There are too many instances of death row (or life prisoners) being exonerated by DNA evidence.

That's exactly the problem we (in Aust.) had with our last man executed in 1967. The ball was dropped by many people in the state government and the legal system and Ronald Ryan just happened to be the guy who had to wear it. (although his escape didn't help his cause.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rugg and SayWhat certainly have good points.

 

Maybe a compromise is a 'level of evidence' clause. DNA can be used to exonerate folks...can it be used to confirm old cases as well?

 

FastCargo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habitual offenders have their DNA on record, atleast thats what the law dictates in India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT DOSENT MATTER Two things that dont last long in a FED.PEN. DIRTY COPS,and CHILD MOLESTERS, my sorces say the have deadly accedents in those instatutions.

 

 

We have an on going case in Austin right now an adult male molested from 1-6 kids in a motel,first paid them to stay quit,then took pics,and stated he would kill them,and thier families if the ever said anything. I have kids ,and place him lowest of the low,right next to those that betray thier country.

Edited by Bounder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is really bad news.

 

those rapists should be castrated.

 

And the castration should be public, better yet, it should be televised. And NO anesthesia should be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the castration should be public, better yet, it should be televised. And NO anesthesia should be used.

 

I think we should use them in a version of the Running Man game show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Arguing about abortion, birth control, or the death penalty is as useless as arguing about global warming.

 

2. Most human DNA is garbage, filled with undesirable genomes, created over centuries of unabated and un-monitored breeding.

 

3. In the near future, govenrment sponsored sterilization and cloning programs will rid the planet of this undesirable DNA.

 

4. Sharp reductions in the Earth's population and the elimination of criminal behavor are targeted benefits of these programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is really bad news.

 

those rapists should be castrated.

 

Got my vote. As a parent, I think the key is to be vigilant as the vast majority of abuse comes from people known to the family. Easier said than done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we should use them in a version of the Running Man game show.

 

Heh, That'd be a blast. But only if the criminals spout cool one-liners like "Sub Zero is now PLAIN Zero." :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a very good reason to not execute child rapists--which would you rather have, your child raped, or your child raped and then killed?

If a rapist knows they'll be executed if they're caught, what's the incentive NOT to kill the child to cover your tracks? After all, a living witness can identify you.

This is the same reason the death penalty for kidnapping was revoked, because it actually compelled the offender to kill since the penalty was the same either way yet the likelihood of being caught decreases with the death of the victim.

 

Anyway, abortion laws are too broad. I've been reading lately about cases of parents wanting to euthanize fetuses that were so horribly...messed up...crushed, deformed, battered...that it was the only humane thing to do, but the doctors would refuse because "it's murder." Doesn't matter that the fetus will NOT live even if it lasted full term, doesn't matter that the eventual "natural" death would be VERY painful while an injection would be just a brief moment, no they want the woman to carry it, suffering and in pain with nothing but its demise in the near future because THEIR morality (or that of others as mandated by law) won't allow it. Supposedly the Constitution bans cruel and unusual punishment, but if doing NOTHING is more cruel, that's fine?

 

You know why you won't be helped by anyone if you're run over in the street? Because if you do nothing and walk away, nothing happens to you! But if you go and try to render aid, you can be SUED by the victim for anything because their lawyer will ask "are you a doctor? Then why did you think you should move them?" So lawyers have mandated that people can NOT follow their tendency to render aid because it will stupidly jeopardize them in return!

This is the judicial system we want to protect?

 

Jefferson said a little revolution now and then was good when things became too miserable to bear, and between these retarded internal issues and the ridiculous external ones our gov't has gotten us into in the past 20 years, I think it's about time to start over again. As we say in science, "return to first principles" (ie the Constitution) and rework it from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of the death penalty, such people ought to be flogged on their p.p.'s with a lead-tipped whip as many times as humanly possible...nothing less than that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a very good reason to not execute child rapists--which would you rather have, your child raped, or your child raped and then killed?

If a rapist knows they'll be executed if they're caught, what's the incentive NOT to kill the child to cover your tracks? After all, a living witness can identify you.

This is the same reason the death penalty for kidnapping was revoked, because it actually compelled the offender to kill since the penalty was the same either way yet the likelihood of being caught decreases with the death of the victim.

 

That's the most sensible argument I've heard in favor of not applying the death penalty in these cases. But I think that the law has to focus on punishing the crime at hand, and not with hypothetical scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In extremely rare cases you cannot actually punish the criminal no matter what you do... Take Albert Fish for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a very good reason to not execute child rapists--which would you rather have, your child raped, or your child raped and then killed?

If a rapist knows they'll be executed if they're caught, what's the incentive NOT to kill the child to cover your tracks? After all, a living witness can identify you.

This is the same reason the death penalty for kidnapping was revoked, because it actually compelled the offender to kill since the penalty was the same either way yet the likelihood of being caught decreases with the death of the victim.

 

that makes sence. Although there still should be a punishment for them so that they can't re-offend. I vote for castration. remember the middle-easteren middle-age laws? if you steal, cut off a hand. If you swear or verbally abuse, cut out the tongue. If you rape somebody, cut off... well, you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..