capital punishment

[guyser]

Denis Lortie was watched by million viewers.

I am not talking about him. Did not dispute that either.

As for Bernardo, not even his own defence denied who did it.

Fine.

But you said....

re clear evidence --"Another would be Bernardo own video tapes.... etc

...when in fact the tapes did not show that. Not now, not then never.

[wyly]

And if it was that easy, we would never have had miscarriages. Unfortunately, "clear evidence" does not seem to be something easily defined. Does it include confessions? What if the confession turns out to have been coerced? Does it include video evidence? What happens if it turns out the video evidence has been altered? Is it eye witness testimony? There are no lack of examples of the dangers of eyewitness testimony.

and even DNA only proves a person was on the scene or in contact with evidence at some point not that they commited the crime...

Like I said, want me to agree to sign on to capital punishment, then make a clause that everyone involved in the conviction are to be immediately taken out and shot if it turns out they executed an innocent man.

I like that, there is really no difference...if you're to execute someone for taking an innocent life then if there is an error and an innocent person is executed then the police investigators, executioners, Judge, Jury, false witnesses should also pay the same price...

[Saipan]

I like that, there is really no difference...if you're to execute someone for taking an innocent life then if there is an error and an innocent person is executed then the police investigators, executioners, Judge, Jury, false witnesses should also pay the same price...

What to do with doctors who kill in error? Very many do.

[ToadBrother]

What to do with doctors who kill in error? Very many do.

Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients. The intent of a capital murder charge is to kill someone upon finding the accused guilty.

Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact? If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right?

Edited October 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[wyly]

Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients. The intent of a capital murder charge is to kill someone upon finding the accused guilty.

Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact? If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right?

let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me...

[Guest TrueMetis]

let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me...

And let's get rid of lethal injection and those other methods. You've got to look the person in the eye before you put a bullet in their brain.

[Saipan]

Last time I checked, doctors who make errors are not intending to kill their patients.

Neither is the court.

Why are you so adverse to those who send an innocent man to his death sharing his fate, if his innocence is determined after the fact?

Because it's childish idea.

If, as some here say, it could only be used for those convicted with "clear evidence", there's no problem. Right?

Right.

[Saipan]

let's alter the situation a bit...all those in favour of execution put their name forward in a lottery to carry out the execution, if an innocent person dies the executioner forfeits their life...seems fair to me...

I say those who help dangerous criminal back on the street where he kills again, should forfeit their life. And that's a quite a pile of liberals.

First one to hang high would be I guess Clayton Ruby

[ToadBrother]

Neither is the court.

If you bring back capital murder, yes the court is.

Because it's childish idea.

Maybe to you. To me it's the only reasonable safeguard against executing an innocent man. If "an eye for an eye" should apply one way, then it should apply the other as well.

Right.

So what's the problem with them sharing the fate of an innocent man found guilty of capital murder and then executed? You seem to think it could not happen, and I'm just adding a little, how shall we put it, insurance policy.

[Saipan]

If you bring back capital murder, yes the court is.

No, it's not.

No more than lock someone for life.

If "an eye for an eye" should apply one way, then it should apply the other as well.

I would have no problem with that provided we have right to life, which we don't.

So what's the problem with them sharing the fate of an innocent man found guilty of capital murder and then executed? You seem to think it could not happen

I'm saying it wouldn't happen if administered correctly.

[ToadBrother]

No, it's not.

The notion of a capital murder charge has always meant making the death penalty available as a sentence. A Crown Prosecutor approving such a charge (if it existed any more) would be doing so knowing that a man could be sent to his death, a jury finding him guilty of such a charge would do so knowing that he could sent to his death, and a judge who imposes execution as a sentence knows flat-out that he's condemning a man to death.

I would have no problem with that provided we have right to life, which we don't.

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm saying it wouldn't happen if administered correctly.

And I'm saying apply my insurance policy just to make sure. If you KNOW a man is guilty of a crime of such a nature that capital punishment is a legitimate sentence, then why does my particular requirement bother you? I mean, nothing can go wrong, right?

[bloodyminded]

We let the criminals out on the street. Even a mass murderer.

Or, hey, here's an idea, you could make an elementary attempt to follow along with exactly what particular conversations are about.

Rather than mining posts for opportunities to throw reactionary tantrums that are not relevant to what is being said.

[Saipan]

That doesn't even make sense.

You have no right to life unless you have right to defend it without any reservations.

[Saipan]

Or, hey, here's an idea, you could make an elementary attempt to follow along with exactly what particular conversations are about.

Which part is mystery to you?

[bloodyminded]

Which part is mystery to you?

You're not getting it: the point is that it's all a mystery to you.

[CANADIEN]

You have no right to life unless you have right to defend it without any reservations.

The right to defend one's life without reservation does not extend to the killing of s person who doesn't pose a threat because they're in jail.

[Saipan]

The right to defend one's life without reservation does not extend to the killing of s person who doesn't pose a threat because they're in jail.

You wanted to know about right to life. So there it is.