Sa'adoni Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 If the wrong guy goes to jail, he can be released if it's proven. You can't release someone from death. You can't undo sending someone to jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 In the case of the death penalty it doesnt save money, it does not act as a deterrent, and the people that would be charged with administering it can barely do anything right at all. It's not the death penalty that's expensive, it's justice. Due to plea bargaining and sentence reductions, justice seems to always take a back seat. The system needs to be overhauled. There's no reason the Robert Pickton trial, for example, should have lasted more than a few hours in court. The death penalty is a deterrent for many, not all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olpfan1 Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 people like pickton deserve death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 A death penalty based on victim impact statements should be executed by the victim(s) making the statement. You think there aren't those who would love to do just that? Seems to me your suggestion would be making it about vengeance. But seriously - you think just anyone has the knowledge to carry out an execution? That aside, justice is partly about making victims whole. It's why when your car is vandalized, the court doesn't order the party who did it to make restitution to Joe down the street, who also needs car repairs. It's not just about making the guilty party pay monetarily - a fine to the state would also do that - it's about making you whole. Let vengeance be their's if they want it that badly. Let the mistakes be on their conscience too. So do you bear the mistakes of those who were paroled and went on to murder again? - Are those deaths on your shoulders because you don't support the death penalty? According to your line of thought here, those deaths most definitely should be on your conscience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 You can't undo sending someone to jail. No, but it's a hell of a lot easier than undoing death... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 The only reason I'm against the death penalty in certain cases is that a jury just might let a murderer off if there is a death penalty that they might have to consider. Look at what you're saying. The jury might let someone off if there's a death penalty. I assume that's because they may have some doubts about whether the person is absolutely guilty. So you're against the death penalty because you would rather they put someone to death even if there's a chance the person didn't do it? I find it pretty unnerving that you don't support the death penalty because juries aren't decisive enough when taking someone's life into their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 You can't undo sending someone to jail. I didn't say that you could. I said someone who was wrongly sent to prison can be released. Convictions can be overturned later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) You think there aren't those who would love to do just that? Seems to me your suggestion would be making it about vengeance. But seriously - you think just anyone has the knowledge to carry out an execution? No, and I was being facetious. That aside, justice is partly about making victims whole. It's why when your car is vandalized, the court doesn't order the party who did it to make restitution to Joe down the street, who also needs car repairs. It's not just about making the guilty party pay monetarily - a fine to the state would also do that - it's about making you whole. I suppose, but there are different ways of doing that. So do you bear the mistakes of those who were paroled and went on to murder again? - Are those deaths on your shoulders because you don't support the death penalty? According to your line of thought here, those deaths most definitely should be on your conscience. No these should be on their conscience. So who would execute the executioners that executed a wrongful execution? Who should be executed, the non-victims or the one's who supported the death penalty? As you can see, this debate really goes nowhere because it's not about justice, it's about searching for a balance but without a blindfold. Edited March 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 But justice isn't about revenge, or even satisfaction. Justice, is supposed to be blind, handing out penalties and rehabilitation based on the law as it is written, and the fairness that comes from consistency with previous decisions. How you or I or even how the victim feels has little to do with the dispensation of justice, and should have little to do with it. Somewhere along the way, society forgot that sometimes, the majority can be wrong, that sometimes, the majority is the most dangerous thing. Just because we don't like a decision, that doesn't mean it wasn't just. Just because the decision doesn't reflect your values, doesn't mean that it doesn't reflect the reality of the law, as well as the precedent that has come before it. Justice and revenge are not synonyms, Smallc. Also, you are still implying that it is right for the minority to decide, perhaps because it agrees with your own views. You are entitled to do that. Myself, I simply can't, even when things might not be MY way! As I've said, I'm a populist democrat. The people have the right to have their society run their way, by majority rule. If they are wrong, they will sooner or later get a reality check! This will further their civic education and as a people they will be the better for it! Or to put it more succinctly - "Democracy is a system of government where the little people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) There seems to be a lot of support for it... In that sense, you can say that these people would have their faith restored... If they believe the justice system is really supposed to be a vehicle for state sanctioned vengance, perhaps. But, it's not and really shouldn't be. There are still miscarriages of justice in jurisdictions that have the death penalty. [ed.: c/e] Edited March 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Justice and revenge are not synonyms, Smallc. That's exactly my point, which is why it should be the crime, the intent, and the motive, and not the way people feel (even if they are the victim) that matters. Also, you are still implying that it is right for the minority to decide Sometimes, what the majority thinks is wrong. Sometimes, the protection of fundamental human rights and the fair dispensation of justice, adherence to the law as written and intended is far more important. You are entitled to do that. Myself, I simply can't, even when things might not be MY way! As I've said, I'm a populist democrat. The people have the right to have their society run their way, by majority rule. If they are wrong, they will sooner or later get a reality check! This will further their civic education and as a people they will be the better for it! The above is why I detest populism. It's extremely dangerous at times, to all of society. Sometimes, expert opinions really should determine the outcome. Or to put it more succinctly - "Democracy is a system of government where the little people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard!" I'd like to think that our democracy is far more than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 As I've said, I'm a populist democrat. The people have the right to have their society run their way, by majority rule. If they are wrong, they will sooner or later get a reality check! This will further their civic education and as a people they will be the better for it! Ludicrous. The system we have now is based on centuries of lessons learned through (mind the pun) trial and error; mob rule has been tested and failed. And, yet, today we still have people such as yourself who believe absolute majoritarianism is a superior way to govern, including the metting out of "justice". How many people, do you think, have to be deliberately and/or mistakenly maltreated, persecuted, or killed before the civic education of The People is complete? The majority will always, through simple numbers, hold ultimate power. The majority should, however, limit its own power, so as to protect from tyranny the minorities and dissent that're crucial to democracy, which includes carrying justice with restraint and reason, not fluctuating and unpredictable emotion and groupthink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's exactly my point, which is why it should be the crime, the intent, and the motive, and not the way people feel (even if they are the victim) that matters.I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to underline something. The Victim Impact Statement has less to do with how the victim feels and more to do with how the offense has affected the victim's life. In assessing what sort of sentence should be handed out, the judge will rightfully consider the effects of the crime on victims and the community. The victim's feelings are only relevant insofar as they play a role in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Wild Bill, Do you believe we should do away with the Constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 If they believe the justice system is really supposed to be a vehicle for state sanctioned vengance, perhaps. But, it's not and really shouldn't be That last part is the value judgement part. I agree with you, but there's no "fact" around the value of a killer's life. We have to make that judgement as individuals, and everyone does it differently. This is why politics exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 That last part is the value judgement part. I agree with you, but there's no "fact" around the value of a killer's life. We have to make that judgement as individuals, and everyone does it differently. This is why politics exist. If you're a moral relativist, then that would be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) That last part is the value judgement part. I agree with you, but there's no "fact" around the value of a killer's life. True, I suppose. However, to advocates of the death penalty, there must be some, even if vaguely defined, difference in value between a killer's life and the lives of other criminals; nobody (in our North American society, anyway) ever seems to talk about putting tax evaders or petty thieves to death; which, I think, only highlights the Biblical eye-for-an-eye "rationale" behind any call for the restoration of capital punnishment for convicted murderers. Would, though, anyone's feeling that the justice system should really be a vengance system (for killers, at least) continue if they were made to consider the real possibility that it could be them one day in court with their very life on the line? Would Wild Bill be so wild about the voice of the majority if was because of that voice and other circumstances that he ended up on death row? [ed.: +] Edited March 2, 2012 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to underline something. The Victim Impact Statement has less to do with how the victim feels and more to do with how the offense has affected the victim's life. True, but, often, that's a very difficult thing to quantify. Still though, thanks for the correction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 No, and I was being facetious. Sure didn't come across that way. I suppose, but there are different ways of doing that. So how about expanding on that a bit? - but who are you to say what makes the family of a murder victim "whole?" I believe for some that would depend on knowing the murderer will never kill again. Some may never have peace of mind again without knowing that their family will never fall victim to the murderer again. I just don't see how you can so clearly dismiss them and their feelings, as if they are the criminal for feeling the way they do. No these should be on their conscience.So who would execute the executioners that executed a wrongful execution? The executioner didn't make the call. He's just doing his job. You do realize that, right? And the victim's family isn't responsible for charging the accused, trying the accused, reaching a verdict, or sentencing - yet you would put it all on them. I don't understand where you are coming from at all. You seem to be completely devoid of compassion - for one side of the crime. Who should be executed, the non-victims or the one's who supported the death penalty? Are those who don't support the death penalty held responsible when a murderer escapes or is paroled and kills again? I agree that the risk of executing an innocent person is reason enough to abolish the death penalty, but I understand where those who support it are coming from - and I'm not about to demonize victims. You, on the other hand, seem to be concerned only about the possible innocent executions, while dismissing - or ignoring - the subsequent murders committed by murderers who escaped or were freed. In either case, innocent people end up dying - whether one supports the death penalty or not. That is a fact. It's why I don't see this as a black and white issue. As you can see, this debate really goes nowhere because it's not about justice, it's about searching for a balance but without a blindfold. It's your opinion that it's not about justice, but you can't get inside of other people's heads and determine what it's about for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 True, but, often, that's a very difficult thing to quantify.Yes, of course. At some point you have to trust judges to make appropriate judgments. Not all of them are going to make the right ones and that's why there's a process for addressing inconsistencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Look at what you're saying. The jury might let someone off if there's a death penalty. I assume that's because they may have some doubts about whether the person is absolutely guilty. So you're against the death penalty because you would rather they put someone to death even if there's a chance the person didn't do it? I find it pretty unnerving that you don't support the death penalty because juries aren't decisive enough when taking someone's life into their hands. You have extrapolated 'my' position out of intent. There are those that would I suggest not apply an appropriate death sentence not because of doubt, with overwhelming proof of guilt, but rather because of their personal position JUST on capital punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peeves Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 It's not the death penalty that's expensive, it's justice. Due to plea bargaining and sentence reductions, justice seems to always take a back seat. The system needs to be overhauled. There's no reason the Robert Pickton trial, for example, should have lasted more than a few hours in court. The death penalty is a deterrent for many, not all. I repeat, capital punishment eliminates the opportunity for the convicted and executed murderer to commit murder or mayhem again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 That's exactly my point, which is why it should be the crime, the intent, and the motive, and not the way people feel (even if they are the victim) that matters. Sometimes, what the majority thinks is wrong. Sometimes, the protection of fundamental human rights and the fair dispensation of justice, adherence to the law as written and intended is far more important. The above is why I detest populism. It's extremely dangerous at times, to all of society. Sometimes, expert opinions really should determine the outcome. I'd like to think that our democracy is far more than that. Who decides that a minority view is right and should prevail? Who decides what is a valid expert opinion? I ask again. Who decides? You? Me? CharterofRights? Charles McVeety? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I just want to underline something. The Victim Impact Statement has less to do with how the victim feels and more to do with how the offense has affected the victim's life. In assessing what sort of sentence should be handed out, the judge will rightfully consider the effects of the crime on victims and the community. The victim's feelings are only relevant insofar as they play a role in that. Sez who? The victims? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 2, 2012 Report Share Posted March 2, 2012 Who decides that a minority view is right and should prevail? Who decides what is a valid expert opinion? Well, I would think that expert opinions should be easier to define. In this case, the opinions of professionals in justice and the legal system is more important than my own. As to who decides the minority new is right, well, again, that comes down to rights that can't be taken away, even from convicted criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.