Zuruck wrote:it's just irresponsible to have the mentality of people like Bold Deceiver or quite frankly, you Bettina.
You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. There are very valid arguments in favor of the death penalty. Concentrate on the valid arguments against it and you have a better chance of convincing us.
Zuruck wrote:They damn well better be hesitant Kilarin! As evidence continues to show us, juries have been getting this wrong for a long, long time. Why, because people are bringing their emotions into the case and convicting on that.
Yes, I agree. Not only do juries make mistakes, but also the death penalty is not being implemented in a fair or even fashion in the US.
The Manhatten Institute reported that the average prison term of murderers released in 1992 was only 5.9 years. So MOST murderers are walking free in 6 years. I find that... simply unbelievable. Certainly unacceptable.
And Then we have the story of Cory Maye.
<wiki> <reason article>
Mr. Maye was the victim of a no-knock warrant. He was sentenced to the death penalty for shooting an unknown intruder in his house who turned out to be a cop. Luckily he's getting a new trial now, but that is primarily due to the outcry from a few bloggers. Otherwise he would still be on death row.
The Death Penalty is hardly a fair punishment when it's implementation seems arbitrary or random.
Bettina wrote:Repent? Your fooling yourself. Its your religious conviction that some God will have contempt for you so again... what is the point?
I'm sorry, I'm really missing what you are trying to tell me here.
Some people who have committed HORRIBLE crimes, have later had enough of a change of heart to recognize what terrible things they have done.
I'm not convinced that a painless death is the worst penalty anyone can ever suffer. Especially someone who never admits they actually did anything wrong. So yes, I think there is the *possibility* that someone who has committed a terrible murder might one day realize their mistake. In which case, life in prison is a much worse penalty for these people than a quick and painless death.
Bettina wrote:What mistakes. In the two people I mentioned there are no mistakes. Coueys stains were in her, and Smith bragged about what he did.
I agree, I think they are both clearly guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. And if they get fried by the justice system tomorrow, I won't be crying any tears.
BUT, there have been cases where people were just as convinced they were right, and that their evidence was solid, and they ended up convicting innocent people.
Foil wrote:You support the death penalty if the guilt is 100% clear.
The problem is, that even when we think we have 100% clear evidence, we are not always right.
For example, check out
<this report> about some of the unbelievable miscarriages of justice around the so called "satanic ritualistic abuse" cases.
These are EXACTLY the kinds of places were emotion makes us do terrible, horrible things. When you hear the first story, children raped, killed, abused, etc, by adults who did it for pleasure or religion, *I* start foaming at the mouth and wanting to see the perpetrators dead, dead, dead. So did everyone else, and so the justice system pushed hard and got convictions, based on confessions and eye witnesses.
Further research, done with cooler heads, revealed that the techniques being used to get "eye witness accounts" and to obtain confessions were questionable to say the least. The supposed criminals were apparently the victims of "false memory syndrome" and coercive interrogation techniques. It now appears that in most of these cases, no abuse happened at all until the police psychiatrist got involved. THAT was abusive.
That's why I'm scared to let emotion rule in my life. Emotion says "String em up!", but reason says, "Careful, THINK about it before you act".
I don't think there is ANY way to define "100% certain" in law that won't end up translating to "convicted".
Bettina wrote:Your use of the word "compromise" here, as in the abortion thread where you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, is hollow without any meaning.
You mean the same thread where you admitted you would force your daughter to have a child against her will, just at a different point in the pregnancy? (60 days, wasn't it?)
But let's not go there again. I understand you are angry with me because we disagree, and I am genuinely sorry about that. I feel that I can still learn things from people I disagree with, so I'm hoping we can still have reasoned discussions, despite our differences of opinion on several issues.
