The Death Penalty---OP/ED

[westwall]

ALL of the civilized country have done away with the DP. We are amongst third world countries with our use of the DP.

So....when there is incontrovertible evidence that the man is a murderer....you want him to live?

"Incontrovertible evidence" only exists in episodes of shitty police procedurals.

Not entirely true, but certainly accounts for 95% of the cases out here.

 

[Skull Pilot]

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

I think either one would violate the Sixth Amendment... but okay.

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

I think either one would violate the Sixth Amendment... but okay.

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

 

[indago]

I don't think any other subject stirs up as much as the death penalty, short of abortion. The biggest problem is that while liberal democrats FIGHT any inclusion of morality in abortion they INSIST on its placement when talking about the death penalty. They CLAIM the right has a flawed idea of morals when it comes to the death penalty and that simply is NOT the case.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS INHUMANE
Killing an innocent in the womb that has committed no crime is inhumane. Killing a murderer a rapist or a child molester is justice. A given percentage of the populace is simply going to be criminals. There is no utopia no programs that is going to change that. And people simply need to be adult enough to accept that.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE PAINLESS
Why? Granted I am not saying burn them at the stake but why should it HAVE to be painless? Down here in Arizona in the town I live in we had a meth head passing through town that beat a woman to death for her lap top and some change. Anybody care to guess how long it takes to get beat to death? Reports at the time said her beating MAY have taken 15 to 20 minutes. Why does his death HAVE to be painless? Why should he be allowed to just go to sleep?

THE DEAD BODY CAN TRAUMATIZE THE FAMILY
That's a good thing, its a wake up call your family has a failure in parenting OR where you live has a failure in community. Its the result of a socially unacceptable act. They USED to do it in public and people used to bring their children. It was a lesson is social morality. If you behave this way then that is the result.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC
Wrong again as there is every reason FOR it to be public. I am not talking required to watch but available. I would go so far as to leave it open to the press. I would allow it to be televised. The victims, their families and the general population have a RIGHT to see their justice system work.

Fury

Speaking of "the death penalty"...

The Hadith are a group of passages and rights claimed to be written by Muhammad and are used in teaching Islam. "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes." "Kill the one who is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to."

So, who is supposed to be carrying out this death sentence upon the gays?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

I think either one would violate the Sixth Amendment... but okay.

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

Panels of experts are vastly more qualified to judge evidence than the average layperson

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I think either one would violate the Sixth Amendment... but okay.

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

Panels of experts are vastly more qualified to judge evidence than the average layperson

Sure. But who gets to pick the panel?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

Panels of experts are vastly more qualified to judge evidence than the average layperson

Sure. But who gets to pick the panel?

Do it by lottery and pay them for their service

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I agree that the current system we have is flawed - perhaps tremendously so. But I don't think either of your options would be any better.

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

Panels of experts are vastly more qualified to judge evidence than the average layperson

Sure. But who gets to pick the panel?

Do it by lottery and pay them for their service

How do you decide who to include in the lottery? What qualifications would be required? How much would you pay them?

Would it be a career, or just a randomly selected side job for someone else who spent most of their time doing something else?

 

[JoeB131]

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I don't defend it. Unlike your imaginary right to own guns, it's clearly spelled out in the constitution as every citizen's right. However, only 2% of criminal cases are heard by juries. 58% are plea bargains and most of the rest are either dismissed or heard by a judge.

The alternatives aren't any better. Judges are political creatures, who put retaining their office above doing justice. Look at this judge who just sentenced the guy to six months for drunken frat sex. He'll probably get recalled because his judgement was politically unpopular. I can't imagine that professional tribunals would be any better.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You do know the constitution can be changed don't you?

The jury system is seriously flawed and is the reason for many of the injustices you rant about yet you defend it. It is based on the opinion of 12 people whether or not a person in guilty not the actual evidence since juries for the most part have no expertise evidentiary procedure, forensic science or any other relevant area of study that allows them to actually determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant.

I don't defend it. Unlike your imaginary right to own guns, it's clearly spelled out in the constitution as every citizen's right. However, only 2% of criminal cases are heard by juries. 58% are plea bargains and most of the rest are either dismissed or heard by a judge.

The alternatives aren't any better. Judges are political creatures, who put retaining their office above doing justice. Look at this judge who just sentenced the guy to six months for drunken frat sex. He'll probably get recalled because his judgement was politically unpopular. I can't imagine that professional tribunals would be any better.

You have a link for those stats or did you just make them up?

And The right to keep ans bear arms is not imaginary in fact that language cannot be clearer

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Even a simpleton like you should be able to understand that

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you would rather have people who know nothing about evidentiary procedure and science determining if said evidence is enough to put someone in jail?

If I was ever accused of a crime I think I would waive the jury trial if I was innocent and want the jury trial if I was guilty

As I see it now, (to paraphrase Churchill) the jury system we have now is the worst system, except for all the others.

Professional juries and judicial tribunals just make justice political.

Panels of experts are vastly more qualified to judge evidence than the average layperson

Sure. But who gets to pick the panel?

Do it by lottery and pay them for their service

How do you decide who to include in the lottery? What qualifications would be required? How much would you pay them?

Would it be a career, or just a randomly selected side job for someone else who spent most of their time doing something else?

All things that can be decided like any other regulations

Tell me who would you want weighing evidence against you, 12 people who don't want to be there and have no expertise whatsoever and can be swayed by emotional arguments of skilled attorneys or a truly impartial panel of experts who unemotionally weigh the evidence?

 

[JoeB131]

You have a link for those stats or did you just make them up?

And The right to keep ans bear arms is not imaginary in fact that language cannot be clearer

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Even a simpleton like you should be able to understand that

Actually, I see something in there about "Well-Regulated Militias", which would not include Jihadists or guys who think they are the Joker.

and that's how the courts interpreted it all the way up until 2008.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have a link for those stats or did you just make them up?

And The right to keep ans bear arms is not imaginary in fact that language cannot be clearer

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Even a simpleton like you should be able to understand that

Actually, I see something in there about "Well-Regulated Militias", which would not include Jihadists or guys who think they are the Joker.

and that's how the courts interpreted it all the way up until 2008.

But I have owned a gun since I was 16 so tell me if it was interpreted that I had to be in a militia how could that have been?

And FYI it's the PEOPLE not the government who are allowed to form militias so the ownership of the firearm precedes the membership in a militia

 

[ChrisL]

Unlike you I don't care if a piece of shit criminal is rich or not
You set 3 people on fire you should die

And if you run four people over in a drunken stupor you should be punished, too. But look what the Affluenza Teen got away with because he was rich.

When we treat rich criminals like poor criminals, then you can come back to me and say who deserves to die or not.

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

Great, a bunch of people who can still be wrong and also may have a political or some other agenda.

 

[JoeMoma]

Unlike you I don't care if a piece of shit criminal is rich or not
You set 3 people on fire you should die

And if you run four people over in a drunken stupor you should be punished, too. But look what the Affluenza Teen got away with because he was rich.

When we treat rich criminals like poor criminals, then you can come back to me and say who deserves to die or not.

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

Great, a bunch of people who can still be wrong and also may have a political or some other agenda.

We see how well the professional jury that makes up the Supreme Court makes decisions.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Unlike you I don't care if a piece of shit criminal is rich or not
You set 3 people on fire you should die

And if you run four people over in a drunken stupor you should be punished, too. But look what the Affluenza Teen got away with because he was rich.

When we treat rich criminals like poor criminals, then you can come back to me and say who deserves to die or not.

That was the judge's call so take it up with him

And I really don't care how much money a piece of shit killer has.
The way to treat all these animals equally is to revamp the jury system and either have professional juries or get rid of them altogether and replace both the juries and the single judge with a tribunal of experts

Great, a bunch of people who can still be wrong and also may have a political or some other agenda.

How much more of a chance of being wrong do experts in forensic science and other related disciplines have of being wrong over 12 random people pulled from the census list?

 

[Conservative65]

I don't think any other subject stirs up as much as the death penalty, short of abortion. The biggest problem is that while liberal democrats FIGHT any inclusion of morality in abortion they INSIST on its placement when talking about the death penalty. They CLAIM the right has a flawed idea of morals when it comes to the death penalty and that simply is NOT the case.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS INHUMANE
Killing an innocent in the womb that has committed no crime is inhumane. Killing a murderer a rapist or a child molester is justice. A given percentage of the populace is simply going to be criminals. There is no utopia no programs that is going to change that. And people simply need to be adult enough to accept that.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD BE PAINLESS
Why? Granted I am not saying burn them at the stake but why should it HAVE to be painless? Down here in Arizona in the town I live in we had a meth head passing through town that beat a woman to death for her lap top and some change. Anybody care to guess how long it takes to get beat to death? Reports at the time said her beating MAY have taken 15 to 20 minutes. Why does his death HAVE to be painless? Why should he be allowed to just go to sleep?

THE DEAD BODY CAN TRAUMATIZE THE FAMILY
That's a good thing, its a wake up call your family has a failure in parenting OR where you live has a failure in community. Its the result of a socially unacceptable act. They USED to do it in public and people used to bring their children. It was a lesson is social morality. If you behave this way then that is the result.

THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE PUBLIC
Wrong again as there is every reason FOR it to be public. I am not talking required to watch but available. I would go so far as to leave it open to the press. I would allow it to be televised. The victims, their families and the general population have a RIGHT to see their justice system work.

Fury

I simply do not trust the government to murder it's citizens as a "punishment."

Then make juries mandatory in death penalty cases. Problem solved.

Nope. The states have been known to do some pretty shady things. No way.

The guilty ones that deserve the death penalty did some pretty shady things to get it. Those that got it didn't get it quick enough.

 

[JoeB131]

How much more of a chance of being wrong do experts in forensic science and other related disciplines have of being wrong over 12 random people pulled from the census list?

We can barely find enough people who are qualified to do forensic science to actually DO forensic science... and you want to pull them to be professional jurors?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/untested-rape-kits-evidence-across-usa/29902199/

 

[JoeMoma]

How much more of a chance of being wrong do experts in forensic science and other related disciplines have of being wrong over 12 random people pulled from the census list?

We can barely find enough people who are qualified to do forensic science to actually DO forensic science... and you want to pull them to be professional jurors?

Tens of thousands of rape kits go untested across USA

 

[Carla_Danger]

ALL of the civilized country have done away with the DP. We are amongst third world countries with our use of the DP.

So you would argue its civilized to kill a unborn child but NOT civilized to kill a rapist?

I would argue that the two have nothing to do with the other.

So which is NOT human the murderer or the unborn child?

Is your thread about abortion or the death penalty? Get back to me when you start having rational thoughts.

Are they both not human?
Do not both call for death?
Only thing different is who and how its judged.

No, it's two completely different issues, and it's irrational to cloud the two. Now, do you want your thread to be about the death penalty or do you want it to be about abortion?