The Death Penalty---OP/ED

[Skull Pilot]

95% of people are followers

So tell me the next time you need surgery why don't you just pick 12 random people from the streets and let them decide for you after all it's not like your life matters enough to use experts

Wow, apples and oranges... apples and oranges.

I would have experts, I hope. I will have a lawyer and he'll hire experts.

Again, the problem isn't the juries. It's corrupt cops and prosecutors, and inept lawyers.

Fund public defenders at the same level as prosecutors, you'll see a lot less errors.

And you don't want experts deciding whether or not the evidence warrants your conviction you'd rather have random people possibly with no understanding of the science deciding your fate after they hear 20 minutes of testimony from someone.

How do you know public defenders get paid less than prosecutors?
And if the cops are corrupt as you say then it's even more imperative to have experts interpreting the evidence than random people

 

[JoeB131]

And you don't want experts deciding whether or not the evidence warrants your conviction you'd rather have random people possibly with no understanding of the science deciding your fate after they hear 20 minutes of testimony from someone.

How do you know public defenders get paid less than prosecutors?
And if the cops are corrupt as you say then it's even more imperative to have experts interpreting the evidence than random people

Except we don't have enough "experts" to process the evidence we have.

Juries are there to do one thing, determine the honesty of witnesses. Did the witness sound credible when he saw the guy doing whatever he's accused of, not whether the science is right.

But I know, you just have your contempt of working folks to keep you warm and not face the yawning mediocrity that you are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And you don't want experts deciding whether or not the evidence warrants your conviction you'd rather have random people possibly with no understanding of the science deciding your fate after they hear 20 minutes of testimony from someone.

How do you know public defenders get paid less than prosecutors?
And if the cops are corrupt as you say then it's even more imperative to have experts interpreting the evidence than random people

Except we don't have enough "experts" to process the evidence we have.

Juries are there to do one thing, determine the honesty of witnesses. Did the witness sound credible when he saw the guy doing whatever he's accused of, not whether the science is right.

But I know, you just have your contempt of working folks to keep you warm and not face the yawning mediocrity that you are.

So what? we train more and hire them where there is a need it will be filled and lots of people would benefit

The honesty of the witness? Come on eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable of any type of evidence.
Anyone who knows anything about human perception knows that but you don't seem to and you think you are qualified to judge another

Typical

 

[JoeB131]

So what? we train more and hire them where there is a need it will be filled and lots of people would benefit

You willing to pay more in taxes to do that? I doubt it.

The honesty of the witness? Come on eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable of any type of evidence.
Anyone who knows anything about human perception knows that but you don't seem to and you think you are qualified to judge another

Guy, sadly, this discussion is more telling about you than the justice system.


Malignant narcissist needs to believe he is better than anyone else, doesn't trust average working people to make solid decisions. Rejects the concept that we have responsibilities to live in a civilized society- Jury Duty, Paying taxes, Military service, etc.

Again, dude, Somalia beckons. With your exceptional nature, you 'll be ruling the place in a week.

 

[BULLDOG]

Believe me, it's not easy to be anti DP. You don't think I hear about cases that make me want to strangle the perp myself? Of course I do. I get upset like anyone else, BUT I try to not let my emotions overcome my logic.

I did not write the OP from an emotional point. I wrote from the logical point. YOUR argument is emotional.

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

 

[Conservative65]

Believe me, it's not easy to be anti DP. You don't think I hear about cases that make me want to strangle the perp myself? Of course I do. I get upset like anyone else, BUT I try to not let my emotions overcome my logic.

I did not write the OP from an emotional point. I wrote from the logical point. YOUR argument is emotional.

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

 

[BULLDOG]

Believe me, it's not easy to be anti DP. You don't think I hear about cases that make me want to strangle the perp myself? Of course I do. I get upset like anyone else, BUT I try to not let my emotions overcome my logic.

I did not write the OP from an emotional point. I wrote from the logical point. YOUR argument is emotional.

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

 

[Conservative65]

I did not write the OP from an emotional point. I wrote from the logical point. YOUR argument is emotional.

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

 

[BULLDOG]

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

 

[BULLDOG]

From a logical point we have killed innocent people while the guilty went free. That's stupid, especially when it is cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. Come back when you can guarantee that only the guilty will die.

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what? we train more and hire them where there is a need it will be filled and lots of people would benefit

You willing to pay more in taxes to do that? I doubt it.

The honesty of the witness? Come on eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable of any type of evidence.
Anyone who knows anything about human perception knows that but you don't seem to and you think you are qualified to judge another

Guy, sadly, this discussion is more telling about you than the justice system.


Malignant narcissist needs to believe he is better than anyone else, doesn't trust average working people to make solid decisions. Rejects the concept that we have responsibilities to live in a civilized society- Jury Duty, Paying taxes, Military service, etc.

Again, dude, Somalia beckons. With your exceptional nature, you 'll be ruling the place in a week.

I posit that it would cost less as an expert panel would not need months and months of nonessential testimony and they could work on several cases at once

I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and rely on lawyers to tell the truth why the hell would you?

You say that lawyers are the problem and yet you want them telling you what the evidence means

Man you're even stupider than I thought and that's saying something

 

[Skull Pilot]

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

 

[Conservative65]

Come back when letting the guilty murderer live brings back the innocent person(s) they killed.

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

 

[BULLDOG]

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Which was my original argument

Capital cases should be held to a higher standard of proof than other cases

They are held to a higher standard of proof, but it's still not high enough because we still kill innocent people.

 

[BULLDOG]

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

That's the problem. The guilt of the innocent people we killed was not in doubt, until it was too late.

 

[ChrisL]

Killing an another innocent person and letting the guilty go free won't bring them back either.

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm not the one supporting killing innocent people. You're the one that protects the guilty that murdered the innocent.

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

 

[BULLDOG]

The death penalty has killed innocent people who were later found to be innocent while the guilty person went free. It's cheaper to lock them up forever than it is to kill them. How does killing them make them any less danger to society than locking them up forever?

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

 

[Conservative65]

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Even in cases where there is no doubt like with Charleston, many still oppose the death penalty. When it's clear and absolute that the one being executed did the crime, the anti DP crowd still says no despite the evidence they say they want in order to support it is provided.

NO ONE is saying execute someone where there is doubt. I'm saying when there is absolutely no doubt, do the job and do it quickly. Opposition won't accept that.

 

[ChrisL]

Guilty people have been allowed to live while the innocent victim(s) they murdered lie in the ground.

To paraphrase what you said before. Killing them won't bring the victims back. Some crimes do deserve a slow painful death. All I care about is that we are killing the right people every time. I would rather lock them up forever, away from society, than to take the chance of killing an innocent person.

Letting them live won't brings victims back either. However, if the guilty one thought it was good enough for their victims to die, why should they are anyone else have a problem if someone thinks the guilty one should die?

I'm all for not punishing an innocent person with death. However, those that believe like me still oppose the death penalty even when the guilty of the person being executed is not in question.

The problem is that it is ALWAYS in question because human beings make mistakes, some evidence is tampered with, eyewitnesses have been known to be quite inaccurate, some evidence can be contaminated, and nothing is 100%.

In many cases, it is 100%. For example, Dylann Roof, the Charleston, SC church shooter, is going to be tried and the death penalty is on the table both on the federal level and State level. There is absolutely no doubt that he did what he is accused of doing meaning it's 100%.

And they thought they were just as sure about the innocent people they killed. I don't have a problem with frying Root, but all executions aren't so unquestionable. I wouldn't have a problem with the death penalty if we were as sure about guilt as we are in his case.

Yes, and it is often applied quite arbitrarily. One person will kill one or two people and be faced with death penalty while a convicted serial killer gets life in prison. I am also very uncomfortable with people (government people in particular) deciding who should get death. I don't feel comfortable with people making such decisions about another citizen's life/death. It just seems very, very wrong to me. To me, it makes us not much better than the killer we are condemning to death.