|
Post by peanutfan on Mar 30, 2009 13:41:59 GMT -5
Discuss.
Edit: Sorry about that. I was multi-tasking and probably shouldn't have been on here in the first place.
Anyway...I'm opposed to the death penalty simply for the fact that there's never any way to be 100% sure that someone committed the crime they're being tried for. I know our legal system only calls for "beyond a reasonable doubt", but when talking about people's lives, it should be "beyond ANY doubt", which is impossible to achieve.
Even DNA evidence can fail occasionally...I'll have to dig up my cite for this, but I read about a case where a man was falsely convicted of a rape because of DNA evidence. Analysis during the appeal found that the semen extracted during the rape kit didn't match the defendent's DNA...somehow, the mix of the extracted semen and the woman's own internal mucus had just happened to match up with the defendent.
This probably shows a failure in that particular lab's procedures rather than a weakness of DNA evidence itself, but the point is that things just get screwed up sometimes, whether through human error or sheer happenstance. When it comes to determining whether someone should live or die, we cannot afford even the slightest iota of doubt; until we develop technology that can accurately extract and show the defendent's memories of the time the crime was committed (and that would bring up a whole slew of new issues as far as evidence and privacy rights go), we can't have 100% certainty.
That's my rather long-winded follow-up...sorry about the initial post.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 30, 2009 15:54:09 GMT -5
You're gonna get ripped for just tossing out "Discuss."
Anyway, it's a dirty trick to run with crap like that. If you oppose the death penalty, there's little logical reason to make exceptions.
On the flip side, the guy doing the video annoys me and could probably put up a better argument.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Mar 30, 2009 16:15:02 GMT -5
/Mod hat on
Either the OP edits this thread to include their own opinions and views or it will be deleted. You do not start a thread and simply order others to "discuss" a subject of your choice. Either start the conversation yourself or don't bother to start the thread at all.
/Mod hat off
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Mar 30, 2009 18:54:11 GMT -5
I'm a little more pissed at the ad using that same old terrorists argument. Seriously, stop exploiting 9/11 for political gain!
As for me, I hold a similar stance to New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. At the core, I think the death penalty is a good idea, especially for the worst of the lot. However, in order to progress as a society, we need to stop condoning murder as a society, and the death penalty's a good place to start.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 31, 2009 1:35:10 GMT -5
I think a better name for the death penalty is 'excecuting defenceless, harmless prisoners'. They cannot hurt anyone, killing them doesn't protect anyone, it's merely in the interests of revenge/ political points. Furthermore, I consider a reasonable definition of murder 'killing without the justification of self-defense', under which definition the death penalty unhappily rests.
If we were to really 'stop condoning murder as a society' we would ban state-sponsored murder immediately, as Australia has.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 31, 2009 7:50:11 GMT -5
Anyway...I'm opposed to the death penalty simply for the fact that there's never any way to be 100% sure that someone committed the crime they're being tried for. I know our legal system only calls for "beyond a reasonable doubt", but when talking about people's lives, it should be "beyond ANY doubt", which is impossible to achieve. Even DNA evidence can fail occasionally...I'll have to dig up my cite for this, but I read about a case where a man was falsely convicted of a rape because of DNA evidence. Analysis during the appeal found that the semen extracted during the rape kit didn't match the defendent's DNA...somehow, the mix of the extracted semen and the woman's own internal mucus had just happened to match up with the defendent. This probably shows a failure in that particular lab's procedures rather than a weakness of DNA evidence itself, but the point is that things just get screwed up sometimes, whether through human error or sheer happenstance. When it comes to determining whether someone should live or die, we cannot afford even the slightest iota of doubt; until we develop technology that can accurately extract and show the defendent's memories of the time the crime was committed (and that would bring up a whole slew of new issues as far as evidence and privacy rights go), we can't have 100% certainty. That's my rather long-winded follow-up...sorry about the initial post. You can, periodically, prove someone did it beyond any doubt. Unambiguous camera footage, for example. Any case where the death penalty is on the table should at the very least have higher standards of doubt. Aside from the loss of innocent lives, my major issues with the death penalty spring from the pointlessness of it. We don't really need to be killing these people. This isn't the wild west or a comic book, and they'll never be broken out by their gang.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 31, 2009 9:47:50 GMT -5
For those without YouTube/sound access at work or otherwise, could someone give a synopsis of the clip?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 31, 2009 10:18:06 GMT -5
dirty attack ad running in NY for Hilary's seat from Republicans, with a voice over from the democrat talking about being opposed to the death penatly, juxtaposed with the 9-11 terrorists who took down the WTC in NY. You know, because "obviously" everyone opposed to the death penalty feels OBL is a case for special pleading, and being it was run in the backyard of the tragedy they think they can claw back some votes...
[Edit: Then again these are the turds that clawed back some of the unmitigated disaster in Iraq with "We got Saddam". Oh that's Ok then. Jolly good. Can we have our country back now?]
The commentary basically was saying people against the death penalty are against the death penatly and mentioned some of the reasons snoopy did, but the main gist of the piece was about Republican idiocy.
It's a refreshing change from fuckwits like John Howard who cried long and hard for the death penalty in Indonesia for the Bali bombers, even though executions in Australia stopped in 1967.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 31, 2009 10:21:35 GMT -5
OK, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by machiavelli on Mar 31, 2009 10:27:16 GMT -5
Anyway...I'm opposed to the death penalty simply for the fact that there's never any way to be 100% sure that someone committed the crime they're being tried for. I know our legal system only calls for "beyond a reasonable doubt", but when talking about people's lives, it should be "beyond ANY doubt", which is impossible to achieve. Even DNA evidence can fail occasionally...I'll have to dig up my cite for this, but I read about a case where a man was falsely convicted of a rape because of DNA evidence. Analysis during the appeal found that the semen extracted during the rape kit didn't match the defendent's DNA...somehow, the mix of the extracted semen and the woman's own internal mucus had just happened to match up with the defendent. This probably shows a failure in that particular lab's procedures rather than a weakness of DNA evidence itself, but the point is that things just get screwed up sometimes, whether through human error or sheer happenstance. When it comes to determining whether someone should live or die, we cannot afford even the slightest iota of doubt; until we develop technology that can accurately extract and show the defendent's memories of the time the crime was committed (and that would bring up a whole slew of new issues as far as evidence and privacy rights go), we can't have 100% certainty. That's my rather long-winded follow-up...sorry about the initial post. You can, periodically, prove someone did it beyond any doubt. Unambiguous camera footage, for example. Any case where the death penalty is on the table should at the very least have higher standards of doubt. Aside from the loss of innocent lives, my major issues with the death penalty spring from the pointlessness of it. We don't really need to be killing these people. This isn't the wild west or a comic book, and they'll never be broken out by their gang. From a purely political/philosophical standpoint, I disagree with any idea of a death penalty or other form of torture. Atrocious acts like murders are indeed barbaric, and these murderers for the most part should not even be considered as being on par with animals (because even most animals don't murder in an evil context). They deserve the worst that comes to them. Except murder. When events occur like these in our community, our values for human rights our political beliefs hence everything we stand for as a 21st century Western civil society, are subjected to a test. And under only strict circumstances (i.e self-defense), should a so-called civilized society condone mob-rule killings. We are past that stage I believe, where 12 angry men/women decide on the life of another human. Human rights ought to apply to all. Even convicted murderers. Having that said, I do believe that repeated, convicted criminals should be working hard for society (i.e breaking rocks, setting railroad networks in the Yukon) as opposed to filling up crowded space. My two cents
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 31, 2009 10:51:17 GMT -5
I think a better name for the death penalty is 'excecuting defenceless, harmless prisoners'. They cannot hurt anyone, killing them doesn't protect anyone, it's merely in the interests of revenge/ political points. Furthermore, I consider a reasonable definition of murder 'killing without the justification of self-defense', under which definition the death penalty unhappily rests. If we were to really 'stop condoning murder as a society' we would ban state-sponsored murder immediately, as Australia has. To play the devil's advocate (I am also against the death penelty) many would argue that it is justifiable to kill somebody in defense of other people. In theory the death penelty would make sure that the person being executed will definatly never kill anyone again. Of course life in prison without paroll would do that too, at least if our prison system was half compatent about keeping inmates from killing other inmates, but I never said it was a particularly good argument.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 31, 2009 11:53:44 GMT -5
[quote author=paradox board=pg thread=500 post=15707 time=1238514677To play the devil's advocate (I am also against the death penelty) many would argue that it is justifiable to kill somebody in defense of other people. In theory the death penelty would make sure that the person being executed will definatly never kill anyone again. Of course life in prison without paroll would do that too, at least if our prison system was half compatent about keeping inmates from killing other inmates, but I never said it was a particularly good argument.[/quote]
I understand that you're playing DA, but I've never gotten this point. You can't kill someone in self defense after they've been wrangled to the ground. Effectively, the threat has already been neutralised.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 31, 2009 12:11:52 GMT -5
Like I said, it's not a very good argument, but it's one I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Mar 31, 2009 12:55:39 GMT -5
My head's still spinning a little from the inane Republican assfuckery. Apart from it's pure opportunistic vulturism, there's the following unadulterated non-comprehension.
Death Penalty Advocate: I think we should be allowed to kill people we judge to be socially unfit.
Humanitarian: We'll actually, there's a whole gamut of reasons why we should move away from that stance. We have not been and cannot be certain of guilt, just as it's inherently wrong to assume no good can be forthcoming from the remainder of their existence. Furthermore, the death penalty was perpetuated in tyrannical societies as a brutal method of control and oppression, how does this fit in with democracy? We have evolved as a species well past where this barbarism is necessary, pragmatic, perfunctionary or even remotely justifiable. Even if they were the worst serial murderer in history, we still do not have the right to demand they forfeit their life and condoning or actively supporting this makes us no better than them. Etc, etc, etc...
Death Penalty Advocate: - Yeah, but what about --- *starts listing people they currently see as socially unfit*...
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 31, 2009 15:30:45 GMT -5
Like I said, it's not a very good argument, but it's one I've heard. Yeah, I've heard it. I just never really understood it. My head's still spinning a little from the inane Republican assfuckery. Apart from it's pure opportunistic vulturism, there's the following unadulterated non-comprehension. Death Penalty Advocate: I think we should be allowed to kill people we judge to be socially unfit. Humanitarian: We'll actually, there's a whole gamut of reasons why we should move away from that stance. We have not been and cannot be certain of guilt, just as it's inherently wrong to assume no good can be forthcoming from the remainder of their existence. Furthermore, the death penalty was perpetuated in tyrannical societies as a brutal method of control and oppression, how does this fit in with democracy? We have evolved as a species well past where this barbarism is necessary, pragmatic, perfunctionary or even remotely justifiable. Even if they were the worst serial murderer in history, we still do not have the right to demand they forfeit their life and condoning or actively supporting this makes us no better than them. Etc, etc, etc... Death Penalty Advocate: - Yeah, but what about --- *starts listing people they currently see as socially unfit*... And always the most extreme examples, as though we should rule by the extremes. I mean, no matter what you might want to do to Bin Laden, supporting or rejecting a policy based on the most extreme elements of society is pretty terrible. I don't like it. It tries to push people on a single point, where the death penalty is much more complex. The 9-11 terrorists wouldn't be the only people on death row, and a lot of those people--almost all of them--didn't do anything that heinous. A decent percentage are innocent, and that's enough to bother me, but most of them aren't terrorists. A lot of people oppose the death penalty because they think we should be less monstrous than the people we oppose. I agree with that viewpoint for the most part. Killing someone for killing people seems like a really bad message to send.
|
|