|
|
Post by erictheblue on Sept 24, 2011 21:33:20 GMT -5
The reliability of eyewitnesses is exceedingly low. Wait, let me rephrase that. Exceeeeeeeeeeeedingly low. I'm well aware of how poor eyewitness reliability is. (It was a topic of discussion in my criminal procedure class.) My comment was not to say "9 people said he did it, so he must have." It was only to in response to lighthorseman's ltfred's comment that there was only a single eyewitness. No one here can know what prompted the jury to convict and vote for death. They must have heard something that convinced them. Maybe it was 9 people saying the same thing; maybe it was something else. Edit: Oops |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 24, 2011 21:38:13 GMT -5
My comment was not to say "9 people said he did it, so he must have." It was only to in response to lighthorseman's comment that there was only a single eyewitness. Psst, wrong Aussie |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 24, 2011 21:55:49 GMT -5
The other witness may not have testified in good faith, since he was also suspected of the same crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 25, 2011 2:17:06 GMT -5
Like "beyond a reasonable doubt"? The standard used in US criminal courts? What constitutes a "reasonable" doubt differs when we're comparing an irreversible punishment with one that has some chance of being undone. The standard of evidence which is reasonable for sending a man to prison is lower than that which is reasonable for killing him. We're forced to allow ourselves some small (very, very small) amount of leeway for mistakes when handing down prison sentences because segregating dangerous criminals from the general population is necessary for societal stability, it allows for the possibility of meaningful exoneration, and it's impossible to design a 100% foolproof system. Capital punishment, on the other hand, is not a necessity -- plenty of nations not only function, but thrive without it -- and can only ever offer posthumous exoneration, which is the very epitome of "too little, too late". |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 25, 2011 2:23:11 GMT -5
Srsly? You're going there? Argument's over. I have asked more than once for your proof that the pressure they said they felt was coercion. You have yet to provide it. Until you do, your opinion has no more weight than hers. I have withdrawn from the argument. As such, I will not be addressing any points direct towards me in this topic. Just to make this clear, since I was asked several direct questions, even if they weren't labelled as such. |
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Sept 25, 2011 5:26:58 GMT -5
I have an interesting scenario that I thought up and would like to hear your thoughts.
Suppose we took the death penalty out of the system as a punishment handed down, however, for everyone with a life sentence to be given the option of either serving that life sentence or being executed. Is this a more justifiable use of execution in the law system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 25, 2011 5:28:52 GMT -5
I have an interesting scenario that I thought up and would like to hear your thoughts. Suppose we took the death penalty out of the system as a punishment handed down, however, for everyone with a life sentence to be given the option of either serving that life sentence or being executed. Is this a more justifiable use of execution in the law system. Yes |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 25, 2011 9:56:40 GMT -5
I have an interesting scenario that I thought up and would like to hear your thoughts. Suppose we took the death penalty out of the system as a punishment handed down, however, for everyone with a life sentence to be given the option of either serving that life sentence or being executed. Is this a more justifiable use of execution in the law system. As long as people aren't being voluntold. |
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Sept 25, 2011 12:37:19 GMT -5
I have an interesting scenario that I thought up and would like to hear your thoughts. Suppose we took the death penalty out of the system as a punishment handed down, however, for everyone with a life sentence to be given the option of either serving that life sentence or being executed. Is this a more justifiable use of execution in the law system. Much more justifiable, although we get into the sticky issue of innocent people killing themselves to escape from, for example prison rape. Still, it'd be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 25, 2011 15:41:57 GMT -5
I have an interesting scenario that I thought up and would like to hear your thoughts. Suppose we took the death penalty out of the system as a punishment handed down, however, for everyone with a life sentence to be given the option of either serving that life sentence or being executed. Is this a more justifiable use of execution in the law system. Much more justifiable, although we get into the sticky issue of innocent people killing themselves to escape from, for example prison rape. Still, it'd be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. One solution is to crack down on prison rape. Also, I would like to add some stipulations to this. 1. The family of the victim is not allowed to watch. Only one overseer who is there to essentially make sure that that the prisoner does not try to escape, but is also there to escort them back to their cell should they change their mind. Otherwise, it is a private event entirely. 2. The horribly inefficient lethal injection system is abolished and thrown in the trash. Replace it with an efficient, instant system. Something like a bullet to the back of the head. Also, make the seat comfortable for the prisoner. It seems like a minor detail, but the minor details add up. 3. The prisoner is the one who activates the switch, not the overseer or anything. 4. Infinite appeals for those who choose life. The jury system is imperfect, but no system is perfect. All we can do is keep allowing chances to each person on the chance that they may be convicted wrongly. It's the least we can do to those who are convicted wrongly. |
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Sept 25, 2011 18:13:22 GMT -5
Much more justifiable, although we get into the sticky issue of innocent people killing themselves to escape from, for example prison rape. Still, it'd be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. One solution is to crack down on prison rape. Also, I would like to add some stipulations to this. 1. The family of the victim is not allowed to watch. Only one overseer who is there to essentially make sure that that the prisoner does not try to escape, but is also there to escort them back to their cell should they change their mind. Otherwise, it is a private event entirely. I see no reason why the victim's family would not be allowed to watch. Even from the psychological view that seeing the victim's family would cause him to go through with it even if he didn't want to can easily be solved with a one-way mirror. The lethal injection is the most efficient form of execution that we have unless you want to go back to the Guillotine. Also, there is no such thing as a instant painless death outside of gathering them all up in a desert and dropping a bomb on them that vaporizes everything in the blast radius. A bullet to the back of the head is not 100% efficient or instant at times. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 26, 2011 2:51:28 GMT -5
The reasonable doubt standard does not come into play in such a scenario because the Supreme Court has forbidden juries from considering guilt and whether the death penalty should be applied in the same decision. In the United States, juries determine whether or not the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" (meaning there is no reasonable doubt in the jury's mind that the defendant is guilty) irrespective of whatever punishment may be inflicted. If the defendant is found guilty, then in a separate meeting they determine whether or not the death penalty will be applied.
I am certainly against the death penalty, but I agree with erictheblue that unless you attend every meeting of a trial and view every piece of evidence, as the members of a jury do, you do not really have the authority to opine on the validity of a ruling. If the evidence overwhelmingly points to a defendant being innocent yet the jury comes to a verdict of "Guilty," the defense can argue that "no reasonable jury" would have come to such a conclusion and the judge can grant what is called a "judgement notwithstanding verdict," meaning the guilty verdict is expunged and a new trial with a new jury is called.
Unfortunately, the death penalty is an institution that will remain in our country for some time, as there is nowhere near the level of support necessary to amend the Constitution to forbid it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 26, 2011 3:24:20 GMT -5
I see no reason why the victim's family would not be allowed to watch. Even from the psychological view that seeing the victim's family would cause him to go through with it even if he didn't want to can easily be solved with a one-way mirror. Because, vee, the justice system is not the arbiter of revenge. It is not there to satisfy anyone else's blood lust. Ergo, they should never be allowed to watch, and the fact that we currently allow them to do so just further proves my point that the death penalty isn't about justice or deterring crime, it's about revenge. Which therefore means the only thing separating the death penalty from murder is the fact that the death penalty is legal. And that's a very very thin wall to separate the two. Yeah, I'm sure a complicated cocktail of chemicals that we recently tried to find illegally because our previous legal source said "No, we're not producing this crap anymore" is less expensive than a bullet. Yeah, that's more efficient all right. [/sarcasm] |
|
|
|
Post by syaoranvee on Sept 26, 2011 4:01:21 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm sure a complicated cocktail of chemicals that we recently tried to find illegally because our previous legal source said "No, we're not producing this crap anymore" is less expensive than a bullet. Yeah, that's more efficient all right. [/sarcasm] The lethal injection is the most humane and efficient form of execution that we have at the moment, shooting people in the back of the head would have people see parallels to the firing squad which has been retired in all but a handful of cases because it's no longer considered the most humane. And quite frankly, "putting a bullet in his head because it's cheaper" is something I should be saying, not you. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 26, 2011 4:30:53 GMT -5
Lung paralysis is humane?
News to me.
|
|
