Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People like him are the worst kinds of scum, if he were to be brutally executed would it honestly be bad given what he has done and how only the likes of Hitler or Stalin would view his actions as awesome?
There should be no death penalty at all; we remain (in the US) an outlier. The "civilized world" has moved on and we remain in the Middle Ages. Weinstein: trial, conviction, prison.
Status:
"81 Years, NOT 91 Felonies"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,596,781 times
Reputation: 5696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zengha
People like him are the worst kinds of scum, if he were to be brutally executed would it honestly be bad given what he has done and how only the likes of Hitler or Stalin would view his actions as awesome?
First, as tempting as it is to say he should be executed (let along brutally and in agonizing pain), that's the wrong path to take. Don't get me wrong, there is a part of me that would love to see him get put in agony some how. BUT, I have to realize that isolating him from the greater society, so he can do no harm, is enough (personally I think he deserves a lifelong sentence - independent of what the law says is his punishment - but that's just my opinion, not what the law says).
Beyond this, there's always the possibility of executing the wrongly convicted. There's been lots of cases reopened after 30 or so years that proved that the convicted person did NOT, in fact, commit the crime. This is especially true for rape, thanks to DNA testing that simply did not exist in the 1980s.
Even in the semi-miracle of multiple CCTVs and high-res cell phone cameras photographing the incident from multiple angles, including catching the accused in the act. Plus DNA evidence (blood, hair and skin samples, fingerprints) and shoe sole patterns, and whatever else forensics uses -- it's still a bad idea to execute such people. Executing even the undeniably guilty habituates the culture into thinking "Some people just deserve to die", with the criminal justice system soon following behind.
Besides, for certain crimes (especially those involving sex, non-sexual attacks on women, children, and the elderly), living proves to be a worse punishment than death. Fellow inmates don't take very kindly to inmates committing those kinds of crimes.
First, as tempting as it is to say he should be executed (let along brutally and in agonizing pain), that's the wrong path to take. Don't get me wrong, there is a part of me that would love to see him get put in agony some how. BUT, I have to realize that isolating him from the greater society, so he can do no harm, is enough (personally I think he deserves a lifelong sentence - independent of what the law says is his punishment - but that's just my opinion, not what the law says).
Beyond this, there's always the possibility of executing the wrongly convicted. There's been lots of cases reopened after 30 or so years that proved that the convicted person did NOT, in fact, commit the crime. This is especially true for rape, thanks to DNA testing that simply did not exist in the 1980s.
Even in the semi-miracle of multiple CCTVs and high-res cell phone cameras photographing the incident from multiple angles, including catching the accused in the act. Plus DNA evidence (blood, hair and skin samples, fingerprints) and shoe sole patterns, and whatever else forensics uses -- it's still a bad idea to execute such people. Executing even the undeniably guilty habituates the culture into thinking "Some people just deserve to die", with the criminal justice system soon following behind.
Besides, for certain crimes (especially those involving sex, non-sexual attacks on women, children, and the elderly), living proves to be a worse punishment than death. Fellow inmates don't take very kindly to inmates committing those kinds of crimes.
From what Ive heard from people that have actually been in a state prison, that is not really how it is. Its more of an old wives tale, that people like to say, that makes them feel a little better, thinking the person responsible will 'get his' when he gets to prison.
But I would say "no" even if you'd asked the same question about Stalin. I don't believe in capital punishment as a deterrent, or as a morally sound method of punishment in a civilized society.
But...if I were in favor of capital punishment, I'd say it should be reserved for those who have committed murder and show no indication whatsoever that they can be rehabilitated. How the court system would determine that is another debate, though.
People like him are the worst kinds of scum, if he were to be brutally executed would it honestly be bad given what he has done and how only the likes of Hitler or Stalin would view his actions as awesome?
People like him are the worst kinds of scum, if he were to be brutally executed would it honestly be bad given what he has done and how only the likes of Hitler or Stalin would view his actions as awesome?
Who did he kill?
Two things. First of all, under our 8th amend, there is the clause of proportionality which says that since the death penalty is the ultimate punishment, it should only be used for the ultimate crime. If a person kills someone, then they are eligible for the DP, but if not, no. Mind you, this applies in crimes against a person, not the State.
Secondly, don't up the ante on the victim just because one sees the crook as slime. If, say, rape is a DP crime, then what is to motivate the rapist to not kill the victim, removing a witness, not to set fire to their house (and put the rest of the neighborhood at risk) so to reduce their odds of being caught?
Execute people only when they have killed someone.
People like him are the worst kinds of scum, if he were to be brutally executed would it honestly be bad given what he has done and how only the likes of Hitler or Stalin would view his actions as awesome?
Is there another Harvey Weinstein that is a serial torturer-murderer?
Surely the OP can't mean the Hollywoood guy.. or did he kill someone?
I am honestly perplexed by this post. Can someone explain?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
