Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:35 AM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,174,531 times
Reputation: 17209

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
What happened in Kiev cannot be compared to a criminal being sentenced to death for murder, according to law. Please. Think before you write something so ridiculous!
It can be used as an example for the exception I was commenting on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
And in the case when the state decides to utilize the death penalty to defend the citizens of the state from internal and/ or external aggressors.
Please understand and follow the conversation before writing something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-23-2014, 10:37 AM
 
79,913 posts, read 44,174,531 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Slavery is against a person's free will. Roe v Wade was a affirmation of a woman's free will. A free will she has had for eons.
And yet RvW said at a certain point the state can legally force her to carry to term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,454,913 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
not for the initial conviction, that part has to be consistent. i do agree that a higher standard does needt o be applied if one is seeking the death penalty, but that happens in the penalty phase of trial.
Yes, I agree. I meant that, in the guilt/innocence phase, the burden required for a conviction should be the same. However, if there are not multiple pieces of solid physical evidence, a death sentence should never be allowed to be imposed - the state shouldn't seek it or the judge should be able to not allow it and should not.

When it is allowed to be sought and is sought, the jury should be required to look back at the evidence from the guilt/evidence phase and determine that there were in fact multiple pieces of solid physical evidence proving guilt before considering a death sentence or even looking at aggravating/mitigating factors or anything else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,975 posts, read 16,454,913 times
Reputation: 4586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivorytickler View Post
Punishment is also about protecting society. If one of my girls were murdered and their killer sentenced to death (not going to happen as Michigan doesn't have the death penalty), the execution would end everything. It would eliminate any possibility of my daughter's killer escaping and killing again.
I never said punishment wasn't also about protecting society. It's about protecting society, retribution, and rehabilitation. However, the third component shouldn't apply to convicted murderers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Sinkholeville
1,509 posts, read 1,794,402 times
Reputation: 2354
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtc08 View Post
If you believe that life is a gift from god, you cannot have the opinion that man can take that life at the same time.

A consistent view is god is the only one who gives life and god is the only one who can take it away.
Not according to The Bible.

Even Jesus supported capital punishment. Lead by example.

He certainly never supported child sacrifice, that was the realm of Moloch, the detestable false god of the abortionists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,080 posts, read 14,317,542 times
Reputation: 9789
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy View Post
Your entitled to your point of view, but my argument would be at least threefold:
  1. A murderer does not deserve to escape with his/her life.
  2. God says they should be put to death, because murder is a crime against God himself.
  3. It costs society millions to keep people in prison for life, and they enjoy privileges (TV, Internet access, libraries, gymnasiums and other things that make prison life more comfortable). Why should they be allowed to live this way, in a sense, free, while their victim was robbed of life?
Is that the same God who says disobedient children should be taken to the edge of town and stoned to death?
That God?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2014, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Arizona
6,131 posts, read 7,983,546 times
Reputation: 8272
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryManback View Post
Except in cases of pregnancy by rape, I think that a man and woman are responsible for what they knew was a possibility of happening. In any case, unwanted pregnancies should be a non-factor a day and age of the pill, morning-after pill, vasectomies and histerectomies (sp?). Every intelligent couple I know has never had an accidental pregnancy. It seems to only happen to irresponsible and/or unintelligent couples.
Your ignorance is showing again.

Hysterectomies are not performed as a method of birth control. If you think they are, I'm surprised you didn't include castration on your list.

Women will usually have a tubal ligation, or in the colloquial, "have their tubes tied."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 04:24 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,460,918 times
Reputation: 3142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Slavery is against a person's free will. Roe v Wade was a affirmation of a woman's free will. A free will she has had for eons.
Uh, no it wasn't. It was a determination of when the state had a compelling interest in the unborn, and once the state had that compelling interest it had the power to ban abortion. How in the world is that an "affirmation of a woman's free will"? The moment the court decides the state has a compelling interest then it gets to control what the woman does. That is the exact opposite of affirming the individual's free will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2014, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Great Britain
2,737 posts, read 3,163,204 times
Reputation: 1450
I am not pro either
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top