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.
So we kill them for what they might do in the future?
When determining the punishment for a crime that is a strong factor.
Texas law:
The first question is whether there exists’ a probability the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a "continuing threat to society". "Society" in this instance includes both inside and outside of prison; thus, a defendant who would constitute a threat to people inside of prison, such as correctional officers or other inmates, is eligible for the death penalty.
The second question is whether, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there exists’ sufficient mitigating circumstances to warrant a sentence of life imprisonment rather than a death sentence.
If the person was convicted as a party, the third question asked is whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased, or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased, or "anticipated" that a human life would be taken. In order for a death sentence to be imposed, the jury must answer the first question 'Yes' and the second question 'No' (and, if convicted as a party, the third question 'Yes'). Otherwise the sentence is life in prison.
The jury ruled that Wood anticipated a life would be taken. As you would expect when someone is robbing someone he knows well. You don't leave behind witnesses.
So we kill them for what they might do in the future?
well, what is the purpose of life without parole then? If you don't think they might kill in the future, let them be your neighbor then. What is the purpose of keeping them in prison for a lifetime?
If I lock someone up involuntary and if the state does the same for a criminal are both actions wrong or both OK?
It would depend. Did you lock them up for the protection of others? if so, I won't find you guilty. I believe that many times where the state locks people up (like pot possession) that they are wrong also.
Quote:
In order to protect ourselves from internal aggressors we allow the state to fine, imprison and, in rare cases, execute.
I am pro-life for the same reason. It's wrong to take the life of another outside of direct self defense. Seems you are O.K. with taking another life when it suits you?
No, we punish them for unlawfully taking another's life. The result that they won't murder another person is just a bonus.
If they CHOOSE to walk off a twenty story building, that is their choice.
Killing is killing.
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.
