Probably Innocent Dude Gets Owned by the Death Penalty (lol) (rating, Chicago)
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.
I don't understand the reason for lol behind the title...
It was sarcastic, as was the "getting owned" part of the title. Based on what I've seen the death penalty advocates seem to think that it's a big joke when the state kills someone and that we're just getting rid of society's trash by doing so.
This is a case that is outside those grounds (lol owned).
Maybe innocent? Obviously not innocent enough to convince 1 member of the jury he was innocent enough not to convict, and enough reasonable doubt to get life in prison and not the death penalty. I would be interested to read the deliberations and results when they actually come to a conclusion instead of preliminary guessing.
Mr. Petit's situation is precisely the problem with the death penalty's effectiveness. It takes way too long and it takes too heavy a toll on the victims families. There needs to be a shortned process as far as the death penalty is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman01
When its proof positive in regards to guilt? They have chose their fate. They deserve the same compassion that they showed their victims.
That the death penalty is about "revenge" is a myth. The death penalty is just punishment for the crime of murder, and it is prescribed by God himself.
The argument that we might execute an innocent person is always made by death penalty opponents. However, these same people do not have a problem with killing the innocent when it comes to abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonian123
I support the death penalty because many families of murder victims support the death penalty. Now that does not mean I think the state should ask the families what they want punishment to be or to use it in every single murder case. I just think the state must keep the option available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
No, the purpose is to kill the killers. The purpose is justice. It just needs to happen faster after sentencing. It's the appeal process that's in need of reform.
Maybe innocent? Obviously not innocent enough to convince 1 member of the jury he was innocent enough not to convict, and enough reasonable doubt to get life in prison and not the death penalty. I would be interested to read the deliberations and results when they actually come to a conclusion instead of preliminary guessing.
Would you argue that the level of doubt that is provided would have warranted more appeals so that we didn't wrongly kill some guy who may have been innocent?
There doesn't appear to be enough evidence to convict him. The new forensics do not prove arson, but his odd behavior does point to it. Neighbors say that he ran out of the smoking house (no flames) and just sat and watched without trying to rescue his kids. He showed little emotion after but was laughing & joking with his wife when going through the burnt house the next day. His wife says that there are many inconsistencies in his story and is convinced that he's guilty.
Major problem with the death penalty is, and this example illustrates, that it is impossible for the death penalty to be fairly administered.
Death is different. As someone else said, after a person has been executed and a mistake has been discovered, well, you can't bring that person back to life so you can correct the mistake.
was the father negligent in the incident in any way?
what compelled the state to take death penalty as appropriate.
without a good review of the case i could not make any statement.
how bout making it a little be easier for us to give an opinion.
you are making accusations at the state, but no background.
It was sarcastic, as was the "getting owned" part of the title. Based on what I've seen the death penalty advocates seem to think that it's a big joke when the state kills someone and that we're just getting rid of society's trash by doing so.
This is a case that is outside those grounds (lol owned).
Oh ok. I guess your sarcasm was just a little above my head. I'm not against the death penalty but I don't think it's a big joke when someone is executed -so I'm not following....care to draw me a map?
Would you argue that the level of doubt that is provided would have warranted more appeals so that we didn't wrongly kill some guy who may have been innocent?
No, but I want to see the first hand records not an article that reports preliminary findings. This guy may have a record that the journalist is not showing, there may be other factors that are conveniently being left out of the report to the public that was included to the jury. I don't want to make a decision through the filter of a writer with unknown motivations.
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.
