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.
The above frightens me to the core. Just stabs me. . .it is the kind of thing I know is happening. How many people like this man went all the way?
In the above it reinforces my simple belief, that Death Penalty is not ethical. I'm not that concerned with cases like James Holmes. I am concerned by the 99% of cases not so easy to determine.
Not all murders are self evident and easy to solve
not every policeman is just
not every interrogation is truthful
not every district attorney is righteous, smart, and responsible
not every judge is impartial
Not every jury appropriately understands, weighs the evidence.
Not every defense lawyer is ready to defend their client
I have had my own struggles with the death penalty. However, after years of deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I support it.
This support, however, comes with a caveat. I do NOT believe that a death sentence is applicable if the person is found guilty on the bases of circumstantial evidence. For me, a case needs to be absolutely self-evident: The perpetrator was caught red-handed, arrested by police on the spot, injured by the victim or by witnesses during the act (and hence, be easily identifiable), caught on camera while committing the crime, etc.
Our justice system reasons that guilt needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the death penalty is sought, I think the standard should be even higher.
I have had my own struggles with the death penalty. However, after years of deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I support it.
This support, however, comes with a caveat. I do NOT believe that a death sentence is applicable if the person is found guilty on the bases of circumstantial evidence. For me, a case needs to be absolutely self-evident: The perpetrator was caught red-handed, arrested by police on the spot, injured by the victim or by witnesses during the act (and hence, be easily identifiable), caught on camera while committing the crime, etc.
Our justice system reasons that guilt needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the death penalty is sought, I think the standard should be even higher.
I support it in the a similar way to Bill Clinton's abortion mantra, "Safe. Legal. Rare." No electrocutions, no gas chambers, no hangings, etc. I don't think it should be used very often but it should be an option to be pursued at a DA's discretion.
The above frightens me to the core. Just stabs me. . .it is the kind of thing I know is happening. How many people like this man went all the way?
In the above it reinforces my simple belief, that Death Penalty is not ethical. I'm not that concerned with cases like James Holmes. I am concerned by the 99% of cases not so easy to determine.
Not all murders are self evident and easy to solve
not every policeman is just
not every interrogation is truthful
not every district attorney is righteous, smart, and responsible
not every judge is impartial
Not every jury appropriately understands, weighs the evidence.
Not every defense lawyer is ready to defend their client
not every appeal is heard,
not every person executed is guilty
I'd be a lot more concerned if the death penalty was something that only took a year or two to implement but this man sat on death row for 15 years, which is very common. Also a lot of people get caught up in these kinds of cases thinking everyone who has been "exonerated" is surely innocent. That's not necessarily the case. It sometimes just means that DNA evidence casts enough doubt on their guilt to free them but it doesn't prove that they're actually innocent. Also DNA evidence that is that old is rather unreliable so I'm not really sure what to make of this.
I'd be a lot more concerned if the death penalty was something that only took a year or two to implement but this man sat on death row for 15 years, which is very common. Also a lot of people get caught up in these kinds of cases thinking everyone who has been "exonerated" is surely innocent. That's not necessarily the case. It sometimes just means that DNA evidence casts enough doubt on their guilt to free them but it doesn't prove that they're actually innocent. Also DNA evidence that is that old is rather unreliable so I'm not really sure what to make of this.
True - but that is the premise of our justice system: Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That, by default, does not mean that those who are found innocent are actually not guilty...Only that there is doubt.
I have had my own struggles with the death penalty. However, after years of deliberation, I have come to the conclusion that I support it.
This support, however, comes with a caveat. I do NOT believe that a death sentence is applicable if the person is found guilty on the bases of circumstantial evidence. For me, a case needs to be absolutely self-evident: The perpetrator was caught red-handed, arrested by police on the spot, injured by the victim or by witnesses during the act (and hence, be easily identifiable), caught on camera while committing the crime, etc.
Our justice system reasons that guilt needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. If the death penalty is sought, I think the standard should be even higher.
That's pretty logical and consistent with my thinking.
Look at what happened to the West Memphis 3. It's one of the reasons I cannot support the Death Penalty. I think a life in solitary with no parole is way worse than death anyway
The above frightens me to the core. Just stabs me. . .it is the kind of thing I know is happening. How many people like this man went all the way?
In the above it reinforces my simple belief, that Death Penalty is not ethical. I'm not that concerned with cases like James Holmes. I am concerned by the 99% of cases not so easy to determine.
Not all murders are self evident and easy to solve
not every policeman is just
not every interrogation is truthful
not every district attorney is righteous, smart, and responsible
not every judge is impartial
Not every jury appropriately understands, weighs the evidence.
Not every defense lawyer is ready to defend their client
not every appeal is heard,
not every person executed is guilty
all good points, and good reason that justice moves slowly, especially in death penalty cases. i do support the death penalty, but i also support giving the person that receives the death penalty enough opportunity to either come up with new evidence that they are not guilty, or that extenuating circumstances would nullify the death penalty.
in the end our justice system isnt perfect, but it is far better than the rest of the world.
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.
