Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
USA Death Penalty/Life sentence
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RidgeHunter" data-source="post: 1604889" data-attributes="member: 4319"><p>Why the distinction between murder trials? If it can be proven that murderer A deserves the death penalty, but it can't be proven that murderer B deserves it, then shouldn't murderer B go free? Enough solid evidence to convict, but not execute? Something's off, there.</p><p></p><p>Who decides what constitutes heinous nature? There's too much willy-nilly ambivalence there.</p><p></p><p>Doc, there is an element of fallibility in the justice system. The death penalty will never be cheap, and it will never be quick. Nor should it be. If we as a society are going to engage in killing humans, cheap and easy shouldn't be the descriptors for it. I'd argue that an argument for vigilante justice is more level-headed than this 30 day and a .22 stuff. Why? Because the justice system should be held to a higher standard. Capital punishment is us, collectively as a society, systematically taking a human life. Should be some element of professionalism and dignity in it, no matter how small. Your 30 days for appeal .22 spiel is crap and you know it. You're far too smart to pull off acting dumb, doc.</p><p></p><p>And you really think the death penalty (compared to life in prison) is a deterrent to those who commit the most heinous of crimes? Honestly, not being a smartass. I don't see it being a deterrent. </p><p></p><p>My own real life experience in this subject is very limited (thankfully), and amounts to me sitting on the jury of a first degree murder trial (no capital punishment option), and at a later date talking with several jurors that sat on a death penalty case (after the fact). The first made me lose a great of deal faith in the court system, the latter showed that at least everyone I talked to was greatly affected by being on a capital punishment jury. Even the ones that went into it thinking otherwise. None of them ever wanted to do it again, and not because of the fact that jury duty sucks. I can, and have sat on a murder trial and looked at it objectively, but I honestly don't think I could sit on a capital punishment trial and vote objectively. </p><p></p><p>Finally, I look like a dumbass on OSA a lot (hey, I do learn things here), but you ain't making me look like one in this thread. But keep at it if you must.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RidgeHunter, post: 1604889, member: 4319"] Why the distinction between murder trials? If it can be proven that murderer A deserves the death penalty, but it can't be proven that murderer B deserves it, then shouldn't murderer B go free? Enough solid evidence to convict, but not execute? Something's off, there. Who decides what constitutes heinous nature? There's too much willy-nilly ambivalence there. Doc, there is an element of fallibility in the justice system. The death penalty will never be cheap, and it will never be quick. Nor should it be. If we as a society are going to engage in killing humans, cheap and easy shouldn't be the descriptors for it. I'd argue that an argument for vigilante justice is more level-headed than this 30 day and a .22 stuff. Why? Because the justice system should be held to a higher standard. Capital punishment is us, collectively as a society, systematically taking a human life. Should be some element of professionalism and dignity in it, no matter how small. Your 30 days for appeal .22 spiel is crap and you know it. You're far too smart to pull off acting dumb, doc. And you really think the death penalty (compared to life in prison) is a deterrent to those who commit the most heinous of crimes? Honestly, not being a smartass. I don't see it being a deterrent. My own real life experience in this subject is very limited (thankfully), and amounts to me sitting on the jury of a first degree murder trial (no capital punishment option), and at a later date talking with several jurors that sat on a death penalty case (after the fact). The first made me lose a great of deal faith in the court system, the latter showed that at least everyone I talked to was greatly affected by being on a capital punishment jury. Even the ones that went into it thinking otherwise. None of them ever wanted to do it again, and not because of the fact that jury duty sucks. I can, and have sat on a murder trial and looked at it objectively, but I honestly don't think I could sit on a capital punishment trial and vote objectively. Finally, I look like a dumbass on OSA a lot (hey, I do learn things here), but you ain't making me look like one in this thread. But keep at it if you must. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
USA Death Penalty/Life sentence
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom