Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
Why is it even necessary to put people to death, aside from emotional justifications?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I support Ron Paul's bill
I support Ron Paul's billFollow
Why does there need to be anything other than emotional justifications? It's how we get tougher verdicts on kiddie touchers. Are you willing to give up that?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Sure, why not?
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
Quote:
This is completely false. I don't blame you for repeating it, since it's such a dramatic statistic that it appears to strengthen your position. But you probably should have done a bit of research first. Heck. We debunked this the last time it was brought up in a thread on this forum.
It's the "who were put to death" part which is false. It's a complete fabrication designed to twist the meaning of an otherwise accurate statistic. The real data is that 1 out of 7 people convicted of murder and sentenced to death (but not yet executed) are later found to be innocent. Remember. This includes every single person who successfully appeals their conviction. What that shows isn't that we're executing innocent people, but that our appeals process works. And that appeals process helps to ensure that innocent people do *not* get executed. But toss in a few extraneous words and it makes it seem like it's the other way around.
It's the "who were put to death" part which is false. It's a complete fabrication designed to twist the meaning of an otherwise accurate statistic. The real data is that 1 out of 7 people convicted of murder and sentenced to death (but not yet executed) are later found to be innocent. Remember. This includes every single person who successfully appeals their conviction. What that shows isn't that we're executing innocent people, but that our appeals process works. And that appeals process helps to ensure that innocent people do *not* get executed. But toss in a few extraneous words and it makes it seem like it's the other way around.
That's very magnanimous of you, Gbaji.
You are an example to us all.
Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
Sure, why not?
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
And the case against the death penalty doesn't play on emotions either? I would expect that if you contrasted a group of people who supported the death penalty to a group who oppose it, you'll find a lot more emotion coming from the later group.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Kirby the Eccentric wrote:
Sure, why not?
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
Emotions should not play any part in the sentences criminals get.
And the case against the death penalty doesn't play on emotions either? I would expect that if you contrasted a group of people who supported the death penalty to a group who oppose it, you'll find a lot more emotion coming from the later group.
And I would say it's probably the same amount of emotion on either side anyway. There are of course varying levels of thought and feeling expressed by people on either side of the fence. Those against capital punishment might seem more vocal, but then, they have to be. They are the ones who want to see something still being used today, removed completely from use.
About my statement, it should have been:
Emotions should not play a major part in the sentences criminals get.
Because obviously, the judge has to weigh the circumstances together, and emotion will play a part in that no matter how hard the judge tries to be impartial.
I made the statement without first understanding how the sentence (where capital punishment is an option) gets decided, and still have not found a definitive answer.
If the judge has control over choosing between a life sentence (or a suitable number of years in prison), and the death penalty, I see that as being highly affected by emotion, rather than a rational decision.
If the judge can not decide to sentence a convicted murderer with a prison term, and is stuck with sentencing a death penalty in some countries/states, then it makes it even more necessary to remove capital punishment as a sentence.
Not to say that it's unnecessary to abolish capital punishment as an option in the previous circumstance.
Edited, Apr 26th 2010 8:49pm by Kirby
Recent Visitors: 231
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (231)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I support Ron Paul's bill
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC