When the death penalty should apply.

by smiddy 32 Replies latest social current

• 

  smiddy

  Thank you for your comments , and let me clarify my OP .Their is no question whether these guys are guilty or not , their is CCTV footage, their are eyewitnesses , and their is their admission to the fact they did this . So I stand by my OP .

  In cases where their is reasonable doubt I dont agree with the death penalty , I beleive in the judicial system in such cases. I am of the same opinion where circumstantial evidence convicts a person , to me if their is reasonable doubt , no death penalty.

  I am mortified /horrified when it is revealed an innocent person has been executed for a crime they did not commit .I saw a movie that moved me deeply when I was a lot younger, called "The Ox Bow Incident" where innocent people were lynched by a mob.

  But this case is cut and dried , no circumstantial evidence , absolute evidence of their guilt , CCTV and eyewitness accounts , and their confessions .

  And finally, may I say that many countries use penalties for crimes that I would consider unacceptable , usually they are third world countrys with non western values.

  However America , the so called leader of the free world has an abysmall record as regards people on death row .It is barbaric to put a human on death row for 5 , 10 , 15 , 20 years or more and then execute them in the end. I would say 5 years is the max . After that the death penalty does not apply . And yes I know the death penalty does not apply to all states .

  smiddy
• 

  J. Hofer

  i wouldn't lose a night's sleep if those particular individuals were executed. but laws shouldn't be established on emotions like that. every law is abused. and since law should protect the innocent, locking away those bastards for the rest of their lives is enough.

  in my country life sentence usually isn't any longer than some 14 years, sometimes even shorter. there are no consecutive life sentences. how do you feel about that?
• 

  Bugbear

  I think we must not forget that a lot of killers, do have a menthal disorder. They could suffer from Autism, Asbergers or is just plain maniacs or psykos. Do we have the right to kill a sick person, because he/she could endanger other peoples life? I have a daughter who is a policeofficer, she is educated to fire her gun when she or other people are in danger of getting killed. This is only to prevent even more deaths and manslughter. But she must make that decision in a split of a second. Capture peole, hold them i prison for some days and then kill them, looks horrible to me. doesnt this make the execution staff to murderes?

  Bugbear
• 

  Witness My Fury

  It can be done by machine if you are squeamish..

  The killers right to life is lost when they take their victims lives in my book. They showed no mercy to their victims as they begged and pleaded for their lives. They have a right to a fair trial, but if convicted have lost their right to life, I think 12 months should be more than enough for appeals / new evidence etc. If the defense cant come up with any thing working 24/7 for those 12 months then time's up. Reasonable doubt will weed out poor cases.

  I'm not talking crimes of passion etc here, but stranger killing, random deliberate killing for whatever reason.

  One could argue that psychopathy is a mental disorder as they tend to have different brain structures, but then one could go that route about paedophiles etc etc. Maybe serial killers and child abusers should have special rights to equality and "understanding"?

  I dont think so. Society is better off without them.
• 

  cofty

  I am assuming the OP is referring to the killers of Lee Rigby. The only mental illness they suffer from came from reading the Koran. Islam is an evil cult.
• 

  Band on the Run

  It is called due process of law. Society decided we would try people by certain rules. Criminal defense lawyers are heroic. Everyone deserves fair treatment. Lynching people is primitive. Look at all the blacks lynched in the American South and later the West. Mobs are not the solution. If there is evidence, there will be a conviction. The process protects everyone of us. No one here knows when their neighbor or government might turn against them and they could be a target .

  As a born-on, I feel strongly about this. Did we deserve to be lynched when we were Witnesses. The rule of law strengthen us rather than weakens us. Also, I don't know about other countries but statistics prove the system is not fair to minorities. Look at the rates of incarceratin for young black males. They are astronomical. Under your reasoning, we should execute all black males b/c they are prone to violent crimes. I believe the Latino rate is also staggering. When I see such patterns, I have pause. Also, regardless of race, the United States has such a huge percentage of people incarcerated compared to other countries.

  Sometimes I wonder about this forum. It seems that people here have little understanding of the basic norms of our society. We have a social contract in this country. Our values are enshrined in the Const'n. The Fifth Amendment expressly bans executions without trial. England had a long history of war lord feuds and Star Chamber proceedings. There are so many reasons why the rule of law should be paramount. Due process is the key element in justice. Trials are necessary. Otherwsie, the mob rules. Mobs do ugly things. Also, a mob commits murder at a lynching. So we would need an infinite number of mobs to kill the mobs who killed the mob.......I am shocked that reasonable people can believe such nonsense today. Your views are from the Dark Ages.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  I dont see any mention of mob justice in my posts, I also dont see any racial profiling in them, so if that was aimed at me then your post smacks me of hysteria.

  I'm in the UK btw.
• 

  AlphaMan

  I dont see any mention of mob justice in my posts, I also dont see any racial profiling in them, so if that was aimed at me then your post smacks me of hysteria.

  You didn't mention those things. Typical ultra-liberal distraction & wusification. The OP simply put forth that the killers of Lee Rigsby and human monsters just like them being put to death in a timely manner, rather than jailed for a year, then put on trial costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, then housed & fed in prision for the rest of their lives. Amazing they will defend these animals to no end with no consideration of their innocent victims.
• 

  jgnat

  Justice must also be seen to be done. That takes some time and deliberation.
• 

  Qcmbr

  If we legalise institutional murder then have we not accepted that murder is an acceptable solution to problems (so condoning their original crime since they do not have recourse to institutions to solve their problem)? If we want to have laws that set standards of behaviour then they should not repeat the crime as a punishment. Do we teach a child not to be violent by smacking them?