by TresHappy 186 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
i don't see any situation deserving of death. (at least not based on hate and revenge
I do not see a jury of 12 people assigning the deaath penalty out of revenge. Yes, i might feel revenge if it were my child, but i'm not trying the person, a jury is. They are not tried by a single judge, but by 12 people.
So taking away revenge-which i don't believe u can prove exists, do u kow see any situation that would be worthy of death sentence?
I do not see a jury of 12 people assigning the deaath penalty out of revenge. Yes, i might feel revenge if it were my child, but i'm not trying the person, a jury is. They are not tried by a single judge, but by 12 people.So taking away revenge-which i don't believe u can prove exists, do u kow see any situation that would be worthy of death sentence?
people in a jury are still emotional. the case is delivered by the persecutor in the most touching way....putting the offender in the worst light possible. if i imagine you sitting on a jury judging over a child abuser i would think you would probably make a somewhat emotional decision. (sorry if i am wrong!)
if a person openly confesses a crime and cannot be rehabilitated by any means than it might be an option to put such an individual to sleep in a painfree fashion instead of letting him sit in prison for 70 years.
I think if you really looked into the cost of maintaining a convict it is much MORE than killing them. But, the bleeding heart supposed "humanist" that worry about one guilty being killed have people like you convinced. When logically you should be able to weigh the cost yourself. Also, to me the COST is the fact this person will get out and perpetrate again. Do you EVER watch anything forensic or crime tv? All of them have past records LONG past records and if they weren't on the street and in so many cases alive. Then their would be children, men and women alive.
As far as your argument about them possible <gasp> making a mistake. I will say this I would rather die in prison by a mistake knowing that 100 guilty died along with me.
Also, for a biologist you sure ignored Thunders points, his very, very valid points. Also, you cop out on the music was hilarious. I mean really.....
I also find it disturbing still that you will speak of a case you didn't watch and be so darned sure of her motives. Even when I watch say a 20/20 I think of it logically, not by what I being told. I look at what forensic evidence they have etc.
I guess it is good people that will always be fighting the evil that other men wish to keep in this world.
sheila,
I think if you really looked into the cost of maintaining a convict it is much MORE than killing them.
http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm
if i am honest the arguments as to why capital punishment is more expansive sound quite reasonable to me.
Also, to me the COST is the fact this person will get out and perpetrate again. Do you EVER watch anything forensic or crime tv? All of them have past records LONG past records and if they weren't on the street and in so many cases alive. Then their would be children, men and women alive.
i watch these things sporadically. anyway, if people have a prior record to committing murder than its usually for smaller offenses. unless you want to imprision thieves for life i don't think the problem is solvable this way.
As far as your argument about them possible <gasp> making a mistake. I will say this I would rather die in prison by a mistake knowing that 100 guilty died along with me.
a) this shows your fanatism on this issue. b) perhaps not everyone wants to be put to death so that 100 real offenders can get killed. have you thought about that? what would you think if it was your child that was put to death accidentially?
Also, for a biologist you sure ignored Thunders points, his very, very valid points. Also, you cop out on the music was hilarious. I mean really.....
ok which point exactly did i ignore? read all the post i have made and if there is still something unclear about my position tell me.
music exists because it stimulates our brain and causes a pleasant feeling.
here is an interesting paper about this subject:
http://info.med.yale.edu/intmed/hummed/blood.pdf (i can send it to you by email if the download doesn'T work).
I also find it disturbing still that you will speak of a case you didn't watch and be so darned sure of her motives. Even when I watch say a 20/20 I think of it logically, not by what I being told. I look at what forensic evidence they have etc.
i am not sure of her emotions - never stated such. i stated what i think is a reasonable assumption and said that she should be kept in prison if i am wrong.
I guess it is good people that will always be fighting the evil that other men wish to keep in this world.
thats right!
if i am honest the arguments as to why capital punishment is more expansive sound quite reasonable to me.
This does not factor in the education and ammenities demanded by prisoners. Nor does this factor in the many lawsuits brought my convicts. Normally, I would have gone to the site and read everything before making this decision but since you can argue about a trial you've never seen I can make a logical guess as to the "hidden costs" not factored in.
Thunders point was more than valid. But to take it more simply, if you have a Love and the brain processes that then therefore evil can and most certainly does exist.
so locking them away is not enough? they must be killed? why?
I think it's because it is widely believed that some people don't deserve the chance to live long enough to realize the error of their ways and make a change. The evil-doer must be cut off. Eye for an eye and all that.
Realist,
Of course i would be emotional about a child molester. That is why they would not pick me to be juror. Jurors are asked many questions before they can be on a jury, and i'd never get on the jury. First, if they ask"have u ever be a victim of child molestation?" i'd have to say yes, b/c if in the sentencing of the trial it came out, they would kick me off the jury. It is a very strict system. They really do try very hard to find a jury of your peers. I'd never get away with it, someone would find out.
So u can take revenge out of the sentencing. texas allows for the death sentence, and jurors are ask too in a case where the death sentence is allowed if they could come back wilth that verdict. If they cannot, they are not allowed to be a juror. If it is discovered in the sentencing that they lied, they are off. It is hard to conceal those sorts of things form 11 other people in such close quarters.
Wednesday: Ya Thunder didn't make it past the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out comment" when he was up ofr jury selection>
Wednesday: Ya Thunder didn't make it past the "kill 'em all and let God sort it out comment" when he was up ofr jury selection>
nilfun,
I think it's because it is widely believed that some people don't deserve the chance to live long enough to realize the error of their ways and make a change. The evil-doer must be cut off. Eye for an eye and all that.
i think you are correct. it is sad that such a view still prevails even some 2500 years after it was written in the old testament. we really haven't progressed very far.
wednesday,
Of course i would be emotional about a child molester. That is why they would not pick me to be juror. Jurors are asked many questions before they can be on a jury, and i'd never get on the jury. First, if they ask"have u ever be a victim of child molestation?" i'd have to say yes, b/c if in the sentencing of the trial it came out, they would kick me off the jury. It is a very strict system. They really do try very hard to find a jury of your peers. I'd never get away with it, someone would find out.
So u can take revenge out of the sentencing. texas allows for the death sentence, and jurors are ask too in a case where the death sentence is allowed if they could come back wilth that verdict. If they cannot, they are not allowed to be a juror. If it is discovered in the sentencing that they lied, they are off. It is hard to conceal those sorts of things form 11 other people in such close quarters.
still there are many known mistakes and jury members can be emotionalized. i would think that at least it would have to be proven beyond any doubt that a person is the actual offender before such a verdict is reached. sadly this is not always the case. in over 50% of all cases an appeal is successful. hence in many cases the process failed in the first court. and as is obvious from the death row cases in illinois the control systems (2nd court etc.) failed as well.
sheila,
sadly your posts keep displaying a level of ignorance and disrespect that it is not worth my time to reply to you anymore. ciao.
