(Bolding mine)
Pardon me?
An innocent man put in prison can always be released from prison. An innocent man executed can’t be brought back to life. Basically, you’re saying it’s better for an innocent person to be condemned to death, because they have a better chance of having it overturned?!?! :eek::eek::eek:
(Unless, of course, I’m being whooshed, which I really, REALLY hope I am.
The Death Penalty Worldwide Try reading this list. Egypt tortured for us ,no they not advanced. Israel no. They are like us. China ,you kid right. Advanced is not about having money.It is elevating yourself above middle age brutality.
He’s pointing out that, in other cases, one does not take an absolutist stance, instead accepting that there exists some risk of harm befalling innocent people. The innocent man put in prison to rot and released after 50 years when his conviction is finally overturned, that half century of his life is just as permanently, irrecoverably lost as any death penalty victim’s life would be. Granted, the magnitude of the loss is greater with the latter, spread out over more time with the former so as to allow greater chance of halting it in the middle, etc., but all the same, it goes to show that, in other areas, we are not absolutists about eliminating false positives, even at the expense of tragic, irreversible damage.
Well, I don’t believe in the death penalty. At all - it’s barbaric and wrong.
However, given the current maximum sentence available in Canada, and given criminals such as Clifford Olsen who has stated more than once that he will reoffend, I have to admit that if it comes to pass that his number is up for release I hope he gets shived on his way out.
I really don’t know if he could be kept in longer - I don’t know if the Dangerous Offender Legislation here in Canada can be grandfathered to criminals such as him, or if we have to wait for him to kill a few more kids before we can lock him up forever.
It’s a rather uncomfortable feeling, really.
There should be no exceptions to any rules. Rules that aren’t suicide pacts lack commitment.
That would be a good rule to follow.
I see a fundamental difference between killing a man and wrongfully imprisoning a man. Both result in a certain number of years lost, but at the end of the day, one is mistake and one is murder. I am disgusted at the thought of being complicit in murder, and I am, as a citizen of country where people are executed for crimes they did not commit. I see a distinction between a living man and a murdered one. If you don’t, or if other people who support the death penalty don’t, then I guess that just means we’re not going to find common ground here.
One person being murdered by the state is one too many. And there have been more than one.
They’re both mistakes. Obviously executing an innocent man is a bigger mistake than falsely locking him up, but it is a mistake. It’s not like the state is saying, “We know you’re innocent but we’re killing you anyway”.
You say, “One person being murdered by the state is too many”, and nobody can disagree with you there, but one person falsely locked up is too many, also. The problem, in this case, isn’t with the punishment for the crime (and I know some people have problems with the actual death penalty itself, but that isn’t what we’re discussing). The problem is that our judicial system makes it possible to convict an innocent person. It’s the classic Type I/Type II error problem, and I don’t know for sure how to solve it.
I’m not using terms like “better” or “worse”. I’m saying that it’s more likely that the state will discover that the person wrongly condemned to death was wrongly convicted than the person wrongly sentenced to five years in prison.
You’re right…an innocent man put in prison can always be released from prison. But the odds are, he won’t be, because nobody will care enough about his case to uncover the evidence that he’s innocent.
Have you ever heard of a fucking question mark? Here’s a helpful tip. Put your finger on the “M” key, then move it three keys over to the right. Then hold down the shift key, and then while holding it down, press that key three keys to the right of M. Another hint - it has a little picture of a question mark on it. I know the shift thing is confusing, but practice makes perfect.
Anyway, not only do I believe in the death penalty, I think it should be carried out with an ax.
Israel does not have the death penalty; or more precisely, the death penalty in Israel is only applied to Nazi war criminals, and was only used once, nearly 50 years ago. “Ordinary” murderers are given life imprisonment.
No they don’t.
It’s like when a cop chases a speeder! I mean, aren’t *they *speeding too? It’s completely unfair! Like the time that cop found me crouched in a stall in the women’s bathroom and said “you’re not supposed to be in here.” I was like, “well, *you’re *in here, aren’t you?” And he was all “I respectfully concede your unassailable logic.” Then he left so I could finish jerking off.
Simplifying yes, misrepresenting no.
Capital punishment in Israel - Wikipedia Yes they do ,but only in special cases. So far they have only used it once.
Precisely. You’ll find many advocates actually disambiguate the arguments: Philosophically, they endorse, but only crazed loons- which the overwhelming majority aren’t- don’t support the highest standards of proof being used for certainty of guilt.
Also, gonzo: I’m sorry the cool kids wouldn’t let you sit at their lunch table. No part of that means Europe is more advanced than we are.
The United Kingdom does not have the death penalty. France does not have the death penalty. Spain does not have the death penalty. Portugal does not have the death penalty. Canada does not have the death penalty. Mexico does not have the death penalty. Germany does not have the death penalty. Denmark does not have the death penalty. Norway does not have the death penalty. Sweden does not have the death penalty. Austria does not have the death penalty. Italy does not have the death penalty. Luxembourg does not have the death penalty. Finland does not have the death penalty. Poland does not have the death penalty. Panama does not have the death penalty. South Africa does not have the death penalty. Mozambique does not have the death penalty. Australia does not have the death penalty. Nepal does not have the death penalty. Vatican City does not have the death penalty.
Etc., etc., etc.
Care to try phrasing that in English instead of authentic frontier gibberish next time?
To death penalty advocates, questions about the morality of the death penalty are different than questions about how the death penalty is currently executed.
Opponents often mistake the way it is done for the only way it can be done. Especially erroneous and biasing when your frame of reference is Texas.
And I’m amused that you labeled it frontier gibberish when it was quite clearly phrased.
I have no moral opposition to the death penalty in the U.S. I am pro death. But there are compelling practical arguments against it.
The fact that so many convicted felons have recently been exonerated by DNA evidence is very compelling, but what works for me is the cost of the death penalty. Studies have proven that it is cheaper to lock somebody up for life than it is to execute them, thanks to the appeals.
People criticize the lawyers defending death row felons for raising what they consider frivolous arguments. What they don’t understand is that it’s the lawyer’s job to raise any reasonable argument they can raise in defense of their client, even if such a defense costs the state a lot of money.
Anectdotally (and I don’t have a cite), there are counties in Illinois (where I live) that have exceeded their annual budget in trying and seeking the death penalty for a single murder that happened to occur within their county. I certainly understand the arguments for societal retribution, but to spend all that money to execute one human being seems excessive to me. That’s money that could be put to WAY more productive use. I imagine this situation has repeated itself in other jurisdictions around the U.S. Even in Illinois, where a moritorium on the death penalty is in effect, resources are required to be expended to make sure an individual defendant is afforded the maximum defense possible to “make sure.” I don’t think it’s worth the cost.
Besides, a lifetime in a 10’ by 10’ cell is a much harsher penalty than execution.