One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Are you pro or against Death Penalty???
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Mar 15, 2019 02:40:26   #
Ricktloml (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
What's wrong with letting the victim decide, or the family of the victim under circumstances such as murder. I'm not just talking about capital punishment, but any punishment, or even no punishment at all, if that's the decision. Why should a bunch of strangers get to pick out the punishment suffered by a perpetrator who has wronged you or your family, or both? 'Let the punishment fit the crime', as we hear so often. Fine, then. Who knows better than the victim(s) what punishment fits the crime committed against them?
What's wrong with letting the victim decide, or th... (show quote)


Well crime does effect society in general, so the family should have input, but having standard penalties is necessary as well.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 02:46:00   #
Ricktloml (a regular here)
 
EN Submarine Qualified wrote:
A bit of info from my Google-Matic

Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, incarceration costs an average of more than $31,000 per inmate, per year, nationwide. In some states, it's as much as $60,000. Taxpayers foot the bill for feeding, housing and securing people in state and federal penitentiaries.May 19, 2017
A bit of info from my Google-Matic br br Cases wi... (show quote)


That isn't justice, it's a travesty. Automatic, multiple year appeals shouldn't be part of the system.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 04:57:55   #
maximus (a regular here)
 
proud republican wrote:
Im absolutely pro!!!...How about you guys???


Very pro, but not for everything. Yes for cold blooded murder, yes for death with excessive pain, crimes against children, excessive cruelty to animals. Also, must prove guilt beyond all doubt.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 07:54:12   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
CarryOn wrote:
Forgive me for being cynical here, but my immediate thought after reading your comment was that, while it sounds perfectly reasonable, the drawback might be that wealthy families might be able to "buy" their offending relative(s) out of a death sentence. Not in all cases, but possibly in some. And then we again would be dealing with a situation where the law is not equally applied.

For most of us this would not be an issue, as nothing would be enough, but even one evildoer going free because of the advantage of wealthy family is one too many.
Forgive me for being cynical here, but my immediat... (show quote)

Okay. Let's assume the scenario as you laid it out. A guy murders his neighbor over a noise dispute. No questions, ifs ands or buts, he's guilty of capital murder. The jury takes less than one minute to convict. The prosecutor goes to the victim's young family and asks his widow what penalty she wants in recompense for the loss of her husband and her three toddler children's father. She stands in front of the murderer and, looking him dead in the eyes, proclaims "I want him to suffer the way he made my husband suffer. I want to kill him, very slowly". So they drag him, kicking and screaming, out into the field next door and tie him to a tree, handing her the same knife he killed her husband with. "He's all yours, madam, take your time".

She makes a move to start by cutting off his manhood and he starts to beg. He can pay, he's very rich. Wouldn't she and her family be so much better off with his fortune instead of his life? Think of all the things she could buy the children. She pauses. Turns to the prosecutor and asks how much he's worth. The answer comes back that he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Handing the knife to the prosecutor she says "I want every penny." and walks away.

Was 'justice' served? Was the criminal punished according to the wishes of the victim?

I think so.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 10:51:38   #
Jinrai (new user)
 
Pro! Murder and attempted premeditated murder that leaves the victim permanently disabled. Where there is no shadow of a doubt. Also, perhaps in some cases of grievous animal cruelty
Insofar as by means that doesn’t induce suffering, no way! They sure didn’t take into consideration their victim’s suffering - usually to the contrary.
I totally agree about limiting appeals- to perhaps one. Quit wasting taxpayers’ money on courts and lawyers.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 11:07:34   #
CarryOn (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
Okay. Let's assume the scenario as you laid it out. A guy murders his neighbor over a noise dispute. No questions, ifs ands or buts, he's guilty of capital murder. The jury takes less than one minute to convict. The prosecutor goes to the victim's young family and asks his widow what penalty she wants in recompense for the loss of her husband and her three toddler children's father. She stands in front of the murderer and, looking him dead in the eyes, proclaims "I want him to suffer the way he made my husband suffer. I want to kill him, very slowly". So they drag him, kicking and screaming, out into the field next door and tie him to a tree, handing her the same knife he killed her husband with. "He's all yours, madam, take your time".

She makes a move to start by cutting off his manhood and he starts to beg. He can pay, he's very rich. Wouldn't she and her family be so much better off with his fortune instead of his life? Think of all the things she could buy the children. She pauses. Turns to the prosecutor and asks how much he's worth. The answer comes back that he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Handing the knife to the prosecutor she says "I want every penny." and walks away.

Was 'justice' served? Was the criminal punished according to the wishes of the victim?

I think so.
Okay. Let's assume the scenario as you laid it ou... (show quote)


Well, that's quite a scenario, Larry. I will speak to the "justice" part, but first, your story brings up yet another possible way to scam this type of process. For example, here is a possible end to your story. Let's say these two are in it together. Now the widow is free of her tyrannical, control-freak husband. The murderer's gold-digger wife, now that he is penniless, has moved on to greener pastures. They have played out the punishment part of this with enough drama to make it convincing. Now they drive off into the sunset with her three kids--and his fortune and manhood intact. See how that could work?

But seriously, to answer your question, I do not believe that is justice. It's simply an example of the wealthy being able to buy their way out of anything at the expense of the needy--or greedy--which was kinda my point to begin with. If you have enough money, then you can escape true justice. Sure, going from extreme wealth to poverty--and handing over that wealth to the family you harmed--might seem like justice to some, but it also brings up the question how much--or, perhaps more importantly, how little--money might some people be willing to accept in such a situation. (And, I am no lawyer, but I believe there are already ways to take some of that wealth in a civil lawsuit in the case of such a conviction.)

And how could this serve as a deterrent? Given your example, if this guy would kill someone over a noise disturbance, then he has some obvious anger issues, and becoming suddenly poor isn't going to help matters. So what about his next victim? Sure, he now will receive his just punishment because he cannot buy his way out again, but would the widow bear some responsibility for that next victim? And what does the woman tell her kids. "Well, Daddy is dead because the mean neighbor killed him, but I let him go free because he made us rich." That right there is a good lesson. Not!

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 11:48:59   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
CarryOn wrote:
Well, that's quite a scenario, Larry. I will speak to the "justice" part, but first, your story brings up yet another possible way to scam this type of process. For example, here is a possible end to your story. Let's say these two are in it together. Now the widow is free of her tyrannical, control-freak husband. The murderer's gold-digger wife, now that he is penniless, has moved on to greener pastures. They have played out the punishment part of this with enough drama to make it convincing. Now they drive off into the sunset with her three kids--and his fortune and manhood intact. See how that could work?
Well, that's quite a scenario, Larry. I will spea... (show quote)

I see. So this guy is smart enough to amass a sizeable fortune but too stupid to pay someone else to do his dirty work for him. Oh, and not only that, but he does the 'deed' in broad daylight where he is easily identified and convicted. Perfect crime - Not!

CarryOn wrote:
But seriously, to answer your question, I do not believe that is justice. It's simply an example of the wealthy being able to buy their way out of anything at the expense of the needy--or greedy--which was kinda my point to begin with. If you have enough money, then you can escape true justice. Sure, going from extreme wealth to poverty--and handing over that wealth to the family you harmed--might seem like justice to some, but it also brings up the question how much--or, perhaps more importantly, how little--money might some people be willing to accept in such a situation. (And, I am no lawyer, but I believe there are already ways to take some of that wealth in a civil lawsuit in the case of such a conviction.)
But seriously, to answer your question, I do not b... (show quote)

You lost sight of who determines the justice of the punishment. You might not be willing to accept reparations that another might be happy with. This is not about what you agree or disagree with but what a hypothetical victim considers equitable. You can cite 'need' or 'greed' as factors influencing a given decision, and rightly so, but you do not get to make the determination because you are not the victim.

CarryOn wrote:
And how could this serve as a deterrent?

I don't know about you, but if I were affluent, and someone in my position was stripped to the level of pauper, I'd be suitably deterred from making the same mistake, for sure. Starting all over again from scratch is not my idea of 'fun'.

CarryOn wrote:
Given your example, if this guy would kill someone over a noise disturbance, then he has some obvious anger issues, and becoming suddenly poor isn't going to help matters.

Sure make him sit up and pay attention, wouldn't it?

CarryOn wrote:
So what about his next victim? Sure, he now will receive his just punishment because he cannot buy his way out again, but would the widow bear some responsibility for that next victim?

Who says there would even be a 'next victim'? Regardless, if he was to kill again, his punishment would once again be in the hands of his new victim's next of kin, who will impose whatever sanction they feel is appropriate. Why would the previous victim's widow have any part in such a proceeding? She saw to the justice of the punishment according to her own values and the next person would undoubtedly do the same, according to his/her personal value system.

Saying that 'he now will receive his just punishment because he cannot buy his way out again' infers that he was not punished justly on the first offence, but you do not make that determination.

CarryOn wrote:
And what does the woman tell her kids. "Well, Daddy is dead because the mean neighbor killed him, but I let him go free because he made us rich." That right there is a good lesson. Not!

How she justifies her decision to her children is her issue. Maybe her children would agree that the payment is equitable and maybe not. That would be for them to argue with their mother and not for outsiders to judge.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 12:33:04   #
CarryOn (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
How she justifies her decision to her children is her issue. Maybe her children would agree that the payment is equitable and maybe not. That would be for them to argue with their mother and not for outsiders to judge.


[“So this guy is smart enough to amass a sizeable fortune but too stupid to pay someone else to do his dirty work for him.”]

No need to bring someone else into the picture and risk getting caught that way when they already have the perfect plan. He does the deed intending to get caught. That’s the beauty of the scam. Plus we don’t know where he got his fortune. He could be an idiot who inherited it from parents who bought his way into an elite university.

[“This is not about what you agree or disagree with but what a hypothetical victim considers equitable. You can cite 'need' or 'greed' as factors influencing a given decision, and rightly so, but you do not get to make the determination because you are not the victim.”]

Exactly. That is your premise: The victim decides, and each victim sees punishment from a different perspective. Each victim gets to decide what reparations will ease their pain. I get that. Again, my point is that this is not equal justice under the law. People of wealth would most likely get preferential treatment because they have something to offer. And, of course, some bleeding heart victims might not be able to bring themselves to mete out the punishment they think is truly deserved because they are merciful.


[“I don't know about you, but if I were affluent, and someone in my position was stripped to the level of pauper, I'd be suitably deterred from making the same mistake, for sure. Starting all over again from scratch is not my idea of 'fun.” .... “Sure would make him sit up and pay attention, wouldn’t it?”]

What you or I might do or not do doesn’t apply to everyone. I wouldn’t kill someone over a noise disturbance to begin with. So whether or not that individual would “sit up and pay attention” and not “make the same mistake again” because of what that type of behavior had cost him is anyone’s guess. It could cause him to escalate and do more damage. And, if he does kill again, then yes, I do believe the widow is partly responsible because he would not otherwise have been returned back into society. She chose money instead.

[“Saying that 'he now will receive his just punishment because he cannot buy his way out again' infers that he was not punished justly on the first offence, but you do not make that determination.”]

Under your plan, yes, it is true that I do not get to make that determination. That is why I disagree with it. I want to rule!

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 12:48:47   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
CarryOn wrote:
I want to rule!

As do most despots.

| Reply
Mar 15, 2019 13:32:25   #
Officer Jim
 
Pro death penalty but only if they are convicted beyond any reasonable doubt and for crimes of coldblooded murder or murder of a Law Enforcement Officer unless it was accidental or unintentional. Anyone given the DP should be given an appeal but ALL appeals need to be completed during the first year as that is the deadline and they will be put to death at that time. For really heinous murders or those of a LEO they get the electric chair done publicly and televised in the prisons and national TV..

| Reply
Mar 16, 2019 10:16:10   #
kcstargoat
 
proud republican wrote:
Im absolutely pro!!!...How about you guys???


I'm pro death for certain and particular murders and repeated rape offenders.

| Reply
Mar 16, 2019 11:54:00   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
proud republican wrote:
Are you pro or against Death Penalty???

I find it interesting that nobody has asked the purpose of the death penalty. OK, so you kill someone for committing some 'heinous' crime (some would call it vengeful murder, but that's another argument for another day). In the grand scheme of things, (s)he was going to die anyway, so where's the punishment? You made them die on a given day at a given time, instead of just waiting for nature to take its course? Now there's a special punishment! You really nailed it on that one!

You might argue that people fear death and that by killing them, you are bringing about their worst fear. To that I say fine, now all you have to do is find a way to make sure the convict has sufficient fear of death to make it a fitting punishment. Many people do not fear dying, I can attest to that fact. To them, death is not a punishment and to some, it might even be seen as a form of 'release'.

I see the death penalty as a way for people to permanently rid their neighborhood of those they deem evil or who pose a physical threat to them or their families.

Whether you argue for or against putting criminals to death, you have to recognize that it is an effective and permanent solution to an age-old problem.

| Reply
Mar 16, 2019 12:01:45   #
Canuckus Deploracus (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
I find it interesting that nobody has asked the purpose of the death penalty. OK, so you kill someone for committing some 'heinous' crime (some would call it vengeful murder, but that's another argument for another day). In the grand scheme of things, (s)he was going to die anyway, so where's the punishment? You made them die on a given day at a given time, instead of just waiting for nature to take its course? Now there's a special punishment! You really nailed it on that one!

You might argue that people fear death and that by killing them, you are bringing about their worst fear. To that I say fine, now all you have to do is find a way to make sure the convict has sufficient fear of death to make it a fitting punishment. Many people do not fear dying, I can attest to that fact. To them, death is not a punishment and to some, it might even be seen as a form of 'release'.

I see the death penalty as a way for people to permanently rid their neighborhood of those they deem evil or who pose a physical threat to them or their families.

Whether you argue for or against putting criminals to death, you have to recognize that it is an effective and permanent solution to an age-old problem.
I find it interesting that nobody has asked the pu... (show quote)


Total agreement from me

| Reply
Mar 16, 2019 12:08:40   #
Iliamna1 (a regular here)
 
I agree with most of thee posts. However, I think there should be a limit on appeals (once) and the sentence to be carried out within 3 days of the final verdict. And all DP's should be done publicly and broadcast, so everyone will know what the perp did and see his demise and understand the same will happen to them if they kill or do other heinous crimes. It certainly deters repeat offending. Also, it removes evil from the midst of society.
As for rich people buying off their sentence, then those officials accepting the bribe should likewise be executed.

| Reply
Mar 16, 2019 12:37:08   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
Iliamna1 wrote:
As for rich people buying off their sentence, then those officials accepting the bribe should likewise be executed.

That's where the victim to assessing the justice of the punishment comes in handy. No opportunity for corruption to take a seat at the table.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.