Death row final statements

Trusty said:
+1
Click to expand...

You missed my point completely

My point was that on either side of the fence neither is right, so what is?

For example

Someone kills your brother, you spend every week with him and now he's gone, evidence says without fail that it was xyz who commited the crime, what do you think should happen?

On other hand, your the guy whos typing this on here in this forum, you have no association with the above crime but you read it in the newspaper, what should be done?

I'm still waiting as to what you think is right?
 
opstrat said:
that is some difference in figures.

why do they wait so long on "death row"? i would have thaught it was against human rights to tell someone "we are going to kill but you wont know when"
Click to expand...

"Another problem is the length and complexity of the process. Cases tend to last several years and can pass through three possible phases. The first phase includes state trial court (two trials - one to determine guilt, the other for sentence), state Supreme Court, and possible appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The second phase is the state habeas corpus (post-conviction process) and appeals. The final phase is federal habeas corpus, which includes appeals to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the U.S. Supreme Court..."
 
Pudney said:
It's already been posted, executed in 2004, forensic and expert testimony has since been discredited.



So what do you do about the innocent person killed?
Click to expand...

i'd say they should learn from that mistake which they have done..

but i still agree that if their is good evidence that a man or woman has killed, then let them also be killed
 
101001101 said:
You missed my point completely

My point was that on either side of the fence neither is right, so what is?

For example

Someone kills your brother, you spend every week with him and now he's gone, evidence says without fail that it was xyz who commited the crime, what do you think should happen?

On other hand, your the guy whos typing this on here in this forum, you have no association with the above crime but you read it in the newspaper, what should be done?

I'm still waiting as to what you think is right?
Click to expand...

You need to ask? :(

The right answer is a judge passing the sentence - nobody else - and never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever under the direction, influence or contact with the family of the victim.
 
101001101 said:
You missed my point completely

My point was that on either side of the fence neither is right, so what is?

For example

Someone kills your brother, you spend every week with him and now he's gone, evidence says without fail that it was xyz who commited the crime, what do you think should happen?

On other hand, your the guy whos typing this on here in this forum, you have no association with the above crime but you read it in the newspaper, what should be done?

I'm still waiting as to what you think is right?
Click to expand...

1: He should be put on trial and sentenced to Prison for an appropriate amount of time.

2: He should be put on trial and sentenced to Prison for an appropriate amount of time.
 
101001101 said:
You missed my point completely

My point was that on either side of the fence neither is right, so what is?

For example

Someone kills your brother, you spend every week with him and now he's gone, evidence says without fail that it was xyz who commited the crime, what do you think should happen?

On other hand, your the guy whos typing this on here in this forum, you have no association with the above crime but you read it in the newspaper, what should be done?

I'm still waiting as to what you think is right?
Click to expand...

Why is "death" considered an option by you though? It won't change what they did and it undermines the whole reason why people call for death penalties. If killing a person is wrong, then killing a person for killing a person is wrong. But even if you can argue that it's not wrong, it's still not going to actually change anything. It might provide a small temporary amount of "relief" to the victims but it's wholly meaningless and hollow.

"Victims" should never be in control of any sort of punishment, and their opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken in to consideration. People over react, or don't react appropriately. Just think of the type of people, where they're bumped in to on the street who go mental and want to draw blood over it (revenge mentality, eye for an eye and so on).
 
Last edited:
101001101 said:
You missed my point completely

My point was that on either side of the fence neither is right, so what is?

For example

Someone kills your brother, you spend every week with him and now he's gone, evidence says without fail that it was xyz who commited the crime, what do you think should happen?

On other hand, your the guy whos typing this on here in this forum, you have no association with the above crime but you read it in the newspaper, what should be done?

I'm still waiting as to what you think is right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, ok, i get you. Yeah there would be anger, so naturally you would want revenge is some form. Surely though, because we are highly intelligent creatures on this planet, you would be able to see the light from the dark.
 
101001101 said:
What do you about the innocent tax payer slaving daily to feed and house criminals who sit in jail reading porno mags, eating, drinking and lifting iron whilst someone somewhere (if they are lucky enough to be alive) re-lives a nightmare?
Click to expand...

Nothing. Because the criminals are kept away from the public. And the innocent aren't mistakenly killed.

Unless you're suggesting that a few innocent deaths would be worth it?
 
Stretch said:
That is just crazy.

There's few things I disagree with more than the death penalty, wrongfully convicted or otherwise. It's just barbaric.
Click to expand...

People need to accept that one wrongful conviction and execution is one too many. It's a bit like freedom of speech, people are all for it until some one says something that offends them. These people who are for the death penalty are so detached from reality that they shouldn't be listened to anyway. The death penalty is wrong, full stop not "wrong depending on the person" if it's wrong for anyone it should be wrong for all.
 
I dont see how the justice system can ever be right

1) Someone shoots your bother, evidence says it was him, hes executed, your his brother and you miss him but his killer his gone then 10 years later they find out it was not the guy they thought it was and they made a mistake.

2) Someone shoots your brother they prove its xyz, he dies, and nothing else happens, should you be happy? if you are does that make you the same as his killer?

3) Someone shoots your brother but your brother was having an affair with the killers girlfriend.

4) Someone shoots your girlfriend because she stole £5 from there mother, but later they find out the mother phoned up your girlfriends mum and called her a silly ****.

I'm glad I'm not a judge.


.....and final thought, you're a judge and you sentenced 100 people to death in your "career" 12 of which were found innocent, what should we do with you?
 
Well we know how much human life costs now don't we.
I personally like balance, fairness, equality.

One kills somebody and spends what 15-20 years in prison, as bad as prison is, it's hell of a lot better than being dead. And then that murder can be free for the remainder of his life. Intentionally taking a life and not losing ones life is not a fair trade.

That guy who killed a women with an axe comes to mind, he was on BBC radio 2, he killed her in cold blood and now he's out of prison smoking joins making videos and laughing. That will never be fair in my mind. In my view the woman got the short end of the stick and the sicko is the winner here. Who would you rather be him or her.

The only reason to not support death penalty is if it lowers the violent crime rates. The outcome that benefits the most people.

Who are we to decide who lives or dies? We, humans as a group can and we do because each time government wages war it's we who sentence enemies to death.
 
spoffle said:
People need to accept that one wrongful conviction and execution is one too many.
Click to expand...

One might not be too many... if we could be sure there was only one of thousands, AND the money saved by killing the other 999 was directly responsible for saving the lives of more than a few people AND a democratic mandate was given to the state to kill, AND it was given in knowledge that a very small number of innocents may die.

If you can satisfy all of those conditions with no exceptions then the death penalty is fine. We can't. Not any of them. So no death penalty for now.
 
101001101 said:
I dont see how the justice system can ever be right

1) Someone shoots your bother, evidence says it was him, hes executed, your his brother and you miss him but his killer his gone then 10 years later they find out it was not the guy they thought it was and they made a mistake.

2) Someone shoots your brother they prove its xyz, he dies, and nothing else happens, should you be happy? if you are does that make you the same as his killer?

3) Someone shoots your brother but your brother was having an affair with the killers girlfriend.

4) Someone shoots your girlfriend because she stole £5 from there mother, but later they find out the mother phoned up your girlfriends mum and called her a silly ****.

I'm glad I'm not a judge.


.....and final thought, you're a judge and you sentenced 100 people to death in your "career" 12 of which were found innocent, what should we do with you?
Click to expand...

1) The justice system can't help you.
2) The justice system can't help you.
3) The justice system can't help you.
4) The justice system can't help you.

Do you see a pattern? Justice has got **** all to do with the victims. When they demand "their justice" they're asking for something that cannot be given. To give victims justice we'd need to be able to put things right, we cannot raise the dead.
 
The Halk said:
1) The justice system can't help you.
2) The justice system can't help you.
3) The justice system can't help you.
4) The justice system can't help you.

Do you see a pattern? Justice has got **** all to do with the victims. When they demand "their justice" they're asking for something that cannot be given. To give victims justice we'd need to be able to put things right, we cannot raise the dead.
Click to expand...

Ok, thats fine I read your thinking, but what IS right and for what / whom?

I assume the "greater good / population" but where is the benefit to a reformed murderer?

I only entertain one variable, financial / money / gain.
 
101001101 said:
I guess if your government it comes down to this:

1) Is death penalty economically viable?

2) Is prison worth more to the economy?

Hmmm....
Click to expand...

It's not viable on either direct costs of dealing with that prisoner, or indirectly as countries which have the death penalty show no benefits in crime rates.
 
101001101 said:
Ok, thats fine I read your thinking, but what IS right and for what / whom?

I assume the "greater good / population" but where is the benefit to a reformed murderer?

I only entertain one variable, financial / money / gain.
Click to expand...

A reformed murderer who has done the time for the crime and been rehabilitated has as much right to a life as all of the rest of us in society. A decent justice system based on rehabilitation (we do not have one) would see that he'd not be a significant risk, or he would not be released.

We have a duty to treat everybody fairly, and a duty to look after those who require looking after. That means we need a police system to protect the vulnerable, we need a justice system to make sure that everybody knows that justice will be served if you commit a crime - to make crimes not appealing, and also to rehabilitate those who choose to commit crimes so that they do not repeat their crimes.

Society agrees rules which we will all be subject to in advance of events occurring - part of the reason we agree to look after the disabled because we might become disabled, or our children might be etc. It's simpler with health care - we agree to provide health care free at the point of access because we all want to be able to draw on that should we need to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom