Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Legal standards and issues
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 3:56PM #1
divalicious
Posts: 363
[QUOTE=becca97;453835]interesting.

1.  What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

none

2.  Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

Even more no, sets dangerous precedents. Inparticular regaridng rape and peadophile cases with MOJ issues as many, many false accusatiosn get made by people for various reasons and evidence fabricated. Just a dangerous idea.

3.  Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved?  (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.)  Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before?  Just once before or more? 

Might be helpful and no it should not be less stringent in repeat offenders, someone could for example be a theif or drug user/dealer but never be able to rape or kill someone.

4.  How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say less than 1 year?

Appeals shold always be allowed while MOJ cases still occur appeals are necessary particularly in DP cases.

5.  Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane?

There should be no executions and no execution meets any defintion of humanity. However there could be a scale of less ethical and more ethical methods starting with no executions at the top of the desired scale working down from there (sort of how amnesty grades inhumane DP practice )

6.  What other ideas or concerns do you have?

The DP devalues life in the societies it is used in, life is often seen as a commodity, the majority of the world does not have the DP this tells us something about its ethicalness or lack thereof. Too many cases where guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt end up on death row and victims of the DP. At least in prison they remain (usually) alive (except when they commit suicide).

Ultimatly the DP is a abrabric outdated practice the majority of countries gave up and leading human rights organisations condem.[/QUOTE]



Oh no, here I come again, rested, less enraged, and blinding you with -SCIENCE.
SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE. SCIENCE.

Please, can't we use it to put the right people to death? The murdering serial rapist, the serial child rapist/ predator . SCIENCE AND ETHICS...could move you past your fear of putting the wrongly accused and convicted to death (which is heartbreaking) and move you into a point of view that at least understands why a human who violates these codes, in our society, forfeits their right to live.

Please, please USE SCIENCE. NOT RHETORIC.
Only a slightly raised voice, but you get my point. My SCIENTIFIC POINT.

Divalicious
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2008 - 7:40PM #2
McAtheist
Posts: 8,155
This is just a sort of laundry list of questions regarding when and how to apply the death penalty.

1.  What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

2.  Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

3.  Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved?  (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.)  Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before?  Just once before or more? 

4.  How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say less than 1 year?

5.  Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane?

6.  What other ideas or concerns do you have?
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2008 - 7:52PM #3
McAtheist
Posts: 8,155
My answers:


1. What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

Murder and physical grievous harm to another person that would include rape, torture, mutilation.  I don't think the DP should ever apply to crimes of property.  I don't think DP should apply to average assault cases. 

2. Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

I think DP should be used only in something like a "3 strikes you're out" situation.  Normal people can really screw up and kill someone.  I don't think DP is the appropriate penalty for that.  But if you kill 3 times or more, I don't think you count as normal and DP seems like the right solution.

3. Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved? (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.) Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before? Just once before or more?

I do think there should be standards both in evidence and in representation, but I don't know exactly what those standards would be.  These standards should be applied in all the cases that would lead to the death penalty.

4. How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say  in a 1 year?

One appeal, and there should be a limit to how long things can drag out.  Enough time must be allowed that the defense can put the strongest appeal possible together, but society and the victim's family have the right for the case to be resolved now.  Maybe 2 years?

5. Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane?

If it could be shown that one method produces less suffering that others, I would be for making that the universal method.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2008 - 11:30PM #4
bubbysmommy
Posts: 1,119
[QUOTE=McAtheist;452519]This is just a sort of laundry list of questions regarding when and how to apply the death penalty.

1.  What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

2.  Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

3.  Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved?  (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.)  Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before?  Just once before or more? 

4.  How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say less than 1 year?

5.  Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane?

6.  What other ideas or concerns do you have?[/QUOTE]


[COLOR="Blue"]1. Premeditated Murder
2. If it was premeditated, one time is already too many.
3. Absolute proof of guilt. No reasonable doubt. A smoking gun if you will. There must be undeniable proof.
4. 2 appeals, just to be sure. However, if there is ANY new evidence, I believe there shold be a new trial immediately.
5. Absolutely
6. My biggest concern is that an innocent person will be executed. Although I am in favor of the death penalty. I feel that it is used entirely too often right now. I think that there must be absolute proof. In this day of technological advances, there is absolutely no reason to accept "reasonable doubt" as our threshold for proof. It must be absolutely no doubt. We are talking about ending a life here. We need to make darned sure that the right person is being executed. Otherwise, the real killer is still going to be out there. 
[/COLOR]
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2008 - 1:14AM #5
McAtheist
Posts: 8,155
Thanks bubbysmommy --- your last point in particular was very well stated.  And it's interesting that as pro DP folk, we still find plenty to disagree about!  But the discussion is good.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2008 - 1:37AM #6
divalicious
Posts: 363
1. What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

Murder, serial criminals- this includes rape, Incest, childhood sexual assault, high treason.

2. Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

Depending on the nature, violence, depravity, of the crime is how it should be judged. For rapists and child molesters- they never change or stop, so removal from the planet is the only punishment that is acceptable in my view. Death is the right punishment for these crimes. High crimes involving those against Higher law/divine law, should never be allowed to get to be repeated. So- no, Put them to death swiftly. And, be done with the DNA chain that spawns evil.

3. Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved? (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.) Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before? Just once before or more?

Let me be clear, science is a blessing. It can now provide every society with an absolute degree of certainty who commits what crime and where. Humans can only screw up science with a lack of ethics. DNA should be tested at three independent laboratories, strict guidelines should be put in place to ensure ethical treatment of the accused until all evidence has been tested and re tested, and should any DNA become tainted, then it should be inadmissible in court. Once a definitive result has become available -then justice should be swift. I don't want to pay for someone who has been convicted of one of the above referenced crimes to get health care, dental care, educational opportunities, exercise equipment, three squares a day, and absolution by some priest or pastor.
I want them removed entirely from society. They don't deserve to live, and suck up resources that can be used to educate, feed, and house the working poor... I want them dead.

4. How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say less than 1 year? They should get one appeal. It should take no longer then 6 months.

5. Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane? Yes, lethal injection only.


6. What other ideas or concerns do you have? Only one concern and one idea, that humanity has to be more vocal and honest about what impact some crimes have on society, and that a zero tolerance policy towards violence against women and children needs to become the order of the day. Zero tolerance! If you commit the most heinous crime of child rape then you must pay for that crime with your life. Zero tolerance means that woman and children will be safer. We should all want that.

Good questions, that you for asking them and making us think about where we stand.
Divalicious
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2008 - 11:56AM #7
becca97
Posts: 2,562
[QUOTE=McAtheist;452519]This is just a sort of laundry list of questions regarding when and how to apply the death penalty.[/quote]

interesting.

1.  What crimes (if any) do you think should be punishable by the death penalty?

none

2.  Should the state be able to execute someone who has only killed/harmed once, or should that be reserved for repeat criminals?

Even more no, sets dangerous precedents. Inparticular regaridng rape and peadophile cases with MOJ issues as many, many false accusatiosn get made by people for various reasons and evidence fabricated. Just a dangerous idea.

3.  Should there be federal standards as to what degree a case must be proved?  (Finding the man's semen in an 8 year-old child would be very strong evidence, for example.)  Could that standard be less stringent if the person has already been convicted for the same kind of crime before?  Just once before or more? 

Might be helpful and no it should not be less stringent in repeat offenders, someone could for example be a theif or drug user/dealer but never be able to rape or kill someone.

4.  How many appeals should be allowed (if any)? Should the courts be forced to deal with them quickly, say less than 1 year?

Appeals shold always be allowed while MOJ cases still occur appeals are necessary particularly in DP cases.

5.  Should there be one universal method of execution, based on scientific evidence that says that method is the most humane?

There should be no executions and no execution meets any defintion of humanity. However there could be a scale of less ethical and more ethical methods starting with no executions at the top of the desired scale working down from there (sort of how amnesty grades inhumane DP practice )

6.  What other ideas or concerns do you have?

The DP devalues life in the societies it is used in, life is often seen as a commodity, the majority of the world does not have the DP this tells us something about its ethicalness or lack thereof. Too many cases where guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt end up on death row and victims of the DP. At least in prison they remain (usually) alive (except when they commit suicide).

Ultimatly the DP is a abrabric outdated practice the majority of countries gave up and leading human rights organisations condem.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 10:51PM #8
McAtheist
Posts: 8,155
Devalicioius and Becca -- thanks for your input.  Again it is interesting to see people's positions on this are something of a spectrum.

One thing I would like to clear up: when I mentioned repeat offenders, I meant that they repeated whatever crime you considered to be worthy of the death penalty (if any).  So, getting caught for stealing cars wouldn't count toward the death penalty (unless you think auto theft should be so punished.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 11:26PM #9
divalicious
Posts: 363
[QUOTE=McAtheist;457132]Devalicioius and Becca -- thanks for your input.  Again it is interesting to see people's positions on this are something of a spectrum.

One thing I would like to clear up: when I mentioned repeat offenders, I meant that they repeated whatever crime you considered to be worthy of the death penalty (if any).  So, getting caught for stealing cars wouldn't count toward the death penalty (unless you think auto theft should be so punished.)[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I so clearly listed the crimes that I believe incurs the death penalty, as a correct sentence.

I got your question.

Divalicious
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Apr 25, 2008 - 10:51PM #10
McAtheist
Posts: 8,155
Devalicioius and Becca -- thanks for your input.  Again it is interesting to see people's positions on this are something of a spectrum.

One thing I would like to clear up: when I mentioned repeat offenders, I meant that they repeated whatever crime you considered to be worthy of the death penalty (if any).  So, getting caught for stealing cars wouldn't count toward the death penalty (unless you think auto theft should be so punished.)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook