Guest Levy Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 *COUGHSojCOUCHS* Excuse me. Anyway, I got 100% on my speech today ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 ^^^^ Are we supposed to understand that Levy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patch Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 to the hypothetical scenario that m3l3ana proposed i would not want him to be killed. although i would want him to suffer i would never want to take a human life. instead i would ask the judge for maximum time and if possible concurrent life sentences to eradicate the chance of parole. in my option life in jail is worse than death because when dead you no longer have to deal with you actions. if you have life in prison you have to live everyday with you concision and think about what you did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Some people don't have a conscience and all you are doing is making them live in a jail, living life like a normal person, just with restrictions. Look I can understand where you all are coming from. I can understand both sides of the story, I just don't know which one I belong to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sandi Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I believe, that instead if testing stuff on horses/rabbits/etc we should test mascaras and cold medicine on convicts. Depending on the crime they committed, ofcourse. Say some murderer dude. We could test make up on him.... And how about a terrorist? we could test 1 or 2 drugs on him. Whats better, Killing some harmful human just for the revenge and room in prison, Or helping save other peoples lives? This is only my opinion. But yes, there should still be a death penalty :guiltysmiley: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Testing drugs on convicts breaks their 8th amendment right! Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Even if they are criminals, they are still citizens and are entitled to same basic human rights as we all are. If they are held in a US prison, the 8th Amendment applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 But they are criminals and took away other peoples rights? Should the 8th amendment still apply to criminals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 They're the only people the 8th amendment applies to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Meh.. Lols.. I don't know much about US Laws etc, since I live in NZ I don't really need to know. What other rights to criminals in the US have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Well, let me copy a few from the Bill of Rights: The Fifth: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Basically, a person can choose to not testify against them self. The Seventh: In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Right to a jury basically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 So the only human rights they basically have once jailed in the 8th amendment and the basic human rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Levy Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Basically, yeah... Oh, and prisoners of war are protected by the Geneva Convention. (That's why those soldiers got in trouble when videos of them abusing prisoners of war were released.) This is getting off topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torridity Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I thought I'd posted my opinion on this already, but I read the whole thing over and I guess I didn't. So here goes... I support the death penalty 100%. I believe for some criminals, there is no hope for rehabilitation and therefore no point in putting them in jail. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer (warning: he did horrible things, don't read this if you're easily disturbed). For repeat offenders of serious crimes such as murder or rape, or extemely brutal first offenses (involving torture, mutilation, etc.) in which there is definitive evidence like at least three witnesses, DNA evidence, a taping of the crime or a confession, I think capital punishment is the only way to go. As a society, it's my opinion that the responsibility to protect the rights of the innocent outweighs that of protecting people who have violated those rights to the extreme. Unfortunately, Canada abolished the death penalty a while ago, leaving us with some violent criminals comfortable in jail and always at risk to escape/be released and reoffend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaircraft Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 @Marianne: So what do you define as cold, hard evidence? Is there really a way to be 100% certain that a certain person committed a crime (and on the opposite side, is there a way to be certain that he didn't commit the crime/will not commit the crime again)? By the way, congrats Levy! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 I think yes there is a way to be 100% sure that someone committed the crime and no there is no way to be certain that a person will / will not reoffend. If you have two or more witnesses, DNA evidence, confession etc you can not then say that there is not enough evidence to find the person guilty of a crime. Also the reason there is not way to see if a person will reoffend is that it is all based on someones word. If a criminal displays good behaviour in a prison and then gets let off hs sentance early because of it, most people would then assume that he would not reoffend, but that is bull. Criminals aren't always dumb people and they know how to manipulate things to go their way. To be honest I don't think many of us (if any of us are ever dumb enough to land ourselves in jail) would start causing trouble etc. I think most of us would be good and then get let out early, cause lets face it, who wants to be in a jail for years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
̊ ˉˉ ̊ Posted May 25, 2008 Share Posted May 25, 2008 There is no need to keep people jailed for life or the death penalty, just look at the ancient Egyptians, use them for forced labor, they will not be free, and all the tax payers money is not just completely wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3l3ana Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 Or you could do what the English did and send them to Australia (sorry Tom) but they sent them all to a deserted island (well they thought it was) and made them live there, then they can do whatever they want and not harm anyone else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torridity Posted May 26, 2008 Share Posted May 26, 2008 That's how the jail system used to work... check out this article about chain gangs. They phased them out because of human rights violations, but some states are bringing them back in. Unfortunately, we don't really have any large deserted islands anymore. I think there would be public outcry at that, anyways. One of the main points of jail is taking away freedom, and letting prisoners loose would contradict that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaircraft Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 Honestly speaking, with time and resources it would be most likely be possible to fake DNA evidence and get some phony witnesses - perhaps even convince somebody to confess. Unlikely in most cases but possible if a large criminal organisation is involved. However, I fully agree (and was pretty certain before) that there's really no way to be sure that a released criminal will not re-offend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sandi Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 "He shall take a spoon of his own medicine, So if his own medicine is strong enough to kill." -Me Thats my metaphor for today. Rob him of his money as much as he stole. If he keeps someone in a dungeon for 5 years, he will take on the same role. If he murdered some person, take his soul. he/she. black/white. smart/stupid. Okay, thats what i would law-ify if i ran some island country where i drank fruit sodas all day and stuff. *fantasizes of paradise* :king: PS- That wasn't supposed to rhyme D= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkOfEternity Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I do not believe in the death penalty. It may be because I am paranoid and believe that an imperfect system can be manipulated to "convince" someone that a person is 100% guilty when they are 100% innocent. It may be because I have seen judicial corruption in the past, and will probably see it in the future. The fact is, there is no such thing as knowing 100%. Three witnesses? Bribed by the cops. DNA evidence? Forged by the researcher. Sworn testimony of guilt? Gotten by violence. Put it this way... if it were you... and all the evidence pointed straight at you, would you want to die, or would you take solice in the fact that they would put you in jail and you would have time to appeal and prove your innocence? And even if you couldn't prove your innocence, at least you could live your life and make peace with your situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spunky_munky_gal Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I'm with Mark on this one. In Australia a man who was executed in the early 20th century for the murder of a 12 yr old girl was recently pardoned because the hairs on his blanket, which were used to convict him, were retested using new techniques and found not to be the hairs of the victim. Check it out http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/...g_hanged_547818 Who knows what science in 10, 20 or even 100 years will reveal about the executions of today? The majority of people executed in USA are poor and black. They can't afford good lawyers and so they die. The legal system purports to be based on rehabilitation and yet the rhetoric is often punitive. The system certainly does not treat all 'men' as equal. What if it was your child being executed? I hope my son is never on the wrong side of the law, but I know it's possible one day he might be, through fault of his own or chance. I know, no matter what he did, I would always love him, and I would always hope he could change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaircraft Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I do not believe in the death penalty. It may be because I am paranoid and believe that an imperfect system can be manipulated to "convince" someone that a person is 100% guilty when they are 100% innocent. It may be because I have seen judicial corruption in the past, and will probably see it in the future. The fact is, there is no such thing as knowing 100%. Three witnesses? Bribed by the cops. DNA evidence? Forged by the researcher. Sworn testimony of guilt? Gotten by violence. Exactly the point I was making - corruption in this world is a sad, but definite fact, and there will always be some cases where somebody twists the situation to their own advantage - perhaps just an impatient prosecutor cutting corners, or maybe even a third party trying to get revenge. But again, would you rather have somebody who might have committed the crime, and might do so again, walking free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkOfEternity Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Exactly the point I was making - corruption in this world is a sad, but definite fact, and there will always be some cases where somebody twists the situation to their own advantage - perhaps just an impatient prosecutor cutting corners, or maybe even a third party trying to get revenge. But again, would you rather have somebody who might have committed the crime, and might do so again, walking free? You pose a serious dilemma. Would you want to be walking around free, if someone thought you "might" have committed a crime? There needs to be a middle ground. We have extremes... Freedom and Death. Until the system is more perfect, we can't rely entirely on either... so the middle ground is what? Well, that depends on the severity of what is being accused. The middle ground could be... parol. 30 years in jail. monthly psychological examinations. But should it be death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antiaircraft Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I don't think death could be technically counted as middle ground, and (edit: Whoops, missed the typo) I have no real idea how to solve the dilemma (which is why I'm neutral). In fact, the only thing I'm sure of is that we need a better justice system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts