Select Company Escorts

death penalty justified?

I don't believe in the death penalty -- it's just an easy out.

I believe criminals should suffer for their crimes -- put in a white room with pictures of their victims and water-boarded tortures for the rest of their life.
 
Without knowing what evidence was presented that convinced the jury he was guilty and deserved the death penalty I cannot answer your question.

If the evidence was definite that he caused the deaths of those people knowingly (not that he planned their deaths per se, just knew that what he was doing had a strong likelihood of causing death) then yes I feel the death penalty is warranted.
 
My reason for opposing the death penalty is along the lines expressed by Sukdeep, above. The justice system is imperfect, and I don't see any way of making it a perfect system. Therefore there will be false convictions. Therefore innocent people will be put to death. That defeats the purpose of the system.
 
If a person admits to a capitol crime, or is proven guilty with the inclusion of DNA technology, I say fry em. Why should we pay to house and feed them for the next 50 years?
 
Hurricane Hank said:
If a person admits to a capitol crime, or is proven guilty with the inclusion of DNA technology, I say fry em. Why should we pay to house and feed them for the next 50 years?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it actually costs way more to do all the appeals for a death penalty, than just housing him. But there are few enough of them that I don't think cost should be the reason whether he gets killed or not. I tend to oppose the death penalty, because governments screw up at everything.

I was surprised to see a death penalty for arson, particularly given that it was thrill-arson, not insurance fraud arson. The only reason someone would do it is because they are crazy. So are serial killers I suppose, but I would think that life without parole might be more appropriate. In Canada, he would get a year, or, if he was aboriginal, a diversion program.
 
My immediate emotional reaction to the death penalty debate in general is yes we should have it for child molesters (esp when they kill their victims) and some other equally repugnant crimes.

However having said... (as others have expressed) there is too much chance IMO for false convictions be they by mistake or outright abuse of the system by police/prosecutors... so because of that I have to say no to death penalty.

Also there is some merit IMO to the school of thought that the death penalty is an easy way out... crimes that may deserve the death penalty in society eyes should be punished with life imprisonment (NO chance for parole) w/no contact with outside world in some far off special built prison in the Arctic Circle somewhere.
 
I don't get this sentencing anyway, apart from the death penalty issue.

Does that mean, if a guy sets fire to an empty house, and someone
walks into the fire and dies, then the guy is guilty of murder? Does not
make sense.

Sure, he is guilty of arson.
 
danmand said:
I don't get this sentencing anyway, apart from the death penalty issue.

Does that mean, if a guy sets fire to an empty house, and someone
walks into the fire and dies, then the guy is guilty of murder? Does not
make sense.

Sure, he is guilty of arson.
Click to expand...

You are a socialist so you wil likely not understand
 
RandyAndy2 said:
Is debating the issue beyond your ability? Is placing a label all you can do?
Click to expand...

No

It is beyond some peoples ability to understand that if you kill a person during or as a result of a crime you commit you murdered them
 
papasmerf said:
if you kill a person during or as a result of a crime you commit you murdered them
Click to expand...

But typically when your actions are not intended to cause death that's manslaughter which does not get punished with the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty because I'm an atheist. To me when you kill someone they stop feeling anything, and that's not as severs a punishment to me forcing them to live a long life in a cell isolated from society. Death is only an increased punishment if you believe your sending them to hell, something even religions differ on and not a great way to set policy.
 
gramage said:
But typically when your actions are not intended to cause death that's manslaughter which does not get punished with the death penalty.

I'm against the death penalty because I'm an atheist. To me when you kill someone they stop feeling anything, and that's not as severs a punishment to me forcing them to live a long life in a cell isolated from society. Death is only an increased punishment if you believe your sending them to hell, something even religions differ on and not a great way to set policy.
Click to expand...


I do not support it for religious reasons

I do not think many people do
 
Sukdeep said:
That analogy is too simplistic.

Did know that the house was empty, or merely assumed it? Was it reasonably foreseeable that, the target being a large warehouse, someone might wander in at the opposite end and become trapped?

Did this guy set the fire for the thrill, and assumed that it would simply die out after a short while? Or, did he know that the forest was bone dry and that a spark would spread quickly?

It is not a far stretch of logic to argue that someone who sets an uncontrolled fire in a dry forest could foresee that someone could get hurt. If that is case, is that not murder?
Click to expand...


in this case, it seems too simple.
man intentionally sets fire. (assume that is proven). people die as a result of fire. man therefore guilty of murder. man gets death penalty.

in not a lawyer and do not understand the subtleties and nuance of the law. but to me there seem to be a large gap in logic here.
 
danmand said:
I don't get this sentencing anyway, apart from the death penalty issue.

Does that mean, if a guy sets fire to an empty house, and someone
walks into the fire and dies, then the guy is guilty of murder? Does not
make sense.

Sure, he is guilty of arson.
Click to expand...

No, your analogy doesn't make sense. The perp knows that firemen will respond and to protect surrounding properties, enter into the building.

This is foreknowledge but either way, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I wholeheartedly agree to capital punishment for open and shut cases. I believe if there is conclusive evidence that the person being tried and convicted is the one, then I'll happily pull the switch.

For eg: a guy goes into a bank, shoots and kills the guard and then is arrested before leaving the bank, with the gun in his hand, standing over the body. There are enough methods today to determine if he pulled the trigger or not, there will be witnesses (and yes I know witnesses make mistakes and lie).

It isn't only about revenge, but there will come a time when it just isn't financially feasible to keep people like Paul Bernardo in prison for 40 yrs. I read somewhere that it costs about $50K to keep a regular prisoner in jail per year let alone a special circumstances one like Bernardo.....

I mean, what about that guy who is (or was?) on trial for killing all those prostitutes in BC? what was there, 17? Or that guy in Alberta that killed two mounties....open and shut cases.
 
papasmerf said:
I do not think many people do
Click to expand...

The rhetoric around the prosecutions leads me to believe otherwise. And if you don't believe in an afterlife I don't see how death is a worse punishment as there is far less suffering involved.
 
Sukdeep said:
That analogy is too simplistic.

Did know that the house was empty, or merely assumed it? Was it reasonably foreseeable that, the target being a large warehouse, someone might wander in at the opposite end and become trapped?

Did this guy set the fire for the thrill, and assumed that it would simply die out after a short while? Or, did he know that the forest was bone dry and that a spark would spread quickly?

It is not a far stretch of logic to argue that someone who sets an uncontrolled fire in a dry forest could foresee that someone could get hurt. If that is case, is that not murder?
Click to expand...

Not first degree murder by any definition I`m familiar with
 
gramage said:
The rhetoric around the prosecutions leads me to believe otherwise. And if you don't believe in an afterlife I don't see how death is a worse punishment as there is far less suffering involved.
Click to expand...


The greatness of life provides that we all do not have to agree.

Are my belifes any more or less important than yours?
 
papasmerf said:
The greatness of life provides that we all do not have to agree.

Are my belifes any more or less important than yours?
Click to expand...

No.

Some issues I can`t see the debate on, this is not one of them. I readily accept that others view it differently and I could change my mind on this issue.

I`m just expressing my opinion on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom
Back