Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
They are old school, "eye for an eye"-type people. I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat
Some of the same crowd are prolly against abortions as well.
as far as i see the difference between "murderers" and "innocent people" is the ability to pre-meditate and carry out a killing of a defenceless personQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's all stupid anyway, today there isn't one legal system on the planet that's good enough to ensure that only the guilty will be executed, so, in order to spare the lives of innocents a death penalty isn't feasible even if one would consider killing the guilty to be justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
IMO, it doesn't matter if only one person in a hundred or more is wrongfully executed, it still isn't worth it.
naive question - but has this question / issue not been debated countless times over the last few decades?
was there not a debate about death penalty in uk ages ago?
it seems the conclusion is still the same - disagreement due to the value of life?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
I am pro innocent life. (abortion issues and medical things aside) and the fact that we only get one makes the taking of an innocent worse.
Take Sarah Payne...Someone that believes in god can take comfort in the fact that she would be in heaven or some other afterlife.... I don't have that.
Knowing that the guilty person will have no afterlife is a bonus and an entirely just punishment for someone that ended the "one life" of an innocent.
This is my belief and I stand by it..... prove there is one and I will change my mind. But as that can't happen I feel secure in my belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I used to use less obvious in my words but I was accused of being agnostic so now I make it clear i am an athiest. :)
1. That makes you as bad as them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
2. What if they are innocent, found guilty often does not equate to "did it".
3. In which case you are emulating the ethics of murderers, while dealing with innocent people.
At least you are honest and admit that it is a revenge thing. Even if it does mean you are willing to kill innocent people.
That's what he's fucking saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Where have I said we should risk executing innocent people?
I already set the level at no doubt of guilt. I have stated on other threads that the system we have here at present needs to be tightened to remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. All they have to do is raise doubt no matter how thin to remove death as an option. Just beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough.