en(un)lightened
Oh, so, by all means, then...Originally Posted by Busyman™
No, wait - I take that back; I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to convey, here.
This is what I meant when I said you "wear it on your sleeve".
Think in terms of, say, "don't ask, don't tell"...I don't really think we need to ask, do we?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!
I had that in my post earlier but erased it.Probably the same way as "attempted" murder is dealt with.
Last edited by Busyman™; 06-06-2007 at 02:28 PM.
Use Logic Or STFU!
Don't ask what?Oh, so, by all means, then...
No, wait - I take that back; I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to convey, here.
Oh I was wondering why this meant so much to you when it's actually so rare.
This is what I meant when I said you "wear it on your sleeve".
Think in terms of, say, "don't ask, don't tell"...I don't really think we need to ask, do we?
Simplify
Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
You just keep pushing. You just keep pushing. I made every mistake that could be made. But I just kept pushing..... Descartes
Use Logic Or STFU!
They are many things that make it 95% infallible like video plus witnesses of the incident.Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
Being covered in the blood of the victim with the murderers DNA on and in the victim is pretty tight too.
There are other instances.
there is no god
I'm very well aware of how the system works and its shortcomings which is why I lack confidence in justice being served reliably enough in capital cases.Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
Here's the point then. (in answer to the boldened)
If we can't prove without a doubt then we shouldn't be applying the death penalty. The innocent should not be wrongly executed because we can't achieve the standard. You may be fine with the chance being taken but I'm guessing that's as long as you or one of your loved ones are not the wrongly convicted person.
I support the death penalty, there are people that deserve to die. What I feel even stronger about is making sure only those people die and it's better to have them rot in prison for life than kill an innocent person.
Accepting, understanding and being "the most democratic" do not equal correct or just.All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
despite your posts I do take it you want things to improve.......right ?
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Simplify
What in you definition would be right and just?I'm very well aware of how the system works and its shortcomings which is why I lack confidence in justice being served reliably enough in capital cases.
Here's the point then. (in answer to the boldened)
If we can't prove without a doubt then we shouldn't be applying the death penalty. The innocent should not be wrongly executed because we can't achieve the standard. You may be fine with the chance being taken but I'm guessing that's as long as you or one of your loved ones are not the wrongly convicted person.
I support the death penalty, there are people that deserve to die. What I feel even stronger about is making sure only those people die and it's better to have them rot in prison for life than kill an innocent person.
Accepting, understanding and being "the most democratic" do not equal correct or just.All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
despite your posts I do take it you want things to improve.......right ?
You can't remove the human element here...that's my main point.
I would be against the death penalty for convicted Islamic Terrorists....because they want to die for Allah.
We're kind of cornered into accepting the trial by your peers set-up.
This system isn't going to be overturned in a Democratic Republic.
Maybe if you could give me some changes you would like to make we could carry this into a deeper discussion. I'm all for that.
Last edited by MaxOverlord; 06-06-2007 at 03:21 PM. Reason: Twin Peaks Soundtrak has me hypnotized.
You just keep pushing. You just keep pushing. I made every mistake that could be made. But I just kept pushing..... Descartes
there is no god
Conviction is different from sentencing. Beyond reasonable doubt is good enough to convict but not good enough to justify death. No doubt whatsoever is needed before death can be applied.
There are cases where this is achieved, but IMO far too many where it is not.
My definition of right and just is where the margin of error is removed when it comes to sentencing. This is different from convicting.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Simplify
Conviction is different from sentencing,of course.
What sentence is handed down is purely up to the judges discretion(as the law allows) as well as whatever precedence there is for such a sentence.
As far as a sentence for death the precedence would be a moot point having no practical need for discussion..as in...there have been countless death sentences handed down.
Certain situations may warrant certain factorial discussion,but the end is still someone was killed.
If you believe, beyond the reasonable doubt,that someone killed someone what would be the argument for not handing down a death sentence other than the insanity plea..which is almost impossible to prove in our modern court system,and as I've said earlier, when they want to die for Allah.
As you've said before some have been executed who were indeed innocent..I don't refute that.
But it is an accepted rule in our society that you go before a jury of your peers and they have the power of conviction.
I'm not quite sure how there could be a better way. As j2k4 stated... polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Again, the human element is at play always.
You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.
That and in such a system the Gov. would undoubtedly have complete control and that is tantamount to a very,very,dangerous situation.
You just keep pushing. You just keep pushing. I made every mistake that could be made. But I just kept pushing..... Descartes
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks