Obesity to the Rescue

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I believe that the victims should decide. So if the court decides a person should have the death penalty, the victims should be able to agree or not. Technically they were wronged the most and should have a say in the punishment.

This again is bullshit because victims and their families can be blinded by emotion. They often won’t care if the person sent to jail is truly innocent if they have been told the perpetrator is the right one for years. Again, the massive number of people found innocent AFTER being sent to death row should make everyone much less boisterous when it comes to the death penalty.[/quote]

This is a strawman against the DP. If they are innocent they shouldn’t be sentenced in the first place, so whether or not the family should decide on the sentencing is a moot point. If there is any doubt about guilt, the dp shouldn’t even be on the table.

None of these things are reasons to be against the philosophicial aspects of the death penalty. I am all for it, but acknowledge that it must be used be used very selectively. When one is guilty of a heinous crime and there is no doubt about their guilt, there is nothing wrong with leaving the sentencing up to the family of the victim.

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
tedro wrote:
Guillotine.

You know political correctness has gone to far when you can’t kill an inmate on death row because he might experience some pain.

The guillotine is the most humane way of executing someone. It is painless, but I read somewhere that the victim is still concious for a few seconds afterwards.

Let’s bring back the guillotine, and bring back the fun![/quote]

Don’t the beheadees run around a lot directionlessly afterwards?

I’ve often wondered if your head knows it’s not attached after its been chopped off and it just sits there on the ground, looking back at the body, longing to be reunited with it.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I believe that the victims should decide. So if the court decides a person should have the death penalty, the victims should be able to agree or not. Technically they were wronged the most and should have a say in the punishment.

This again is bullshit because victims and their families can be blinded by emotion. They often won’t care if the person sent to jail is truly innocent if they have been told the perpetrator is the right one for years. Again, the massive number of people found innocent AFTER being sent to death row should make everyone much less boisterous when it comes to the death penalty.

This is a strawman against the DP. If they are innocent they shouldn’t be sentenced in the first place, so whether or not the family should decide on the sentencing is a moot point. If there is any doubt about guilt, the dp shouldn’t even be on the table. [/quote]

How is this a strawman? The point is, we have a primitive court system. Witness testimony is STILL given great importance in spite of the fact that they are often wrong. If it weren’t for agencies going back and testing these past cases themselves without funding, we wouldn’t even be aware of the growing number of innocents.

Any doubt? You have got to be joking. Most people don’t even question a verdict after it is given. They simply accept it. Your post here shows that to still be the problem.

There are over 230 people set free the last I checked the stats and that isn’t even current info. No one doubted whether they were guilty UNTIL someone went back over the evidence AFTER the conviction and AFTER several years in jail.

That means leaving it up to the family does not erase the fact that they could very well be sending innocent people to jail.

[quote]

None of these things are reasons to be against the philosophicial aspects of the death penalty. I am all for it, but acknowledge that it must be used be used very selectively. When one is guilty of a heinous crime and there is no doubt about their guilt, there is nothing wrong with leaving the sentencing up to the family of the victim.[/quote]

How do we ensure lack of doubt in our current court system?

Consider the death penalty only in cases verified by a hard science procedure (DNA verification)?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
How is this a strawman? The point is, we have a primitive court system. Witness testimony is STILL given great importance in spite of the fact that they are often wrong. If it weren’t for agencies going back and testing these past cases themselves without funding, we wouldn’t even be aware of the growing number of innocents.
[/quote]

If they are truly innocent then they shouldn’t be found guilty anyways. These are examples of problems in the judiciary system, but not reason to disallow families to decide on the sentencing for the truly guilty.

Nope, it doesn’t, but it is also not an argument against the family determining the sentencing. You have merely pointed out why we should be careful about when the DP should be considered, and I fully agree with all of it.

[quote]
How do we ensure lack of doubt in our current court system?[/quote]

DNA evidence, multiple witnesses giving the same testimony without influencing one another, a confession. Just as there are innocents behind bars, there are many, many, that are undoubtedly guilty.

You argued against letting families decide on sentencing because of the practical problems of implementing the death penalty. By letting families decide whether one should be sentenced to death, you would essentially lessen the number of inmates on death row, as it would still have to be determined by a judge whether or not the death penalty should even be an option.

[quote]tedro wrote:

If they are truly innocent then they shouldn’t be found guilty anyways. These are examples of problems in the judiciary system, but not reason to disallow families to decide on the sentencing for the truly guilty.[/quote]

But gee, they ARE being found guilty which means you fix that first before you start giving any more power to anyone else when it comes to executions. You don’t ignore the innocent people in jail up to this point while giving the authority for execution to surviving family.

[quote]
DNA evidence, multiple witnesses giving the same testimony without influencing one another, a confession. Just as there are innocents behind bars, there are many, many, that are undoubtedly guilty.[/quote]

Regardless of the many who are guilty, it doesn’t erase the pure hell that belongs to the one who is there for no reason but our own inadequacies as a society.

Who, when it is all said and done, will answer for the innocent people killed? No one wants to carry that burden, huh?

[quote]
You argued against letting families decide on sentencing because of the practical problems of implementing the death penalty. By letting families decide whether one should be sentenced to death, you would essentially lessen the number of inmates on death row, as it would still have to be determined by a judge whether or not the death penalty should even be an option.[/quote]

What makes you think the judge is always right?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MrRezister wrote:
I used to be a big supporter of the death penalty, but I guess I’ve gotten soft and hippyish in my old age. I really don’t think it should be within the power of the state to decide when or how someone dies.

I agree up to a point. The extremely large number of people being currently set free by new DNA testimony makes me MUCH less supportive of a system that is that set in the dark ages that we have no doubt killed innocent people in the past because of this society’s own mistakes.

If someone is going to die for a crime, they had better be damned sure they are actually the ones guilty of it.[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
But gee, they ARE being found guilty which means you fix that first before you start giving any more power to anyone else when it comes to executions. You don’t ignore the innocent people in jail up to this point while giving the authority for execution to surviving family.
[/quote]

First, nobody has suggested to ignore the innocent. You keep forgetting that I have said many times, that we must be very careful with the practical application of the death penalty.

Second, the fact that there are innocent people in jail is irrelevant when deciding whether one that is guilty beyond a doubt should be senteced to death.

Again, this is a general argument against the death penalty and not a specific argument as to why the family should not be involved in the sentencing.

I’m all for specific regulations when it comes to the death penalty, but so long as all requirements are met, be they state and federal reviews, evidence, whatever I have no problem with the final decision resting with the family.

I will stand right with you when it comes to freeing innocent people behind bars.

[quote]
You argued against letting families decide on sentencing because of the practical problems of implementing the death penalty. By letting families decide whether one should be sentenced to death, you would essentially lessen the number of inmates on death row, as it would still have to be determined by a judge whether or not the death penalty should even be an option.

What makes you think the judge is always right?[/quote]

Irrelevant in this argument. Again, letting the family have input only adds another step into the process and therefore cannot put anybody on death row that wouldn’t already be going there anyways.

[quote]tedro wrote:

First, nobody has suggested to ignore the innocent. You keep forgetting that I have said many times, that we must be very careful with the practical application of the death penalty.[/quote]

You are suggesting the innocent be ignored by focusing on ANYTHING ELSE as far as additions to our current system until we fix the larger bugs infesting it first.

Innocent people being thrown in jail and into death row is a larger issue than who gets to decide who dies and how.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Consider the death penalty only in cases verified by a hard science procedure (DNA verification)?[/quote]

I like it. And add in a waiting period to allow for new evidence to come to light (much like the current system).

Has anyone seen the “Life of David Gale”?

I’m all for the death penalty given the right circumstances but this movie really made me think how close innocent and guilty can be to each other.

[quote]jnnak wrote:
Has anyone seen the “Life of David Gale”?

I’m all for the death penalty given the right circumstances but this movie really made me think how close innocent and guilty can be to each other. [/quote]

You realize he was guilty, right?

[quote]Makavali wrote:
jnnak wrote:
Has anyone seen the “Life of David Gale”?

I’m all for the death penalty given the right circumstances but this movie really made me think how close innocent and guilty can be to each other.

You realize he was guilty, right?[/quote]

Of what?

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I believe that the victims should decide. So if the court decides a person should have the death penalty, the victims should be able to agree or not. Technically they were wronged the most and should have a say in the punishment.

This again is bullshit because victims and their families can be blinded by emotion. They often won’t care if the person sent to jail is truly innocent if they have been told the perpetrator is the right one for years.

Again, the massive number of people found innocent AFTER being sent to death row should make everyone much less boisterous when it comes to the death penalty.[/quote]

The victims or victims family are the ones most harmed by the criminal. So it IS true justice form them to decide. And contrary to your ideas many victims would not and do not support the death penalty. So it is not just wanting blood like you might imagine.

As for emotion, have you even been on a jury? Apparently not as that is what most people use to determine guilt or innocence. So having a jury of one’s “peers” emotionally decide your fate or the victims family is not much different.

As for the innocence or guilt of the party, that is irrelevant as the victims do not make the decision. That is the courts decision. We are just talking about punishment, not the verdict.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The victims or victims family are the ones most harmed by the criminal. So it IS true justice form them to decide. And contrary to your ideas many victims would not and do not support the death penalty. So it is not just wanting blood like you might imagine.

[/quote]

How to you prevent retaliation by the family of the criminal? There could be a lot of hard feelings if the victim’s family has a say in the sentence.

[quote]tedro wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The victims or victims family are the ones most harmed by the criminal. So it IS true justice form them to decide.

And contrary to your ideas many victims would not and do not support the death penalty. So it is not just wanting blood like you might imagine.

How to you prevent retaliation by the family of the criminal? There could be a lot of hard feelings if the victim’s family has a say in the sentence.[/quote]

That’s a good point, but that is part of the system now. That is why so many people see crimes happening, do nothing about it, and then refuse to tell police who did it �?? fear of retaliation. So I don’t know how to fix that one.

But I will say that no one truly understands justice until they are the victim. And in our current society criminals have more rights and protections than the victims. This would a least help level the playing field.

Basically what I got out of it was if the guy is sentanced to death, the family can say they want life in prison. Not necesarilly the other way around.

amirite?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Basically what I got out of it was if the guy is sentanced to death, the family can say they want life in prison. Not necesarilly the other way around.

amirite?[/quote]

This is America. They can say whatever the hell they want!

And we can go ahead and do what we were going to do anyway. This is America.

Psssh I think we should chop of hands for stealing. Our prisons are over flowing with lifers which costs all of us a shitload of money. I saw remove life sentence and execute them in place of it. If there is any room for doubt then they shouldn’t be in prison in the first place.

Oh no poor Mr. Fatman could have some pain with his death due to meds and being fat. Should of thought of that before he raped and murdered those women. We need to have punishments Dante’s Inferno style so the punishment is based on the crime. Guarantee you there would be less crime if you knew you’d face being burnt at the stake, drawn and quartered, the rack, etc.

If you are alone then stop by ATM machines or take pics with your cell phone for your alibi. “Let’s see you bought gum at the Circle K at 10 p.m. 3 minutes after you pulled $100 out of an ATM that took your picture. DAMN!!!” White cops would have to get craftier to setup minorities.

[quote]GhorigTheBeefy wrote:
Psssh I think we should chop of hands for stealing. Our prisons are over flowing with lifers which costs all of us a shitload of money. I saw remove life sentence and execute them in place of it. If there is any room for doubt then they shouldn’t be in prison in the first place.[/quote]

Actually, the costs of all the appeals put in by members of death row (yeah, its a club, and kinda exclusive) are greater than the average costs of keeping an inmate in prison for life.

I didn’t really understand the rest of your post…