Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • The Death Penalty
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
The Death Penalty; New discussion
Tweet Topic Started: Jan 17 2012, 10:18 AM (229 Views)
Jazen Jan 17 2012, 10:08 PM Post #31
Member Avatar
INDIANA
Posts:
9,786
Group:
Admin
Member
#2
Joined:
February 4, 2008
Quote:
 
how would you feel if your wife was wrongfully convicted of a crime and facing the death penalty?


hmm....

Vacation time?

;)
Edited by Jazen, Jan 17 2012, 10:08 PM.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM Post #32
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bobobinc Jan 18 2012, 01:02 AM Post #33
Member Avatar
Scrimshanker
Posts:
8,742
Group:
Members
Member
#73
Joined:
February 6, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
One basic premise of our system of law is that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man. Like it or not, that's what our justice system is based on. Sounds like you want to just toss that aside in the case of the death penalty.

The probability is high? Are you fucking serious? Who's making that decision?

Your "list' is ......I don't fucking know what it means.

If someone killed my son, you bet your ass I would want them dead. It's an emotional reaction from someone involved........it's revenge.......that's why the system wouldn't put me on the jury. It supposed to be unemotional. People shouldn't be put to death for revenge. Doesn't change anything. Might make you feel better.....for a while.

if you believe in "an eye for an eye", you may have an argument.......but then many other things would change.........in you were consistent that is.



Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 18 2012, 07:27 AM Post #34
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
How about letting 15 guilty people go free while 1 innocent is convicted? 20? 100? 1,000? At some point you have to accept that the numerical value outweighs it. If not, then you simply would have to say no one should ever be tried because you run the risk of convicting an innocent man.

In terms of death being irreversible....every punishment is irreversible. Releasing someone after twenty years in prison doesn't give them that twenty years back.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 18 2012, 08:53 AM Post #35
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
1) killing someone by wreckless driving is a serious crime
2) killing or injuring someone because you are drunk is a serious crime
3) killing someone with a gun is a serious crime

killing someone through wrongful conviction is an acceptable extreme though huh?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 18 2012, 08:54 AM Post #36
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jan 18 2012, 07:27 AM
How about letting 15 guilty people go free while 1 innocent is convicted? 20? 100? 1,000? At some point you have to accept that the numerical value outweighs it. If not, then you simply would have to say no one should ever be tried because you run the risk of convicting an innocent man.

In terms of death being irreversible....every punishment is irreversible. Releasing someone after twenty years in prison doesn't give them that twenty years back.
but they still have a life to live....I just can't put a "numeric value" to life brum...sorry
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 18 2012, 09:40 AM Post #37
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Ok, let's set the bar extremely high for a death penalty conviction, requiring DNA, other physical evidence, witnesses, etc. Some criminals deserve to die, and Jerry Sandusky comes to mind. In the past, I've used prison lifers who continue to murder fellow inmates and guards while in prison as a prime example. They definitely deserve to die. And don't forget the green impact of reducing CO2 emissions.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jan 18 2012, 09:50 AM Post #38
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 18 2012, 08:53 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
1) killing someone by wreckless driving is a serious crime
2) killing or injuring someone because you are drunk is a serious crime
3) killing someone with a gun is a serious crime

killing someone through wrongful conviction is an acceptable extreme though huh?
So when a drunker driver kills the mother of two small children, her husband and kids will be comforted by the fact the killer committed a "serious crime", and spends a couple of years in jail. If we banned alcohol and cars, that life wouldn't have been lost.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jan 18 2012, 04:05 PM Post #39
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 09:50 AM
Mr Gray
Jan 18 2012, 08:53 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
1) killing someone by wreckless driving is a serious crime
2) killing or injuring someone because you are drunk is a serious crime
3) killing someone with a gun is a serious crime

killing someone through wrongful conviction is an acceptable extreme though huh?
So when a drunker driver kills the mother of two small children, her husband and kids will be comforted by the fact the killer committed a "serious crime", and spends a couple of years in jail. If we banned alcohol and cars, that life wouldn't have been lost.
of course not, but I think you need to get a better understanding of how a society based on laws works Lars. We try to create an environment to prevent crime, such as murder. You can do that in basically one of two ways.

1) Outlaw the activity that may lead to said serious crime
a) Examples would be the reasoning for the outlawing of some drugs and weapons
2) Create laws which institute severe punishment for serious crime
b) An example would be drunk driving laws, as opposed to taking option 1 and outlawing alcohol

I believe when deciding which approach to take you should follow the reasoning of whether or not the crime can be reasonably prevented through one's own actions and to what extent a punishment can be issued to equal the crime, thus acting as an effective deterrent. In the case of wrongful conviction leading to the death penalty, there is no punishment that could be issued, and nobody to issue it upon, so there is no effective deterrent against it, other than the diligence, intelligence, and integrity of investigators, prosecutors, and jurys. If we had a society in which we could trust that everyone has enough integrity & intelligence as to not to do something wrong or make a mistake that could negatively impact our lives, we really wouldn't need any laws.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chops1221 Jan 18 2012, 04:24 PM Post #40
Coach
Posts:
3,802
Group:
Members
Member
#28
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 18 2012, 04:05 PM
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 09:50 AM
Mr Gray
Jan 18 2012, 08:53 AM
HoosierLars
Jan 18 2012, 12:17 AM
Jazen
Jan 17 2012, 05:52 PM
Regarding the Jaycee Dugard case, there's concrete proof that he raped her as a child. Her (his) children are proof.

Good enough for me, fry that fucker.
I totally agree with your take, Jazen. The anti-death penalty crowd wants to use rare end case mistakes to dictate the policy. Like you say, the state of forensics is greatly improved, and I agree we should only implement the death penalty when the probability of being right is very high.

Using the anti-death penalty argument:
1) outlaw cars because some people with drive recklessly, and kill others
2) outlaw alcohol because some will abuse it and kill/injure others
3) outlaw guns because people can be shot
4) the list goes on and on
1) killing someone by wreckless driving is a serious crime
2) killing or injuring someone because you are drunk is a serious crime
3) killing someone with a gun is a serious crime

killing someone through wrongful conviction is an acceptable extreme though huh?
So when a drunker driver kills the mother of two small children, her husband and kids will be comforted by the fact the killer committed a "serious crime", and spends a couple of years in jail. If we banned alcohol and cars, that life wouldn't have been lost.
of course not, but I think you need to get a better understanding of how a society based on laws works Lars. We try to create an environment to prevent crime, such as murder. You can do that in basically one of two ways.

1) Outlaw the activity that may lead to said serious crime
a) Examples would be the reasoning for the outlawing of some drugs and weapons
2) Create laws which institute severe punishment for serious crime
b) An example would be drunk driving laws, as opposed to taking option 1 and outlawing alcohol

I believe when deciding which approach to take you should follow the reasoning of whether or not the crime can be reasonably prevented through one's own actions and to what extent a punishment can be issued to equal the crime, thus acting as an effective deterrent. In the case of wrongful conviction leading to the death penalty, there is no punishment that could be issued, and nobody to issue it upon, so there is no effective deterrent against it, other than the diligence, intelligence, and integrity of investigators, prosecutors, and jurys. If we had a society in which we could trust that everyone has enough integrity & intelligence as to not to do something wrong or make a mistake that could negatively impact our lives, we really wouldn't need any laws.
:cheers:
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jan 18 2012, 06:09 PM Post #41
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Mr Gray
Jan 18 2012, 08:54 AM
brumdog44
Jan 18 2012, 07:27 AM
How about letting 15 guilty people go free while 1 innocent is convicted? 20? 100? 1,000? At some point you have to accept that the numerical value outweighs it. If not, then you simply would have to say no one should ever be tried because you run the risk of convicting an innocent man.

In terms of death being irreversible....every punishment is irreversible. Releasing someone after twenty years in prison doesn't give them that twenty years back.
but they still have a life to live....I just can't put a "numeric value" to life brum...sorry
Yes you do....you do it every day unless every single bit of your money is going to feed and provide medicine for those who will die without them.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Our users say it best:
"Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used."
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:51 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy