You are right - it would be stupid not to punish someone only because there is a hipotetical chance he didn't do crime, we as society have to risk in most cases.....but when we are talking about death penalty...hmmm i don't know - i would be very careful....epicstruggle said:So if i take someone against their will and inprison them in a small cell for years on years. Then the law/society shouldnt stoop to my level and do the same to me, right????UPO said:
Death penalty
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
Can you name a case where all the evidence: taped kidnapping, evidence in car, confession to someone, and maybe even evidence in her, Were all 4 things were faked/forced. ALL 4 together. This is an open and shut case. Not to say he shouldnt get a day in court. But this guy is guilty.Clashman said:
later,
epic
You didnt see the sarcasm in the post.UPO said:You are right - it would be stupid not to punish someone only because there is a hipotetical chance he didn't do crime, we as society have to risk in most cases.....but when we are talking about death penalty...hmmm i don't know - i would be very careful....So if i take someone against their will and inprison them in a small cell for years on years. Then the law/society shouldnt stoop to my level and do the same to me, right????
I was trying to compare those who say we should execute killers because we would be no better to them, with those who imprison people against their will, which is the same as a prisoner in prison. See. later,
epic
Clashman said:
What's scary is that there have been many cases that were thought to be completely bulletproof at the time of the conviction. 20 years later after the person was put to death, DNA exonerated them. 20 years from now we may find another even better way of gathering forensics evidence, that exonerates those put to death because DNA found them guilty. Who knows.
There is always a chance that you're sending an innocent person to their death. And there are documented cases where people admit to a crime that they haven't committed, for no apparent reason. The death penalty is really an odd and archaic system.
You know, even for someone like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden, I would not advocate the death penalty. Why? Because I feel a lifetime stripped of one's rights, privileges, and freedoms is a fate worse than death. It's unfortunate that it's an expensive stance.
Silent_One
Newcomer
You know, I might agree with you there, but when people like charlie manson get a life sentence and then come up for parole there's something wrong with the system.
I can be liberal on certain social issues, but this isn't one of them. In such a case as the recent FL murder, I'm all for the death penalty. There is nothing to be gained forcing taxpayers to feed and clothe that man for the rest of his natural life.
epicstruggle said:So if i take someone against their will and inprison them in a small cell for years on years. Then the law/society shouldnt stoop to my level and do the same to me, right????
Death penalty is different than other penalities in that it's not undoable. You can't bring someone back to life. But you can release someone from prison, you can pay back fines and damages.
epicstruggle said:
I don't doubt he's guilty. But still, we never know entirely for sure.
You should also remember that there are cases where there's a lot of evidence pointing on a certain guy, but it all was planted by someone else who wanted to place the blame on that guy to protect himself. Some criminals are unfortunately clever and plan their actions very well.
Natoma said:
This is very true, and is the reason why confession today isn't regarded as evidence in itself. It only carries value if it can be backed up with technical evidence.
For instance, in the case of the murder of the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme in 1986. The murderer has still not been found, but there have IIRC been over 50 people admitting to the crime.
still waiting for one specific case. but i guess theories/guesses/hypothetical situations are good enough for some. Id actually like to see some proof.Humus said:
later,
epic
I never saw a tape of oj showing him near the area of the crime near the time of the crime scene. did you? And on a side note he was found not guilty so doesnt that invalidate whatever you were trying to prove.kyleb said:how about O.J.?
later,
epic
The spirit of humus comment was that an innocent man would be framed for someone elses crime. But in your example 1) no one was convicted, 2) no serious person actually thinks oj wasnt guilty. Anyone with less than 1 million dollars worth of defense lawyers would have been rightly convicted based on the evidence.
later,
epic
later,
epic
