dksuddeth

whoever said this clearly has no understanding of why the judicial system was set up the way it was by patriots of this country.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

highthief

I'd like to see the death penalty abolished all over the place, including Iraq, but yes, it would be nice if the US would join the rest of the Western world and abolish it.

So, no, I don't agree with hanging Saddam. Justice must be applied equally to all - from gangsters to domestic murderers to those guilty of war crimes.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Ustwo

What an interesting word. Justice.

We can join the rest of the free world I suppose and abolish the death penalty.

But again...justice.

dictionary.com has this as the 5th meaning and the one that applies here...

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.

So what is the deserved punishment for murder? For 10 murders? For a 100? For a million?

For some of you, apparently its life in prison. Now I can't say that life in prison would be a happy time, but how many of you will be committing suicide rather than face a life in prison? Not to many.

Where there is life, there is hope. Maybe I could escape, maybe a bunch of hippie types get on the state supreme court and change the life without parole law with their typical judicial activism, maybe I finally work on the writing I've been putting off for 10 years.

But justice? No, my victims, they are gone, dead, no life, but me, I'd have hope, and in my view, an undeserved hope.

You can oppose the death penalty based on human error, I can respect that, but don't talk about justice while doing so.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Bill O'Rights

To me...that 10% is a big deal. If 1 out of every 10 executions was that of an inncent person, that is abysmal. 1 out of 1000 is too many.
Look. If your wife, or girlfriend, disappears, or turns up dead, guess who they're going to focus on. All investigation will be conducted to gain a conviction of the most likely suspect. You. There will be little, if any, effort expended to ascertain what really happened. Evidence that is contradictory to the prefered theory will be overlooked and ignored. The prosecutor wants a quick win, to add to his resume when it comes time to run for State Attorney General. The judge wants to demonstrate how tough he is on crime when it comes time for re-election. Death is a pretty high price to pay, just to be a political pawn.

Are there people out there who deserve to be executed? Oh, you bet your ass there are. But, thier lives are not worth the price of a single innocent person being put to death.

Now, on this point, I'm with you 100%. Prison time is even a badge of honor with some of these little gang banging thugs, as it gives them "street cred". Prison should be a son-of-a-bitch, where no one ever wants to go. But, that is probably an issue better brought up in another thread.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Martian

This is true. The American penal system doesn't seem to be working. Hell, neither does the Canadian one, I'm right there with ya. But really, I don't think the answer is to kill the convicts.

Otherwise, my opinion has been well represented by Bill O'Rights, roachboy et al.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Baraka_Guru

Let's not use a dictionary to teach us about justice. We must go beyond even encyclopedic entries.

A deserved punishment for murder is one that restores at least some semblance of harmony to society. Life imprisonment removes guilty parties from free society for an extended period of time. Killing them causes more discord.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

highthief

Justice IS the same for all, or there is no justice. This is basic to free societies. Obviously, different punishments can apply to different crimes but given that I don't agree with a death penalty under any circumstances, I'm not going to make an exception for tin-pot dictators nor for elected presidents. The maximum penalty that should be imposed for any crime is a life time of hard labour - this is more productive than anything else.

Having said all that, Iraq is effectively a third world country these days and it is not surprising they wish to maintain a death penalty and a rather dodgy court system, nor that other nearby nations also cut hands off thieves and whip women who go about with their faces uncovered.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Ustwo

So you don't agree with the death penalty.

I ask you this, because so far no one else is answering.

Hypothetically someones guilt was 100% in a horrible murder. Why do you feel the death penalty is not appropriate?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ubertuber

I haven't been answering all of the individual cases because I think my first post in this thread sums my position up. I'll go farther than your question does. If I were to witness the murder and have first-hand, 100% knowledge of the murderer's identity, I still wouldn't support the death penalty.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

mixedmedia

I think I've stated my opposition quite clearly more than once.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Ustwo

Why?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Plan9

Somebody oppose this by illustrating the value of human life in this context.

How's that? I'm sure the "founding fathers" would agree with the death penalty for certain crimes based on the current standard of evidence at "beyond a reasonable doubt."

I like how supporting the death penalty questions my patriotism, too.

...

We're talking about the death penalty for heinous crimes here, right?

I get the feeling a lot of people are forgetting that aspect.

Death Penalty Criteria (3rd grade edition):

A: A particularly brutal crime was committed (murder, rape).
B: There is evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime.
C: Society believes that this individual is a threat to lawful citizens.
D: The jury feels that the crime warrants the death penalty.
E: Automatic appeal covers any legal issues are ironed out (in theory).

This, of course, is in the best of all possible worlds.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Baraka_Guru

See post #86.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

The founders supported capital punishment, quite enthusiastically I believe. My statement wasn't about your support of the death penalty, it was about your indifference to the idea that 'so some innocents are executed, so what' that my statement was directed to you.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I've never not been the smartest guy on a jury. Most other smart people avoid them, you see. It'd be easy to use my unwillingness to kill the guy to get them down to life in prison. No one would be found innocent.

Plan9

Oh, a bit of tongue-in-cheek commentary to represent the blind polarity here, man.

Some: "No, no, no! Death penalty is all bad and never works and makes baby Jesus cry!"

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Ustwo

The only discord I see is from those saying it shouldn't be done.

By that logic if your imprisonment can cause enough social unrest than by default it is best you are let free.

No I see no justice in this logic.

So if the prosecuting attorney asked if you would support the death penalty under any circumstance in jury selection, how would you answer?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

highthief

Perhaps for the same reason you support it? What is the basis of your preference for the death penalty?

It conforms with my general world view that we (Western societies at any rate) are evolved cultures and we view the taking of a life as little more than revenge and not either an effective deterrant nor a way to improve society as a whole.

It is the action, the concept, of state-sanctioned murder that offends me and, I think, many others, not the virtues or lack thereof of the convicted party nor of the individual crime.

Do I think the system we have in Canada is perfect? Of course not. I'd like to see hard-labour introduced.

But we've also had Donald Marshall, Steve Truscott, and dozens of others - cases of men convicted of crimes they did not commit and who would be dead in Texas or Florida.

So, for both the concept of state-sanctioned taking of life and the fact that even one innocent death is too much, I do not support the death penalty.

I think of note, when it comes to the nations that support the death penalty, we often equate the US to Iraq or Sudan or some third world hell hole, but perhaps it is also due to the impersonal aspect of crimes in the US due to the A) the amount of crime, and B) the size of the population. Many of the nations with the largest populations support the death penalty and people look upon the death of "just another criminal" a bit more remotely and with detachment.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Willravel

I'd tell him I do support the death penalty and of course be referring to the death penalty for the lamb I'd eaten the night before. He'd need to be ridiculously specific in order to get a straight answer out of me.

dksuddeth

in this instance, your sole purpose for being incredibly ambiguous unless the prosecutor was ridiculously specific would be simply to ensure that this jury could not mete out a death sentence? in other words, you would lie to see your ideology on the death penalty succeed?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Ustwo

So you would lie under oath (I think juries are sworn in for selection).

And then if it happens you can't manipulate the jury because you happen to not be the smartest guy there for once?

You possess an amazing degree of certainty in your statements.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Hain

Despite the rage I feel for murders and rapists living in prison eating three hots and sleeping on a cot and getting better health care than my own family only because it would be cruel and unusual to let them suffer illness in prison... I don't support the death penalty. The system isn't perfect, and it is not equal. Men who can afford their own private justice seem to be able to do whatever they feel like doing. That does not make them any less guilty or any less deserving of the punishment fit for them... What we call punishments are more like consequences of actions. The death penalty is a finality---if it cannot be distributed evenly, then it shouldn't be distributed at all, because we can't make up for that punishment.

Even if guilt was 100% possible, I still would not let be them executed: make them work. Somehow scrounge some sort of usefulness out of them for society.

Also, something has to be done about that health care system. My father, whom worked 16 hours a day at the same job on a fixed salary for 25 years, has a bum ticker. He has never done a damn thing wrong in his life... and he can't get that kind of health care prisoners receive? Shit, prisoners can receive state-paid hormone treatments... but my pops can't see a decent doctor for his heart? /rant

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

You can't possibly think that was a serious answer. Jesus.
"Would you support the death penalty under any circumstance?"
"By support, do you mean, 'Will I ever sentence someone to death'?"
"Well no, I can't actually ask that."


Will wins.

dksuddeth

you'll be directed to give a yes or no answer will. prosecutors may not be geniuses, but they aren't stupid either. I'm pretty sure they've come across people with your ideology in the past and know how to get the answers they need to choose you or send you home.

will doesn't win.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I absolutely can ask for clarification on a question. Once I have the full question, I would give a yes or no answer, but that's only assuming they're allowed to ask the question. Lawyers are only as successful as the jury is stupid. They count on people not understanding the process in order to use them.

Baraka_Guru

That is because you have used faulty logic. Why not think this through some more?

Just because you personally don't see discord, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Frosstbyte

Yay for ends justifying means. In order to combat what you believe to be an incorrect policy and judicial system, you commit perjury to get yourself on a jury when the attorneys may want to exclude you. Do you also do outside research when you're on a jury to see all of the evidence as opposed to the evidence that jurors are allowed to access?

Important safety tip: You're a juror. You have a specific and prescribed role in the judicial system. If you want to do anything else, get a JD or get elected and stop mucking around with the process in furtherance of your own personal crusade. Obviously the result isn't as extreme, but from a legal perspective it's no different than vigilantism-you're eliminating the legal process and replacing it with your own beliefs.

highthief

Hey USTWO - are you going to answer?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Hain

@ Frosstbyte:
willravel did just say, "You can't possibly think that was a serious answer. Jesus," and proceeded to mock the system where the lawyer avoids outright saying, "Yes you will be a juror for a trial where your determination can sentence someone to death."

I thought that is what he said but I never was good at making inferences---seriously I am not.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Willravel

You may not be aware of this elusive fact, but asking for clarification for a question isn't exactly the same as perjury. I know. Crazy, right? What I'm actually doing (for those who care to read what I wrote) is preventing the lawyer from asking what amounts to an illegal question by purposefully being vague about it. I'm essentially saying "What you're actually asking is illegal". By asking for clarification, they either have to tell the truth and admit that their question was illegal or they have to change the question and thus make it something I can answer but that has nothing to do with me and the death penalty.
I'm fixing the mess that lazy people who don't know shit about the process make by their ignorance. Shame on me!

BTW, "vigilantism"? If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that was actually perfectly legal. Google "jury nullification". The google "I don't know anything about the legal system".

Bill O'Rights

Well...I'm not sure that I'd have phrased it quite that way...but...yeah.
A jury of my peers? Exactly.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

What I mean to say is the dishonest lawyer will never be successful so long as there's at least one juror who has an idea of what's really going on. If all 12 are there with no clue of what's going on, the dishonest lawyer is likely to get away with stuff, though.

Frosstbyte

I know very well what jury nullification is, thanks, but you misrepresenting your beliefs in order to get on a jury to "force" the jury to come to the resolution that you've decided BEFORE THE TRIAL is not jury nullification. That's you taking your outside thoughts and beliefs into the jury box, ignoring the attorneys and then convincing the rest of the jurors to agree with you, effectively trying to act as attorney, judge and juror which sounds remarkably like vigilantism to me.

Ustwo

If you say so, but I didn't think you were serious in thinking a vasectomy would lower testosterone levels either

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

You're misunderstanding the situation. Lawyers aren't allowed to ask "If you're on the jury, will you allow the death penalty?" In order to get around that rule, they make the question more vague. It's none of their fucking business what I believe in, as it's my right to bring my philosophy onto the jury. I'm not misrepresenting anything, I'm just not going to tell them what they're not allowed to ask for. I'm not allowing them to cheat. Or do you think that people who are against the death penalty not be on a jury where it's a possibility? Isn't that kinda dishonest?
My beliefs aren't against the law, so they're allowed. It's not illegal for a juror to say the death penalty isn't the right punishment. If the person is guilty, then we all agree that life in prison would be the best way to go. Besides, I'm a pretty fair guy. Anyone would be lucky to get me on their jury instead of some idiot who doesn't understand that he's being toyed around with by the lawyers.

They can, just not nearly as often as I figured. Still, touche.

Ustwo

So many hours in the day, and this is my past time between patients. Now you have to wait extra time for being pushy and impatient, thats not polite.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Frosstbyte

Your beliefs are not illegal, but making decisions about any part of a case before you've heard the evidence or the arguments undermines the entire purpose of an adversarial legal system presented to an impartial jury of peers.

I want jurors to do their job in the case at hand and not be activists for causes in an improper venue. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that and hope we're never on one another's juries.

Willravel

I'm not making a decision about the case, I'm just setting aside specifics when it comes to sentencing. There's a huge difference there. I'm still totally impartial about hearing the cases and making my decision (guilty or not guilty). That's what impartiality is all about.

Hain

What decision has he made? He has no preconceived notions pertaining to the guilt of the person to be on trail. The only thing he has brought is his legal belief that there is no reason to punish by death. If the lawyer refuses to specify whether or not the case warrants the death penalty, Will has every right to refuse to answering the lawyers question. As I noted about his previous comment before: he was joking.

__________________

////\\// IRONSKY.NET \\//\\\\

Frosstbyte

As his multiple statements to the contrary evidence, while he may have been joking about that exact phraseology, he was in no way joking about the underlying principle.

As for what decision he's made, he has decided ahead of time that he would not give the death penalty no matter what the circumstances presented to him were. While that doesn't affect his impartiality in the guilty/not guilty part of the process, he has made a decision about sentencing, which is another part of the process in which we expect jury neutrality and impartiality. Where juries are allowed to make determinations of death sentences, they should be just as impartial about the sentence as they are about guilt. Going into the trial knowing that you won't give it under any circumstances makes you by definition not impartial.