Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2011 22:31:55 GMT -5
Although perfect justice is impossibl;e, it is definitely desirable. It isn't. Justice delayed is justice denied. The condemned die of old age before execution, or are executed as extremely old men anyway, because of people like you. What's the point? No one wants to execute an innocent except maybe, a wierd anti-DP person, who would believe that it is ammunition enough to undermine capital punishment. I don't want the innocent executed, but only a fool really believes it hasn't happened, or won't happen. I simply pointing out the obvious. Embrace of capital punishment necessarily embraces the execution of innocents -- notwithstanding the state's best, good-faith efforts to avoid it. Executing an innocent is NOT OK, and if any can be definitively proven, you would find a huge swing toward the anti DP faction. It's already proven, statistically, which is why there is so little support for executions in this country. The facts speak for themselves. Clearly motivated by guilt, the alleged "pros" have gummed up the execution process to the point of irrelevance. Legislative attempts to reform the process are met with opposition -- from "pros." Are you one of those antis hoping to find a wrongful execution? By your posts, you certainly look like one! I'm not the anti, Akamai. You are. I'm for speeding up and streamlining the process, prevention of dilatory appeals, making the death penalty actually mean something. You embrace the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 24, 2011 0:15:28 GMT -5
Joseph, Your thinking is very humorous. If you are serious, then you are a hard core anto DP person.
Every precaution is taken to avoid the execution of an innocent, and while there MIGHT have been one or more, none have ever been definitively proven to be innocent after an execution.
Now, Lewis will claim that there is no avenue to prove a wrongful execution, which is wrong, as the avenue has been exercised before, but came up empty.
No execution in the past century has ever been proven to be of an innocent. So, statistically, there has been none. Your belief that an innocent was executed might very well be so, but it has NEVER been proven in the past 100 years, even statistically.
I find it strange, that you think executing an innocent is OK... I think you are hoping that it will happen, so you can have the powerful argument against capital punishment as I said such proof would. Look all you want, but you are not going to find one that has been definitively proven to be wrongful. Not a single one.
I label you an anti DP person, with wierd and hypocritical thoughts. Akamai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2011 17:39:21 GMT -5
Every precaution is taken to avoid the execution of an innocent, and while there MIGHT have been one or more, none have ever been definitively proven to be innocent after an execution. Math and statistics have proved it already. There are something like 4,500 murderers who have been executed or on on death row, since 1976. You have to be a complete idiot to really believe ALL of them are 100 percent guilty without a shadow of a doubt. Consider the last 4,500 times you've been absolutely, positively sure about something. Would you bet your life that you've always been right? I'm a pro that can win arguments against antis. You can't, and never will, because you insult people's intelligence. Lewis will claim that there is no avenue to prove a wrongful execution, which is wrong, as the avenue has been exercised before, but came up empty. Lewis is correct, and he's correct because of people like you. If, as you claim, the legitimacy of capital punishment rests on the perfect wisdom of all involved, there will never be formal investigations of executions. The system is rigged. No execution in the past century has ever been proven to be of an innocent. Of course not. Why should there be? Your belief that an innocent was executed might very well be so, but it has NEVER been proven in the past 100 years, even statistically. The proof is self-evident, as is the proof of your blind faith in a process that is necessarily flawed. I find it strange, that you think executing an innocent is OK. I never said it was OK. I don't think bridge collapses are OK. I don't think hurricanes are OK. They happen. They always WILL happen. I think you are hoping that it will happen, so you can have the powerful argument against capital punishment Buddy, the one arguing against capital punishment is YOU. With each passing year the death penalty marches inexorably toward its demise, thanks to people like YOU. You repeatedly shoot yourself in the foot and keep looking around for the gunman. Your arguments are pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 25, 2011 10:30:07 GMT -5
Joseph, Maybe someday, you will realize that MATH, is an EXACT science. Math has NOT proven anything as far as a wrongful execution when it comes to capital punishment.
Something like that CANNOT be proven with math, unless you can definitively prove that it did happen.
So, your claim about a wrongful execution being "proven" is false. ' But that is nothing new, You also claim that a perfect justice system is not desired, which is at least equally false.
Nice try though!'' Akamai
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 27, 2011 16:57:27 GMT -5
I'd do away with juvenile courts. Age should not be a consideration in any circumstances. I agree that we should do away with the juvenile courts, but age should be a consideration. A youthful offender may have a better hope of rehabilitation than an adult would. on this issue, joe is right. age should never be a consideration. a victim is not less dead just because a 14 year old murdered him rather than a 34 year old, and NOTHING else is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 27, 2011 18:47:56 GMT -5
I agree that we should do away with the juvenile courts, but age should be a consideration. A youthful offender may have a better hope of rehabilitation than an adult would. on this issue, joe is right. age should never be a consideration. a victim is not less dead just because a 14 year old murdered him rather than a 34 year old, and NOTHING else is relevant. I disagree. A minor, if facing the adult courts should have his age considered. A minor may not have the maturity enough for reasoning as far as his consequences in committing the crime, and the chances of his rehabilitation is more possible.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 28, 2011 9:58:20 GMT -5
on this issue, joe is right. age should never be a consideration. a victim is not less dead just because a 14 year old murdered him rather than a 34 year old, and NOTHING else is relevant. I disagree. A minor, if facing the adult courts should have his age considered. A minor may not have the maturity enough for reasoning as far as his consequences in committing the crime, and the chances of his rehabilitation is more possible. that's fine for, perhaps burglary, or some other property crime. it is not for murder. his rehabilitation will not restore life to the victim, so no one should have the slightest care about him ever being rehabilitated, since he should NEVER walk the streets again.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 28, 2011 11:25:29 GMT -5
I disagree. A minor, if facing the adult courts should have his age considered. A minor may not have the maturity enough for reasoning as far as his consequences in committing the crime, and the chances of his rehabilitation is more possible. that's fine for, perhaps burglary, or some other property crime. it is not for murder. his rehabilitation will not restore life to the victim, so no one should have the slightest care about him ever being rehabilitated, since he should NEVER walk the streets again. Even for murder, it depends on the circumstances. Most of your older people who commit murder with aforethought are not gangbangers, while some kids who are pre-teen or barely teenagers do. This is the reason we have a juvenile courts system. If we are going to have a juvenile court, then we should abide by the very rules that we make without exceptions. If we get rid of the juvenile courts, then age considerations should be taken.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 29, 2011 9:58:45 GMT -5
that's fine for, perhaps burglary, or some other property crime. it is not for murder. his rehabilitation will not restore life to the victim, so no one should have the slightest care about him ever being rehabilitated, since he should NEVER walk the streets again. Even for murder, it depends on the circumstances. Most of your older people who commit murder with aforethought are not gangbangers, while some kids who are pre-teen or barely teenagers do. This is the reason we have a juvenile courts system. If we are going to have a juvenile court, then we should abide by the very rules that we make without exceptions. If we get rid of the juvenile courts, then age considerations should be taken. how is why someone is murdered relevant? of course most older murderers are not gang bangers. that is also irrelevant. the fact that a kid is so inherently worthless that he joins a gang to begin with, makes his crime a thousand times worse than the older murderer, and there is NO atonement for him, or any other first degree murderer. juvenile courts are for piddly crimes to begin with. they are not set up for murder cases, which is precisely why aggregious murders are tried in adult court. ALL first degree murders should be, regardless of the circumstances, as well as ALL violent felonies of any kind
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 29, 2011 10:12:00 GMT -5
the WHY is always relevent whether its murder..theft or what ever the WHY rarely excuses but the reasons are always important
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 11:05:37 GMT -5
the WHY is always relevent whether its murder..theft or what ever the WHY rarely excuses but the reasons are always important If every crime is one of volition, why are the reasons important? Reasons = excuses. a = a
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 29, 2011 11:28:39 GMT -5
the WHY is always relevent whether its murder..theft or what ever the WHY rarely excuses but the reasons are always important If every crime is one of volition, why are the reasons important? Reasons = excuses. a = areasons do not equal excuses......reasons are important because some times the reason indicate a sociatatal or mental ill which can be rectifyed and thus prevent further assults/thefts/murders etc etc ie a man attacked my son 2..from behind and then kicked his head.....the reason.... he was mentally deranged and is now in a secure unit...thus preventing him from attacking some one else or say a boy/girl bullied at school who then snap and turn on the bullies causing harm...the reason equates to mitigating circumstance reasons are not excuses but are valid when looking at crime to determin punishment or to determin treatment etc etc when a child is naughty..the first thing most parents ask is ""why did you do so and so"" and while every crime is a violation..the reasons can be multiple as to what led to the violation of law ie a car doing well over the sppeed limit and then you find it contains some one desparate to get to hospital ie pain or stab wound ior accident etc ..so yes a violation but for a viable reason
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 29, 2011 11:32:41 GMT -5
the WHY is always relevent whether its murder..theft or what ever the WHY rarely excuses but the reasons are always important If every crime is one of volition, why are the reasons important? ] because many time they answer the WHY...
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 11:41:46 GMT -5
Even for murder, it depends on the circumstances. Most of your older people who commit murder with aforethought are not gangbangers, while some kids who are pre-teen or barely teenagers do. This is the reason we have a juvenile courts system. If we are going to have a juvenile court, then we should abide by the very rules that we make without exceptions. If we get rid of the juvenile courts, then age considerations should be taken. how is why someone is murdered relevant? of course most older murderers are not gang bangers. that is also irrelevant. the fact that a kid is so inherently worthless that he joins a gang to begin with, makes his crime a thousand times worse than the older murderer, and there is NO atonement for him, or any other first degree murderer. juvenile courts are for piddly crimes to begin with. they are not set up for murder cases, which is precisely why aggregious murders are tried in adult court. ALL first degree murders should be, regardless of the circumstances, as well as ALL violent felonies of any kind Jim, A while back, we had a traffic fatality. Two teens were drag racing on a highway, one lost control, crashed his car, and his female passenger died. Of course, it was stupid, but as old as I am, I am still young enough to remember that drag racing on the streets were very common when I was young, and in fact, I did it too. I was just lucky that I didn't kill anyone or myself. When you have a young offender, he is just as naive and ignorant as you or I were when we were younger. We broke some laws if we were normal average teens. A young offender may be exposed to things far worse than we were, and that should be a consideration. A person who commits a crime might be rehabilitated, so punishment should be considered on a case by case basis. The juvenile is apt to make more mistakes than an adult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 11:52:08 GMT -5
because many time they answer the WHY And what purpose does that knowledge serve, other than to satisfy morbid curiosity?
|
|