Is the sentence a good or bad policy? Some states allow it, and some countries aloow it, yet others dont. Yes, I know some of might say everyone deserves to live, and most of the time i would agree with you, but what if there is a man that has been tested positive for some sort of disorder that causes him to have a strong urge to kill at random times, and he was either about to be set free in your town or put to death. What would you say? There is the unethical and the inhumane reason, but a large reason many places ban it is the cost. Some states are backed up with people on death row, because they have to pay lawyers to file paperwork, and keep those hundreds, maybe thousands, of people alive for howver long. Think, do you really want your tax dollars going there?
Since we are talking about life sentences, maybe they should actually be life sentences? As in your there until you die, whenever that may be. Many places have life as meaning something like 50-70 years.
Since we are talking about life sentences, maybe they should actually be life sentences? As in your there until you die, whenever that may be. Many places have life as meaning something like 50-70 years.
That's a good point, I don't know why the even call it a life sentence.
This would all be the responsibility of those running the jail to prevent. As I pointed out do you find the loss of innocent life acceptable?
I'm not qualified to comment on the systems of other nations, but our judicial system does make sure quite well that the person truly is or not innocent.
I'm not qualified to comment on the systems of other nations, but our judicial system does make sure quite well that the person truly is or not innocent.
And errors never happen? That's what I'm talking about even in a system that does it's best to make sure the person is truly guilty mistakes will still happen. The statistics I listed was for America I can't say what the error rate is for other countries, but I think it's safe to say they exist. So the question remains if this is an acceptable loss for revenge? Yes it is revenge, they killed someone so in pay back you want them to die as well.
So the question remains if this is an acceptable loss for revenge? Yes it is revenge, they killed someone so in pay back you want them to die as well.
In that case, aren't all punishments in some ways partially for revenge too? The way I and the majority of Singaporeans view the death penalty in this place with the highest execution rate per capita is that it's a tool to maintaining our low crime rate. A vast majority of us do support capital punishment; it isn't going to be abolished anytime soon here.
In that case, aren't all punishments in some ways partially for revenge too?
smart statement. i don't think that all punishments are revenge. Most of them are just natural consequences. The idea behind this is that you kill somebody. We have the right to take your life because it is at the weight of the crime that you committed. it is just like "if you break it you buy it"
I'm sorry if this was already brought up, but I feel as if this is an argument to support the abolition of the death penalty:
Basically, this man says that DNA could exonerate him, but the prosecutors don't want him to have the opportunity to try and prove himself innocent. It is ridiculous, and absurd that these people who are supposed to be the protectors of justice, are attempting to not give this man every right to reviewing of evidence. I am of the opinion that it is best to let a guilty man go free, than to have an innocent man die.
I am of the opinion that it is best to let a guilty man go free, than to have an innocent man die.
And release him back to commit more crimes? Don't phrase it in absolutes, what can be done is the middle ground, reforming the legal system to increase the checks and close the gaps of uncertainties. Allowing the guilty back into society scot free is akin to shooting oneself in the foot.
Texas has one of the higher execution rates in the USA since Perry is rather fond of it. That should be corrected to take in all evidence.
I'm sorry if this was already brought up, but I feel as if this is an argument to support the abolition of the death penalty: [link]
Truth be told, that article really doesn't give much pertinent information about the case. He talks about emotional compromise on part of the prosecutors as being something every prosecutor (particularly those of Texas) experiences and it's not very conclusive. Could not the defenders be equally compromised?
But all that is unimportant. It is not the prosecutors who determine which evidence is permissible, it's the court.
[...] and Skinner's attorneys have failed (thus far) to get a court order requiring those tests.
Any prosecutors job is to try against such tests, if they have enough conclusive evidence to forbid it. But it's left to the court's discretion whether or not to allow it. I may be wrong, but the important question here would be whether or not the court is objective enough to allow this evidence, or if the refusal of tests is grounded in law. And this article gives no evidence either way.
Back up a little for this:
In that case, aren't all punishments in some ways partially for revenge too?
They're not supposed to be. Punishment doesn't equal revenge. A benign example would be your mom grounding you for something minor. That's a punishment, but it's not revenge. It's designed to teach. This is the same thing, only on a much larger scale. That's not to say that emotions don't often play a huge part in determining a sentence, even though we all strive towards objectivity.
They're not supposed to be. Punishment doesn't equal revenge. A benign example would be your mom grounding you for something minor. That's a punishment, but it's not revenge. It's designed to teach. This is the same thing, only on a much larger scale. That's not to say that emotions don't often play a huge part in determining a sentence, even though we all strive towards objectivity.
Just to clarify in case my point wasn't clear....it was meant as a rebuttal back to Mage, that no the death sentence is not intended as revenge.
the court is objective enough to allow this evidence, or if the refusal of tests is grounded in law. And this article gives no evidence either way.
The jury and the judge, I suppose. I'm not particularly well versed in the justice system of the US, apart from what I learned at the university as part of American culture studies, so I concede that I might be wrong which is also the reason why I used the word 'court' as opposed to naming either judge or jury as the one who determines the permissibility of evidence.
Wikipedia informs me that evidence can be presented to either judge or jury, depending on the case. Huh. I always thought it was solely the judge's jurisdiction to determine the permissibility of evidence.
Well because if you meant jury then you can't really blame the law per se, as much as the rationality of the people serving on it.
I'm not blaming the law. I'm not blaming anyone, in fact. And this actually ties rather well in what I was trying to say and it's that however way you look at it, it's not the prosecutors who should be investigated for emotional compromise, but rather the people responsible for allowing or disallowing evidence. Which means either judge or jury, whoever has that right in this particular case.
I am discrediting the article for focusing on the right issue, but the wrong persons.
