Views on Capital Punishment

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]Forgive me if this is spam, but "Huh?" O_o;;


Edit: Just to clarify something. I understand what "However" means and the point you're trying to make. It's just that the explanation you provided seems like an attempt to cover your tracks rather than logical reasoning. Just my take on it though.[/B][/QUOTE]

My work here is done. [img]http://www.forevergaming.com/forums/images/smilies/rockon.gif[/img]

As for the rule.
I don't recall any errors in my spelling or grammar. But I think I know what you're talking about.
At least, that is likely in the best case scenario. Notwithstanding the off topic nature of my last post. Which is now clear that I shouldn't unedit.

[QUOTE] An eye for an eye. That's what I say[/QUOTE]
That would make the world blind.

[UnsungHero]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DeathBug [/i]
[B]
Dang, can you tell I study law? [/B][/QUOTE]

'Twas an educated guess :)

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]

That would make the world blind. [/B][/QUOTE]

Then no one could aim a gun.

Seriously, I think there are two big problems with the death penalty: there are problems in the sentencing process, which, as I've said, is a fault of the judicial system itself, and that the death openalty is not being used as a successful deterrant.

You would think that knowing there was a great possibility that they [b]would[/b] get caught for violent crimes and that they [b]would[/b] ne sentenced to death would make someone have second thoughts. While I don't claim to have an answer, I am positive something can be done to use the death penalty as a successful deterrant.

However, as it is now, we have people dying of old age on death row. The penalty is a joke, and even when it's a reality, igt's so far into the future (from a convict's point of view; working with legal materials and lawyers all day makes everything seem longer) that it's not worth considering.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Thus the "However".

Such words as "However", as here compared, have an adversative sense in reference to something referred to in the context. However is the most general, and leads to a final conclusion or decision. Thus we say, the truth, however, has not yet fully come out; i.e., such is the speaker's conclusion in view of the whole case. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Maybe I'm not concentrating or something, but I didn't understand a word of that. It was just really, really poorly written.

I didn't get a sense that you were trying to show two contrasting viewpoints in your post...I was only getting a sense that your conclusion contradicted your original submission. So, apparently I'm not the only one with that viewpoint.

And, yeah, TVE...I think wrist cutter was joking. It's his thing. ~_^[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]Person was under the influences of drugs or alcohol. If you kill someone, you should be killed. An eye for an eye.[/quote]Erm so if you were having a toke after some drunking and some one comes up and try to kills you, you kill them first in self defence you think that you should then be killed? Well it's your life to screw I guess.
Anyway eye for eye seems to work well for the Palestinians and Israelis don?t you think?[quote]That's what I say.[/quote]Nice to see you can say things, it really is. Now tell that to the few black (and white) people this year that were later proven innocent and to their families. Saying things doesn't stop innocent people from dying.
If your going to put conditions of what qualifies for murder then there will always be that doubt and in the American courts system it has been proven that this is the case. (If you count Michel Moore, French and English documentaries saying facts from American court investigations findings as proving.)
Personally I wouldn't like to take that risk but as I said, your life to screw.

I like it how Australia doesn?t have this barbaric form of punishment and I would protest if it was introduced for any means or any one, including terrorists and/or other nasty people. (And for me to actually get up and go outside to support my opinions is rare.) Of course there is no point bitching about it, I have the easy choice of just not going to countries that support this kind of cruelty just like I wouldn't go to a state that enforces strict Islam law. (Shareia(sp?))

[The Vampire: Ed]

Haha, Cloricus, you wrote all of that just to give yourself another post didn't you? Why don't you actually read the full thing again, and tell me where you see that sentence.

[quote]Anyway, as for my opinion--well, I think capital punishment is fine. Personally, I think, if someone intentionally kills a person, that person should be put to death. [b]If someone accidentally kills someone, like by say hitting them with their car, they should not--unless it was a hit and run, or that person was under the influences of drugs or alcohol.[/b] If you kill someone, you should be killed. An eye for an eye. That's what I say.[/quote]

Where is it? Oh that's right, it's actually apart of another sentence. Read the full bolded sentence. It says [i]"If someone accidentally kills someone, like by say hitting them with their car, they should not--unless it was a hit and run, or that person was under the influences of drugs or alcohol."[/i]

There is a huge difference between that, and what you said. That [i]"under the influences of drugs or alcohol."[/i] line obviously still pertains to part about hitting someone with their car. There is no excuse for being drunk, or on drugs and driving. If you're stone, or drunk and someone tries to kill you, but you, instead, kill them. Well, then no, you shouldn't be held accountable for their death since it would be in self-defense. However, you should still be charged for being stoned. I mean if you're doing drugs, you should be charged for that anytime they catch you, no matter what the situation.

And, yes, that is what I say. Don't like it, too bad. It's my opinion. Don't try to act like I said something that I did not, ever again.

Anyway, as for your other point, about that finding people are innocent after they are all ready dead. Well, in cases like those I'd just say that there must be enough evidence to prove that person's guilt before they could be put to death. Now, in my scenarios, the people are guilty no matter what, so there would be enough evidence to put them to death. I didn't say anything that would involve putting anyone innocent to death. It wasn't that hard to comprehend.

Thank you.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B][quote]An eye for an eye. That's what I say.[/quote]

That would make the world blind. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, tell that to the people who've lost a loved one to some punk who blew their brains out for a measly ten dollars without batting an eye.

[Baron Samedi]

Yeah, TVE. wristcutter's post was in sarcasm, and was quite good... IMO anyway. However, down to [i]your[/i] posting.

[quote][i] Originally posted by TVE[/i]

Anyway, as for your other point, about that finding people are innocent after they are all ready dead. Well, in cases like those I'd just say that there must be enough evidence to prove that person's guilt before they could be put to death. Now, in my scenarios, the people are guilty no matter what, so there would be enough evidence to put them to death. I didn't say anything that would involve putting anyone innocent to death. It wasn't that hard to comprehend.

Thank you.
[/quote]

Juries can be mislead, evidence can be wrong or botched, innocent people may have no alibi. Yet you say they are guilty? That seems like crap to me. "Well, in cases like those I'd just say that there must be enough evidence to prove that person's guilt before they could be put to death". Just because there is enough evidence to convict them, does not mean they are guilty. Do you think the death penalty is taken lightly? It isn't... it is a very well thought over sentence. Only when a person is convicted beyond all doubt is it employed. However, **** happens. Check my other posts for details on innocent murders.

Take for example, a famous case. The Chamberlain case. To cut a long story short, they were convicted for murder. A few years later she was released- new evidence came up, and it appears that the whole trial was a big mess. It was hopelessly botched and biased.

Your post also said that if a drunk/stoned person kills another in their car, they should be killed. That isn't entirely fair. Perhaps a 40 year jail term, but take their life for an accident?

Man, thats harsh.

[The Vampire: Ed]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Baron Samedi [/i]
[B]Juries can be mislead, evidence can be wrong or botched, innocent people may have no alibi. Yet you say they are guilty? That seems like crap to me. "Well, in cases like those I'd just say that there must be enough evidence to prove that person's guilt before they could be put to death". Just because there is enough evidence to convict them, does not mean they are guilty. Do you think the death penalty is taken lightly? It isn't... it is a very well thought over sentence. Only when a person is convicted beyond all doubt is it employed. However, **** happens. Check my other posts for details on innocent murders.

Take for example, a famous case. The Chamberlain case. To cut a long story short, they were convicted for murder. A few years later she was released- new evidence came up, and it appears that the whole trial was a big mess. It was hopelessly botched and biased.[/b][/quote]

Well, yes, you are correct, but I'm not talking about "look at this evidence" then zap them in the chair. I'm talking about long investigations, and so on and so forth to make absolutely sure they've got the right person, but I guess I was being too vague. Still though, as barbaric as the death penalty seems, it's necessary. If you catch a murder, and simply put him away for a little time when he is finally released, if they are released, they would most likely go back to killing. Well, if they were the serial killer type anyway. You don't want that back out on the street do you? No, no one does.

And if you just left them to rot in a cell, they'd just be taking up tax payers money for murdering people. Getting free food, free shelter, free TV, or whatever else they are given in there. That's not right. But anyway, that's my opinion. I'm sure other find it to be a fine set up.

[quote][b]Your post also said that if a drunk/stoned person kills another in their car, they should be killed. That isn't entirely fair. Perhaps a 40 year jail term, but take their life for an accident?

Man, thats harsh. [/B][/QUOTE]

Now, as for this. Well, no, it's not really harsh. I mean they [b]should[/b] know what they might be getting themselves into by getting drunk/high before going out on a joy ride, or what have you. They knowingly put everyone in danger, and for that they deserve the death penalty. Maybe I am being a bit too harsh, but hey, that I was really believe. They know they could kill someone, but still do it. So that is what they deserve.