Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 22:42:58 GMT -6
As for the people wrongfully sentenced to death row.. that mostly has to do with racism, tampered/missing evidence, lacking technology (DNA testing), perjury by witnesses, and ambitious prosecutors. But nowadays we have far better crime scene technology and abilities to look into each defendent's lives, motives, communications, and movements so the number of the wrongly accused on death row will continue to dramatically decrease. From the Scientific American: From the same article, and most importantly in relation to your note about DNA testing:
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 8, 2015 23:17:33 GMT -6
@stork Read thoroughly what was written earlier. I already mentioned why the death penalty costs more, and most of it can be fixed somewhat easily with the right leaders. and saying the death penalty isn't a deterrent is a fact shows you are not willing to look at this subject in depth and see the gray areas. No point of my argument is moot. Except maybe that the legal system should change, because it rarely corrects itself. These "facts" you look at, are skewed at best. "The government and justice system simply aren't capable of handling such permanent decisions, as evidenced by the dozens of people who have been sentenced to the death penalty only to have them be exonerated years later." Except they are forced to deal with these decisions. Unless you want to pass them onto town councils and mobs, this is the best entity to deal with it. As for the people wrongfully sentenced to death row.. that mostly has to do with racism, tampered/missing evidence, lacking technology (DNA testing), perjury by witnesses, and ambitious prosecutors. But nowadays we have far better crime scene technology and abilities to look into each defendent's lives, motives, communications, and movements so the number of the wrongly accused on death row will continue to dramatically decrease. Seems like you are the one that likes the drama. I've read your earlier arguments and they are irrelevant - the FACT is that the death penalty costs more. It doesn't matter if you think it would be easy to fix, the FACT is that it hasn't been fixed. If you want to fix that first then you can use that as an argument. As it stands now, when you bring cost to the taxpayers into the argument it's an emphatic point against the death penalty. There is also no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent other than the evidence you're concocting in your head that makes sense to you. There are plenty of examples of places abolishing the death penalty and having homicide rates go down, which flies in the face of your thinking that it is a deterrent. I know you want to kill bad people, killing bad people feels good. But it's just not worth it when the cost is that you will inevitably kill innocent people too. The system is still rife with racism, tampered/missing evidence, perjury by witnesses, and ambitious prosecutors - and none of that will ever change. When the options are: A) Keep bad people locked up forever at a cheaper cost with zero chance of killing innocent people. or B) Kill bad people at a more expensive cost and also kill some innocent people. It's pretty damn obvious that A is the right answer. And it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 8, 2015 23:43:34 GMT -6
jeez this flew way off the direction it was about. i am not going to feed the fire anymore as it has turned more argumentative. I respect both of your positions, i even held them previously in my life. And to make it clear, i do not like how the death penalty is being used now or in the past, especially in Texas. I've always believed the death penalty should be used only under circumstances where the defendant admitted or there was plenty of fool proof evidence and possibly a witness. With that said, tsarnaev admitted he did it, was glad he did, and he wanted to teach America a lesson. In my book, thats as guilty as can be, unless there is some crazy conspiracy. So, in my mind, he doesnt deserve to live, especially in this country. So then it comes down to execution style.. While a needle would do the trick, i think a more unconventional method would be more effective in deterring other suicidal terrorists from pursuing their heinous crimes. Like if the bomber was a Islamic Jihadist, i would be all for pouring him in pigs blood before he was executed. You can say all you want about there being no Written evidence deterrents work, but i would rather try and it not work than not try when it could've prevented atrocities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2015 0:12:27 GMT -6
With that said, tsarnaev admitted he did it, was glad he did, and he wanted to teach America a lesson. In my book, thats as guilty as can be, unless there is some crazy conspiracy. So, in my mind, he doesnt deserve to live, especially in this country. So then it comes down to execution style.. While a needle would do the trick, i think a more unconventional method would be more effective in deterring other suicidal terrorists from pursuing their heinous crimes. Like if the bomber was a Islamic Jihadist, i would be all for pouring him in pigs blood before he was executed. You can say all you want about there being no Written evidence deterrents work, but i would rather try and it not work than not try when it could've prevented atrocities. I'm sure as hell not going to deny that he's guilty. But we're not going to be in agreement in how to handle sentencing. This is in the realm of subjectiveness and personal morality at this point, so there's not much more to say. You find what you've proposed to be acceptable, I find it to be entirely inhumane and cruel. So, yeah. It is what it is.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 9, 2015 9:53:52 GMT -6
jeez this flew way off the direction it was about. i am not going to feed the fire anymore as it has turned more argumentative. I respect both of your positions, i even held them previously in my life. And to make it clear, i do not like how the death penalty is being used now or in the past, especially in Texas. I've always believed the death penalty should be used only under circumstances where the defendant admitted or there was plenty of fool proof evidence and possibly a witness. With that said, tsarnaev admitted he did it, was glad he did, and he wanted to teach America a lesson. In my book, thats as guilty as can be, unless there is some crazy conspiracy. So, in my mind, he doesnt deserve to live, especially in this country. So then it comes down to execution style.. While a needle would do the trick, i think a more unconventional method would be more effective in deterring other suicidal terrorists from pursuing their heinous crimes. Like if the bomber was a Islamic Jihadist, i would be all for pouring him in pigs blood before he was executed. You can say all you want about there being no Written evidence deterrents work, but i would rather try and it not work than not try when it could've prevented atrocities. The options aren't as simple as either 'try it and it doesn't work' or 'try it and it prevents atrocities'. The options are 'try it and it doesn't work', 'try it and it prevents atrocities' (no evidence of this being true), or 'try it and eventually kill innocent people' (plenty of evidence of this being true).
|
|
|
Post by bluechips23 on Apr 9, 2015 10:58:50 GMT -6
you keep bringing up the point about false imprisonment.. Ive already said I am against the death penalty unless there is a open n close case with concrete evidence, like a confession. And that i disagree with how the death penalty has been used in the past without much second thought. Do you think Tsarnaev could be innocent? If not, I dont get why you are trying to argue against me about a portion of the matter that i agree with you about.
|
|
stork15
HIgh School Starter
Posts: 423
|
Post by stork15 on Apr 10, 2015 9:21:05 GMT -6
Because that's not where the line is drawn, it has been proven time and time again that if there is a death penalty the line will be blurred enough to where it's not just the obviously guilty people going to death row.
Does the boston bomber deserve to die? Yes. Does he deserve to die if it means the taxpayers pay more money? No. Does he deserve to die if it means a system will be perpetuated that will inevitably murder innocent people? Definitely not.
|
|