Quilla
Female
O_____________O
Death Penalty: For or Against
- Thread starter douglas sperry
- Start date
I never brought up the "inmate feelings".. only that the will to live their life in a prison I find amazing.. and I actually could care less about their feelings, I'm pro-victim. not the liberal way of being pro-criminal.
They do create laws based on people preferences, d.p is one of them, gun laws are another, so are the creation of the ******* laws, we elect we our government and those we put into office who create laws based on feelings all the time, California is a good example of this..
How are your laws created in China? Do you have a choice to Vote for d.p or no dp and can those laws be overturned by the People who Vote?
Quilla
Female
well here we have more legal systems not just one
In mainland China there's a Parliament, called National People's Congress. It's directly elected by people like your Congress the only difference is that every candidate must be member of Communist Party.
National People's Congress makes laws for all China but Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy (same thing for Macau). We have a local Parliament elected by universal suffrage and there is no single party system.
Of course we people have no choice to legiferate on our own but it's the same everywhere, USA included.
In mainland China there's a Parliament, called National People's Congress. It's directly elected by people like your Congress the only difference is that every candidate must be member of Communist Party.
National People's Congress makes laws for all China but Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy (same thing for Macau). We have a local Parliament elected by universal suffrage and there is no single party system.
Of course we people have no choice to legiferate on our own but it's the same everywhere, USA included.
Last edited:
Doctor Don
Male
I'm for the Death Penalty.
Doctor Don
Male
What do you care why?
easyuk
Male
When was the last vote on the death penalty, out of interest?
Does anyone know why this is a state law but a federal crime?
The death penalty is never decided by the voters. In the states that don't have the death penalty, either the governor acted unilaterally, the state legislature voted ro abolish it, or it was ruled unconstitutional by a state supreme court or a federal district court, usually on 8th Amendment grounds. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was unconstitutional, but that was reversed in 1976 in Gregg v. Georgia.
While some states have abolished the death penalty, the Federal Government and the US military still have the death penalty. Even if a crime is committed in a state with no death penalty, if a federal statute has been violated, whether it is a capital crime or not, the Federal Government can assert jurisdiction. An example of this would be the case against Dzhokar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was convicted on numerous federal crimes including the ******* of 8 federal agents, but was never charged by Oklahoma for the deaths of the other 160 victims.
For more clarity, go to Wikipedia and search "capital punishment in the United States".
He could have stayed in Prison without execution and he would not have murdered the 7 victims you speak of. Not a good argument for the death penalty.
Tyrone_BBC
Male
But he already didn't stay in prison and he murdered 7 more women. Your argument doesn't even make sense.
Perhaps not clarity in the sense of understanding the pro/con argument, but clarity in terms of which states do and don't have it, what methods are used, etc, etc.
So subboy you are saying if we PRETEND he didn't already get released back then, the 7 women that are NOW laying in their graves are really still alive in your PRETEND world. Hmmm, interesting. Well lets see, if McDuff had been executed when he was on Death Row the FIRST TIME, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have killed again. Don't you think so?
I'm not sure I understand the intent of this last Q: "explain the consequences of an innocent person being executed".
It's pretty obvious what the consequences are, isn't it? Life, in general, is full of consequences, however ... driving a car, flying in a plane, the exploration of space, sky diving ... etc, the list goes on and on; all unretractable. Surely you wouldn't abstain from these activities, or other high risk activities, due to the risk of life. As valuable and precious a person's life is, a life is miniscule to the overall "big picture".
I think a more proper question would be "under what conditions" would you consider taking one's life? If there was 100% proof of that person's guiltiness, and the crime committed was horrific enough, would that be sufficient to apply a death sentence? Maybe read up on Attila The Hun ... would he qualify? Certainly you wouldn't consider tossing him into the prison system with their exercise rooms, color TV's, ect and simply shaking the "no, no" finger at him, would you?
What about a terrorist who opens a vial of anthrax or ricin in a crowded subway or on top of a building during rush hour?
For a very small number of criminals the death sentence is necessary, and, it should be quick, it should be efficient, and it should be made public .
It's pretty obvious what the consequences are, isn't it? Life, in general, is full of consequences, however ... driving a car, flying in a plane, the exploration of space, sky diving ... etc, the list goes on and on; all unretractable. Surely you wouldn't abstain from these activities, or other high risk activities, due to the risk of life. As valuable and precious a person's life is, a life is miniscule to the overall "big picture".
I think a more proper question would be "under what conditions" would you consider taking one's life? If there was 100% proof of that person's guiltiness, and the crime committed was horrific enough, would that be sufficient to apply a death sentence? Maybe read up on Attila The Hun ... would he qualify? Certainly you wouldn't consider tossing him into the prison system with their exercise rooms, color TV's, ect and simply shaking the "no, no" finger at him, would you?
What about a terrorist who opens a vial of anthrax or ricin in a crowded subway or on top of a building during rush hour?
For a very small number of criminals the death sentence is necessary, and, it should be quick, it should be efficient, and it should be made public .
Last edited:
easyuk
Male
I'm not sure I understand the intent of this last Q: "explain the consequences of an innocent person being executed".
It's pretty obvious what the consequences are, isn't it? Life, in general, is full of consequences, however ... driving a car, flying in a plane, the exploration of space, sky diving ... etc, the list goes on and on; all unretractable. Surely you wouldn't abstain from these activities, or other high risk activities, due to the risk of life. As valuable and precious a person's life is, a life is miniscule to the overall "big picture".
I think a more proper question would be "under what conditions" would you consider taking one's life? If there was 100% proof of that person's guiltiness, and the crime committed was horrific enough, would that be sufficient to apply a death sentence? Maybe read up on Attila The Hun ... would he qualify? Certainly you wouldn't consider tossing him into the prison system with their exercise rooms, color TV's, ect and simply shaking the "no, no" finger at him, would you?
What about a terrorist who opens a vial of anthrax in a crowded subway or on top of a building during rush hour?
For a very small number of criminals the death sentence is necessary, and, it should be quick, it should be efficient, and it should be made public .
...and if you get it wrong in the current system which is far from 100% certain? That is what we're actually talking about isn't it? Not an academic moral argument but a very real practical one.
Then your argument is with "the current system" not with the death sentence, itself. Again, IF the evidence was 100% of proof of guiltiness, and the criminal offense horrific enough ... Can you honestly say there is NO situation in which the death sentence could or should be applied? I don't think so, and I'd bet neither do you.
To say "there is no situation in which" is really a foolish stance to take. For example, my ******* is a minister and says he is very much against abortion, however, we unfortunately and regrettably got into that conversation over dinner one Sunday afternoon. To this day I still feel badly about my cornering my dad in front of the rest of the family ... sometimes, however, dad can be as stubborn and bull headed as me on topics ... not a good situation to have over Sunday dinners. But dad brought the subject up and I just rebutted him.
I asked him IF his 12-13 year old ******* was walking home from school, a ******* grabbed her, took her to an empty building and repeatedly raped her, and she became pregnant, and was crying that she didn't want to have a baby ... would he agree to let her get an abortion? I painted that picture pretty graphically, and yes, I made it racial as well, as I knew my dad's sensitivities. Dad turned a shade of red I'd never seen before, threw back his chair, said a few choice words, stormed out of the room, went to his bedroom, slammed the door, and stayed there until I left. I apologized to mom and neither dad nor I ever spoke again about that incident.
The fact is, however, I knew what Dad would do, and it was totally opposite of what he was preaching.
I asked him IF his 12-13 year old ******* was walking home from school, a ******* grabbed her, took her to an empty building and repeatedly raped her, and she became pregnant, and was crying that she didn't want to have a baby ... would he agree to let her get an abortion? I painted that picture pretty graphically, and yes, I made it racial as well, as I knew my dad's sensitivities. Dad turned a shade of red I'd never seen before, threw back his chair, said a few choice words, stormed out of the room, went to his bedroom, slammed the door, and stayed there until I left. I apologized to mom and neither dad nor I ever spoke again about that incident.
The fact is, however, I knew what Dad would do, and it was totally opposite of what he was preaching.
easyuk
Male
That's not how the law stands though is it? So, if the state gets it wrong is that OK?
I personally do not think that it's the state's role to ******* any of it's citizens. It certainly should protect them. Nobody has questioned that. If it costs a fortune to lock someone up and flush the key then so be it. Is killing them better other than on economic grounds? Is that really appropriate criteria to use?
