Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on March 01, 2005, 09:48:46 PM
-
Finally the Supreme Conservative Court gives a ruling that is beyond question.... correct. WTG.
Here are excerpts from the Supreme Court opinion outlawing the death penalty for offenders under 18 when their crimes were committed: (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Death%20Penalty%20Excerpts)
-
Ahem... Does O'Connor actually believe that the death penalty is a deterrant?
-
I think anyone 14 or older who murders another should be put to death.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think anyone over 14 who murders another should be put to death.
Hmmm... define murder.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Does O'Connor actually believe that the death penalty is a deterrant?
who cares if it is a deterrant? Just kill the moron and save money.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
who cares if it is a deterrant? Just kill the moron and save money.
Uh...It costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentance them to life in prison.
-
Originally posted by Airhead
Uh...It costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentance them to life in prison.
Maybe.... but it shouldn't
Sentence somone to death and they should be executed very shortly afterwards.....no 20 years on death row....just off them.
I have a feeling about what your counter point will be...I'm ready for it.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... define murder.
You first. The I will.
-
You used the word... tell us what you mean by it.
-
I disagree. I think if your old enough to drive a car your old enough to be held accountable for your actions.
14 no way but 16, 17 heck ya
By 16 they should know right from wrong and know that actions have consequences.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You used the word... tell us what you mean by it.
murder? You don't know what murder is and cannot define it?
I'm not the first to use the term.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Maybe.... but it shouldn't
Sentence somone to death and they should be executed very shortly afterwards.....no 20 years on death row....just off them.
I have a feeling about what your counter point will be...I'm ready for it.
Well, I'm hope you're well lubed Nuke, because my counterpoint is that because of the hundreds of exonerated prisoners freed by new technology (and those many more convicted because of this new technology) we have a duty towards justice to insure we go well beyond a reasonable doubt before we exact the ultimate punishment.
We have to go all the way to beyond the shadow of a doubt, and that's where the line gets cloudy- one man's reasonable doubt is another man's beyond a shadow of a doubt.
We are not absolute, or perfect- we are humans, and as such it is impossible for us to be absolutely certain about anything, much less the sanctioned forfiture of another human being's life.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
murder? You don't know what murder is and cannot deifine it?
I'm not the first to use the term.
That's not the question. Define what you meant by it. You've made a legal recommendation. Know define it in legal terms, please.
Seems to me that in court there is no such thing as simple murder.
-
Sandman, I'll make it easy.
Anyone who is convicted of murder should be put to death.....sooner rather than later.
-
Any murder? What about manslaughter?
-
I said murder.
-
In some states, manslaughter is murder. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Any murder? What about manslaughter?
Some guy is flying a kite and it falls out of the sky and crashes throuh the front window of a car and kills the driver. That could be considered manslaughter. Do I think that person murdered somone and needs to be executed? No.
Another person robs a home and the owners confront the robber.....the robber shoots them dead. That's murder.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
In some states, manslaughter is murder. ;)
legally, no. manslaughter is not murder in any state that I know of.
-
Murder: criminal homicide, usually distinguished from manslaughter by the element of malice aforethought. The most direct case of malicious intent occurs when the killer is known to have adopted the deliberate intent to commit the homicidal act at some time before it is actually committed. Very often, however, the law presumes the existence of malice aforethought from the circumstances, and it does not necessarily have to be proved directly. The most clear-cut case of this presumption of malice is when the killer inadvertently murders a person other than his intended victim. Here, malice is presumed if the killer intended to inflict serious bodily injury, or if he behaved with such reckless disregard of the safety of others as to betray a “depraved heart.” Likewise, a killing incidentally committed in the course of a felony (e.g., robbery or rape) is deemed murder; if the felony was accomplished by more than one person, all are equally guilty of the murder, not only the actual killer. A murder that is incidental to a misdemeanor, however, is treated as manslaughter. Most states prescribe various degrees of murder. Murder in the first degree generally is a calculated act of slaying committed with malice aforethought, often requiring aggravated circumstances such as extreme brutality. It receives the severest penalty, often life imprisonment or capital punishment. Second-degree murder is a homicide committed with malice, but without deliberation or premeditation. A homicide committed without malice (as in negligent motor vehicle operation) or in the “heat of passion” (as in a quarrel which escalates to violence) is generally considered manslaughter. In some states, certain crimes that are defined as murder of a lower degree approximate more closely the definition of manslaughter in common law. In some cases, it is difficult to determine whether malice aforethought was present; consequently the governor of a state (or other chief executive) not infrequently uses his power of commutation of sentence to revoke the death penalty, and in some states the appellate courts automatically review all convictions of murder.
:p
-
I agree with that Sandman. That does'nt change the definition of murder though.
-
Oh... don't squirm so much. I asked what you meant by the word. :)
So... are you stating that all murders regardless of degree should be punishable by death?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
So... are you stating that all murders regardless of degree should be punishable by death?
yes. Can there be "degrees" of murder?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
yes. Can there be "degrees" of murder?
According to the definition that I posted and you agreed with, yes.
-
not at all.
-
A murder that is incidental to a misdemeanor, however, is treated as manslaughter.
words and more words.
A DEATH that is incidental to a misdemeanor, however, is treated as manslaughter.
Murder is murder, and manslaughter is not murder.
-
Now, you know why I asked... there's no such thing as simple murder. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Now, you know why I asked... there's no such thing as simple murder. ;)
A murder is well defined and understood....no such thing as a simple murder.....murder is murder.
Manslaughter is much more complicated.
-
Well... the line between manslaughter and murder gets a little fuzzy depending on the circumstance.
I imagine that you could spend a few thousand words describing homicides. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Well... the line between manslaughter and murder gets a little fuzzy depending on the circumstance.
I imagine that you could spend a few thousand words describing homicides. ;)
not really.
A homicide/murder is a delibertate act to kill somone.
Manslaughter is an act in which somone is killed by accident and/or negligence.
-
Ummm... manslaughter is homicide too.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ummm... manslaughter is homicide too.
homicide is the killing of any human, accidental or not.
Murder is the deliberate act of killining another human. People who murder need to be executed.
-
Ahem... If I understand correctly, murder isn't necessarily deliberate. It's the presence of malice that makes the difference.
For example... if you hit and kill someone with your car while your running from the bank robbery you committed, it's murder, not manslaughter. Now, if you do the same thing, but you're running from a soccer game, it's not necessarily murder.
:aok
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think anyone 14 or older who murders another should be put to death.
summarily.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... If I understand correctly, murder isn't necessarily deliberate. It's the presence of malice that makes the difference.
For example... if you hit and kill someone with your car while your running from the bank robbery you committed, it's murder, not manslaughter. Now, if you do the same thing, but you're running from a soccer game, it's not necessarily murder.
:aok
If you are running to evade a felony and kill somone, that's murder in my book.
-
You're going to need a book to define all the different homicides. ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You're going to need a book to define all the different homicides. ;)
well, how do you define "homicide"? I have defined murder, let's hear your definition of homicide.
-
Actually... your definition of murder is a little thin.
Homicide is far simpler. It's the killing of another human.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
For example... if you hit and kill someone with your car while your running from the bank robbery you committed, it's murder, not manslaughter. Now, if you do the same thing, but you're running from a soccer game, it's not necessarily murder.
:aok
Define running! :rofl
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Another person robs a home and the owners confront the robber.....the robber shoots them dead. That's murder.
Surely the home owner should have his estate seized because he didn't own a gun and failed to protect himself?
Maybe not.
;)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Finally the Supreme Conservative Court gives a ruling that is beyond question.... correct. WTG.
Here are excerpts from the Supreme Court opinion outlawing the death penalty for offenders under 18 when their crimes were committed: (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Death%20Penalty%20Excerpts)
You and 5 of them are very WRONG!
This was not based on law but their opinion of what other countries think is right.
I'm not saying we should fry a 6 year old but if you have a kid who is 15-16-17 and he goes out and kills it should be left up to the state he is in to decide.
-
Violence should be punished way more heavily than it is now.
There's no excuse for anyone to attack a stranger for example like in the pizza joint case. That kind of lunatics should be put away permanently.
-
curval... the owners died.. that is punishment enough for not owning a gun... course if they live and their children are killed... well...
I guess knowing they could have prevented it would be punishment enough?
lazs
-
So I guess Nuke and his buds in here will be more than happy to lower the drinking age to 15. Since they are so mature and in charge of their sense of reason...
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Does O'Connor actually believe that the death penalty is a deterrant?
It is.
Know anyone thats been put to death under the death penalty that has ever mudered someone afterwards?
Cause I dont.
On the other hand I can show you plenty of instances of people who didnt get the death penalty that have killed again.
So yea. I'd say its a deterrant:)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... define murder.
Oh my goodness. Bill Clinton is among us.
So tell us Bill. what exactly is "is"?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... define murder.
Murder- : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
Unlawfully would be when not defending yours or anothers life
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... the owners died.. that is punishment enough for not owning a gun... course if they live and their children are killed... well...
I guess knowing they could have prevented it would be punishment enough?
lazs
I suppose so. Everyone deserves to be punnished for not owning a gun one way or another.
:aok
-
if your old enough to murder someone, your old enough to pay for it.
-
Lets see, you can join the military with 17, but not old or mature enough for the DP.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... define murder.
(http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-26-Sun-2003/photos/columbine.jpg)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So I guess Nuke and his buds in here will be more than happy to lower the drinking age to 15. Since they are so mature and in charge of their sense of reason...
:aok
Dont forget the vote, entering into contracts, jury duty etc. I guess it's only fair that if you have the responsibility of adulthood, the privilege should go along with it.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ahem... Does O'Connor actually believe that the death penalty is a deterrant?
OK I haven't read this entire thread, so what I'm about to say next may well have been said already, but....here goes:
Of course it's a deterrent. The murderer we put to death won't kill anyone else.....ever.
-
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
-
I think the post before yours proves it does.
Besides how can you say it doesn't?
Where is the proof?
Some limp wrist looks at the number of murders and says it's the same or worse and that proves something?
I can do the same by saying that the death penalty has stopped millions of killings every day. Prove me wrong!
You can't stop all killings but the idea is to try and stop as many as possible.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
I can always count on MT to get it.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
In the case of repeat offenses, there has been a 100% cessation of recidivism due to capital punishment.
Having said that. I have to agree that there are cases that the death penalty is not the best sentense after a conviction for murder. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" classification sounds nice but it is semanticaly imprecise. In those cases where there is no doubt, I fully agree on the death penalty. Yes there are cases like that. There are more than one serial murderer who has assisted in the solving of their own actions.
In the cases where there is less than absolute positive conclusive proof yet there is a conviction, then life without parole sounds reasonable.
As to the claim that the death penalty is not a deterant, yep absloutely true. Murder is often a "crime of passion". A non reasoning reaction to stimuli, either real or imagined, that causes a lack of rational thought. Given that lack of rational thought one could argue that there is no deterant for any act. Passion should also NOT be an excuse for taking a life. Any more than intoxication should be.
There are also those murders that are the result of cold calculation and planning. Even though there has been considerable thought by the perpetrator as to the act, they still decided to go forward with it. Should that be allowed to go unpunished and let the person maintain possession of their "mortal coil" so that they might decide again to terminate another life?
It is also true that every one that has been executed has failed to kill again. Can you prove that they would have killed again if they hadn't been executed? Of course not, so the comparison is somewhat flawed as you can't see both sides of that particular decision effect.
Is there real remorse and life change on the part of some murderers? Yes but that does not mitigate the fact that they took a life (or lives) without benefit of a trial or "bad act" on the part of their victim. Should the murderer be set free just because they claim they are now a "good guy" and renounce violence?
When does society decide that the continued existance of a member of that society is too much of a threat? What action should society take to protect it's citizens from predatory action by those who decide thay have the right to terminate another on their own? Are prisons so "perfect" they are escape proof so that there is no risk to the general population of society?
Interesting questions. I look forward to seeing what you may post in response to them.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
In the case of repeat offenses, there has been a 100% sessation of recidivism due to capital punishment.
Originally posted by Sandman
I can always count on Maverick to get it.
-
Originally posted by OneWordAnswer
As to the claim that the death penalty is not a deterant, yep absloutely true. Murder is often a "crime of passion". A non reasoning reaction to stimuli, either real or imagined, that causes a lack of rational thought. Given that lack of rational thought one could argue that there is no deterant for any act. Passion should also NOT be an excuse for taking a life. Any more than intoxication should be.
-
feb 2 , tenn.
a 14 year old shoots and kills his school bus driver....
well now , it did not take long for that SC ruling to take effect.
on deterent:: ted bundy, who raped and killed dozens of young women will never do it again, florida's old sparky detered him.
-
Cmon guys. I threw out a considerable amount of "ghrist" for the mill here. Can't you do something other than and alter quotes?!?!?!
-
Hmmm... you're right Mav... unfortunately, it seems that many still believe that deterrance and cessation of recidivism are the same thing.
-
Sandy,
In some cases they are correct.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
the death penalty has proven to be 100% effective in deterring additional murders being committed by the executed perpetrator.
say it ain't so. :D
-
Originally posted by Monk
Lets see, you can join the military with 17, but not old or mature enough for the DP.
Double Pen.... huh? :confused:
-
Well if we were all infallible and jurors could be absolutely sure thay made the right decision then maybe there would be a case for the death penalty.
Thing is though the courts have got it wrong too often and to me its too much of a risk. Lock em up. Throw away the key. but Death can't be reversed if you find out later the guy was innocent.
So I guess I'm not realy for it at all.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm thinking people don't really grasp the term "deterrant". To deter means to prevent. The death penalty has not been shown to "Prevent" murders.
I do and it will
It will prevent a murderer from murdering again. In or out of prison
-
hello wall.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Dont forget the vote, entering into contracts, jury duty etc. I guess it's only fair that if you have the responsibility of adulthood, the privilege should go along with it.
shamus
Once there there was this nail, and then Shamus hit it.. on the head.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I do and it will
It will prevent a murderer from murdering again. In or out of prison
but unless a good number of people see it, capital punishment will be uneffective at stopping OTHERS from doing it...which is the point of a deterrant.
-
send them to Iraq and have them probe for roadside explosives
be sure they are dressed in large american flag t-shirts while their escorts scan the windows looking for the muzzle flashes
though not EVERY juvvee who killed was given the dp, now ALL murdering thug juvees do not have to worry about that ...
just as wrong, just in the opposite direction
let the punishment fit the crime
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I think anyone 14 or older who murders another should be put to death.
ALL TEENS MUST GO !!!
:lol
-
:lol
-
I have heard that there is evidence that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent for more than the obvious (the person executed).
Have you any evidence to the contrary?
I would like the death penalty to be handed out only in the case of absolute certainty or very close to it. I will accept a very tinyu amount of mistakes to keep murderers form killing again. I would like it to be only for murder that is callous or for profit and not ones that are in the heat of passion.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have heard that there is evidence that the death penalty is indeed a deterrent for more than the obvious (the person executed).
Have you any evidence to the contrary?
I would like the death penalty to be handed out only in the case of absolute certainty or very close to it. I will accept a very tinyu amount of mistakes to keep murderers form killing again. I would like it to be only for murder that is callous or for profit and not ones that are in the heat of passion.
lazs
I'm unwilling to accept a "tiny" amount of mistakes to keep a punishment that is more expensive, more Draconian and more absolute than other punishments...If we wrongly execute one innocent prisoner then the system is flawed and should be halted.
However, the advantage to a death sentance is it puts the convict on death row, where they are unable to intermingle with the general prison population...in California it's more likely you'll die of natural causes rather from lethal injection if you're handed a death sentance.
-
Airhead,
The Dp is more expensive in only one area. That is the cost of number of appeals filed by or for the convict. Otherwise the cost for incarceration is the same. The same facilities are used. In the final examination, if you remove the court costs from the appeals then the cost of the DP is less as the convict is not warehoused for decades.
-
If you really want to learn about deterrence read this...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studmuffinanTestimony.pdf
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Airhead,
The Dp is more expensive in only one area. That is the cost of number of appeals filed by or for the convict. Otherwise the cost for incarceration is the same. The same facilities are used. In the final examination, if you remove the court costs from the appeals then the cost of the DP is less as the convict is not warehoused for decades.
Right, Mav- the Court, realizing the falibility of the system, mandates automatic appeals and reviews of death sentance cases.
Would you prefer to see these appeals denied to the convicted, in light of all the convictions overturned on DNA evidence?
At any rate using cost to determine justice, from either side of the issue, is morally wrong IMO. We owe the accused, and the convicted, the right to appeal in capital cases.
-
Airhead,
Just responding to your post decrying the cost of a "draconian" punishment.
Nope I wouldn't deny the convict the right to appeal. I would, in my "perfect" system, reduce arguements to factual discussions. No emotional apeals, strictly factual testimony. This is for both sides of the court. Of course that will not happen. Emotional content is forever tied to the court process as it exists now.
-
MT... so, more than a dozen studies since 1995 say that the death penalty is indeed a deterent but some columbia university professor disagrees so.... that is your proof?
Lott has some good data on the death penalty and deterance.
Criminals sure seem to fight it and..... many roll over on their "buddies" when faced with it.. At the very least... it is a law enforcement tool eh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... so, more than a dozen studies since 1995 say that the death penalty is indeed a deterent but some columbia university professor disagrees so.... that is your proof?
Lott has some good data on the death penalty and deterance.
Criminals sure seem to fight it and..... many roll over on their "buddies" when faced with it.. At the very least... it is a law enforcement tool eh?
lazs
Where are these dozen studies?
-
Do the research!
:)
-
Well I did darn it!
Lazs... so if more than a bazillion studies say it isn't a deterrent.. and only a dozen or so say it is... you must be wrong.
-
MT... your own reference says that over a dozen studies show it is a deterant. That is the study you reference so.... the guy does a study and says that even tho a dozen other studies say it is.... he still says it isn't.
I believe it has a slight impact on even murders in the heat of passion. there are degrees of "heat of passion" some "passionate" people might cool slightly if they are faced with the death penalty.
lazs
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You first. The I will.
hey ... its also good to put question when you dont know what to say.
Anyway i trough that EVIL Iranian goverment is the only one who allow executions of youth under 18Y.
Thx for link .
-
Originally posted by john9001
if your old enough to murder someone, your old enough to pay for it.
yeeep
and public execution could be use to learn people to think about their doing
Like an exhibition of cars after deadly accidents.
-
Originally posted by lada
hey ... its also good to put question when you dont know what to say.
Anyway i trough that EVIL Iranian goverment is the only one who allow executions of youth under 18Y.
Thx for link .
Ya dont we know. We love to execute children here rather then helping them. And at the same Time People want to stop abortions that bring more of these troubled kids into the world.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Trell
Ya dont we know. We love to execute children here rather then helping them. And at the same Time People want to stop abortions that bring more of these troubled kids into the world.:rolleyes:
That is something I can not understand. It seems the majority of people I've met who are against the death penalty are for abortion.
-
yes, and the people that are for the death penilty for anyone from age 5 to 105. are the ones soo against aboration.
My only problem with the death penilty for anyone but children. is that it seems like more and more people are getting off becasue of dna evadance. makes you wonder how hard the prosicuters are just to convict anyone, They remond me of score potatos in games. does not matter as long as they win.