Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKIron on July 01, 2002, 12:33:17 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&564&e=5&u=/nm/20020701/ts_nm/rights_executions_dc
Have to agree with the Judge on this. States should have the right to choose. If they don't want executions then the Feds should not be able to override.
-
'bout time.
-
About one of the only things I agree with Liberals is that I am against the death penalty. 'Tis cruel and unusual punishment.
-
This doesn't mean that the states can't continue to perform executions.
It's relatively meaningless.
-
Where their murders "Unconstitutional" ?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
This doesn't mean that the states can't continue to perform executions.
It's relatively meaningless.
If upheld it means there won't be executions in those states that don't allow the death penalty. While it won't affect the 38 states that do allow the death penalty it will honor the will of those states that do not. Guess it really comes down to "States Rights".
-
Theres nothing wrong with death penalty in the case someone has taken away someones constitutional rights by cruelly murdering him, therefore murderer has refused and abandoned all his constitutional and human rights.
Therefore, without a doubt of guilt, should he be executed.
There is no sense to let someone whos purposely and cruelly murdered someone, to live in a prison for rest of his life and be burden for the tax payers nor respect his rights, that he abandoned when he knowingly took away someone elses rights by cruelly murdering someone.
-
I agree,anyone who murdered an innocent person should be destroyed like the animals they are. Not being sent for a time out for the rest of their lives in a prison cel living off the money of hardworking Americans including the victim's family. It is unreasonable and insulting that such a monster which would commit murder would be allowed to live after he has taken a life.
They destroy animals for killing human beings and I understand that because they act on instincts, but I do not understand a human being, which has reason, taking a human life, in that case they do turn themselves into animals which need to be destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Otto
Where their murders "Unconstitutional" ?
The ones implemented by state or criminal ?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Theres nothing wrong with death penalty in the case someone has taken away someones constitutional rights by cruelly murdering him, therefore murderer has refused and abandoned all his constitutional and human rights.
Therefore, without a doubt of guilt, should he be executed.
There is no sense to let someone whos purposely and cruelly murdered someone, to live in a prison for rest of his life and be burden for the tax payers nor respect his rights, that he abandoned when he knowingly took away someone elses rights by cruelly murdering someone.
(sigh) Fishu, I could look up and site the statistics about the hundreds or thousands of convicted Death Row inmates who were ultimately cleared by the advent of DNA testing in the last few years or I could speculate on how many innocent people we've errenously executed, but what would be the point? The pro-death penalty forces are willing to accept the wrongfully executed as some sort of sick socitial "collateral damage."
Also you're dead (like the pun?) wrong about the costs of housing a convict vs. the cost of executing them and in fact it costs more to kill a Gary Gilmore or a Ted Bundy than it does to house a Charlie Manson. LOL "fiscal expediency" was a problem the Nazis had executing the Jews. I shudder when I hear it used as a reason to eliminate our own undesirables.
Your statement "without a doubt of guilt" is also errenious as to the standards to judge guilt or innocence in a criminal proceeding. The standard in America is beyond a REASONABLE doubt, not a shadow of doubt. As a matter of concience, what standard do we wish to execute people?
One hundred years from now the people of the future will look back on this era and shake their heads in amazement at how barbaric our judicial system is in the fact we execute convicted in light of our human infalibilities which disqualify us the right to sit in ultimate judgement of the taking of a human life.
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I agree,anyone who murdered an innocent person should be destroyed like the animals they are. Not being sent for a time out for the rest of their lives in a prison cel living off the money of hardworking Americans including the victim's family. It is unreasonable and insulting that such a monster which would commit murder would be allowed to live after he has taken a life.
They destroy animals for kiling human beings and I understand that because they act on instincts, but I do not understand a human being, which has reason, taking a human life in that case they do turn themselves into animals which need to be destroyed.
Ah... but here's the rub... how do you prove beyond all doubt that you've got the right person? That's the real problem that brought this to the spotlight. The court has decided that even one person executed in error is one too many.
Hey... we have DNA evidence now. Use it. If it proves that the person did the crime, put him down.
-
I don't like the death penalty. I'm not sure if the Govt, any Govt or group or organization should be given the right to take a life. I mean.. I don't exactly mind the death penalty, however I'm just not sure about whether it's the right thing to do or not. I also weigh that with my own belief that the death penalty really is an easy way out for the perpetrator. Once a murderer has been executed... he's not being punished anymore. I really don't think anyone cares that thier dead once thier dead, or is worried about loss of freedom etc etc. I know of no evidence that the death penalty has ever truly been a deterrent to crime, might be... I don't know. I'm not going to kill anyone because I think it's wrong, but if someone invades my home and threatens my wife and kids, I'll put'em six feet under and the "death penalty" will be the last thing I'm thinking about at the time. It's a very hard thing to put into perspective
-
"The ones implemented by state or criminal ?"
The criminal.
-
Of course it is, wouldn't be a crime if it wasn't .
-
Otto, Fishu, Glasses, would you guys feel the same, if as innocent people, you were up to be executed?
-
Thrawn the thing is now we have many new technologies although not full proof but help greatly, greatly proving whether or not a person is guilty,especially if the penalty for such crime is death. Yes many people sentenced to death in the past have been cleared thanks to these technologies and I'm glad for them,there have been mistakes, I kid you not,but there have also been mistakes in trying other crimes but do we do away with the whole court process just because of mistakes? I don't think so.
Now we see the death penalty as unconstitutional,maybe later we'll see jail unconstitutional aswell,why have a criminal law system then? and when will we stop and find ourselves in complete anarchy.
-
Why does everyone look at the bad side of anarchy as if there weren't two sides to that coin.
There's another side to anarchy. You know... the one where you don't need laws or regulations or law enforcement because they aren't needed if everyone respects each other and each other's property.
Of course... this type of anarchy won't make the evening news... :)
-
Elfenwolf,
I'll promise to fix up grammatical errors when Finland's first language is english.
Then there is a problem in the juridical system, if so many are convicted without guilt.
Like we've seen from the history, many times someone is arrested and maybe convicted, just to cool down the people requiring the state to find the criminal.
I don't understand anything of your ted bundy charlie manson talking..
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Otto, Fishu, Glasses, would you guys feel the same, if as innocent people, you were up to be executed?
Thrawn!! Stay out of this thread!! Executing our criminals is an American tradition and we don't need no stinkin' sardene eating Canadians jumping in here!!!
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Elfenwolf,
I'll promise to fix up grammatical errors when Finland's first language is english.
Then there is a problem in the juridical system, if so many are convicted without guilt.
Like we've seen from the history, many times someone is arrested and maybe convicted, just to cool down the people requiring the state to find the criminal.
I don't understand anything of your ted bundy charlie manson talking..
I made no comment concerning your grammer. In fact your English is much better than my Finnish- or French- or Spanish- or whatever. All kidding aside I love the diversity on these BBS and welcome the viewpoint of all foreigners (even Thrawn). I appreciate the effort it must take to post in a second (or third) language.
-
i am pretty much against execution unless there is a case of more than one victim. if you kill one person...spend your life in jail...kill two or more....
RIDE THE LIGHTNING!!!!
-
Elfenwolf
"Your statement "without a doubt of guilt" is also errenious"
I were referring to that paragraph
Thrawn,
With that assumption you wouldn't dare to throw anyone in the jail.
Nothing worse than rotting in prison till your death, waiting for someone to actually pay attention to your "innocence" pleas, when 99% of other inmates are doing the same.
So, being executed or rotting in the prison for tens of years.. isn't that a loss loss in any case?
-
Actually, I'm aganist the Death Penalty, but not because I think it's 'cruel or unusual'
The idea of executing an innocent man or woman concerns me a great deal and I'm just not sure our Court Systems are good enough to keep this from happening.
If they were, I'd have no problems with it.