When someone is diagnosed as having cancer, what is the objective in treatment?
To eradicate it, is it not? Why let it be dormant?
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
To eradicate it, is it not? Why let it be dormant?
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Death Penalty
- Thread starter westmanguy
- Start date
i still think killing a grown man, no matter what he has done, is wrong. Firstly we have the chance of error, second we have the message it sends (our government kills people), and thirdly we have the guilt of killing, which rests upon someone, no matter how carefully it's done. There's always the guy who put the gas in the canister, the person who pressed the button. I know they rig up systems so that no-one knows who did it cos most of the buttons are dummies but it's still a terrible task for someone to do.
I'm not a religious man, mostly, but i strongly believe in "thou shalt not kill"
I'm not a religious man, mostly, but i strongly believe in "thou shalt not kill"
None of the above. The death penalty is warranted if there is no other option to protecting society. It is pretty well agreed the max security prisons of today can with relaible certainty protect society from the offender, making the death penalty a rare occurance. In fact it's probably as rare to see a parent who doesn't care about his child being executed has it is for a max incarcerated offender to be a threat to society.
AndyF.
AndyF.
We are talking about those rare animals who are guilty beyond any shred of doubt. Olsen, Bernardo, and about twenty others who's guilt has been proven beyond not reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt. Keeping these animals is costing us roughly $85,000.00 each per year. That is $1,870,000.00, a million, eight hundred and seventy thousand dollars that we could spend on something useful, against twenty dollars woth of bullets.
often people who do this kind of thing have been made into crazies by others. I'm not saying it negates their guilt but it DOES mean that we'd be killing people who are mentally ill. Maybe the cost is vast but maybe society should pay for the ****-ups it creates
I agree Juan. The whole issue of human rights here is dodgy. If you're not willing to give someone else those rights, what rights do you deserve? The whole notion of Human rights is dependant on your society and my opinion as part of this society is that we shouldn't be so kind to those who would deny someone elses rights. Harsh? Perhaps, but in these cases of extreme violence I'm inclined to lean towards natural law.
Over the years I've waffled back and forth on this issue. Every time we get a new serial killer(Picton) I want to hang them all. The pain these people have brought to the relatives of the victims must be indescribable, let alone the suffering of the victims. Picton says, "I shoulda done another one". Does he deserve to Live? Give me six months...I'll probably mellow out...:|
Life is a privilege. You forfeit someone else's privilege, you forfeit your own.
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Peace>>>AJ:love9:
Interesting. Ok, by death penalty I mean:
Their has to be no room for error: 100% positive the person committed the crime. If their is doubt and its only "quite likely" Prison: life, no parole.
I personally feel if someone has been proven without a doubt to kill 1 person: Life in maximum prison, NO parole.
If a person kills, and gets sentenced and kills again in the 1st degree: Death imposed.
If someone kills, 2 or more people, its not a "one time instance". And society shouldn't have to pay to keep them alive.
Now Canadian prisons are WAY to good. I would put NO media in prisons. No newspaper, no tv nothing. Media is NOT a right, its a privelege. And you lose all your rights when you take the rights of others. And if they have short sentences, that they will get out from in their lifetime: rehabilitate, education. If they are in their into old age, or they'll be dead before they get out: no rehabilitation, no education. Labor they work, and that work goes to something that makes the gov. $$ to repay their debt.
I am all for human rights, but I am not for the rights of people who take away the rights of others. Why are we being so sympathetic to people that hurt others?!?
Next: Voting for prisoners: NO WAY. They lost that right when they committed the crime.
And this issue of what if someone innocent is put to death:
Whats more important: 1 innocent saved from death, and another thousands guilty spared also OR 1 innocent put to death wrongly, and thousands of guilty put to a just death.
Don't look down on me: but I am for the second option: Rather have an innocent wrongly convicted, and make sure real criminals are punished.
Their has to be no room for error: 100% positive the person committed the crime. If their is doubt and its only "quite likely" Prison: life, no parole.
I personally feel if someone has been proven without a doubt to kill 1 person: Life in maximum prison, NO parole.
If a person kills, and gets sentenced and kills again in the 1st degree: Death imposed.
If someone kills, 2 or more people, its not a "one time instance". And society shouldn't have to pay to keep them alive.
Now Canadian prisons are WAY to good. I would put NO media in prisons. No newspaper, no tv nothing. Media is NOT a right, its a privelege. And you lose all your rights when you take the rights of others. And if they have short sentences, that they will get out from in their lifetime: rehabilitate, education. If they are in their into old age, or they'll be dead before they get out: no rehabilitation, no education. Labor they work, and that work goes to something that makes the gov. $$ to repay their debt.
I am all for human rights, but I am not for the rights of people who take away the rights of others. Why are we being so sympathetic to people that hurt others?!?
Next: Voting for prisoners: NO WAY. They lost that right when they committed the crime.
And this issue of what if someone innocent is put to death:
Whats more important: 1 innocent saved from death, and another thousands guilty spared also OR 1 innocent put to death wrongly, and thousands of guilty put to a just death.
Don't look down on me: but I am for the second option: Rather have an innocent wrongly convicted, and make sure real criminals are punished.
If you had ever been falsely accused of a crime, you would know better than to say: better one innocent person go down than 10 guilty go free. I somehow doubt you would feel the same if you were that one innocent person.
Oddly, when a person is falsely convicted there is no doubt and the judge or jury are 100% convinced the person is guilty. When there is doubt, the person is found not guilty.
I will apply the same logic here then: How would I feel if I was the innocent, being convicted?
Same logic: How would I feel if my mother was murdered?
We don't judge justice on how the victim feels, so we don't judge justice on trying to make no errors. There will be errors, but those lives are given for that well-being of society, meaning real criminals are put away too.
Same logic: How would I feel if my mother was murdered?
We don't judge justice on how the victim feels, so we don't judge justice on trying to make no errors. There will be errors, but those lives are given for that well-being of society, meaning real criminals are put away too.
Be my guest ... step up to the plate ... feel free to go down for the well-being of society. Personally, I'm not going to volunteer for that position and I'm not going to volunteer someone else for that position either.
By agreeing to the reinstatement of the death penalty whether it is ever used again ....
....a person is complicit in "taking another's life" or in other words what we call "murder" ....
Does anyone want that responsibility? Some jurors on capital crime cases completely fall apart after the decision is made and their lives are affected personally by having a say in the taking of a life....
It's easy to make a decision reading about it in the press or hearing about it on the electronic media, but to be involved in such a decision there are very few people who escape out of the decision to return to the innocence they once enjoyed.
It's my belief that less than one percent of the individuals here would put out a guilty verdict and walk away from it feeling clean and righteous.
Murder is an unnatural act no matter the circumstances unless a person is not of sound mind or for some catastrophic event has a break with reality and rationality.
Jurors fortunately are tested for their rational abilities, however unfortunately this sets them up for even harder decision-making because in their real life they would never consider murder as a solution for for anything. Most jurors are regular people, concerned with paying the mortgage, getting their kids through school, caring for a dying parent, life's civilized lifestyles given in love, in a community, in a good nation. Murder is a cancer, life gone astray and wild.... and jurors feel more trauma than the perpetrator who is sentenced.
....a person is complicit in "taking another's life" or in other words what we call "murder" ....
Does anyone want that responsibility? Some jurors on capital crime cases completely fall apart after the decision is made and their lives are affected personally by having a say in the taking of a life....
It's easy to make a decision reading about it in the press or hearing about it on the electronic media, but to be involved in such a decision there are very few people who escape out of the decision to return to the innocence they once enjoyed.
It's my belief that less than one percent of the individuals here would put out a guilty verdict and walk away from it feeling clean and righteous.
Murder is an unnatural act no matter the circumstances unless a person is not of sound mind or for some catastrophic event has a break with reality and rationality.
Jurors fortunately are tested for their rational abilities, however unfortunately this sets them up for even harder decision-making because in their real life they would never consider murder as a solution for for anything. Most jurors are regular people, concerned with paying the mortgage, getting their kids through school, caring for a dying parent, life's civilized lifestyles given in love, in a community, in a good nation. Murder is a cancer, life gone astray and wild.... and jurors feel more trauma than the perpetrator who is sentenced.
To be a little bit semantic, there is a difference between murder and the death penalty. One is lawful while the other is not. I'd like to see the statistics on jury decisions, specifically how long it takes them to arrive at a conclusion that the death penalty is warranted. I'm not sure what kind of numerical data it could be compared to besides number of victims murdered, certainly theres lots of categorical data to use.
look3467
When someone is diagnosed as having cancer, what is the objective in treatment?
To eradicate it, is it not? Why let it be dormant? _______________________
Nope,In Canada we use aspirin .
When someone is diagnosed as having cancer, what is the objective in treatment?
To eradicate it, is it not? Why let it be dormant? _______________________
Nope,In Canada we use aspirin .
Tonington
You are arguing law not humanity. If you had a hand in the deliberate voting for the death penalty to be acted against another - even within the legal limits of a series of trials - you would still have the
weight of responsibility as a member of the jury.
It can never be eraced, especially once the death penalty is carried out. It affects many people in terrible ways - whether "on the side of the law" or not.
If you killed another in a car accident without fault, would you not carry the burden even in innocence?