But what would all the vengeance is mine crowd do if all the scary dudes in prison were executed? No one would get what's coming to them any more, no one would be terrified to go to jail and risk running into McGrey. Why do you want to kill the boogyman? Would every killer get Picton's trial X 3? That should be hard on the tax payers.
Latest poll on Capital punishment
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
But what would all the vengeance is mine crowd do if all the scary dudes in prison were executed? No one would get what's coming to them any more, no one would be terrified to go to jail and risk running into McGrey. Why do you want to kill the boogyman? Would every killer get Picton's trial X 3? That should be hard on the tax payers.
I don't necessarily think it's any better, just a whole lot more effective and a lot cheaper. (Or at least it would be if the sleazy lawyers were kept out of it).
The problem is on the face of it people see the possible death penalty as a means
of deterring the act of murder which is not the case. Most killings do not come from
a plan, they come from as a result of a reaction, like a fight or some random act of
emotional violence. In short no one meant to kill anyone.
The planned killing contract, sex crimes and so on are the only real reason to think
about the death penalty and even there it is possible we get the wrong person
convicted. If we kill even one person under the statutes of the State that was not
guilty it is one too many.
The problem I have with the current law, is we do not enforce these serious crimes
to the maximum after the deed has been committed.
Execution does not reduce the crime of murder, so bringing back the death penalty
will not save one more life, anymore than having all kinds of gun laws will prevent a
person from being shot. That is the reason I oppose the death penalty.
of deterring the act of murder which is not the case. Most killings do not come from
a plan, they come from as a result of a reaction, like a fight or some random act of
emotional violence. In short no one meant to kill anyone.
The planned killing contract, sex crimes and so on are the only real reason to think
about the death penalty and even there it is possible we get the wrong person
convicted. If we kill even one person under the statutes of the State that was not
guilty it is one too many.
The problem I have with the current law, is we do not enforce these serious crimes
to the maximum after the deed has been committed.
Execution does not reduce the crime of murder, so bringing back the death penalty
will not save one more life, anymore than having all kinds of gun laws will prevent a
person from being shot. That is the reason I oppose the death penalty.
Well when you can't afford the system you don't have ANY system. On second thought, maybe we have too much of a "system". I don't recall when it was we had a "fair" justice system. If the system was really "fair", all those people responsible for Milgaard doing 23 years in the slammer would themselves now be doing 23 years- THAT would be fair justice.
With one important exception - the murderer who some how gets out of jail and kills again.
Capital punishment is a stupid premise in law. It takes away the justification of self defence and replaces it with vengeance. Mistakes happen in our justice system and when they do, we make an effort to correct them. After you have killed an innocent man there is nothing you can do to correct it. If it's an eye for an eye justice system then those who made the mistakes that lead to an innocent man being executed, then they need to be also executed in order to keep things even. Which means that the courts will allow the guilty to go free just in case they make a mistake. All because someone can't get over reading about someone else going free because the Crown couldn't prove their guilt.
I suggest moving to Canada's Northern areas where you can carry a gun and sort out justice on your own to your satisfaction. Just like those you may come across in the lonely frontier.
I suggest moving to Canada's Northern areas where you can carry a gun and sort out justice on your own to your satisfaction. Just like those you may come across in the lonely frontier.
They are not hard to find Ton, you can start with the jury, the prosecutor and the judge...................it's not rocket science.
The jury was only weighing the evidence they were presented. You want to fault them for not knowing what they don't know? New evidence is what proved innocence. You want to imprison people who had no intent to do harm. That's mighty dickish of you. If there is fraud, then that is a different matter altogether.
Yep, I spoke a little too quickly on that. Actually I saw a documentary on that case and have done some reading. The main flaw in the entire trial that I discerned was one witness, the judge disallowed. At the exact time the girl was murdered and at a location a considerable distance away Milgaard stopped at a store to buy smokes (the proprietor could attest to the time because Milgaard was outside the store when he opened in the morning) and was prepared to testify. Possibly the jury was partly to blame because they obviously didn't give enough weight to this important fact, but then I don't know for sure if the jury was apprised of it. The prosecutor obviously knew. So the judged and prosecutor should bare the brunt of the blame.