Guilty until proven innocent...
  • Susan
    Posts: 53Administrator
    So, I watched this documentary yesterday called "After Innocence" and it was about people who had been falsely convicted of heinous crimes and had spent up to 30 years in jail before DNA testing or a confession or some other evidence proved their innocence. Maybe I was naive before, but I found their stories to be quite shocking. I had previously decided that I was in favor of the death penalty because someone who takes a life deserves to have his/hers taken as a fair punishment. But, now I see that there are some serious flaws in the judicial system and I would not feel confident sentencing someone to death based on the meager amounts of evidence the court apparently requires to convict.

    Anyway, I found it horrific and it has changed my stance on the death penalty- at least until the judicial system becomes much more reliable. (Robotic computer jury, anyone?)

    How do you all feel about the death penalty and why? And, if you are favor of it, how do you reconcile the fact that innocent people are being killed for crimes they didn't commit? Are you implying that the common good is of greater worth than the individual?

    Enlightened,
    Susan




    ...government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
  • Mistahtom
    Posts: 1,272Jailed
    While I don't want to sound contradictory nor do I want to come across hypocritical, the death penalty and judicial system needs to be overhauled.

    On one hand, I'm against the death penalty. One thing I'm gonna throw out there is how we can make the death penalty become less fallible. My idea is to require video evidence to be presented before a person can even be considered eligible for the death penalty. The DA would have to use the video to show the jury and judge that the suspect committed the crime if the DA wants to go for the death penalty. Think about how many murders occur where there is video evidence? Very few. This would cut down on people who are accused based on bad evidence such as Susan brought up, and it will prevent the murders who deserve to be executed from accidentally being imprisoned for life.

    On the other hand, certain people need to be put to death. I think it's not used enough when it comes to domestic terror issues. I think gang crimes (including hateful organizations such as the KKK) should be labeled as domestic terrorist organizations. Many gangs get their information on who to kill through their OG's who are locked up for life. If you execute the lifers, that should send a message to the others. That also disrupts the chain of command. I'm pretty sure there will be some people who are against this because certain minority groups have more gang members than others (I'm not judging, it's a fact). It seems like, in California especially, if you are a gang member and you commit murder, you get an automatic life sentence (unless you're Tookie Williams).

    I also blame the media for publicizing cases thus giving them high-profile status. High-profile more or less = Automatic guilty if you're a nobody, automatic innocence if you're a celebrity. The public shouldn't have access to indictments, police records or anything related to a case unless the accused is found guilty or the accused gives permission.

    Just my two cents. But I think my former point is the only way we could have a death penalty that is the most fair w/o actuall abolishing the death penalty.
  • m4napalm
    Posts: 55Citizen
    heres a good quote from the band AUS ROTTEN in their song CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

    "If you support capital punishment you support absolute political control at it's sickest extreme."

    just thought id throw that in :p
  • iamnuff
    Posts: 41Citizen
    i support because in england a life sentence is about 20 years... and they dont even serve that. its more like 10.

    10 years for killing people.
    our prisons are over crowded. KILL THEM ALL. (but for fucks sake make sure they REALLY are guilty first.)
    if you kill you should get killed. an eye for a eye. (but then what about rape cases???) i can really see a decline in rape if the "an eye for a eye" clause comes in to effect. :-)
  • wisdom
    Posts: 13Citizen
    Being poor is the only crime. If you google your name and nothing shows up, time to step up your game.............
  • AbortionOnToast
    Posts: 6Citizen
    My problem with the death penalty has always been pretty much the same as is mentioned by Susan in this thread. Do we really trust the government enough and assume they're always 'right' by giving them the power of life and death over someone? I'm not saying that there aren't many worthy of death but I don't think it's a good idea to give that power to the government (especially when they intervene in our lives too much as it is) when we've seen far too many examples over the years of government being completely in the wrong. In some cases on much more minor and simplistic things than the power over someone's life or death. I would have no problem with the death penalty if there was a fool-proof way to ensure that it was used legitimately, since that is virtually impossible in ninety-nine percent of cases I think it sets an extremely dangerous precedent in the law to give the government that kind power.

    As George Carlin said (paraphrasing) the death penalty isn't a deterrent anyway since most (not all) of the people that murder aren't afraid of death in the first place. (Still paraphrasing) It's an ago-old religiously-based need for retribution, but it doesn't really work on those that aren't scared of it.

    Also, those that claim that we shouldn't house and feed these people because of expense also need to realize that it costs far more to execute someone because of the appeals system and other factors (some say 'protections') in the law that generally draw things out significantly. While I'm not for 'supporting murderers' I just don't give the government enough credit or trust to have the responsibility of state-sanctioned murder when there is the possibility (and it's been proven to be a BIG possibility) that they could be wrong, even once. Seems like a really, really bad idea. Just my thoughts.
  • trackstr22
    Posts: 12Citizen
    I would support the death penalty if the system was less flawed. There are other factors that can determine if your guilty or innocent besides evidence. Race and money can also play a major role in any court case. I do believe that people who kill should be killed themselves but I do not want innocent people to die for something that they did not do.
  • astorpolsen
    Posts: 30Citizen
    only a perfect system should have death penelty, but i dont think there will a perfect system
  • TheBlueFalconX
    Posts: 871Citizen
    The death penalty is horrible. Especially when the innocent are convicted. Scrap the whole thing.
  • TheBlueFalconX
    Posts: 871Citizen
    Psh, I guarantee the death penalty is a religious idea. How can the religious say atheists have no marality?
  • Jermaine Justice
    Posts: 548Citizen
    Posted By: m4napalmheres a good quote from the band AUS ROTTEN in their song CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

    "If you support capital punishment you support absolute political control at it's sickest extreme."

    just thought id throw that in :pa slave to money, and everything i despise...like everyone in general


    Posted By: TheBlueFalconXThe death penalty is horrible. Especially when the innocent are convicted. Scrap the whole thing.IQ: eCma-126 TE3- 129 A good oxymoron: Christian Logic


    Posted By: TheBlueFalconXPsh, I guarantee the death penalty is a religious idea. How can the religious say atheists have no marality?IQ: eCma-126 TE3- 129 A good oxymoron: Christian Logic


    Yes. Yes. And yes.

    The death penalty handled by a government is always sad. You know a government screws up at everything it does... why put it in control of killing people?

    Even if one person is wrongly killed by the government death penalty, then it's wrong and awful and miserable.

    Since 1973, 130 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. Way too many innocent people.
  • TheBlueFalconX
    Posts: 871Citizen
    What ever happened to the government being the voice of the people? Power is appointed by the people for the people. Why is this hardly the case in modern times.
  • Jermaine Justice
    Posts: 548Citizen
    Posted By: TheBlueFalconXWhat ever happened to the government being the voice of the people? Power is appointed by the people for the people. Why is this hardly the case in modern times.IQ: eCma-126 TE3- 129 A good oxymoron: Christian Logic


    It never was the case if you think about it. It's just more visible now with the explosive media power of Internet and with there being more laws (and of course, most of those are bad laws... probably all of them are bad).. anyway--

    It's somewhat collectivist to say it's for "the people" since "the people" is something that doesn't exist. People exist, but that's plural. To say something like that to me, I'd take it literally and say the government is there to serve everyone individually, right? So why can't I opt out or fire a policeman or stop paying taxes or pick my own protection service to pay for? Why can't I be responsible for my own life and cut out government's silly rules completely? It's impossible for a politician or anyone to rule my life effectively because they don't know what I'm about. This is even more incredible when you say that he can control and run many lives at the same time.

    I think the answer to your question is that there's just more people in the country today and the ratio of people:politicians have gone up. It's harder for a single politician to be the voice for the mass amounts of people in similar regions today.
  • roid
    Posts: 132Citizen
    As some have mentioned, this tends to deal with the issue of what society should do with it's criminals.
    Punishment/revenge? Or rehabilitiation.

    I'm all for rehabilitation. We should be aiming for the best outcome for "society" on the whole - Criminals should be studied. We should be striving to completely understand and predict the initial situations that inevitably cause criminal behavior - and try to tackle those situations. Things like poverty, powerlessness.
    Criminals should be surrounded by Social Workers and Psychologists, not jailers.

    Criminal conduct should be handled by society as a treatable ailment. Jails should most be rebranded as outpatient centers, and a few of the highest security prisons rebranded as "homes for the criminally insane" (Although this still suggests an aspect of "outof sight outof mind" i'd rather not encourage. I'd rather they double as psych teaching universities).
  • Mistahtom
    Posts: 1,272Jailed
    Posted By: roidI'm all for rehabilitation. We should be aiming for the best outcome for "society" on the whole - Criminals should be studied. We should be striving to completely understand and predict the initial situations that inevitably cause criminal behavior - and try to tackle those situations. Things like poverty, powerlessness.
    Criminals should be surrounded by Social Workers and Psychologists, not jailers.


    I agree with you. Our justice system "works" by using fear. The psychology behind it is: Most people will stay out of jail if we make jail look as undesirable as possible. Obviously this doesn't work. Some people go and commit a crime for whatever reason knowing full well they're going to go to jail anyway.

    Also the way probation is run is asinine. Someone on probation (lets say for a non-violent act) gets sent back to jail for drinking alcohol and somehow their PO found out. The person on probation didn't break any laws that everyone else doesn't have to adhere to and yet we wonder why jails are over-crowed.
  • Lessbrains
    Posts: 3Citizen
    O.K. topic at hand...how do you feel abuot the death penalty and why.? I get a headach just thinking about it. The death penalty is a neccessary evil,without it there would be no deterent at all. The problem is not the punishment, it isthe judicial system. Law enforcement and D.A.s more concerned with making a name for themselves, than finding the truth. The rules for evidence need to be more stringed, the media coverage restricted, and Lawyers held to higher standard(both sides). Do away with the MOB MENTALITY,and yes the prisons should be used as syk univ.
Add a Comment