nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

US Death penalty

DEFTLEFTHAND

Scott Dozier a convicted murderer hanged himself in his cell 10 days ago. He had been campaigning for his Death sentence to be carried out for the past 2 years, he stopped the appeal process and told a judge in court that he wanted the sentence enforced.

There's a halt on lethal injections in certain States at the moment because drug companies are refusing to provide.

Dozier asked for the chair, firing squad or gas chamber, but none of these methods are used in the State of Neveda.

I feel very sorry for him in a weird sort of way.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Pretzeluck wrote: »

While I'm completely against death penalty, I would pay to be able to witness one. There is certain taboo which is tempting when something so intimate happens.

Pretzeluck

While I'm completely against death penalty, I would pay to be able to witness one. There is certain taboo which is tempting when something so intimate happens.

Vic_08

eagle eye wrote: »

I never said eye for an eye. I'm all for the death penalty for murderers.
I'm all for jail for all other crimes. You keep trying to suggest that I'm saying to rape rapists etc. but I've never said that.
I'm talking restorative as in the earliest you can get out if jail is when your victim has fully recovered both physically and mentally from the injuries suffered.

That is something I would agree with. The disregard to the wellbeing shown by our courts who use and then ignore victims is a disgrace and borders on criminal in itself.

The manner in which victims are compelled to give evidence, be viciously cross-examined and following conviction bare their souls yet again with impact statements only for a judge to hand down derisory or suspended sentences is re-victimising them.

However I do not agree that the death penalty should be used, ever. I find it to be more than a little hypocritical that people who claim to be standing up for victims by advocating for the death penalty are so willing to ignore the fact that innocent people do on occasion get convicted. Why is it OK to ignore the crime committed against these people and compound it by murdering them?

tomoliver

eagle eye wrote: »

Very sorry to hear this.
May I ask if you think there should be a death penalty?
I agree that the Irish system is a complete joke. Murderers can get out after fifteen years of a life sentence.

It's no biggie tbh, it's a lot more common than you'd think

No I don't favour the death penalty ,I'm not even sure about life without parole now that I think about it

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

So you're admitting that your logic is inconsistent?

No.
I reason different about everything. It's not inconsistent, it's being rational.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

You quoted the wrong post obviously. I said in the case of murder alone that the murderer should get the death penalty.
It doesn't follow that I believe that every crime has to have a similar outcome.
It's not math.

So you're admitting that your logic is inconsistent?

eagle eye

tomoliver wrote:

I had a sibling murdered but I wouldn't sit through that in any case ,better life without parole imo,system is a joke here

Very sorry to hear this.
May I ask if you think there should be a death penalty?
I agree that the Irish system is a complete joke. Murderers can get out after fifteen years of a life sentence.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Im other words, your justification for the death penalty was: "what you did, so shall be done unto you". Yes or no?

You quoted the wrong post obviously. I said in the case of murder alone that the murderer should get the death penalty.
It doesn't follow that I believe that every crime has to have a similar outcome.
It's not math.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

tomoliver wrote: »

The electric chair is a hideous idea really when you think about it

It's all about the spectacle for the viewer

I had a sibling murdered but I wouldn't sit through that in any case ,better life without parole imo,system is a joke here

You said, "the punishment should fit the crime" and implied that, just as a murderer has taken someone else's life, he should have his life taken from him.

Im other words, your justification for the death penalty was: "what you did, so shall be done unto you". Yes or no?

tomoliver

The electric chair is a hideous idea really when you think about it

It's all about the spectacle for the viewer

I had a sibling murdered but I wouldn't sit through that in any case ,better life without parole imo,system is a joke here

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Eye for an eye - we can't restore the victims eye, but we still need balance. The only other way to restore balance is to take the culptit's eye out.

I never said eye for an eye. I'm all for the death penalty for murderers.
I'm all for jail for all other crimes. You keep trying to suggest that I'm saying to rape rapists etc. but I've never said that.
I'm talking restorative as in the earliest you can get out if jail is when your victim has fully recovered both physically and mentally from the injuries suffered.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

What are you on about. Our society does not condone rape or murder.
In the case of crimes where the victim survives there is the possibility of restorative justice. I'm saying that in non-murder cases that until the victim recovers from all issues which resulted from the crime that the perpetrator should remain in jail.
When the victims life is ended by murder there isn't the possibility of restorative justice so ending the murderer's life is the fitting punishment.

I can't help you if you don't understand what I'm saying. Nothing flawed about what I said.

Again, the death penalty not about restoring anything. The death penalty is based on that very idea: we can't restore via justice, so we will therefore restore via balance.

Eye for an eye - we can't restore the victims eye, but we still need balance. The only other way to restore balance is to take the culptit's eye out.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Punishment fitting the crime means doing to the criminal what they did to someone else. It's not designed to restore anything. It's designed to extract revenge.

What are you on about. Our society does not condone rape or murder.
In the case of crimes where the victim survives there is the possibility of restorative justice. I'm saying that in non-murder cases that until the victim recovers from all issues which resulted from the crime that the perpetrator should remain in jail.
When the victims life is ended by murder there isn't the possibility of restorative justice so ending the murderer's life is the fitting punishment.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Restorative isn't the issue. You can't unmurder someone - correct - but you can't unrape someone either. Your explanation was flawed. I pointed that out.

I can't help you if you don't understand what I'm saying. Nothing flawed about what I said.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

No it wouldn't and I've already explained that. Restorative isn't possible where the victim is dead.

Restorative isn't the issue. You can't unmurder someone - correct - but you can't unrape someone either. Your explanation was flawed. I pointed that out.

Punishment fitting the crime means doing to the criminal what they did to someone else. It's not designed to restore anything. It's designed to extract revenge.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

That's not sentence fitting the crime. Life imprisonment (meaning full life) for murder would be te application of the same logic as the logic expressed here.

No it wouldn't and I've already explained that. Restorative isn't possible where the victim is dead.

tuxy

Clearly the US system is not working with the murder rate growing in states with the death penalty but staying steady in the states that do not have it.

But is there anything to be said for a bit of sharia law?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

No, I said the sentence length should be at a minimum as long as it takes the victim to recover mentally and physically from the crime.
So for instance a serious assault that leaves the victim in a wheelchair for life should result in life behind bars.

That's not sentence fitting the crime. Life imprisonment (meaning full life) for murder would be te application of the same logic as the logic expressed here.

eagle eye

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Having the punishment fit the crime using your logic would mean raping rspists. Don't know that it means with regard to Pedophiles....

No, I said the sentence length should be at a minimum as long as it takes the victim to recover mentally and physically from the crime.
So for instance a serious assault that leaves the victim in a wheelchair for life should result in life behind bars.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

eagle eye wrote: »

Justice.
As I said earlier the crime should fit the punishment.
Paedophiles, rapists and people who seriously assault others should have a minimum sentence of being incarcerated until the victim has fully recovered both physically and mentally. If that means they spend the rest of their lives in jail.
If you murder someone there can be no restorative justice for that person so ending the murderer's life is a fitting punishment.

Having the punishment fit the crime using your logic would mean raping rspists. Don't know that it means with regard to Pedophiles....

[Deleted User]

batgoat wrote: »

That is also just 1.6% of those on death row. 4.1% estimated to be innocent. One case below basically concluded arson but in retrospect, that may simply have been bad signs in the court room.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/cameron-todd-willingham-improper-or-wrongful-conviction-19571

Any is too many. Feels like a monthly thing now for black Americans getting released after decades behind bars.

One chance at life and society takes it away. Sad.

batgoat

Zaph wrote: »

Between 1973 and 2015 153 innocent people have been released from death row in the States (source). That would suggest that it clearly hadn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

That is also just 1.6% of those on death row. 4.1% estimated to be innocent. One case below basically concluded arson but in retrospect, that may simply have been bad signs in the court room.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/cameron-todd-willingham-improper-or-wrongful-conviction-19571

eagle eye

Zaph wrote:

Since 1973 153 innocent people have been released from death row in the States (

They were released. What's the next numbers for executed people and let's say that were convicted since 2000?

corner of hells

eagle eye wrote: »

Where are you getting your stats regarding innocent people being executed?
How far back are you going? Has it been proven beyond a reasonable that they were innocent?

Have a Google of the innocence project ?
It's well worth a read.

Zaph

eagle eye wrote: »

Where are you getting your stats regarding innocent people being executed?
How far back are you going? Has it been proven beyond a reasonable that they were innocent?

Between 1973 and 2015 153 innocent people have been released from death row in the States (source). That would suggest that it clearly hadn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

eagle eye

corner of hells wrote:

Is it revenge you're looking for moreso than justice ?

Justice.
As I said earlier the crime should fit the punishment.
Paedophiles, rapists and people who seriously assault others should have a minimum sentence of being incarcerated until the victim has fully recovered both physically and mentally. If that means they spend the rest of their lives in jail.
If you murder someone there can be no restorative justice for that person so ending the murderer's life is a fitting punishment.

AudreyHepburn

I don’t support the death penalty at all - to me it smacks more of revenge than punishment.

If you’ve committed a serious crime then you should be locked in a cell and left there to rot. Death is the easy way out as far as I’m concerned.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

Innocent people can and do executed regardless. Also the US justice simply doesn't work that well if you don't have money. So ultimately, you're concluding it's fine to execute the innocent as long as you get the guilty ones as well.

Where are you getting your stats regarding innocent people being executed?
How far back are you going? Has it been proven beyond a reasonable that they were innocent?

corner of hells

eagle eye wrote: »

I don't care if it doesn't stop some other people. The punishment is the nearest thing to fitting the crime.

Is it revenge you're looking for moreso than justice ?

batgoat

eagle eye wrote: »

If there is a doubt then they can use the legal system.

Innocent people can and do executed regardless. Also the US justice simply doesn't work that well if you don't have money. So ultimately, you're concluding it's fine to execute the innocent as long as you get the guilty ones as well.

eagle eye

batgoat wrote:

Did you conveniently ignore there's a 4 percent chance they're innocent?

If there is a doubt then they can use the legal system.