|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 7, 2013 10:06:28 GMT
That's why the Death Penalty is given only to the worst of the worst. There's always the chance some sympathetic parole board or judge will release a convicted murderer back out onto the public too. But the apparent 'worst of the worst' can be wrongly convicted too, even if it seems unlikely, and only happens in rare cases. It can happen, and it has happened, and that for me makes it an unacceptable way to deal with criminals. They can be locked away for ever (and they can even be allowed to terminate themselves, or opt for 'assisted termination' after a period if they want, as far as I am concerned), but they don't need to be killed. Killing them is too great a risk - the legal system is not infallible. It doesn't matter what other arguments there are - the legal system is not, will never be, and can never be entirely infallible - that being the case, there has to be some way to undo mistakes, but death just can't be undone. Looking at the linked scheduled offenders, I'm not convinced that they are what I would describe as being just 'the worst of the worst' either (even assuming that the convictions are all 100% correct). Some apparently very bad people, certainly, and people who should be locked away for a very, very long time, but, for example: That to me sounds like 'manslaughter' (in UK terms - not premeditated), rather than murder, even. Obviously I must be missing something about the case, because it would seem on the basis of what it says there that describing him as 'the worst of the worst' would be more than a bit of a stretch, and killing him on the basis of that seems quite an incredible thing to try to justify. Looking at it a little further: He sounds like a pretty unpleasant person who did a terrible thing, and who should probably be locked away for a long time, but (with no previous convictions or criminal record, apparently) a deliberate, calculating, cold blooded murder, absolutely beyond any kind of redemption ever, so utterly bad and evil that he is 'the worst of the worst' and must be put to death? Is that a case where it is so absolutely certain of his guilt, and if his total, unredeemable evil, that killing him is the only solution? He seems to be a pretty bad man, but 'the worst of the worst'? Sorry - I just don't buy it - it seems like just a case of 'an eye for an eye' revenge, and the severity of the sentence just doesn't match with the apparent facts of the case. |
|
|
|
Post by dangermouse on Aug 7, 2013 10:12:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2013 11:39:40 GMT
She did not get murdered. Her unborn baby did. That is the ONLY "murder" that took place.
She was assaulted by a physical act of battery under the laws and the death of the preborn is not technically "murder" as the Right to Life of a Person was not violated. Murder, based upon the inalienable Rights of the Person, is the violation of the Inalienable Right to Life of the Person based upon an act of aggression. There is no crime at all of the woman is not subjected to assault/battery or murder. The crime is against the "Person" which is the woman. I know that "anti-abortionist" legislatures call it "murder" in the laws but they're simply ignoring the US Constitution and the ideals established in the Declaration of Independence in doing so. Without a crime against the person, which is the woman, none of these laws can exist. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2013 11:55:12 GMT
That's why the Death Penalty is given only to the worst of the worst. There's always the chance some sympathetic parole board or judge will release a convicted murderer back out onto the public too. Life in prison without the possibility of parole eliminates any possibility of a parole board releasing a convicted person. A judge can only intervene if there are flaws in the original sentencing to begin with where the convicted person was unjustly sentenced. Does anyone believe that a person wrongfully sentenced should not have a right to appeal that sentencing and if the sentencing was wrong that it should stand? Remember that the State can appeal a lower court ruling that improper sentencing occurred so this matter is never left to the discretion of a single judge anyway. The fact is that "life without the possibility of parole" can be imposed and is imposed all of the time. It is all that is required to protect society from even the most heinous of criminals. There is no rational reason for Capital Punishment because the protection of society from even the most heinous of individuals is provided for with incarceration for life without the possibility of parole. It is somewhat strange that those who believe that a non-person (i.e. a fetus) can be "murdered" have no apparent regard for the fact that Capital Punishment results in the government murdering innocent people that were wrongfully convicted. We know based upon the number of cases where a person was convicted and sentenced to death was later exonerated completely related to the crime that there are at least an equal number of cases where they are innocent but no evidence exists to exonerate them and they will be executed. That is "murder" by any rational definition and yet we're allowing our government to murder innocent people and no one is being held accountable for it. How about we execute the jury, prosecutor, and executioner when we find that an innocent person was convicted and sentenced to death? I bet the prosecutors would stop calling for the death penalty if they were going to also be murdered by the government if they made a mistake and convicted an innocent person. I doubt a jury would authorize the death penalty if they knew that they would also be executed if they were wrong. Capital punishment is exclusively about revenge, not protecting society, and we don't have a Right of Revenge that we can delegate to our government. |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Aug 7, 2013 12:00:04 GMT
Most people who are sentenced to death sit on death row and keep lawyers busy appealing their cases. They have every chance to prove their innocence after the sentencing. Ted Bundy spent 10 years appealing his case. He was still executed but he spent tax payers money keeping the judicial branch of government busy. Execution isn't an immediate happening it takes years and plenty of appeals. articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-21/news/8901210424_1_bundy-florida-supreme-supreme-courtAn abortion is immediate and the baby doesn't have an appeal. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2013 12:24:08 GMT
Most people who are sentenced to death sit on death row and keep lawyers busy appealing their cases. They have every chance to prove their innocence after the sentencing. Ted Bundy spent 10 years appealing his case. He was still executed but he spent tax payers money keeping the judicial branch of government busy. Execution isn't an immediate happening it takes years and plenty of appeals. articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-21/news/8901210424_1_bundy-florida-supreme-supreme-courtAn abortion is immediate and the baby doesn't have an appeal. The only death row cases that have been overturned have been based upon DNA evidence. If there isn't any DNA evidence then pragmatically it's impossible to prove innocence. In over 1/2 of the cases where people are on death row that claim to be innocent there isn't any DNA evidence to establish their innocence. Of interest is that generally in those cases that have been overturned there were "eye witnesses" that misidentified the convicted person. Misidentification by eye witnesses is a huge problem because juries generally believe an eye witness even though studies have proven them wrong about 40% of the time. There isn't a "baby" involved in an abortion. Technically a baby is an "infant" after birth and a "baby" is a person. The use of the term "baby" is a distortion that never existed until relatively recently. At no time historically were the "preborn" ever referred to as babies but since "baby" isn't a legal definition the anti-abortionists have adopted it to represent what it never represented historically. We should also mention that the only purely "elective" abortions by a woman occur during the first trimester and 88% of all abortions occur during the first seven weeks. Late term abortions can only be authorized based upon a medical opinion that continuing the pregnancy represents a serious medical consideration, generally life threatening, for the woman. It amazes me that so many believe a woman (and fetus) should be sentenced to death under our laws by prohibiting all late term abortions. |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 7, 2013 12:51:13 GMT
Most people who are sentenced to death sit on death row and keep lawyers busy appealing their cases. They have every chance to prove their innocence after the sentencing. Ted Bundy spent 10 years appealing his case. He was still executed but he spent tax payers money keeping the judicial branch of government busy. Execution isn't an immediate happening it takes years and plenty of appeals. articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-21/news/8901210424_1_bundy-florida-supreme-supreme-courtSo why bother having the system, then, if it costs so much money in appeals and so on? Why not just put them in prison for life and be done with it?! In the UK, someone like Bundy would probably end up being sent to a secure mental hospital rather than an 'ordinary' prison, but the effect is the same (and the considerations for them not really any more pleasant), and people with that magnitude and type of crime are obviously considered too dangerous to ever be released. Two examples: ' The Yorkshire Ripper', and the most notorious of all, Ian Brady, 'The Moors Murderer': en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murdersBrady is a particularly interesting case at the moment - he has been fighting to be declared mentally fit enough to be sent to an ordinary prison. He's been trying to kill himself for years, and is kept alive by being force-fed through a tube, which will stop if he goes to ordinary prison (the idea effectively being that he is not mentally fit enough to make a decision to starve himself to death, so has to be kept alive): www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23099582He wants for his 'suffering' to be over, but the system won't let him die, which seems to me a worse punishment in many ways than a death sentence, although it also seems a bit pointless in some ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Aug 7, 2013 13:41:29 GMT
Most people who are sentenced to death sit on death row and keep lawyers busy appealing their cases. They have every chance to prove their innocence after the sentencing. Ted Bundy spent 10 years appealing his case. He was still executed but he spent tax payers money keeping the judicial branch of government busy. Execution isn't an immediate happening it takes years and plenty of appeals. articles.orlandosentinel.com/1989-01-21/news/8901210424_1_bundy-florida-supreme-supreme-courtAn abortion is immediate and the baby doesn't have an appeal. The only death row cases that have been overturned have been based upon DNA evidence. If there isn't any DNA evidence then pragmatically it's impossible to prove innocence. In over 1/2 of the cases where people are on death row that claim to be innocent there isn't any DNA evidence to establish their innocence. Of interest is that generally in those cases that have been overturned there were "eye witnesses" that misidentified the convicted person. Misidentification by eye witnesses is a huge problem because juries generally believe an eye witness even though studies have proven them wrong about 40% of the time. There isn't a "baby" involved in an abortion. Technically a baby is an "infant" after birth and a "baby" is a person. The use of the term "baby" is a distortion that never existed until relatively recently. At no time historically were the "preborn" ever referred to as babies but since "baby" isn't a legal definition the anti-abortionists have adopted it to represent what it never represented historically. We should also mention that the only purely "elective" abortions by a woman occur during the first trimester and 88% of all abortions occur during the first seven weeks. Late term abortions can only be authorized based upon a medical opinion that continuing the pregnancy represents a serious medical consideration, generally life threatening, for the woman. It amazes me that so many believe a woman (and fetus) should be sentenced to death under our laws by prohibiting all late term abortions. What happened to the people who were misidentified 40% of the time? Was that an independent study or was it an actual case by case study of being mistakenly accused of a crime? As far as abortions go I believe a baby is a baby at conception. Try telling a pregnant woman she is carrying a fetus and see what happens. How can someone excuse taking a life with, "Oh, it was not a baby it was a fetus."? It can't be done. I bet your Mother never said, "I am pregnant with a fetus." Abortions are wrong and there is no way to make them right. Anyone reading this should be thankful their parents didn't believe in or want an abortion. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 8, 2013 17:15:57 GMT
What happened to the people who were misidentified 40% of the time? Was that an independent study or was it an actual case by case study of being mistakenly accused of a crime? As far as abortions go I believe a baby is a baby at conception. Try telling a pregnant woman she is carrying a fetus and see what happens. How can someone excuse taking a life with, "Oh, it was not a baby it was a fetus."? It can't be done. I bet your Mother never said, "I am pregnant with a fetus." Abortions are wrong and there is no way to make them right. Anyone reading this should be thankful their parents didn't believe in or want an abortion. Generally those convicted based upon erronous eye-witness testimony end up serving their entire sentence (including the death penality if imposed) because an appeal cannot be based upon a witness changing their testimony after the trial. The fact that 40% of eye-witness testimony is incorrect has been based upon numerous independent studies but I would suggest reading the following paper on it and it's effects on our criminal justice system. agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htmPersonal opinions on when "childhood" begins are valid but we must understand that they have no legal (Constitutional) meaning. Only "personhood" matters under from a "legal" (Constitutional) perspective and it has already been determined based upon common law and history that the "preborn" are not nor have they ever been considered to be "persons" under the legal definition based upon the US Constitution. This was undisputed by the "defense" in the Roe v Wade legal arguments. The "preborn" regardless of how we might refer to them based upon our personal opinions and beliefs are not "persons" and are not protected by the US Constitution. In it's very "progressive" Roe v Wade decision (that anti-abortionists don't seem to acknowledge) the US Supreme Court did afford certain protections to the "preborn" based upon the "potential personhood" of a fetus at natural viability. Were it not for this "progressive" interpretation all laws restricting abortion would have been struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. This progressive interpretation of the US Constitution was actually a huge win for the anti-abortionists as it did allow restrictions on abortion at the natural viability of the fetus. Based upon Constitutional precedent the who issue revolves around "personhood" and there is no legal precedent related to "personhood" for the preborn (regardless of whether we call them a child or a fetus) but that can be changed and I've long advocated that course of action. A Constitutional Amendment can establish Constitutional Legal Precedent and it's the only means of changing legal precedent under the Constitution. I've advocated for a Constitutional Amendment to afford "personhood" to the "preborn" but have not proposed the specifics of such an amendment for a pragmatic reason. Personhood established the (inalienable) Rights of the Person under the US Constitution and there is one fundamental problem. An Inalienable Right of the Person cannot conflict with the Inalienable Rights of another Person and cannot impose any obligation on another Person. The Woman is already a Person so how do we afford personhood to the "preborn" without infringing upon the Rights of the Woman and/or without creating any obligation upon the woman? It creates a paradox that is not easily resolved as someone's Rights are going to conflict with another person's Rights. It becomes a problem where the Freedom to Exercise the Rights of the Person are going to have to be infringed upon. Logically it would be a compromise between the Rights of the Preborn and the Rights of the Woman and that would have to be addressed in such a manner that 3/4ths of the States would agree so that a Constitutional Amendment would be ratified. So I have not proposed the actual text of a Constitutional Amendment establishing the "Personhood of the Preborn" but I have long called upon "anti-abortionists" to propose such an Amendment where the vast majority of Americans would support it. |
|
