Paid Members Chris B Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 So, yeah, my stance is pretty simple. Fuck the death penalty. It's barbaric. Â Any more nuanced approaches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 A little history may be of help to some of us Chris so who was Troy Davis? Â Anyway I'm against the death penelty but have no real interest in a debate about the subject because it just goes around in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BionicRedneck Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'll support the death penalty when we can be 100% certain we are executing guilty people. Â So, never, basically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Its barbaric and ridiculous. Its murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitman89762000 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 For those wondering who troy davis is this is from wikipedia: Â Troy Anthony Davis (October 9, 1968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapnut Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 The above quote in shorter terms: Man A killed Man B in 1989, Troy Davis got the blame but has pleaded innocent to this day and has gathered the support of loads of famous people who believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Ronnie Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 Wasn't it the case that several of the witnesses recanted their statements to indicate that he didn't commit the crime? Â That being the case, I'd say that the question based on his case shouldn't be whether there ought to be a death penalty. Irrespective of one's position on that issue, I'd think it pretty clear that everyone would say that a person in such a scenario shouldn't be executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Stone Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'll support the death penalty when we can be 100% certain we are executing guilty people. So, never, basically.  I'm pretty much with this guy. However I come from the position of 'I do support the death penalty when' as opposed to 'i'll'. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cases where 100% proof exists however without that the death penalty should never be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandingo's Donger Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'll support the death penalty when we can be 100% certain we are executing guilty people. So, never, basically.  I'm pretty much with this guy. However I come from the position of 'I do support the death penalty when' as opposed to 'i'll'. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cases where 100% proof exists however without that the death penalty should never be used.  As far as i'm concerned there is no such thing.  99% maybe but its impossible for 12 members of a jury to know for sure without even the slightest bit of doubt that someone is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAFKAC Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'll support the death penalty when we can be 100% certain we are executing guilty people. So, never, basically.  Seconded. In the event it turns out someone is innocent it is a bit late if they have received the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Psygnosis Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 As said, if they are 100% guilty without the slightest doubt, so never. Â In a case like this Troy Davis should not have been executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted September 22, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 Wasn't it the case that several of the witnesses recanted their statements to indicate that he didn't commit the crime? That being the case, I'd say that the question based on his case shouldn't be whether there ought to be a death penalty. Irrespective of one's position on that issue, I'd think it pretty clear that everyone would say that a person in such a scenario shouldn't be executed.  But that would need no discussion, Ronnie - whereas the question of people's positions on the death penalty can be discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm generally opposed to it. Â When I read about crimes that emotionally affect me, I often think that the world would be a better place without the perpetrator. Similarly, if someone did serious harm to a loved one, I'm sure in my heart that I'd kill the guilty party myself. The law has to be more objective than that, though. Â I do think that crimes should be punished more severely in many cases, but I'd stop short of the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Thunderplex Posted September 22, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted September 22, 2011 Death penalty no. Â Life meaning life yes. This goes for rapists and nonces too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I followed it for 2 or 3 hours on that democracy now site in the early hours. Chilling stuff. Despite their money, influence and power on the world stage, America on some levels is one seriously fucked up country who are in no position to try to police the world and pontificate on issues surrounding human rights. Â Execution would be sick and barbaric even if it was non-discrimatory, but it's even worse when you consider the disparity based on race and class. I suspect there's probably more to this case than meets the eye because there's no way they could justify pressing on in light of such doubts, recanting of testimonies etc. You can only speculate but I wouldn't be surprised one bit if there's some foul play involved to cover up the actions of the police, prosecutors and lawlords. Â There were some good speakers on that programme though, such as the guy from Amnesty International and the NAACP. Unfortunately, I don't think this case will have a huge effect on American opinions about the principles of State Sanctioned Murder, especially when there was another execution last night which was more cut & dried, and was for a particularly vile crime. But it might help to make the system become more flexible and transparent with regards to reconsideration based on new evidence for example. Â It was interesting to hear that these abolition groups reckon they 'only' have to get capital punishment abolished in another 8 or 9 stats out of 30-something to effectively put an end to it. Apparently the US constitution requires a punishment to be both 'cruel and 'unusual' for it to be illegal, and their definition of unusual is something like "used by over half the states". If they can meet that requirement, then arguing the 'cruel' part should be pretty much a formality (you'd imagine!). Of course, getting that many states to change their stance will probably take a lot of work, time, and sadly a few miscarriages of justice, but i'm sure there will be quite a few states which are split on the issue and maybe only need a slight swing to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.