Gov. Ryan is a crook. The only reason he's doing this is to divert attention from the Fed. governments investigation of his "license for bribes" scandal. Evidence has now come out that he knew all about it. He's doing this so he's not known as the crooked governor but instead the one who was so "seeking justice for those poor, innocent convicts."
Death Penalty
by Yerusalyim 49 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Abaddon
Before we all start congratulating ourselves for having the same opinion, no one expressing dismay at what the governer has done has even begun to address the issues.
1/ There is no way you can guarantee the legal process will be right all the time. Therefore, if you have a death sentence you WILL kill inoccent people. What justification is there for this, as last time I looked, two wrongs did not make a right?
2/ If you don't have a death sentence the aims of the death sentence with regard to public safety can still be met.
3/ In the USA, the death penalty is racist in application. For a comparable crime, far more non-whites are executed than whites.
On those three counts alone the death penalty is wrong. No one has presented any evidence that change these three facts. And that's excluding factors like executing people gets you votes, so those elected officials in charge have reelection to think of, rather than justice, that's excluding the fact that some states execute people who were children when they commited a crime, and other execute mentally defective people, that's not to mention if you are rich, you probably won't die.
Thus I maintain the death penalty is a little placebo to make people feel better, and not a just, or even particulary effective deterant.
Now, you can carry on agreeing with each other ("Wohoo, you like killing people too!!"), but wouldn't it be nicer if someone addressed those three simple issues and explained why they aren't so, or, if they are so, why this can be ignored?
Please realise that you are conditioned, just as I am, by my culture. After the war the German government abolished the death penalty, to general public opposition. They had grown up in a country where people were executed, and it just seemed right and proper that way, and that murders would run rampant on the streets if they abolished it.
Now several generations have grown up without the death penalty, and only a small minority of people want a return of the death penalty, as to them, it seems barbaric process, one that it is impossible to eliminate error from, and one where if the person needs to be kept away from the public for ever for safety, they still can be, alive.
-
Xena
Sorry Abaddon I didn't realize what the "issues" were I guess...I thought it was just supposed to be a comment on the article which was about him commuting the sentences without regard to due process of the law....
I do believe the legal process should be looked at, when you administer death to innocent people you are just as guilty as the people you are trying to condem. But there are cases where guilt is cut and dried, do we agree on that?
As far as a life sentence being the equivalent of the death sentence I don't really agree with you there. But that could just be my own internal sense of justice there....sorry I am a bloodthirsty Texan. My gut feeling tells me that if you deliberately take a life your own should be forfit.
As for the death penality in the US being racist, you probably have a good point there and again I DO feel that our justice system needs an overhaul.
I am afraid a perfect society is beyond our control, but perhaps I am just jaded due to my JW experience.
-
Farkel
: So, what do you all think, good or bad.
"I'd rather see a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man convicted." - Thomas Jefferson
The major problem with the death penalty is that it is permanent, and DNA evidence has recently shown that a disturbing number of people have been wrongly sentenced to it. Most of my life I was a major advocate of it. Lately, I've wondered differently.
Farkel
-
back2dafront
If there's no question whatsoever of the persons guilt, I see nothing wrong w/ the death penalty. But if there's any chance someone on death row could be innocent, either change the sentence to life or extend the date in order to have a re-trial. Same difference really.
The part that disturbs me about the article is that he let 4 guys go free, but it doesn't talk about what evidence surfaced that proved their innoncence. Seems shady to me.
-
Blueblades
Its been reported that life in prison is like a living death.But I think it depend on where you serve your time.Federal country club,or,places like attica.This subject has always been an emotional issue.The death penalty or life in prison.
God has no qualm or misgivings about using the death penalty toward the whole human race for all sorts of offenses.Just a thought, I'm certainly in no position to decide any of this.We are all on death row and no one is getting a pardon from that. Blueblades
-
roybatty
3/ In the USA, the death penalty is racist in application. For a comparable crime, far more non-whites are executed than whites.
On those three counts alone the death penalty is wrong. No one has presented any evidence that change these three facts.
The death penalty isn't racist in it's application. Like all crimes, it's how much money you have. Just ask O.J. Simpson. If you're rich, you can afford a better attorney and have a better chance of getting off or at least a lighter sentence. It happens all the time. One perfect example is the crime of drunk driving. It amazes me the diffences in sentences from one person to the next. One guy will get jail time while the next guy gets a fine. The same is true with murder and the death penelty. If Michael Jordan were to be arrested for murder (or any crime) he'd have a much better chance of getting off then if I were arrested for the same crime. He can afford to hire a dozen of the nation's best criminal defense lawyers. I can't. I'm not saying that this is even a better situation but I'm just tired of people using stats to promote something that isn't exactly true.
What Ryan should have done is review as many cases that he could and then leave the rest for the next governor. Isn't anyone else amazed that for 4 years this guy didn't do anything and then when he has a few weeks left he's cramming all of this in????
One case in particular disturbs me. I recall reading about it a few years ago in the paper. These two guys and a lady broke into the home of one of the guy's ex-girlfriend's homes. They killed her two two young kids (with a knife), strangled her, cut out the 8 month old baby from her womb and then kidnapped her 3 year old boy. As they were driving one of the guys in the back seat tortured the little boy (won't go into details) then they killed him. They then dumped his body in an empty lot.
They should die for this crime.
-
Farkel
backtodafront,
: The part that disturbs me about the article is that he let 4 guys go free, but it doesn't talk about what evidence surfaced that proved their innoncence
Fortunately, in the USA no has has to prove their innocence. The burden of proof is on the accusers to prove guilt, and not just guilt, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is even a reasonable doubt, then the accusers lose. The accused has no responsibility to prove his or her innocence. Courts do not rule that an accused has been proven to be "innocent" but rather the accusers have failed to prove their case and that the accused is found to be "no guilty." It doesn't necessarily mean the accused is "innocent" of the crime, but rather he could not be found guilty of the crime by those who accused him. This is among the many reasons why the United States of America is a good example to the world, and especially those countries like Mexico and others who still practice Roman Law which requires the accused to prove innocence or face the consequences.
Farkel
-
Yerusalyim
Still being undecided about the whole issue, my understanding of those pardoned is that DNA or other evidence came to light that proved they didn't commit the crime.
-
freedom96
This is a tough subject. Of course no one wants to convict an innocent man. But there are some crimes that absolutely I believe deserve death as the consequence of the action.
Perhaps the death penalty should be given by the judge after the jury has already decided if the person is guilty or not.
In cases of DNA where it clearly shows that the person is guilty, I believe that they should enforce the death penalty, and none of this waiting 20 years.