Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Actually no I don't
but yeah you can be
But nothing is 100% certain in my opinion
i do believe though if you are proved to have killed someone then you should killed
Someone will probably mention "yeah but what about DNA evidence innit". Still doesn't necessarily prove a murder, even if someone was literally smeared in the accused's DNA.
Of course you can be 100% sure.
But still not 100% sure.
After all, an alien with advanced technology might have shot them all, changed everyone's memories, faked the video, then disappeared, all as part of an experiment to see how humans act.
You can be responsible for the acts which lead to a death, but without the criminal intention (to bring out some latin, what they call 'mens rea') then the essential component required for murder is missing. Most progressive legal systems (and I'm including the US in this, even though I think certain state laws are so abhorrent that they do not deserve to be termed 'laws' at all) have defences such as insanity, or diminished responsiblility or provocation and depending on the legal system and teh facts, this can sometimes secure an acquittal, or sometimes commute what would have otherwise been a murder charge down to one of manslaughter/ lesser degree of homicide.
there are so many variables and 'guilt' in the legal sense is not just down to whether or not you were the guy who shot the gun.
but capital punishment in any case is just plain wrong
i no circumstances should someone be killed for a crime.
talk more clearly
Good quoting :)
can we afford NOT to liquidize all criminals?
is actually pretty damn costly.
So yeah, let's do that.
Which is EST in Georgia I think (5 hours behind) - 8 hours yet
If you're not sure, just leave him prison for his whole life.
Think I might be turning into a bit of a Zapsta fan.
biological/psychological studies looking into causes of criminality?
(obviously the point with this case is that lots of people doubt he even committed the crime)
if someone was against the death penalty then they should have been arguinh just as fervently for that guy.
IMO one deserved the death penalty, one didn't.
And I disagree with your post. I'm against the death penalty in all cases - neither Brewer nor Davis should have been executed.
But it's a question of priorities. Amnesty (for example) won't be able to stop all executions – turns out they couldn't stop Davis being killed – so which prisoner do you try to save? The man convicted on the evidence of witnesses who since recanted their testimony? Or the man who didn't deny committing a horrific hate killing, and in fact said *I'd do it all over again*?
Neither of them deserved to be executed. But if you want a glib answer, one deserved to be saved from it more than the other did.
a man whose actions, both in committing a horrific murder and refusing to recant, preclude him from falling under most conventional definitions of sane (particularly at a time when biological and psychological studies which refute the existence of criminal free will are gaining more credence) "deserved" salvation less than anyone else?
I doubt Jordan was trolling, but even if he was he raises an interesting point. I'd agree it is a matter of priorities, but there's some mileage in discussing how those priorities are set and whether or not they stand up to scrutiny.
that highlighting Troy Davis' case could both save the individual and cast light on the flaws in that system
Amnesty and many other groups do constantly campaign against capital punishment in principle irrespective of any individual cases
And the entire judicial system is based on the assumption that people have it.
We are all borderline insane by many definitions at points in our life. What makes somebody take a murderous thought and act on it- a temporary, irreverisble impulse that you pay for with your own life in somme states.
Maybe I'd have reacted differently if he'd said "Here's an interesting point..." instead of pretending to be surprised that people feel less sympathy for a homicidal racist than they do for a guy who, seemingly, was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
at every execution and there was plenty of talk about this case on the things I was watching and reading last night. The Troy Davis case just happens to be one that has caught the public's attention due to the shocking nature of the actual case.
Feel completely sickened by this whole thing.
it's about the death penalty being plain wrong
but within the US system of Capital punishment Troy Davis' was a massively flawed case which should never have come to this
two chicken-fried steaks with gravy and sliced onions, a triple-bacon cheeseburger and a cheese omelette with ground beef, tomatoes, onions, and peppers.
He was also granted three fajitas, a meat-lover's pizza, a pound of barbecued meat with half a loaf of white bread and a bowl of fried okra with ketchup.
For dessert, he asked for a pint of ice cream and a slab of peanut-butter fudge with crushed peanuts. He requested that the whole thing be washed down with three root beers.
and then ate none of it.
Texas has now just outlawed the provision of last meal requests as a response.
Especially in the heat of the moment after hearing of a sickening murder. But if you actually think it through: the crime goes through the courts, then the end result is a person a few years down the line physically being killed by the state - that really isn't how things should be done these days.
it's abhorrent, and would change my opinion of them entirely if they told me such.
there's a lot of people like that in the UK (and in general), we can't seem to get above this 'eye for an eye' rubbish.
is why no one has been executed here since 1964.
Actually you're right, I was clearly saying EVERYONE in the UK thinks we should hang all criminals.
I think 'public support' for the death penalty in the UK is massively over-estimated- most recent studies into it have been hugely flawed, barely representative and have had overt agendas. Personally I prefer to stick with the tangible evidence (ie that no one has been executed in the UK since 1964) than make broad and dubiously-founded criticism of the character of "a lot" of Britons.
doesn't mean you need to take constant spurious swipes at me elsewhere you know
and the vast majority of judges refused to dole it out. I'm not convinced there's anything close to majority support for capital punishment in the UK, that whatever 'support' it garners in opinion polls would really be borne out in any active sense, or that anyone whose opinion really matters would want to bring it back. I'm not sure there's a solid basis from which to criticise the UK (or the world generally) on its approach to capital punishment.
I was just throwin' a bit of trivia into the mix
I think people say it very flippantly though, and don't think it through fully which is the problem. Reinstating the death penalty if it went to a vote wouldn't get passed, but if you did a straw poll in the street most would probably say they are (in theory) in favour of it.
it seems the top eight countries in terms of number of executions were China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, USA, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Syria. Keeping great company there USA!
given that the USA has the third largest population on earth.
can't distinguish between "there" and "their" but here are his thoughts on this subject.
The phrase "don't know whether to laugh or cry" is used a lot these days...
Always makes me turn off Radio 5 Live whenever he comes on.
He seems to be advocating that the killers of James Bulger (who actually probably should never have been tried as adults in the first place) should have had the death penalty - world class trolling; and he gets paid for it, what a great job
i.e. turning their website into a more downmarket version of Heat magazine with the odd brainfart from a US right-wing blowhard to keep those Tea Party hits rolling in
(done in the style of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons)