Sharpshooter Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Not if you have a law like Texas, where if there are 3 or more credible eye witnesses and over welming scientic proof then there is no 15 year appeals process, you go straight to the front of the line. Like Ron White says "I'm from Texas and in Texas we have the death penalty and we use it. That's right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. That's our policy. Right now there's a bill in the Texas legislature that would speed up the execution process of those convicted of a heinous crime with more than three credible witnesses. If more than three people saw you do what you did you don't sit on death row for 15 years Jack, you go straight to the front of the line. Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state's puttin in an express lane" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Pretty sure most sociopaths aren't exactly in a proper state of mind either. Should we not punish them too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelownaCanucksFan Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Are you suggesting that more than one innocent citizen being put to death wrongly, by their gov't, is not enough for you to not want any citizen to be put at risk to being put to death wrongly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovech Trick Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 All the death penalty does is fullfill some primitive sense of revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelownaCanucksFan Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Since 1973, 140 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. http://deathpenaltyi...d-death-penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 All the death penalty does is fullfill some primitive sense of revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gran Turismo Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Pretty sure most psychopaths aren't exactly in a proper state of mind either. Should we not punish them too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Because putting them down will bring the person they killed back. It'll make us feel good too, I bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Revenge is selfish. However to allow one the quality of life that they took from another is unfair. And taking a chance that the killer won't kill again but does. When you could have prevented it. That's just stupid. When dogs attack people they are deemed a risk and put down. I feel the exact same way about when a person kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Psychopathy is more of a personality disorder than a mental disorder. Features like lack of empathy, sense of grandeur, impulsivity, irresponsibility etc. They're in a proper enough state of mind to understand what they are doing, so yes they should be punished if they do indeed do something wrong. However, not all psychopaths commit crimes. Some people's bosses on here could be classified as psychopaths Psychotics (or psychosis) is probably what you were referring to. These guys hallucinate and hear sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Incarceration doesnt bring anyone back either, no one can undo their wrongs. Punitive measures exist to make people repay their debt to society in a manner that is deemed appropriate by the society they live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I really think in this case the inmate's IQ is irrelevant...after all, in the early part of the 1900's, they used to throw people into a mental hospital for being a "genius". But, the point I think matters most, is the guy killed someone, knew exactly what he was doing, and all this was in my view was a last ditch effort by a legal counsel to save him from the death penalty. They don't stay an execution because an inmate has an abnormally high IQ, so they shouldn't make an exception for one who has an abnormally low one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLumme Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Sorry if I don't spend more than two minutes posting on a hockey forum, to please you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 No, stuff happens we will never have a perfect system, but if I have to chose between spending over $100000 a year for a criminal or uping my parents cpp, my nephews getting better daycare, healthcare etc im choosing the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Revenge is selfish. However to allow one the quality of life that they took from another is unfair. And taking a chance that the killer won't kill again but does. When you could have prevented it. That's just stupid. When dogs attack people they are deemed a risk and put down. I feel the exact same way about when a person kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I agree, but I think it's worthwhile to attract attention to that fact when the topic concerns revenge-motivated punitive measures. Especially since undoing state sanctioned murder is just as impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Are you suggesting that people are the same as dogs when it comes to being a recurrent risk? And is it the dog's fault for biting people or their owners? Who are the owners in your metaphorical scenario? What punishment will they receive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So you're not putting your all into this argument? Certainly explains how weak your positions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I was outlining the similarities between a dog attack and when a mentally challenged human attacks. Both are not aware of what they are doing as being wrong. However they still pose a threat and because they are unaware, even more so. If they can't understand what they did and if it was wrong is there not a recurrent risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I was outlining the similarities between a dog attack and when a mentally challenged human attacks. Both are not aware of what they are doing as being wrong. However they still pose a threat and because they are unaware, even more so. If they can't understand what they did and if it was wrong is there not a recurrent risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.