| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/29/2011 02:47:33 PM · #226 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
I think she's implying that in certain circumstances, executing a person for murder and/or hiring a person to do the killing isn't justified by a death sentence. (In fact, in most circumstances it isn't), and that for this woman, having this person killed seemed like the only escape from years of abuse. Serving 25 years for that is not only just enough in itself, but is possibly over-kill.
Without compassion, we have nothing. Perhaps the offenses against this woman do not justify the death of the offender, but his killing certainly does not warrant the death of the woman. You are putting yourself in a bit of a tight spot here, no? Exactly where are you drawing your line on who deserves death? Only someone that kills another? For any purpose? Or do you just react to everything in the same manner regardless of reason?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:50:16 PM · #227 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Nothing like unicorn stew on a cold day. |
And perfect if you're on a weight-loss diet ...
I'm just glad the guy in Texas didn't ask for a bowl of that or I'd have to reconsider my opinion on their last-meal policy. |
GeneralE I think you are onto something here...that would be easy way to convert Death into life sentence....until some unicorns come around. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:50:56 PM · #228 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
I'm implying nothing. What I'm saying is she may have hired a murderer, but she herself is not a murderer. I'm also not saying that killing the man is right, but I am saying abused women have been known to do much, much worse and without penalty because their inaction may have cost them their lives. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:57:02 PM · #229 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'm just glad the guy in Texas didn't ask for a bowl of that or I'd have to reconsider my opinion on their last-meal policy. |
Mr. Davis did not request a last meal choosing instead to spend time with friends and family.
Another man facing death in Texas, Lawrence Brewer ordered two steaks, a triple-meat cheeseburger, a cheese omelette, a large bowl of fried okra, three fajitas, a pint of ice cream and a pound of barbecue meat. In reaction to such a disgusting display of gluttony and abuse Texas has now eliminated the last meal for people it will put to death. It might make it easier for Texas to further streamline their nation leading capital punishment. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 02:59:09 PM · #230 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
I think she's implying that in certain circumstances, executing a person for murder and/or hiring a person to do the killing isn't justified by a death sentence. (In fact, in most circumstances it isn't), and that for this woman, having this person killed seemed like the only escape from years of abuse. Serving 25 years for that is not only just enough in itself, but is possibly over-kill.
Without compassion, we have nothing. Perhaps the offenses against this woman do not justify the death of the offender, but his killing certainly does not warrant the death of the woman. You are putting yourself in a bit of a tight spot here, no? Exactly where are you drawing your line on who deserves death? Only someone that kills another? For any purpose? Or do you just react to everything in the same manner regardless of reason? |
we were talking about Death penalty. and what I am In awe is that someone could be OK with the murder (because its justified) but there is NO justification for Death penalty under any condition.. don't you see the paradox? |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:04:19 PM · #231 |
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
I think she's implying that in certain circumstances, executing a person for murder and/or hiring a person to do the killing isn't justified by a death sentence. (In fact, in most circumstances it isn't), and that for this woman, having this person killed seemed like the only escape from years of abuse. Serving 25 years for that is not only just enough in itself, but is possibly over-kill.
Without compassion, we have nothing. Perhaps the offenses against this woman do not justify the death of the offender, but his killing certainly does not warrant the death of the woman. You are putting yourself in a bit of a tight spot here, no? Exactly where are you drawing your line on who deserves death? Only someone that kills another? For any purpose? Or do you just react to everything in the same manner regardless of reason? |
we were talking about Death penalty. and what I am In awe is that someone could be OK with the murder (because its justified) but there is NO justification for Death penalty under any condition.. don't you see the paradox? |
Not really. One is a crime of passion and circumstance. The other is a calculated killing based on archaic and imperfect methodologies that has a chance of putting innocent people to death and/or being abused by a corrupt system. No paradox there.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:10:08 PM · #232 |
Originally posted by Basta:
we were talking about Death penalty. and what I am In awe is that someone could be OK with the murder (because its justified) but there is NO justification for Death penalty under any condition.. don't you see the paradox? |
1) She was not charged with murder. she was sentenced to death for being an accomplice.
2) She ALLEGES that her actions were the outcome of years of abuse, which put her in fear for her life. That is the defense for the guy who shoots a burglar, or many women who have killed their husbands and not spent time in jail by using this defense. Weaker people have wider latitude to kill the strong in self defense, it need not be durring a struggle, since they will lose any struggle. Look up the "burning bed defense".
3) Almost everyone is OK with some murders, (war, self defense, ect.) if someone is in the act of trying to kill you, you can kill them. That's usually is OK with most folks. Yet some of us think that the state should not be murdering people who they have already put in a cell where they are no longer a threat. Explain the paradox if you would, because I just don't see one.
Message edited by author 2011-09-29 15:21:22. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:16:38 PM · #233 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Basta:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Yep, looks like justice to me. What do you find so offensive about this? She has served 25 years for hiring a hit man to kill the bastard who abused her for years. If she'd been tried today, she probably would have never even been convicted. |
Are you implying the murder is ok. Execution of a murderer is wrong? |
I think she's implying that in certain circumstances, executing a person for murder and/or hiring a person to do the killing isn't justified by a death sentence. (In fact, in most circumstances it isn't), and that for this woman, having this person killed seemed like the only escape from years of abuse. Serving 25 years for that is not only just enough in itself, but is possibly over-kill.
Without compassion, we have nothing. Perhaps the offenses against this woman do not justify the death of the offender, but his killing certainly does not warrant the death of the woman. You are putting yourself in a bit of a tight spot here, no? Exactly where are you drawing your line on who deserves death? Only someone that kills another? For any purpose? Or do you just react to everything in the same manner regardless of reason? |
we were talking about Death penalty. and what I am In awe is that someone could be OK with the murder (because its justified) but there is NO justification for Death penalty under any condition.. don't you see the paradox? |
Not really. One is a crime of passion and circumstance. The other is a calculated killing based on archaic and imperfect methodologies that has a chance of putting innocent people to death and/or being abused by a corrupt system. No paradox there. |
Neither may be ultimately justifiable, but women who kill abusers usually are not making a mistake in who they kill, although there may be collateral damage. The state can make a mistake, and ALWAYS with a cool head. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:22:56 PM · #234 |
You people are Okaying The Murder.....Calculated murder, arranged .... Yet you are anti-death penalty?????
I see no reason to continue any discussion about this with you. See you in a Photography section... |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:33:17 PM · #235 |
Originally posted by Basta:
You people are Okaying The Murder.....Calculated murder, arranged .... Yet you are anti-death penalty?????
I see no reason to continue any discussion about this with you. See you in a Photography section... |
Well, considering that you seem to have no reading comprehension whatsoever, that's probably best :D
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 03:37:30 PM · #236 |
Originally posted by Basta:
You people are Okaying The Murder.....Calculated murder, arranged .... Yet you are anti-death penalty????? |
What is the death penalty if not calculated murder, arranged....? If there is no possible excuse for the woman, how can there be for the state? |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 05:07:54 PM · #237 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Basta:
You people are Okaying The Murder.....Calculated murder, arranged .... Yet you are anti-death penalty?????
I see no reason to continue any discussion about this with you. See you in a Photography section... |
Well, considering that you seem to have no reading comprehension whatsoever, that's probably best :D |
Does the fact that english is your native language makes you feel superior? it should not. Its not comprehension I'm having the problem with its your logic..
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 05:26:09 PM · #238 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Basta:
You people are Okaying The Murder.....Calculated murder, arranged .... Yet you are anti-death penalty????? |
What is the death penalty if not calculated murder, arranged....? If there is no possible excuse for the woman, how can there be for the state? |
The state is not a person acting outside the law on her own accord. Corporations are people, governments aren't.
Message edited by author 2011-09-29 17:26:44. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 05:39:38 PM · #239 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
The state is not a person acting outside the law on her own accord. Corporations are people, governments aren't. |
Given that the state writes the laws, and therefore will always act within them, does the state have any restrictions in it's actions? If a calculated arranged murder is the worst possible crime a person can commit, does not the immorality of that action carry forward when the state commits it? |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 06:00:40 PM · #240 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Not really. One is a crime of passion and circumstance. The other is a calculated killing based on archaic and imperfect methodologies that has a chance of putting innocent people to death and/or being abused by a corrupt system. No paradox there. |
I would argue that none of us have any idea as to what exactly happened in this case, other than the fact that this lady's husband is no longer with us.
How can you possibly assert that the former is NOT a calculated killing...I know I most certainly can't. Did she pay her debt to society... in all probability YES, but we can't assume that the act in itself is spontaneous.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 06:14:54 PM · #241 |
A question for the pro-death penalty people.
Are you only supportive of the death penalty in murder cases? - What if it was extended to include rape cases (for example)? Or child abuse?
Is your stance based on the 'eye for an eye' principle?
And what about the death penalty in other countries, like Iran, where they have the death penalty for adultery and apostasy ? Would you support it as an appropriate sentence in these cases? I mean, the criminal knew the laws of the land, they knew they were risking the death sentence when they committed the crime - Why should they not obey their country's laws?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 06:37:45 PM · #242 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Not really. One is a crime of passion and circumstance. The other is a calculated killing based on archaic and imperfect methodologies that has a chance of putting innocent people to death and/or being abused by a corrupt system. No paradox there. |
I would argue that none of us have any idea as to what exactly happened in this case, other than the fact that this lady's husband is no longer with us.
How can you possibly assert that the former is NOT a calculated killing...I know I most certainly can't. Did she pay her debt to society... in all probability YES, but we can't assume that the act in itself is spontaneous.
Just another man's view.
Ray |
I wasn't talking about JUST the one case in particular, but the general happenstance of most cases of this nature. Passion and circumstance don't negate calculating either, but there is no time when a death penalty by the state isn't calculating.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:04:11 PM · #243 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Spork99:
The state is not a person acting outside the law on her own accord. Corporations are people, governments aren't. |
Given that the state writes the laws, and therefore will always act within them, does the state have any restrictions in it's actions? If a calculated arranged murder is the worst possible crime a person can commit, does not the immorality of that action carry forward when the state commits it? |
The same laws that govern the individual do not govern the state. If I take money out of your paycheck, it's stealing. The government calls it taxes. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:10:30 PM · #244 |
Originally posted by JH:
A question for the pro-death penalty people.
Are you only supportive of the death penalty in murder cases? - What if it was extended to include rape cases (for example)? Or child abuse?
Is your stance based on the 'eye for an eye' principle?
And what about the death penalty in other countries, like Iran, where they have the death penalty for adultery and apostasy ? Would you support it as an appropriate sentence in these cases? I mean, the criminal knew the laws of the land, they knew they were risking the death sentence when they committed the crime - Why should they not obey their country's laws? |
Actually, that's more than one question, but I'll excuse your lack of counting skills.
Originally posted by JH:
Are you only supportive of the death penalty in murder cases? - What if it was extended to include rape cases (for example)? Or child abuse?
|
Yes, no, no.
Originally posted by JH:
Is your stance based on the 'eye for an eye' principle?
|
Partially.
Originally posted by JH:
And what about the death penalty in other countries, like Iran, where they have the death penalty for adultery and apostasy ? Would you support it as an appropriate sentence in these cases? I mean, the criminal knew the laws of the land, they knew they were risking the death sentence when they committed the crime - Why should they not obey their country's laws? |
Who cares? Or are we venturing into foreign policy discussion?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:15:26 PM · #245 |
Some of you against the death penalty have stated your objection is due the the fact that the condemned may indeed be innocent. What about in the cases where there is no doubt at all that the condemned person was the one who killed in a cold blooded pre-meditated rampage? Do you still object?
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:24:01 PM · #246 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Some of you against the death penalty have stated your objection is due the the fact that the condemned may indeed be innocent. What about in the cases where there is no doubt at all that the condemned person was the one who killed in a cold blooded pre-meditated rampage? Do you still object? |
I do, but on moral/philosophical grounds. I realize that in the practical world those are personal convictions. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 07:24:06 PM · #247 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Some of you against the death penalty have stated your objection is due the the fact that the condemned may indeed be innocent. What about in the cases where there is no doubt at all that the condemned person was the one who killed in a cold blooded pre-meditated rampage? Do you still object? |
That's the danger of having point-to-point discussions. Nobody's really just sat down and stated all the reasons they do or don't support, or if they are solid in their support or non-support, etc.
For me, my MAIN opposition is in the fact that as humans we are too prone to mistake and error. I also believe that as people, we don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Who deserves death and who doesn't. The problem is that I also don't support, fully, over-crowded prisons sucking on tax-payer teats.
So what is the solution? I don't know. I don't have THAT answer. I simply don't agree in actively putting people to death, no matter what the crime. To me it makes us no better than the people doing the killing (or whatever) in the first place. It's not effective. It's not a deterrent. It's not a proper response.
But you got me on what SHOULD be done.
|
|
|
|
09/29/2011 08:11:31 PM · #248 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
snip...
For me, my MAIN opposition is in the fact that as humans we are too prone to mistake and error. I also believe that as people, we don't have the right to decide who lives and who dies. Who deserves death and who doesn't. The problem is that I also don't support, fully, over-crowded prisons sucking on tax-payer teats.
snip... But you got me on what SHOULD be done. |
Ditto for me as far as the death penalty goes.
As for the over populated jails. I do think there is a solution for that. Legalize some of the stupid crap that puts so many people there in the first place. How many people are taking up room because they smoke pot or some other stupid thing? Stop putting people in jail for petty crap, and it would leave lots of room for the "real" criminals. |
|
|
|
09/29/2011 08:36:42 PM · #249 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The problem is that I also don't support, fully, over-crowded prisons sucking on tax-payer teats.
So what is the solution? I don't know. I don't have THAT answer. I simply don't agree in actively putting people to death, no matter what the crime. To me it makes us no better than the people doing the killing (or whatever) in the first place. It's not effective. It's not a deterrent. It's not a proper response.
But you got me on what SHOULD be done. |
Really, those darned British went and used up Australia ...
For a possibly philosophically-acceptable (though completely impractical) solution read Robert A. Heinlein's story Coventry.
BTW remember that prisons (especially Federal) wouldn't be nearly so crowded and expensive if we quit jailing people for having a few joints or a little cocaine or heroin ... where's that Conservative/Libertarian spirit when it's needed? |
|
|
|
09/30/2011 06:31:21 PM · #250 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Some of you against the death penalty have stated your objection is due the the fact that the condemned may indeed be innocent. What about in the cases where there is no doubt at all that the condemned person was the one who killed in a cold blooded pre-meditated rampage? Do you still object? |
I do, but on moral/philosophical grounds. I realize that in the practical world those are personal convictions. |
I don't agreee with you (big surprise, I know), I think the death penalty should be the ultimate sanction for heinous murders.
The possibility of a wrongful conviction is not a reason to abolish the death penalty completely. It is a damn good reason to work on improving the justice system for ALL cases. It's a good reason to make damn sure the guilty person is the one convicted before execution.
Specifically related to the case in question:
The 2010 federal court innocence hearing found:
" . . . Mr. Davis is not innocent: the evidence produced at the hearing on the merits of Mr. Davis's
claim of actual innocence and a complete review of the record in this case does not require the reversal of the jury's judgment that Troy Anthony Davis murdered City of Savannah Police Officer
Mark Allen MacPhail on August 19, 1989." (2)
"Ultimately, while Mr. Davis's new evidence casts some additional, minimal doubt on his conviction, it is largely smoke and mirrors." (2)
"As a body, this evidence does not change the balance of proof that was presented at Mr.
Davis's trial."(2)
"The vast majority of the evidence at trial remains intact, and the new evidence is largely not credible or lacking in probative value." (2)
None of this came as a surprise to anyone who actually followed the case.
1) "Troy Davis: Worldwide anti death penalty deceptions, rightly, failed",
//homicidesurvivors.com/2011/09/25/troy-davis-worldwide-anti-death-penalty-deceptions-rightly-failed.aspx
2) "Innocence Hearing", ordered by the US Supreme Court, US DISTRICT COURT, in the SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIV.,RE TROY ANTHONY DAVIS, CASE NO. CV409-130
//multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pdfs/DavisRuling082410.pdf
//fop9.net/markmacphail/debunkingthemyths.cfm
|
|
