Freiheit Reich wrote:Death penalty should be used less but should be allowed in extreme cases like when murder was committed during a crime of rape or when a serial killer kills many people or when a victim is brutally tortured before murder.
Make the death penalty harder to issue and make more proof required (such as the body being found to prove death).
Using harder standards means death penalty won't be given much (maybe once a decade) but it allows it for extreme cases when it is clearly deserved.
I dare one of the anti death penalty folks to explain to me how this is not a reasonable compromise.
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:49 am
by Jamzmania
Come on Maryland, I thought you were better than that.
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:53 am
by Lost Maryland
Jamzmania wrote:Come on Maryland, I thought you were better than that.
Freiheit Reich wrote:Death penalty should be used less but should be allowed in extreme cases like when murder was committed during a crime of rape or when a serial killer kills many people or when a victim is brutally tortured before murder.
Make the death penalty harder to issue and make more proof required (such as the body being found to prove death).
Using harder standards means death penalty won't be given much (maybe once a decade) but it allows it for extreme cases when it is clearly deserved.
I dare one of the anti death penalty folks to explain to me how this is not a reasonable compromise.
Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Lonara wrote: I dare one of the anti death penalty folks to explain to me how this is not a reasonable compromise.
Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Proving guilt beyond the benefit of a doubt solves the mistake issue, the morality issue is an issue of opinions, as is brutalization.
Xsyne wrote:Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Proving guilt beyond the benefit of a doubt solves the mistake issue, the morality issue is an issue of opinions, as is brutalization.
The standard is already "beyond a reasonable doubt", that has not stopped innocents from being executed. Why assume that would change?
Xsyne wrote:Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Proving guilt beyond the benefit of a doubt solves the mistake issue, the morality issue is an issue of opinions, as is brutalization.
We already do the first, so we know it doesn't, the second is a worthless objection, and the third demonstrates that you have no idea what brutalization is.
Lonara wrote: I dare one of the anti death penalty folks to explain to me how this is not a reasonable compromise.
Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Yes, it solves these issues.
Used much less: costs reduced
Used only when killer is VERY brutal and deserves brutally for justice: brutality issue solved
More evidence required for proof to get death penalty (versus regular life imprisonment) which means much lower risk of mistake: Mistake issue solved
Morality: The killer was very brutal to victims and the moral thing is to kill him. Not killing him would be immoral.
Norstal wrote:This is CM's Communist plot. I just know it.
By next week, Maryland's flag will be replaced with this.
Truth be told, some 12 years ago, I was turned on to Maryland's Campaign to end the Death Penalty by the International Socialist Organization. http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-cedp.shtmlI was active with both organizations for about 3 years. Of course this isn't the only activist group to organize against Maryland's Death Penalty, but it was a big one (I don't know about nowadays). Social movements often have a history of socialists being at the heart of reforms such as this.
Conserative Morality wrote:By next week, Maryland's flag will be replaced with this.
Truth be told, some 12 years ago, I was turned on to Maryland's Campaign to end the Death Penalty by the International Socialist Organization. http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-cedp.shtmlI was active with both organizations for about 3 years. Of course this isn't the only activist group to organize against Maryland's Death Penalty, but it was a big one (I don't know about nowadays). Social movements often have a history of socialists being at the heart of reforms such as this.
That doesn't imbue me with confidence in the direction my state is going. Not to say I didn't already know.
Xsyne wrote:Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Yes, it solves these issues.
Used much less: costs reduced
We're talking about on a per case basis.
Used only when killer is VERY brutal and deserves brutally for justice: brutality issue solved
Learn what brutalization is.
More evidence required for proof to get death penalty (versus regular life imprisonment) which means much lower risk of mistake: Mistake issue solved
Which means mistakes still happen, which means that it is not solved.
Morality: The killer was very brutal to victims and the moral thing is to kill him. Not killing him would be immoral.
I don't believe there's ever been a coherent system of morality opposed where this is the case. Plus, unless I'm grossly mistaken, aren't you a Christian?
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:14 am
by Lonara
Mistakes happen no matter what, unless you can get rid of human error you might as well get rid of the prison system. People get life in prison and are innocent far more often than we are willing to admit. You aren't solving a problem by getting rid of the death penalty, you are creating more.
Tsa-la-gi Nation wrote:Truth be told, some 12 years ago, I was turned on to Maryland's Campaign to end the Death Penalty by the International Socialist Organization. http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-cedp.shtmlI was active with both organizations for about 3 years. Of course this isn't the only activist group to organize against Maryland's Death Penalty, but it was a big one (I don't know about nowadays). Social movements often have a history of socialists being at the heart of reforms such as this.
That doesn't imbue me with confidence in the direction my state is going. Not to say I didn't already know.
I too have a lot to complain about when it comes to Maryland politics. I'm worried about the gun ban proposal & I hate the pro gambling position of our state, but I have always been against the death penality. For me, it's a question of the quality of legal representation that one gets in our courts is equal to the amount one has is his/her bank account. So, a guilty rich man will get 20 years while a guilty poor man dies for the same crime.
Xsyne wrote:Because it doesn't solve the cost issue, it doesn't solve the morality issue, it doesn't solve the mistake issue, and it doesn't solve the brutalization issue.
Proving guilt beyond the benefit of a doubt solves the mistake issue, the morality issue is an issue of opinions, as is brutalization.
The only "Beyond the benefit of doubt" i can see for death penalty usage is if the murder is caught on high-quality video or national television or other infallible methods. Anything with a risk of an innocent being put to death is too risky, In my opinion.
Lonara wrote: Proving guilt beyond the benefit of a doubt solves the mistake issue, the morality issue is an issue of opinions, as is brutalization.
The only "Beyond the benefit of doubt" i can see for death penalty usage is if the murder is caught on high-quality video or national television or other infallible methods. Anything with a risk of an innocent being put to death is too risky, In my opinion.
We can definitely reserve it for cases when there is absolute proof that the accused was the murderer in question, I.E. Timothy McVeigh, Lee Boyd Mavo.
Jamzmania wrote:Come on Maryland, I thought you were better than that.
So did I.
Indeed. If Maryland were better, this would have happened long ago.
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 10:23 am
by Merriwhether
Excellent. I applaud Maryland for their civility and respect for the value of life. Especially considering the penalty of death is less than practical in eliminating crime. Clearly someone who breaks into someone's house and kills the family just to steal a few valuables has very little value in life to begin with. All criminals of that level deserve no less than to wither away in prison for the rest of their, hopefully long and painful, lives.
What they also need, though, is less accomodation for criminals, if only to reduce the costs of their living there. After all, would you like to have a larger or smaller amount of the money you pay in taxes go to feeding murderers, rapists and robers? I think not.
Don't start on me about the death penalty being cheaper, either. It's also quicker and less painful, so even if you were going to do the death penalty, it would have to be a gruelingly slow and painful as possible to equal justice, which just isn't moral. At least with life sentances, you're forced to see your entire life go up in smoke.
FoxTropica wrote:The only "Beyond the benefit of doubt" i can see for death penalty usage is if the murder is caught on high-quality video or national television or other infallible methods. Anything with a risk of an innocent being put to death is too risky, In my opinion.
We can definitely reserve it for cases when there is absolute proof that the accused was the murderer in question, I.E. Timothy McVeigh, Lee Boyd Mavo.
Fun fact: There is no such thing as absolute proof, in fact the very idea that there could be is utterly insane.
Freiheit Reich wrote:Death penalty should be used less but should be allowed in extreme cases like when murder was committed during a crime of rape or when a serial killer kills many people or when a victim is brutally tortured before murder.
Make the death penalty harder to issue and make more proof required (such as the body being found to prove death).
Using harder standards means death penalty won't be given much (maybe once a decade) but it allows it for extreme cases when it is clearly deserved.
I dare one of the anti death penalty folks to explain to me how this is not a reasonable compromise.
Because it's not a compromise at all. In fact, it's the exact same thing as how the deth penalty already is.
Lonara wrote: We can definitely reserve it for cases when there is absolute proof that the accused was the murderer in question, I.E. Timothy McVeigh, Lee Boyd Mavo.
Fun fact: There is no such thing as absolute proof, in fact the very idea that there could be is utterly insane.
Well, you can get damn close. But even watching a video of the man do it sometimes can be false.
Lonara wrote: We can definitely reserve it for cases when there is absolute proof that the accused was the murderer in question, I.E. Timothy McVeigh, Lee Boyd Mavo.
Fun fact: There is no such thing as absolute proof, in fact the very idea that there could be is utterly insane.
There's a point where saying that it isn't proven, is somewhat of a joke.
Lonara wrote: There's a point where saying that it isn't proven, is somewhat of a joke.
Nope. That's why we use the phrase "proven beyond reasonable doubt" because you can't have absolute proof.
Right, but the reasonable doubt bit means, "there is the slightest chance we could be wrong, but if you believe we are...you need to re-examine your thought process."
Used only when killer is VERY brutal and deserves brutally for justice: brutality issue solved
Learn what brutalization is.
More evidence required for proof to get death penalty (versus regular life imprisonment) which means much lower risk of mistake: Mistake issue solved
Which means mistakes still happen, which means that it is not solved.
Morality: The killer was very brutal to victims and the moral thing is to kill him. Not killing him would be immoral.
I don't believe there's ever been a coherent system of morality opposed where this is the case. Plus, unless I'm grossly mistaken, aren't you a Christian?
I understand why people are against death penalty. However, the first paragraph of the link says why death penalty must sometimes be used. For example, how can we justify a guy that raped and murdered 10 children to live 30 years in prison. Extreme cases require extreme actions.
Notice, many killers deserving to die will be spared (because I agree with you on cost and mistakes issue). A man that robs a house and shoots the owner, a man that slits the throat of a security guard, etc. These killers will get life in prison and not the death penalty.
The rape and murder would be hard to prove in some cases. If the evidence is 50/50 than the person gets life in prison. Sometimes it is obvious though. Also, when somebody raped and murdered 10 women, the evidence against him is usually strong and no shadow of doubt will exist.
Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:43 am