Death penalty????

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikayeel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 261
  • Views Views 30K
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't, snakelegs, because it's simply proving innocence.
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
Jayda said:
and also think about the people wrongly condemned to die because of mistakes in the system. mens' judgment is too imperfect to be trusted with life and death, that belongs to God. the death penalty is wrong...[/QUOTE]

Really? his semen was found in her body cavities on autopsy.. Must have been xenu's DNA then?

When you free outlaws, only outlaws are free...

Maybe you enjoy that kind of society.. I and most sane beings, don't!
Click to expand...

I agree a 100%!

They lose the right to human rights and the right to life once they've crossed the line!!!!!!
Click to expand...
 
Malaikah said:
:sl:

It isn't allowed for adultery (that is, to sentence to death based on DNA isn't allowed - it might be allowed for lesser punishment, but I don't know).
Click to expand...

:sl:
These are very specific details in jurisprudence, unless one is a scholar and studied in Islamic law, we can't judge whether ot not it is admissible evidence?

the thing about adulterers is I am certain none of them would submit to an internal exam to have it be used in a case against them, probably why it isn't allowed?!

:w:
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
PurestAmbrosia said:
I agree a 100%!

They lose the right to human rights and the right to life once they've crossed the line!!!!!!
Click to expand...
:sl:
Technically they don't (the Human Rights Declaration says that no part of the declaration may be interpreted to deprive others of their rights), but I think that they should. People who break other people's rights don't deserve to have them...
:w:
Click to expand...
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
really? his semen was found in her body cavities on autopsy.. Must have been xenu's DNA then?

When you free outlaws, only outlaws are free...
Maybe you enjoy that kind of society.. I and most sane beings, don't!
Click to expand...


the death penalty is bigger than one case. in the same token it may be applied to those who have actually committed the crimes with which they are charged, it can also be used against people who have not. Jesse Tafero is one such person, he was executed in 1990. a third party admitted to the crime and admitted to lying that Tafero committed it. Tafero was already executed but the other person charged with the crime was legally exonerated as a result of the recant. there was a problem with his execution and he died a very terrible death.

another was Ellis Felker, executed in 1996. they had a signed confession from another suspect and DNA evidence that strongly suggested he was innocent of the crime.

the possibility for human error, a long with the strong possibility of other human faults (like prejudism, racism and lying) make it impossible for us to ever truly rule out the possibility of executing an innocent person. as long as we value life there is no way we can allow for the possibility of an innocent person being executed. the choice you suggest, between execution and freeing criminals, is not rational... as long as there are alternative punishments (like life in prison) commuting the necessity of the death penalty to something superfluous, then we have to find a very serious justification to take that extra step... i do not believe we have done that.
 
Jayda said:
So you agree then with the general principle behind guatanamo and abu ghraib?
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, those held at Abu Ghraib and Guatanmo Bay, have not had any form of trial, and I know of no evidence of why they are held. BUT here we speak of criminals, such as mass murderers, rapists. So, no would be the answer to your question. As far as I'm concerned they are two completely seperate issues, and cannot be compare whatsoever. :smile:
 
Fishman said:
AvarAllahNoor said:
:sl:
Technically they don't (the Human Rights Declaration says that no part of the declaration may be interpreted to deprive others of their rights), but I think that they should. People who break other people's rights don't deserve to have them...
:w:
Click to expand...

(BTW that post as by me not PurestAmbrosia) :D

Like you, I agree they should have no righs at all.
Click to expand...
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
As far as I'm aware, those held at Abu Ghraib and Guatanmo Bay, have not had any form of trial, and I know of no evidence of why they are held. BUT here we speak of criminals, such as mass murderers, rapists. So, no would be the answer to your question. As far as I'm concerned they are two completely seperate issues, and cannot be compare whatsoever. :smile:
Click to expand...

in principle the people in abu ghraib and guantanamo all recieve military tribunals from the united states military, so due process is served and the military may treat them in any manner they choose. if they were found guilty then they do not deserve human rights. how is this different?
 
Jayda said:
the death penalty is bigger than one case. in the same token it may be applied to those who have actually committed the crimes with which they are charged, it can also be used against people who have not. Jesse Tafero is one such person, he was executed in 1990. a third party admitted to the crime and admitted to lying that Tafero committed it. Tafero was already executed but the other person charged with the crime was legally exonerated as a result of the recant. there was a problem with his execution and he died a very terrible death.
Click to expand...
try to use your own 'enlightened' conclusion here of death penalty being bigger than one case!

another was Ellis Felker, executed in 1996. they had a signed confession from another suspect and DNA evidence that strongly suggested he was innocent of the crime.
Click to expand...
That is American justice for you, strong evidence is ignored in favor of the ignorant, not unlike what is going on here!

the possibility for human error, a long with the strong possibility of other human faults (like prejudism, racism and lying) make it impossible for us to ever truly rule out the possibility of executing an innocent person. as long as we value life there is no way we can allow for the possibility of an innocent person being executed. the choice you suggest, between execution and freeing criminals, is not rational... as long as there are alternative punishments (like life in prison) commuting the necessity of the death penalty to something superfluous, then we have to find a very serious justification to take that extra step... i do not believe we have done that.
Click to expand...

Again, I have come to know you as someone who draws satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions.. You can stand outside and picket for criminals to be free and in the process get all 15 seconds of fame.......
cheers
 
Jayda said:
in principle the people in abu ghraib and guantanamo all recieve military tribunals from the united states military, so due process is served and the military may treat them in any manner they choose. if they were found guilty then they do not deserve human rights. how is this different?
Click to expand...

Because the world and I know they've held these people ILLEGALLY. that's how it's different!:okay:
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
try to use your own 'enlightened' conclusion here of death penalty being bigger than one case!
Click to expand...

si,

consider the impact of the one case. in your example an actually guilty person was executed, so there is no question about whether the system is working. in my example something broke, the well is now polluted, until you can gaurantee that innocent people will not be killed (and from my example evidently you cannot) it's immoral to continue.

That is American justice for you, strong evidence is ignored in favor of the ignorant, not unlike what is going on here!
Click to expand...

you continue to make my point... as long as ignorance plays a part in the justice system and strong evidence can be ignored, the state should not be given the authority to execute people... it is like giving matches to a child.

Again, I have come to know you as someone who draws satisfaction out of simplistic conclusions.. You can stand outside and picket for criminals to be free and in the process get all 15 seconds of fame.......
cheers
Click to expand...

did you consider the possibility this is just that simple? innocent people are murdered alongside criminals when you execute, i don't believe that makes the death penalty worthwhile. why do you?
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
Because the world and I know they've held these people ILLEGALLY. that's how it's different!:okay:
Click to expand...

...but as i just showed in the world you know people have been executed on showtrials and (as PurestAmbrosia put it) 'strong evidence is ignored in favor of the ignorant' (sic).
 
Jayda said:
i don't believe that makes the death penalty worthwhile. why do you?
Click to expand...

I guess because I can't sort through all your psychobabble!
You are simply ineffectual at making a solid point!


cheers
 
Jayda said:
...but as i just showed in the world you know people have been executed on showtrials and (as PurestAmbrosia put it) 'strong evidence is ignored in favor of the ignorant' (sic).
Click to expand...

How many serial killers have you known in the USA that have been put down (for want of a better word) and have later been found to be not guilty? huh, please do tell? As my argument here is about such animals, not joe who stole a banana from the local Spar.
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
How many serial killers have you known in the USA that have been put down (for want of a better word) and have later been found to be not guilty? huh, please do tell? As my argument here is about such animals, not joe who stole a banana from the local Spar.
Click to expand...

the death penalty is applied to more than just serial killers... the men mentioned in my earlier post (link) were convicted of murder, executed and later exonerated.
 
So guys lets come to a conclusion, if the dead penalty was justice! and mankind made no mistake in it(killing the wrong person) or torturing him in any kind of way, just a straight plain death.. WOuld people then agree that the Death penalty should be introduced back??
To those who kill others for no reason...(and have no mental sickness themself???)
Would it then be fair to have it back?

salam
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top