|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| The death penalty |
| For |
|
25% |
[ 10 ] |
| Against |
|
67% |
[ 27 ] |
| Don't care |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Don't know |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 40 |
|
| Author |
Message |
RachaelRoo
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Anywhere but Ulsan!
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
Anywys, this thread is about the death penalty.
I just wanted to point out that there are some cases where the guilt of the murderer isn't even in question, so the risk of executing an innocent person, in certain individual cases, is non-existent. A good Canadian example of this would be Paul Bernardo (DNA evidence, wif'e sonfession, videotapes, etc). |
When will we stupid humans realize that nothing is perfect. Finger printing was consided complete proof a while back. People also thought that if she is a witch then she will float in water, and they thought they were educated for their time. Why do people keep saying that where we are now has to be perfect. What about a bad DNA guy? Wasn't there a case in Canada recently where over 10 child molesters cases are being reopened because the DNA guy was shown to make up things just to prove guilt. |
My point was that in cases like Bernardo, there was such a variety of convincing and overwhelming evidence that innocence isn't an issue.
Sure DNA could be wrong - but what about the videotapes, his wife's confession, his positive identification as the Scarborough rapist, etc..
Yes, DNA can be wrong, but it gets to a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could hold onto the possibility of innocence......
DNA is one component of this scenario. |
No, it doesn't. Until we are perfect beings, the tapes could have been faked (yes, it is actually possible), wife's confession (less jail sentence), etc... While I am arguing such a small chance that he was not guilty (and when I mean small, I mean small), I want to know why people always think that we can't make a mistake? Hell, it could have been an conspiracy against him because he was supposed to save us from evil terminator robots from the future  The thing is there is always that chance, and where do you define the line between we are almost completely sure to well, most likely? |
Ok, to acheive a perfect, absolute, 100% certainty of guilt - or of anything really - is impossible.
But this is a case that is as close as you can get, and Paul Bernardo deserves to die, if only to give the French and Mahaffey families a few seconds of satisfaction.
The chances of an innocent person being convicted of a crime of this nature (rape and murder) have gone down in the last few years for a few reasons. First of all, the lack of reliability in witness identification and witness testimony is finally being recognized. Secondly, there is DNA which, while not PERFECT, is still a big step towards a complete and convincing picture of guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
Anywys, this thread is about the death penalty.
I just wanted to point out that there are some cases where the guilt of the murderer isn't even in question, so the risk of executing an innocent person, in certain individual cases, is non-existent. A good Canadian example of this would be Paul Bernardo (DNA evidence, wif'e sonfession, videotapes, etc). |
When will we stupid humans realize that nothing is perfect. Finger printing was consided complete proof a while back. People also thought that if she is a witch then she will float in water, and they thought they were educated for their time. Why do people keep saying that where we are now has to be perfect. What about a bad DNA guy? Wasn't there a case in Canada recently where over 10 child molesters cases are being reopened because the DNA guy was shown to make up things just to prove guilt. |
My point was that in cases like Bernardo, there was such a variety of convincing and overwhelming evidence that innocence isn't an issue.
Sure DNA could be wrong - but what about the videotapes, his wife's confession, his positive identification as the Scarborough rapist, etc..
Yes, DNA can be wrong, but it gets to a point where the evidence is so overwhelming that no reasonable person could hold onto the possibility of innocence......
DNA is one component of this scenario. |
No, it doesn't. Until we are perfect beings, the tapes could have been faked (yes, it is actually possible), wife's confession (less jail sentence), etc... While I am arguing such a small chance that he was not guilty (and when I mean small, I mean small), I want to know why people always think that we can't make a mistake? Hell, it could have been an conspiracy against him because he was supposed to save us from evil terminator robots from the future The thing is there is always that chance, and where do you define the line between we are almost completely sure to well, most likely? |
Ok, to acheive a perfect, absolute, 100% certainty of guilt - or of anything really - is impossible.
But this is a case that is as close as you can get, and Paul Bernardo deserves to die, if only to give the French and Mahaffey families a few seconds of satisfaction.
The chances of an innocent person being convicted of a crime of this nature (rape and murder) have gone down in the last few years for a few reasons. First of all, the lack of reliability in witness identification and witness testimony is finally being recognized. Secondly, there is DNA which, while not PERFECT, is still a big step towards a complete and convincing picture of guilt. |
but not perfect, and in "my" opinion, completely unsatisfactory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rachel: you might be interested to know about a group of victims of homicide (their surviving family members, that is) in the U.S. They banded together because they have all lost a loved one and the state exectuted the guilty person, and most of them witnessed the execution.
They have asserted, as group, that these executions have done nothing to assuage their pain and suffering over their loss, except for perhaps a moment or two or vengeance during the execution itself. They say this is important for the rest of us to consider on the death penalty issue.
I cannot recall the name of this group. Saw them featured on 20/20 or something similar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RachaelRoo
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Location: Anywhere but Ulsan!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
If the victim's families do not support the death penalty, then that is definitely something that should be taken into consideration during sentencing.
But there are also some victim's families who do support it...I saw the father of an American girl on t.v. who, several years ago, was raped and murdered by a man who burst into a 13 year old girls' slumber party and kidnapped her...Polly Klaus? I can't remember if that was the name...
Anyways, the father was very anxious to see her murderer die so that he could at least try to get a bit of closure.
No, he'll never recover....but it's a start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RachaelRoo wrote: |
If the victim's families do not support the death penalty, then that is definitely something that should be taken into consideration during sentencing.
But there are also some victim's families who do support it...I saw the father of an American girl on t.v. who, several years ago, was raped and murdered by a man who burst into a 13 year old girls' slumber party and kidnapped her...Polly Klaus? I can't remember if that was the name...
Anyways, the father was very anxious to see her murderer die so that he could at least try to get a bit of closure.
No, he'll never recover....but it's a start. |
Yes, but how did he feel afterwards? I think the point this group made was that it was totally anticlimactic for them and, in the end, did not help them to cope with their loss or find closure in any way.
Personally, I think vengeance is the worst reason there is to support the death penalty. The only reason I'd back it is if there were an airtight case that society was permanently endangered by the criminal (Dahmer or repeat child rapists, etc.). And then I'd argue that it was imperative to execute these people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You cant have your cake and eat it too.
What you are saying is that: Only people who 'I' think should die because of their heinous crimes should be executed.
The death penalty is used too seldom IMO.
Execute the people who are repeat offenders....3 strikes and erk!(well maybe not the ones jaywalking for their 3'rd strike) but any violent offenders, gang members who have been jailed 3 times....zap zap zap.
It would make the world a much safer place to live in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm ambivalent-I used to be for it strongly, but I'm against it-moreso the punishment than fear of hanging thew wrong man.
Recent events have shown that loser Donald Marshall would have been better off swinging from the self-administered rope necklace. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Death is not so bad, guys. Didn't you see The Family Guy when death came to take Peter but ended up helping him. Then Peter helped death, found a date for him. I mean what's the problem?! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm really not sure about this one yet. I know I'm not against the death penalty in all circumstances. Treason in wartime for example seems clear cut.
Possible justifications for punishment:
1. Deterrence. The evidence does not seem to support the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent so we can forget about this. (When the death penalty was applied for relatively trivial crimes such as petty theft it even made criminals more desperate and therefore dangerous. As the old saying goes, 'Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.)
2. Rehabilitation. Obviously it would be a bit funny to argue for the death penalty as a means of rehabilitation. However, one implication of this type of argument for punishment is that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where rehabilitation is not possible. Of course then we need to establish what the parameters for those cases are. Personally, I think this is an interesting line of reasoning.
3. Retribution. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The problem with this is how do you differentiate between one-off crimes under extreme provocation and serial killings? The penalty would be the same. This is where I think it's useful to look at who can or can not be rehabilitated. Also, we believe you cannot ask an executioner to torture anyone to death even if that was the crime committed, so perhaps we also have no right to ask anyone to perform executions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
I'm really not sure about this one yet. I know I'm not against the death penalty in all circumstances. Treason in wartime for example seems clear cut.
Possible justifications for punishment:
1. Deterrence. The evidence does not seem to support the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent so we can forget about this. (When the death penalty was applied for relatively trivial crimes such as petty theft it even made criminals more desperate and therefore dangerous. As the old saying goes, 'Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.)
2. Rehabilitation. Obviously it would be a bit funny to argue for the death penalty as a means of rehabilitation. However, one implication of this type of argument for punishment is that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where rehabilitation is not possible. Of course then we need to establish what the parameters for those cases are. Personally, I think this is an interesting line of reasoning.
3. Retribution. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The problem with this is how do you differentiate between one-off crimes under extreme provocation and serial killings? The penalty would be the same. This is where I think it's useful to look at who can or can not be rehabilitated. Also, we believe you cannot ask an executioner to torture anyone to death even if that was the crime committed, so perhaps we also have no right to ask anyone to perform executions? |
I'd like to comment on 1. Since it takes years and years and one can make several appeals, of course the death penalty is not a deterrence. It's not being used properly. It should be used in cases where innocence is not a factor (like Bernardo, too bad he's Canadian and we don't have it). Have a quick trial and then put the guy to death. No exceptions. Applied properly it might deter. But where you could likely as not die from old age before they get around to executing you it's not really going to stop anybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
capebretoncanadian
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
A: strangle yourself for uttering something so assinine.
B: Pull your head out of your ass and strangle yourself for saying something so assinine.
I support the death penalty. While it is a tragedy that some few innocent people have died(in some cases innocent of the crime for which they were convicted...but guilty of others) the death penalty sure does stop people from repeat offending.
Take a look at the criminal justice system and look at how many people re-offend after their release. xx%...more? Less? For violent criminals prison is not a deterrant. Execution is!
|
You should follow your own directions. You are uttering asinine comments as well.The death penalty is IMO stooping to the brutal and inhumane level of the criminals. I have to shake my head at one of your comments. Do you honestly think that someone guilty of a horrendous enough crime to warrant the death penalty, would ever see the light of day again regardless of whether or not the death penalty applied? Of course not!! You think Dahmer would have been released after 5 years on good behaviour??....what about McVeigh?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| capebretoncanadian wrote: |
| You think Dahmer would have been released after 5 years on good behaviour??....what about McVeigh?? |
Interesting hypothesis.
Say he was not released after five years, but, say, fifteen. Or say he escaped after six years...
What do you think he would have done then?
And you fail to appreciate that keeping someone locked in a cage for the rest of their life, while not the same as killing them, is still pretty inhumane. "Put them away where we can't see them without killing them, and everything will be OK" is a flawed criminal justice philosophy. If we are determined "to get rid of them," and we have good reason to do so, then, unfortunately, there are few alternatives "to getting rid of them" in the absolute sense of the expression. Harsh reality, but reality nevertheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The death penalty is IMO stooping to the brutal and inhumane level of the criminals |
Wow...you do see the world with rose colored glasses, dont you? 
Death penalty vs murder.
Execution by state...you are dressed in clean clothes, you get a nice last meal, you know the reason for which you are dying.
Murder, innocent victim, terror, violence, dirty and most likely they have no idea why this is happening to them. Family heartbroken, left questioning why something like this would happen.
Yes I can see how someone equates the death penalty with stooping to the same level as murderers
Is the life of one junky, rapist, murderer worth more than their victims? Their victims families? Another victim?
Many of these criminals are not capable of being rehabilitated and as such should be done away with. They serve no useful purpose to society and are a drain on resources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Privateer wrote: |
I'm really not sure about this one yet. I know I'm not against the death penalty in all circumstances. Treason in wartime for example seems clear cut.
Possible justifications for punishment:
1. Deterrence. The evidence does not seem to support the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent so we can forget about this. (When the death penalty was applied for relatively trivial crimes such as petty theft it even made criminals more desperate and therefore dangerous. As the old saying goes, 'Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb'.)
2. Rehabilitation. Obviously it would be a bit funny to argue for the death penalty as a means of rehabilitation. However, one implication of this type of argument for punishment is that the death penalty should only be applied in cases where rehabilitation is not possible. Of course then we need to establish what the parameters for those cases are. Personally, I think this is an interesting line of reasoning.
3. Retribution. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The problem with this is how do you differentiate between one-off crimes under extreme provocation and serial killings? The penalty would be the same. This is where I think it's useful to look at who can or can not be rehabilitated. Also, we believe you cannot ask an executioner to torture anyone to death even if that was the crime committed, so perhaps we also have no right to ask anyone to perform executions? |
I'd like to comment on 1. Since it takes years and years and one can make several appeals, of course the death penalty is not a deterrence. It's not being used properly. It should be used in cases where innocence is not a factor (like Bernardo, too bad he's Canadian and we don't have it). Have a quick trial and then put the guy to death. No exceptions. Applied properly it might deter. But where you could likely as not die from old age before they get around to executing you it's not really going to stop anybody. |
Maybe, but it's very important that safeguards are in place to ensure innocent people are not executed. No amount of criminals' lives are worth the life of an innocent person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 2:55 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
"If killing someone is wrong, then killing someone is wrong."-George Carlin
I think that pretty much sums it up.
I see capital punishment as revenge moreso than justice.
This is particularly pertinent to a system where innocent individuals still find themselves on death row. If one innocent dies as a result of this system, then the system should not exist.
Wading into the abortion affair above (and I don't really see a problem with discussing abortion in this threadas the two go hand-in-hand), I see certain assumptions of the pro-life wing being preached as the gospel here. The route from conception to life goes through many stages, and I do not see termination of an embryo or a zygote as murder. Naturally, there is more to talk about when the issue comes to 3rd trimester abortions, but Clinton (and I believe anyone else) only supported those in the event that the mother might die as a result of child birth. Here we have a moral dilemma of choosing between 2 lives. But again, I believe that choice is the mother's. Not an easy one and I refuse to believe anyone would make the choice for political purposes. Moreover, denying the woman's right to an abortion would be de facto murder.
To get back to the main point, I find an integral difference between pro-choice people who oppose the death penalty and pro-lifers who support the death penalty.
Personally, I think that many who support the death penalty do so at least partially out of the vicarious thrill they get from seeing someone else die and that you tend to find them among the die-hard (pun intended) ever ready for war.
It's a cheap thrill.
For spectators... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
