General Discussion

Major Nikon

(36,925 posts)

28. So how do you define that legally?

Mon Nov 18, 2013, 02:41 AM

Nov 2013

There is not one form of evidence you can name that is infallible, even if you had a justice system that is 100% reliable (and no system of justice is). Death penalty cases already have a much higher standard which already drives the costs up higher than life in prison. Furthermore what could you possibly hope to accomplish by driving the costs up even higher? The DP serves no purpose to society or even victims. There is no deterrent effect and it simply drags out the misery of the victims through years if not decades of appeals.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DEATH PENALTY I taught a peace and justice class this morning [View all] gopiscrap Nov 2013 OP

never ever. cali Nov 2013 #1

that was my take also gopiscrap Nov 2013 #2

Never. hrmjustin Nov 2013 #3

I've always been opposed. Blue_In_AK Nov 2013 #4

That surprises me actually. I would assume that state did. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #9

Our constitution is very progressive. Blue_In_AK Nov 2013 #10

Cool, thanks for the information!! n-t Logical Nov 2013 #13

Never, Ever. There are seconds when I feel some horrible person should die but then I know there... BlueJazz Nov 2013 #5

am·biv·a·lent GeorgeGist Nov 2013 #6

Against it. I will admit to wanting it, or thinking someone deserves it, or hoping for some kind of Brickbat Nov 2013 #7

No liberal should ever be for this. Disgusting. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #8

Exactly Major Nikon Nov 2013 #27

It should be rare. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #11

"certainty of agency" meaning what? n-t Logical Nov 2013 #14

Beyond all doubt - not just reasonable doubt. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #16

Wow, here we go again...... Logical Nov 2013 #21

yes, we've had this same conversation and it ended the same way. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #23

Your theory is silly. "If you are really really super duper sure, lets kill him". LOL. n-t Logical Nov 2013 #24

Here's how I see it Major Nikon Nov 2013 #41

Great point! +1000! nt Logical Nov 2013 #59

So how do you define that legally? Major Nikon Nov 2013 #28

With words. The same way we do other levels of confidence of evidence aikoaiko Nov 2013 #34

The words for that are "beyond a shadow of a doubt" Major Nikon Nov 2013 #35

Not impossible. But that's why the DP lshould be rare. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #36

All I got was abstract rhetoric Major Nikon Nov 2013 #37

"Widely considered" pipoman Nov 2013 #44

It doesn't mean the outlier is remotely pragmatic either Major Nikon Nov 2013 #47

Burden of proof IS an abstract concept. aikoaiko Nov 2013 #55

It is anything but Major Nikon Nov 2013 #63

What is the physical or concrete form of beyond reasonable doubt? aikoaiko Nov 2013 #64

Your question makes no sense Major Nikon Nov 2013 #65

I think we disagree on the meaning of some key words here, so... aikoaiko Nov 2013 #66

On that I can agree Major Nikon Nov 2013 #68

You sum up my former logic... sarisataka Nov 2013 #58

Truth be told -- I'm fine with my state or the US banning the DP aikoaiko Nov 2013 #61

Certain crimes are heinous enough to make me hesitate for a second. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #69

No DP, no exceptions, is my position petronius Nov 2013 #12

Exactly gopiscrap Nov 2013 #50

Very mixed feelings on this pipi_k Nov 2013 #15

Appeals to emotion work both ways Major Nikon Nov 2013 #29

I'm not pipi_k Nov 2013 #42

That's the way it is for most people Major Nikon Nov 2013 #46

One of the strangest pipi_k Nov 2013 #49

I agree Major Nikon Nov 2013 #62

IIRC that's what Matthew Shepard's parents did RE: his killers. Argued for life in prison nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #71

I don't judge them either. But it's with very good reason that we don't let them determine nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #70

Dead Man Walking undeterred Nov 2013 #17

Personally, I'm against it. JaneyVee Nov 2013 #18

Ummm... caraher Nov 2013 #19

Never. Killing is wrong, I don't care why. nt rrneck Nov 2013 #20

Morally, eh. But practically, no. sir pball Nov 2013 #22

I see it the same as you XRubicon Nov 2013 #67

Never LostOne4Ever Nov 2013 #25

For crimes of horror or terror Demeter Nov 2013 #26

Never. Two wrongs never make a right. Live and Learn Nov 2013 #30

Most people should have learned that lesson in grammar school Major Nikon Nov 2013 #31

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2013 #32

+1 gollygee Nov 2013 #39

I fully agree gopiscrap Nov 2013 #52

Never. defacto7 Nov 2013 #33

No country that's remotely civilized does Major Nikon Nov 2013 #40

Never. Iggo Nov 2013 #38

Only for violent crimes against children. eom. Bad Thoughts Nov 2013 #43

Even in those cases, surely life without parole is better. Nye Bevan Nov 2013 #48

Reforming criminal justice is something that should happen anyway Bad Thoughts Nov 2013 #54

Mixed feelings Calista241 Nov 2013 #45

Never for me. But I know a significant minority of Democrats are in favor just like your experience stevenleser Nov 2013 #51

I've always thought the discussion regarding DP in Judaism were worthwhile to read stevenleser Nov 2013 #53

People like Joseph Paul Franklin is why I support the Death Penalty, and always will. MicaelS Nov 2013 #56

The guy's going to spend the rest of his life in prison no matter what. nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #72

Some folks just need to go away... Decaffeinated Nov 2013 #57

Never. idwiyo Nov 2013 #60

My gut says "never," but the Constitution says it's permissible for treason. Laelth Nov 2013 #73