Teenagers Kill Baby

[Mikeybc]

Well, despite all that red tape, people still get wrongly convicted from time to time. It does exist for valid reasons.

It needs to be there. Sure it would be easier if we didn't have to give people their right to a trial and ensure they're guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the fact of the matter is it's necessary to ensure that if we're putting people to death they're actually guilty. I'm not sure I'd call that unnecessary.

I'm not saying we shouldn't give the defendant their fair trial, I just don't see the point of keeping anyone on death row for 10 years if there's no shadow of a doubt that they did do the crime. A little bit of red tape is a good thing to keep things in check.

 

[Danny]

What an absolutely foul act.

Too expand. This happens everyday all over the world. This isn't the worst news in the world.

I'm sure it is to her. Try a fresh, warm cup of empathy.

Not saying we should not care but aren't there kids getting murdered everyday by parents and family.

So it's in some way less tragic that a baby was shot dead in front of the mother because other people die too?

When wars happened nobody cared about the little kids dieing.

Vagueness aside, you mean apart from mass worldwide protests, ferocious debate and enormous numbers of charities that get set up solely for this. Right?

The government only cared about who's winning the war. This world is sad and we can't fix the whole world.

Putting aside the fact that there are many wars, no we can't fix the whole world at once, anyway.

But we can start by not killing each other.

 

[Tornado]

The cost is much higher then a monetary value anyway, the way things stand atm we are loosing tons. To say it's more expensive to jail or execute is missing the entire point to me.

I'm curious about this. Can you tell me what you mean by it? Do you mean in terms of the social contract dictated to prisoners, or something else?

 

[arora]

I'm curious about this. Can you tell me what you mean by it? Do you mean in terms of the social contract dictated to prisoners, or something else?

The social contract as you say surely comes with a heavy load. I can think of just how much energy and resources we spend on that that could be spent in so many better ways. That is not to say we shouldn't spend what we need to in an interim I envision while we correct some things.

I was speaking of the cost it bares on society in general, anything from sensational media to water cooler talks. I have a clear memory of a day I took one of my kids along to work with me at an age of probably 15, I used to have several contracts with state ran prisons and happened to need a visit that day. Blown away the kid was, and had many many questions. The impact was huge and I thought for the first time "yeah wtf are we doing"

In short I'm speaking of impact, I'm well aware that we need to deal with the problem that we have in a pragmatic fashion at each particular moment however I'm extremely disappointed we won't dig down to the root.

Hope that cleared it up for you, admittedly not one off my better posts but hey. I'm clouded atm

EDIT: want some more silly music?

​

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

They need the Ludovico Technique.

 

[arora]

Didn't Shem elude to that earlier?

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

It appears he did!

Say... is there actually a form of punishment that would have the same mentally altering effect as the Ludovico technique?

 

[arora]

Lobodomy? Not sure.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I'm not saying we shouldn't give the defendant their fair trial, I just don't see the point of keeping anyone on death row for 10 years if there's no shadow of a doubt that they did do the crime. A little bit of red tape is a good thing to keep things in check.

People thought to be murderers, waiting on death row, have been found innocent hours before their execution. That is why they are there for such a long time, and even that amount of time doesn't always save the wrongly-accused. There have been cases where the court was 100% satisfied that their verdict was correct, only to be proven totally wrong. Does any legal system have the right to gamble on killing the right person? The answer is, clearly, no.

 

[Mikeybc]

People thought to be murderers, waiting on death row, have been found innocent hours before their execution. That is why they are there for such a long time, and even that amount of time doesn't always save the wrongly-accused. There have been cases where the court was 100% satisfied that their verdict was correct, only to be proven totally wrong. Does any legal system have the right to gamble on killing the right person? The answer is, clearly, no.

I agree for the most part. Those people should have never been put on death row. There are evil people in the world who openly admit to committing the crime of murder and seem proud of it. And then they go on to say they would do it all over again when asked, those are the people who have no regard for life and have no remorse, they are the people that I feel should be on death row. Anyway I'm done here, just typing this put me in a very crappy mood.

 

[Bye Ya]

Does any legal system have the right to gamble on killing the right person? The answer is, clearly, no.

Obviously the answer is not clearly "no", and as Mikeybc pointed out, there are times when the evidence is irrefutable, and when the killers openly admit that they will kill again.

 

[arora]

It should be clearly no, how can you think otherwise?

Innocent until proven guilty, not maybe guilty or most likely guilty, proven guilty. There are no odds or percentages. The fact that we have seen, mostly because of dna, how many times courts have found innocent people guilty can only lead to us taking many precautions.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Obviously the answer is not clearly "no", and as Mikeybc pointed out, there are times when the evidence is irrefutable, and when the killers openly admit that they will kill again.

So who appoints people with the power to gamble with the lives of others? I had hoped we'd moved on from Roman times. I'm pretty sure that everybody on this earth has an equal right to life, murderer or not.

Even if a killer does claim that they have killed and will kill again, that still isn't proof - for example, what if said person is innocent but cannot face returning to normal life with the stigma of being connected to a murder case and just wants to die? A few lies and they get their wish. Executing people, even when you are 99.99% sure that you have the right person, carries the risk of killing the wrong person.

There is no way to be 100% sure of these things, there is always room for error, no matter how small. Proving something beyond reasonable doubt isn't enough when you're killing in the name of 'justice'.

 

[Bye Ya]

It should be clearly no, how can you think otherwise?

The fact that we have seen, mostly because of dna, how many times courts have found innocent people guilty can only lead to us taking many precautions.

I have no problem with taking many precautions. Also, I did not invent the death penalty, nor make it part of the legal system, so why does your response suggest that I have some sort of extreme way of thinking? I haven't even supported the death penalty in this discussion anyway.

I'm pretty sure that everybody on this earth has an equal right to life, murderer or not.

That's your opinion.

There is no way to be 100% sure of these things

But there is.

 

[Mikeybc]

There are some cases where you can be 100% sure. For example, murders caught on video surveillance, multiple eye witnesses. Your logic dictates that we can only be 99.99 percent sure of anything, even with undisputable proof. Your only 99.99 % sure the Titanic sunk ?

 

[arora]

I have no problem with taking many precautions. Also, I did not invent the death penalty, nor make it part of the legal system, so why does your response suggest that I have some sort of extreme way of thinking? I haven't even supported the death penalty in this discussion anyway.

No, but you did say that it was ok for the court system to take a gamble and kill someone that could be innocent. That is not acceptable. If you are against the death penalty that is fine and I won't debate you on that.

 

[Bye Ya]

No, I didn't. I made a point that the answer to Marina's statement not clearly "no", otherwise the death penalty wouldn't be legal, anywhere. Also, to say that it's morally wrong etc., opens up a whole can of worms regarding the existence of morality, and just where it comes from. Just try getting people to agree on that.

 

[arora]

Ok, then say you are against it, don't skirt around and say gambling with a mans life is ok 👍

 

[Bye Ya]

I don't know if I'm against it.

 

[arora]

It's very tricky.

I guess I should stop the slow chat now.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'm cautious about statements in the vein of "every person has a right to life".

 

[arora]

Check out the human rights thread crowd, it's very common for one to say "once you take a life you forfeit your right to life"

I'm not going to get into all that, I support the death penalty but I hope a day comes when my stance on that will no longer be necessary.

 

[Bye Ya]

I personally don't think I have a right to life.

 

[arora]

wow

 

[Bye Ya]

Why is that so strange? Do the operations of the universe necessitate human feelings? Is that how I came to be alive? Rights are things we've created as a society, but ultimately an asteroid doesn't care whether I think I should die of old age or not, etc.

 

[arora]

so it's ok if I decide to murder you? And in return the court system should not prosecute me?

I'm not following your hippy thought process one bit. Maybe you have no right to live but I have no right to kill you either? Maybe I should roll some sticky green and find zen.

whatever dude, I tried to have a reasonable discussion, we are not on different pages, but different planes.

 

[Bye Ya]

I'm not talking hippy stuff here, I'm looking at the broader picture. Humans value life, so they make laws as such. I get that. But to claim rights as some sort of universe-al truth doesn't hold up against the way the rest of existence runs itself. Gravity doesn't interact based on rights, nor cancer, nor asteroids, nor any other animals. Rights are purely a construct of the human conscience and a function of society. I'm simply saying that I don't think humans are special compared to the rest of the known universe. When an asteroid ultimately comes knocking at Earth's door the truth will be demonstrated that we are all simply subject to the laws governing the universe. Although that extreme example doesn't have to occur for this to be shown because it's already been demonstrated many, many times.

If morality was so universal, clear, and clean cut, then we wouldn't have such debates over it, but as it is, it's simply an opinion and matter of preference.

 

[arora]

You are a general bother to me tbh, it's nothing personal I just have dealt with people that have your thought process before and I cannot relate at all. Instead of becoming my usual ass self I will point you in the right direction.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77925&page=36

👍

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

There are some cases where you can be 100% sure. For example, murders caught on video surveillance, multiple eye witnesses. Your logic dictates that we can only be 99.99 percent sure of anything, even with undisputable proof. Your only 99.99 % sure the Titanic sunk ?

Obviously in the case of video footage or multiple witnesses, your odds of getting the right person greatly increase, but i'd still bet my house and all of my life savings that an innocent person has been wrongly executed even with both of those examples present.

Remember we are talking about murders here where undisputable proof is rare (even here in CCTV mad Britain) and many cases involve multiple suspects (or even change suspects entirely) well into the investigation. Unless every death row case is 100%, without any doubt at all proven, then it is gambling with peoples lives.

Your last point is a little... silly.The trial of a murderer on death row doesn't really compare to a global disaster with hundreds of eye witnesses.

No, I didn't. I made a point that the answer to Marina's statement not clearly "no", otherwise the death penalty wouldn't be legal, anywhere.

Seriously? That's your argument? It used to be perfectly acceptable to burn people alive for being heretics, and in some parts of the world people are still stoned to death. I guess if the people with the power and influence say it's ok, it must be ok?

The death sentence is just as old fashioned as stoning, or burning at the stake. Sure, the method is a little more advanced, but it is still more about appeasing those who want to see blood spilt than actually solving the true problem.

 

[Bye Ya]

@ arora - You don't agree that 'rights' are simply a human construction? They're a societal agreement, are they not? My point going back to what Marina was saying is that suggesting that someone is crazy or whatnot for not adhering to their view of rights is simply ignoring this truth, that rights are not universal.

Since Marina has also posted, this can be my response to you as well.


Mormons think they have a right to many wives, some people think gays don't have the right to marry, some people think they have the right to enslave their people, etc.

What way do you have of proving that your opinion on what a person's rights are is definitive?