One case where capital punishment is definitely wrong

[DeathByTheSword]

justice is just a form of revenge...if the people that are affected the most by a crime dont want that much revenge why not...if someone beats you, you can choose not to press charges right...then why not give this guy life with parole instead of DP if the family of the victim wants it?

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe because officially the sentences issued by courts aren´t meant to be some kind of revenge but just a means to protect society from those who commit crimes (i.e. a means to prevent those who commiting crimes from commiting further crimes) (of course unofficially they are some kind of revenge [at least in case of DP as people could also be locked away for their lifetime] but what counts is what these sentences are officially meant to be).
They aren´t connected to the family of the victim, but just to the results the actions of the offender had onto the victim (in this case a premature death) and what the law says about these things.
I believe, what the victim itself thinks of the crime could probably make a difference but well, in this case the victims is dead, she can´t tell the judges anymore what she thought about being killed by her grandson

[DeathByTheSword]

i agree that putting away criminals is also for protection of the society but the reason and that is i think also the official reason it to 'punish' them but taking away some of there civil rights...e.i freedom to vote, freedom of movement for a number of years so that they 'pay' for there crimes. protection of the society is a perk.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Dracon II
whilst I'm against the death penalty.... allowing the victim's family to intervene on the nature of a sentence sets a dangerous precedent.

And killing someone, against the wishes of everyone involved, no less, isn't?

[Admiral]

Originally posted by General Ludd



And killing someone, against the wishes of everyone involved, no less, isn't?

The reason we have a justice system is that, when in this case someone is killed, it no longer is a family affair. And in terms of murder, first, killing one's own family shouldn't generate a more lenient sentence. But second and more importantly, when one does commit murder, one does harm not only to the victim, but to the society as a whole. And in this context, it is society as a whole, functioning through the judiciary, that should determine the sentence.

[Dracon II]

I would say that killing someone, in accordance with the wishes of everyone involved, is also bad.

If they forgo the death penalty because the parties involved didn't want it... then you have to accept that the opposite might also happen. Bear in mind that the families of victims very rarely want a more lenient sentence for the accused.

I just don't think that deciding a sentence for someone should be influenced by interested parties.

A bent rule is still a rule... if the death penalty is deemed inappropriate in this case it should be inappropriate in any case. Either live with it (excuse the morbid use of the word 'live'), or get rid of it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, Dracon, we've missed you so. Spot on .

[DeathByTheSword]

I would say that killing someone, in accordance with the wishes of everyone involved, is also bad.

true, because they dont have a say about his life... that is the reason why we have a justice system so that people dont take it upon themselves. but are you really trying to say that letting someone live is essentially the same as killing someone?

[Flubber]

I agree with DraconII. Whether you agree with the death penalty or not, sentencing should not be determined by whether your VICTIM ( or their family) happens to be for or against the death penalty

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Because it´s barbaric excuse for justice. And because you can never be sure you execute the right man. And because life is a inviolable human right. And because...

1. What makes it barbaric?
2. You can set an evidentiary bar high enough to have certainty. DP shouldn't be used without plenty of solid evidence, and should never be used in cases in which the only evidence is circumstantial.
3. Life is not an inviolable right. If you are trying to rape or maim me, and I have no other way to escape, I can legally kill you. The attacker revoked his right to life in the same way that a heinous criminal revokes his right to life.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Maybe because officially the sentences issued by courts aren´t meant to be some kind of revenge but just a means to protect society from those who commit crimes (i.e. a means to prevent those who commiting crimes from commiting further crimes) (of course unofficially they are some kind of revenge [at least in case of DP as people could also be locked away for their lifetime]

Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge.

[chequita guevara]

How was the sentencing phase of the trial handled? Was the family allowed to speak? That might have made a difference to the jury.

However, I'm with Admiral.

[DeathByTheSword]

3. Life is not an inviolable right. If you are trying to rape or maim me, and I have no other way to escape, I can legally kill you. The attacker revoked his right to life in the same way that a heinous criminal revokes his right to life.

and

Is it more immoral to swiftly execute someone that you have total proof of their crime, or to keep that person alive and fed in jail for 40 or 50 years while there are homless people or starving people in the society? What is the point of keeping that man alive, and why does he deserve state resources more than a law abiding citizen? All punishment has some element of revenge.

does this just point out that the justice system is 100% right yet and we should not go killing people before it is?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword

does this just point out that the justice system is 100% right yet and we should not go killing people before it is?

There should be reviews of every capital case. However, there are plenty of cases even now where it there is a 100% certainty that the convict commited the crime. When these people are found in the review, then put them back on death row.

[chequita guevara]

No one revokes their right to life. They may, however, put themselves in situations where that right may be temporarily ignored. Your right to life can only be taken from you by due process of law.