One case where capital punishment is definitely wrong

[chequita guevara]

DanS'd ya.

[Japher]

I know the SPCA uses convict labor a lot. The SPCA in Woodland, CA is right next to juvy and they use "inmates", and I remember a while back there was a big controversy when Folsom prison was using inmates to make cold calls.

[chequita guevara]

I'm ambivalent about convict labor. On the one hand, it helps offset the cost of imprisonment (why should we have to pay to protect ourselves from criminals?) as well as teaches them to hate work like the rest of us. On the other hand, it means that those jobs aren't going to unemployed people who haven't committed any crimes (yet, but will because they can't get a job--nice vicious circle, huh?).

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
DanS'd ya.

[Donegeal]

However, convict labor gets compensated. Slavery does not (unless you want to keep the slaves alive, then throw'em a bone every now and then). This entire trail of recent posts was because of:

Originally posted by Atahualpa.
Forcing them to work for their whole live and no pay is way more effective

Which I took as meaning without compensation.

[chequita guevara]

Slaves can get compensated and often did. What defines a slave isn't lack of compenstation, but lack of choice. Slaves are compelled to work. Convict laborers do not have a choice. Slaves are also people held in bondage. They are not necessarily owned. Not all convict laborers get compesated.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
In 18th century England they boiled people in oil as a punishment, or put them in the iron maiden or... They don´t anymore. That´s evolving. The views on human rights and punishment has changed as we try to understand why people do the things they do. They have evolved. We no longer treat the insane as people posessed by evil spirits or put them in insane asylums to rot. We try to treat them. That´s evolving... Are you with me so far?

I understand you, I just disagree with you. The US and Japan have the same access to scientific, philosophic, and psychological data as do the Europeans and South Americans. US and Japan has the DP, Europeans and South Americans do not. It's not because one group of people is any more scientifically or socially advanced than any other, it's just that they have different cultures and different opinions on the matter. That's not barbarism.

Even if you could´ve solved the situation otherwise?

You can use deadly force if you reasonably think that you need to and it was necessary AND if the objective third person would think that it was reasonable and reasonably necessary to use it. You don't have to try to get away if, by doing so, you further endanger yourself.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara This is not a good argument. If there were any reasonable doubt as to whether or not someone was guilty, they shouldn't be in prison at all, let alone on death row. Everyone who is sentenced to die is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of whether or not they actually did it.

If you "reserve" the DP only for those cases where you are absolutely sure, every case will have to be a DP case, or the state would be admitting they aren't 100% sure, wich means they shouldn't be convicted.

This isn't exactly true. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did it, not that they absolutely did the crime. It's possible that there are other circumstances that happened that a reasonable person wouldn't expect, but happened anyway. Basically, beyond shadow of a doubt means that they're as sure as they can be without being absolutely sure (as opposed to the "predponderance of the evidence" requirement in civil proceedings, which is an even lower evidentiary bar.) There's still a chance that there exists some bizarely unreasonable yet true reason that proves they didn't commit the crime. That's why people can be convicted of murder solely on circumstantial evidence, and even if there's no body. Sure there's a chance that the victim simply up and left in an attempt to frame this guy, but the evidence shows that he almost certainly killed her. The state's admitting in cases like this that they don't know that he killed the victim, but that no reasonable person would think otherwise. In effect, the state doesn't say that a convicted commited a crime; the state says that no reasonable person could find that the convict did not commit the crime. I assume that anyone who, under my scheme, would be eligible for the DP will have passed the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard and would be liable for a prison sentence if the evidence for a DP sentence is not avaliable.

EDIT: Besides, judges always have some amount of discretion in sentencing issues, and can (an do) take a wide variety of circumstances into account. Being guilty of a crime doesn't always equal the same sentence for every person. My conception of the DP sets standards to be used when the actions merit the harshest sentence avaliable, and stacks the odds in the defendant's favor. Putting a higher evidentiary bar for DP candidates cuts in their favor, as the Prosecution has an even harder case to prove if he wants to DP sentence. The burden is completely on them, and any inferences should be drawn in favor of criminal.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
This is the case to start banning DP...
Forcing them to work for their whole live and no pay is way more effective

That takes jobs away from law abiding citizens. Why should they be deprived of a job because someone else commited a crime?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Donegeal


You must have an awfully high opinon of society. Either that or a very naive one.

Well, I am a commie after all. I strive for something higher and better

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I understand you, I just disagree with you. The US and Japan have the same access to scientific, philosophic, and psychological data as do the Europeans and South Americans. US and Japan has the DP, Europeans and South Americans do not. It's not because one group of people is any more scientifically or socially advanced than any other, it's just that they have different cultures and different opinions on the matter. That's not barbarism.

I can still think it´s barbaric even if it´s a different culture. The barbarism is after all in the eye of the beholder...

You can use deadly force if you reasonably think that you need to and it was necessary AND if the objective third person would think that it was reasonable and reasonably necessary to use it. You don't have to try to get away if, by doing so, you further endanger yourself.

I agree, actually

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
I agree, actually

Well, the significance of that fact is to show that the right to life is qualified and not inviolable.

[Zoid]

Well, the right to self defence is equally important to the right to life. It´s when inviolable rights collide that it get´s tricky

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara We should kill someone because you're offended? I'm offended we spend more on prisons than on schools. That doesn't give me the right to execute our politicians, and people do die because of the decisions they make.

I probably could have used a better word. When you get down to it though, how much of the law is based on the fact that the majority of people find something criminally offensive? A major portion of it, if not all of it.

The point of prison is to keep people from harming us. As long as people are in prison, they aren't hurting us. I don't want people killing in my name, with my government's money. I just want to be protected.

That's one aspect. It's also there to punish criminal actions, to deter criminal actions, and to rehabilitate. The elements emaphasized in each particular case depend on the nature and circumstances of the crime.

[Dracon II]

Thanks Imran... I didn't realize I was missed Although I have been an irregular poster for a while, it's not nearly as frequent as I once did.

I personally believe that people should be given time to contemplate what they've done. I understand that there's quite a long wait on death row usually, but I think that we shouldn't hang death over someone's head like that. Make them think that they're going to be in prison for the rest of their lives, I say. People can change, after all...

Not a very convincing argument... but we don't really have a DP debate in Australia- we haven't had it since the 60's. Occasionally when some horrific crime occurs you hear a redneck radio jockey scream for it... but apart from that it's just not an issue. I think life imprisonment is a sufficient deterrent... and that death is an easy way out for these guys (unless you believe in hell of course).