Thingy Person Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 In legal terminology yes. What I quoted was not legal terminology, right? You lock a man up for life so you can have your precious revenge. 'Punishment' is a justifying disguise. As for my thoughts on the matter, I stand by the post that contained "tripping over their own feet". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Correct, murder, is only "acceptable" in times of war and if it is the government. Murder means when you have the intention to kill. The Actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind) must be present in order to convict someone of murder. Not sure if that term applies in military context O_o Edited January 18, 2009 by Judge Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Guy holds up a liquor store with 2 other friends, no intent to kill. Clerk gets in struggle with all of them. During struggle original guy ends up shooting clerk, killing instantly. Original guy has had hard life, in shitty situation, ends up repenting for the killing and admitting to it. Prosecution tries to sentenced for life. Pissed off about his probable sentence, guy changes story and says he never murdered the guy out of anger. Judge gets pissed and sentences him to death out of nowhere.Is the ability to execute some terrible exceptions of human beings worth the life of that guy and others like him? i see your point, but most judges know how to control their anger though, and that wouldn't end up in him getting dp though, the prisoner can appeal and be able to change his term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 i see your point, but most judges know how to control their anger though, and that wouldn't end up in him getting dp though, the prisoner can appeal and be able to change his term. Yes Judges are impartial...not sure about Judge Judy Prisoner can only appeal under two circumstances (there are some more, but I forgot)....these are the main ones. If the conviction was unsafe or if the sentence was too ''harsh.'' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Appeals clog up the system, sometimes pretty badly. Some people who don't deserve appeals get them, some who don't do, and it always takes a crapload of resources, time included. It creates a very blurry line that one might find unnecessary, if the DP might be taken out of the situation entirely. Theoretically speaking of course. Judges have what's pretty close to free reign, and they're one more element of subjectivity in there when they're sentencing, plus their decisions don't get checked very hard generally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Meh, there is always flaws in the system, if it isn't one thing it is another, nothing works out exactly as it is suppose to >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 And when it doesn't work out, people who don't deserve it tend to get shot with poison. 8D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lolDeath Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I am for it. Rehabilitation does not work for most criminals. Life in prison is not even an acceptable excuse because some people really don't mind prison that much, some homeless people even try to be put into it because it is an improvement over their current situation. Should you (well for the younger members your parents) pay some piece of shit's way through life? I don't think so, dispose of them like the trash that they are. And as for whoever said insanity is an excuse, how? If someone is insane that makes it even less likely for them to be rehabilitated and even less likely for prison to even matter to them, they are the most dangerous criminals ergo most important to control. Killing them is the ultimate control over their actions, it ends them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I am for it. Rehabilitation does not work for most criminals. Life in prison is not even an acceptable excuse because some people really don't mind prison that much, some homeless people even try to be put into it because it is an improvement over their current situation.Should you (well for the younger members your parents) pay some piece of shit's way through life? I don't think so, dispose of them like the trash that they are. And as for whoever said insanity is an excuse, how? If someone is insane that makes it even less likely for them to be rehabilitated and even less likely for prison to even matter to them, they are the most dangerous criminals ergo most important to control. Killing them is the ultimate control over their actions, it ends them. stole the words right out of my mouth. i don't want my tax money to go into making some criminal have a good life in jail, such as a rapist, a serial killer, etc. especially for life sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I am for it. Rehabilitation does not work for most criminals. Life in prison is not even an acceptable excuse because some people really don't mind prison that much, some homeless people even try to be put into it because it is an improvement over their current situation.Should you (well for the younger members your parents) pay some piece of shit's way through life? I don't think so, dispose of them like the trash that they are. And as for whoever said insanity is an excuse, how? If someone is insane that makes it even less likely for them to be rehabilitated and even less likely for prison to even matter to them, they are the most dangerous criminals ergo most important to control. Killing them is the ultimate control over their actions, it ends them. *praises death* That is, in better words, what i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malexis Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 If someone committed a horrendous crime, capital punishment is definitely the best suited punishment for it. Rape, murder, child abuse, etc etc are all good reasons for capital punishment. Mostly rape and murder, but child abuse is definitely a reason to end up dead. Only if it can be proven that they, without one doubt in anyone's mind, did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) If someone committed a horrendous crime, capital punishment is definitely the best suited punishment for it.Rape, murder, child abuse, etc etc are all good reasons for capital punishment. Mostly rape and murder, but child abuse is definitely a reason to end up dead. Only if it can be proven that they, without one doubt in anyone's mind, did it. That is one problem...some innocent defendants get executed even though they never committed the crime... Edited January 18, 2009 by Judge Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malexis Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 That is one problem...some innocent defendants get killed even though they never committed the crime...That is very true, and is a problem that needs correcting. It isn't easy to correct an error such as this though... :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) That is very true, and is a problem that needs correcting. It isn't easy to correct an error such as this though... :( Yeah...sometimes some defendants admit to a crime they never did...the system needs to be sorted out. During police interogations, the police accidently put so much pressure on the defendant that they admit to a crime that they never committed due to fear and pressure. Edited January 18, 2009 by Judge Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) That is one problem...some innocent defendants get executed even though they never committed the crime... Millions/thousands of innocent people die in car accidents every year, does that mean cars should no longer be used? Edited January 18, 2009 by Noremac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malexis Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Millions/thousands of innocent people die in car accidents every year, does that mean cars should no longer be used? Key word being accident. We can't fix cars crashing and such, but the legal system -can- be fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Once again, as far as costs, it costs more to execute than to put away for life. The "sides" as I see them: people who think some criminals who commit ridiculously terrible crimes, continue to kill in prison, etc, must have the threat of execution over their head, and people who think having one person who get screwed by application of the DP, who did not deserve death as their punishment. quoted for et cetera: Anybody read Ultimate Punishment by, I think, Scott Turow? Nice read on this stuff.Most Americans (as in a little more than half), as some people in here have said they do, want to keep the death penalty available as an option for really off-the-wall kind of terrible crimes, like large scale murder or rape. The problem with that is that people who don't deserve the death penalty but are eligible for it are inevitably going to be sentenced that way on subjective bases (basises? lol). For example people who kill whites are statistically more likely to be sentenced to death than people who murder others of any other race, regardless of the criminal's race themselves. Different states have many different standards for applying the death penalty, and some make it applicable to many different kinds of felony murder, which doesn't help. Having the death penalty available, at best, makes the legal system even more fucking complicated, and at worst holds it back to the point where individual states get screwed by tripping over their own feet trying to apply it well. Side note: while this shouldn't be any great factor in how one views the DP with all the principals an' shit involved, it generally costs more to execute a criminal than to make him spend the rest of his "natural" life in jail. 8U Edited January 18, 2009 by Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Key word being accident. We can't fix cars crashing and such, but the legal system -can- be fixed. many are caused by the other driver's negligence, so in a way, they STILL are to blame for the deaths of others and killing somebody else because of negligence is bordering on murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) Millions/thousands of innocent people die in car accidents every year, does that mean cars should no longer be used? O_o Thats cars dude...that has nothing to do with this topic. Cars can be fixed =/ Edited January 18, 2009 by Judge Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Murder requires intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Key word being accident. We can't fix cars crashing and such, but the legal system -can- be fixed. Not true, we could make everybody drive 5mph were, even if hit, would not hurt them. We could ban alcoholic beverages period, removing a good portion of wrecks, the list is endless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Judy Posted January 18, 2009 Author Share Posted January 18, 2009 (edited) many are caused by the other driver's negligence, so in a way, they STILL are to blame for the deaths of othersand killing somebody else because of negligence is bordering on murder. Bordering Manslaughter. Not murder. HUGE DIFFERENCE! XD Murder with intention to kill someone. Manslaughter accidently killed someone. This can apply to any normal person. I might kill someone by throwing a hammer but hitting someone accidently...stupid example I know. Edited January 18, 2009 by Judge Judy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malexis Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 many are caused by the other driver's negligence, so in a way, they STILL are to blame for the deaths of othersand killing somebody else because of negligence is bordering on murder. That would be considered manslaughter. But I see your point. Drunk driving is indeed punished by the law, although maybe not enough. Of course, there is always negligence, and other cases of a driver killing another driver in an accident, which is -not- punished by the law as much as it should be... There really are many many errors in the legal system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Millions/thousands of innocent people die in car accidents every year, does that mean cars should no longer be used? This is also a shitty comparison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noremaC Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 Bordering Manslaughter. Not murder. HUGE DIFFERENCE! XDMurder with intention to kill someone. Manslaughter accidently killed someone. This can apply to any normal person. I might kill someone by throwing a hammer but hitting someone accidently...stupid example I know. Well, then if manslaughter is accidentally killing somebody, would giving DP to the wrong person be an accident, thus it being manslaughter, which according to you is not murder, so there for a car wreck is the same thing as DP mishaps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.