01:05am. South Africa is usually about 7 hours ahead. And since I'm making another post, I might as well say, that the woman that killed her son [the drug addict] shouldn't go to jail. I think that the crime was self-defense like
But if she would go to jail, sentenced to death, would you still claim that the death penalty is valid?
woah, you brought back reality there Virre. Got kind of sidetracked there. You're on form tonight, I must say :yup: Uhm, no, if she was sentenced to death [which is illegal in SA] I would be the first person to sign petitions and I would be leading the protest marches.
hehe wow really got out of topic. but of course not, why would she be sentence to death, if it was self defence? She deserves a fair trial, and im confident that the jury would see it her way.
I think that was kind of the point. Maybe the jury was biased [ie. the jury was racist] or there was a glitch with the paper work. there are many things that could go wrong in a trial, and that's what makes the death penalty so wrong.
that's why i think that after you're convicted, you have 10 years maximum to have a brand new trial with a brand new judge a brand new lawyer and a brand new jury. get your facts straight and there you go.
Haha, thanks for putting my thoughts into words, you really managed to sum it all up That's why you appeal (sp?). But in case something were wrong the first time, or at the crime scene, you won't have the same opportunity to get your facts straight. In fact (pun intended) it might be even harder to get a hold of evidence that might release you (unless you do research continously during those 10 years, but not many lawyers would bother doing that).
It's a pleasure. and actually, as I was explaining it, it all started falling into place for me too... STOP THE DEBATE it's 2am, and I need sleep, but I don't want to be left behind... :yup: night guys
lol ok we'll pause for us, just cause i like debating with you, usually i debate with total morons who can't back up their points :maha:
according to the law ... those who suffer death penality are those who murdered some1 ... so those who are giving em shall received one too ...
the death sentence is the harshest of them all. it should only be used for mass homicide cases, or something worse than that, though i cant imagine it.
Rapists, paedophiles and psycho mass murderers. I think those three mainly deserve the death sentence. And it makes me sick to think that someone who robs a bank can get more jail time than a paedophile.
the death penalty is cruel but if you did something seriously bad as in murder/rape its called and eye for an eye you killed someone now you will be killed and rape you permently scarred that person for life they should be able to choose your penalty
This was a hot topic in Wisconsin not too terribly long ago. I'm fully for it, as long as the crimes are sexual, or murderous and can be prooved by DNA or other hard evidences. Some people just need to know, that if they take a life, or create an unwanted life should have their own life on the line, and we're not getting that through to the criminals today. They cannot just keep doing this and getting jail time for a couple years then getting probation and committing these crimes again. We need to slam the gavel down and bring the cold justice to them in the form of death. NOW -- which form of death, I believe, is the true question. (me personally being the inhumane person I am, think that a single bullet to the back of the skull is the way to go as it's cheapest and we're cutting everything cause the govt is running too low on budgets)
I draw the line at one point. Being in jail the rest of your life is more torture then death, but then again, what about overcrowding in the jails? I would have to think about that. There are good reasons on both sides of the argument.
In my opinion there should be limits, as mentioned somewhere above. If the criminal does an excessive amount of damage, and the facts are really solid and there is no split decision among the judges or jury, I think it's acceptable. Not only does keeping prisoners cost a lot of money, but they continue to be a threat to our society when they go on parol or are finished their sentence. If a person had full intention to murder someone, there had to have been something wrong with them initially. It takes a lot to simply take someone else's life. You'd either need to have crazy guts, or just be mentally instable. Something like a murder is not planned overnight, and rapists have probably done so much more damage than what they are being charged with (assuming of course that there was solid evidence). Rape is sexual desire, or something along those lines, and if you get put in jail its not going to simply go away. Rapists can scar so many individuals, and child molestors too. These kind of people, if the court has solid evidence, specifically tying the victim to the accused, deserve to be sentenced with the death penalty. However, if there is any doubt at all, the criminal gets life sentence, or another trial if it was really close, based on the jury. Bias is another issue, so perhaps the cases should be done anonymously, not showing anything that could identify the victim or the accused. Now onto the money/jail issue. Although jail may not be enjoyable, it isn't absolutely terrible. A lot of the people in jail simply go back to doing crimes after they get out. Rehabillitation is extremely expensive and rarely works, so why waste money on trying to fix someone who won't be fixed? Yes, it does work occasionally, but once again, only the most extreme criminals should get the death penalty. Yes, life is the one thing we really have, and it's beyond money, but you must also consider the other lives than can be lost or permenantly ruined because of the one life. I'm pretty sure life sentence doesn't last until the day you die, so the criminal will be free again. Yes people change, but I'm talking about extremes. If you are a homocidal maniac, you simply can not go back to leading a normal life. After criminals leave prison, they have to readjust to regular life, and after having spent such a long time in such an envirmonment, isolated from anything, people can't really learn to behave themselves in our everyday society. Crimes will continue. They might be slightly less than what they were before, but if they were severe to begin with, a little change won't make a huge difference. So, if they will keep commiting severe crimes, why should they be allowed to leave prison after 25 years (or whatever life sentence is) and simply scar more lives, when if they were put to death, a lot less people would suffer. Anyways, concluding my rant, the death penalty should be used very seldom, and if used only if there is extremely solid evidence. Wow... that was long.
I am pretty much undecided with this one. I mean, if someones crimes are that severe, I think they deserve to die for it. BUT. How do we know they are 100% guilty? It would be terrible to put someone to death when they aren't even guilty.