Would You?

Let's imagine we had such law. Now imagine someone was senteced for something he did not do. The lawyer failed, it happens. It just seemed as though he was the culprint but he really wasn't. He get's senteced though. And senteced to death.
How can you justify that? How is this anywhere near justice?

I basically agree with what NoeL said on the matter.
Edit: NoeL, there's a German author by the name of "Günther Grass". He once said that "Love, faith and hope are the shelf warmers of the new testament". Reading those opinions by guys that consider themselves christian makes me think he is right.

Also on that part where you say: "He denied the girl a life": Not true. It might sound a little harsh but the girl will get over it. Really, she will. In about 3-5 months would be healthy, but there's to fear post-traumatic influences on her psyche and maybe even depressive tendencies. But all of that can be helped with psychologial therapy and one day the girl will get over her sad fate and live a happy life again. Again, that's not just some opinion but actually is backed up by psychological (empiristic) research.
A similar thing is true for the culprint: people can be helped. They don't have to get sentenced to death.

Edited by Sheik91, 01 August 2011 - 07:38 AM.

Which is why I specifically listed those attributes. If there was any real indication they might repeat the crime you shouldn't let them go.

I think it takes a little longer than 3-5 months to get over death Medical advances have only come so far.

I could've sworn the scenario was that the girl survived the rape.

That's not the point. Yes, there have probably been innumerable instances where they've survived the rape, but he said raped AND MURDERED.

You don't survive murder. Weird concept, I know, but trust me, people die if they are killed.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 01 August 2011 - 11:24 AM.

Relax, my friend I just misread it and posted with another scenario in mind, the world won't stop turning now. I think my post still makes some sense, just with regard to another scenario.

So to sum up the thoughts thus far, it seems that there are definitely situations in which the death of an individual is necessary, but that it is not for any one person to decide who lives or who dies, and death is not a fate that any person deserves.

Rather, it seems that there are definately situations that can lead an individual to kill another individual. Wether that's necessary is nothing I want to judge. But I agree on the rest.

Nuh-uh, man, a real man doesn't die, even when he's killed!

... wait the hypothetical was about a young girl.

Hmm... Seems the thread's starting to turn into that "capital punishment vs. prison system" debate I figured this would turn into earlier. Well, everyone's handling it well, I'll leave it here. As for my thoughts, well, they haven't really changed. Case-by-case can be a good method, because criminals can (and have) recovered, but then there are the true cases that would never turn back. What's your opinion there? Surely you don't mean to keep them locked up their whole lives, with free living conditions, do you?

seems like you a trying to bring it there, but I feel like this thread has stayed well-aligned with its main topic. I must admit that I have the killing ability within me, but as a pacifist and a vegan, I don't often let that out by choice and it would take an extreme situation to call me into immediate action and an extremely rare extreme situation that would bring me to a planning stage of such an action and then through the action itself. helps if it's a killer/cop we're talking about. I know if I was ever proven to have killed illegally, I'd want the prison option over the death option. torture would make it a much harder choice. shortly: there are killers in us all and I do it far less often than y'all.

No I wasn't, but you're right; I kinda went a bit off-course with that last one. Apologies for that. Russ's hypothetical just set me off, cuz, well, that's actually happened, and it just made me think of my earlier posts and what I'd do if I ran into the man (or woman) myself. Which, after thinking about it for a bit, I probably wouldn't kill them. I'd just try my best to bloody them a bit. Maybe a lot. But this is all hypothetical and all I can say is: I hope I don't ever even find myself in such a position. Because, in a strange way, I'd rather not find out what I'd do in such a situation.

Absolutely. Who are you to claim they'll never turn back? Can you see the future? They'll certainly never turn back if they're dead, but there's a chance - however slim - that with the proper psychiatric care they can be rehabilitated back into society. It's just a matter of whether or not you think their life is worth the cost of their rehabilitation.

When I look at this question, honestly the first thing I think is that if a criminal charged with murder is sent to prison, and is later released on 'good behavior', but then continues to kill, the death penalty is what ought to await them when the authorities once again have them in custody.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 02 August 2011 - 07:04 AM.

PowerGauntlets: So it takes this person to kill 2 people to get the death penalty, nah, that's 2 family's devastated and most of the time 2 innocent people dead and 1 guilty guy dead... if you look it like that odds soon enough there's going to be a lot more people getting killed. I think as soon as they kill and are charged guilty and proved guilty that they are locked up forever, no second chances, unless they are proven innocent from further evidence and the judge made the wrong decision.

Dude, you're regressing. We've already established that it's hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone else. The death penalty is wrong, bottom line, but I'm trying to establish right now a situation in which the execution of an individual, despite the hypocritical immorality of it, is necessary.

Edited by PowerGauntlets, 02 August 2011 - 08:10 AM.

I would have shot someone Friday if it was legal. Said persons ex-girlfriend and her daughter were at my house and we were hanging out a while then her daughter seen my 45 auto on my reloading bench and asked if was new, I said yeah and asked if she wanted to shoot it, she said sure (the only time she ever shot a gun prior to that was my .45 colt colt rifle, she did good). So we went back to my pond and I taught her how to use it and she had fun. I had three bullets in it and she kept closing her eyes because she was scared it would fly back and hit her in the face. She had alot of fun but her ears were ringing and as we were on our way back to my house to get my .22 rifle (which don't kick and is not too loud) he walks over to the fence yelling and cussing at her because the car was in his yard (you have to go through his yard to get to our property and her car was at my gate). He said they were not allowed on his property and proceeded to take his little 38 pistol out of his pocket and threaten them, when I got my .45 out (he didn't know it was out of ammo) he then stuck his gun back in his pocket and picked up a brick to threaten them with. Had he stepped over into my property I would have shot him as it would have been legal, but now they can't come visit and I got to cut across the pasture because he don't want a "punk ass kid" on his property.

He of course was jealous that they were with me and also still mad because I was transferred to his shop and quit. But it's fine I am going to take her to a shooting range because I enjoy shooting guns as a hobby and she wanted to try it out and had alot of fun, that would make one hobby we have in common.