Ramshi wrote:
Now another thing is, what does killing the perpetrator really achieve?
Ramshi wrote:Sentencing people to death saves taxpayers a lot of money and it gets them off the streets for good. They definitely can't reoffend and it gives the victim's family peace of mind.
Thanks for answering Ramshi's question so effectively, Ramshi.
All in all, it's a delicate balance between protecting the falsely accused from being innocently sentenced to death, and having so many inmates that it's killing the state and/or federal budgets.
Well I thought todays history class brought up an interesting arguement, so I thought I would post it to see what you think. We discussed the interworking of our government in conjunction with our constitution. (sounds like fun huh) Ill skip most of the dull discourse and just get to the main idea. Does our constitution still matter.
My reply was something to the effect of, yes but wether we still follow it remains to be seen. Some of the ideals of the constitution seem to have, for lack of a better word, slipped. I have always wondered if the government would enforce the twenty second ammendment if a president were to be immesnsely popular with the people; and in turn be demanded for re-election.
Just another side bar from another lecture. Personally I think the government needs to look at the principles of Laissez Faire again and take notes. Or better yet, read Wealth of Nations.
I am for the death penalty. I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be unless they don't believe in defending themselves. If its ok to kill someone in self-defense then it is ok to execute murderers so they don't murder again. It is a form of self-defense not on the personal level but on the societal level.
I also think our legal system needs to be overhauled. The standard for conviction for the death penalty is not restrictive enough and not applied in obvious cases. There were plenty of people on death row in Illinois who were convicted based upon unreliable testimony from "witnesses". I've seen cases in the news where people have been locked up, not necessarily always on death row, where the detective work was shoddy and the defendants appeared to be convicted based upon their reputations. I've noticed prosecutors also appear to have the bad habit of trying to further their careers by convicting people rather than ensuring the evidence they are presenting ads up.
While some people are convicted with less than conclusive evidence we have obvious mass murderers who are sentenced to life in prison. I imagine the Aurora shooter and the guy at Fort Hood are well on their way to spending their lives sitting around reading, working out, and eating three meals a day, for the rest of their lives on our tax dollars.
I think the best argument for the death penalty is to ask this question. How do you punish a person who is already spending life in prison if he murders again while in prison or while having escaped? You can't keep him there for a second life term when he only has one life. The death penalty is for those people who do not seek forgiveness, who do not try to change, and who will likely murder again if given the opportunity.
I've noticed prosecutors also appear to have the bad habit of trying to further their careers by convicting people rather than ensuring the evidence they are presenting ads up.
99% of the time that's all the prosecutor wants to do, and I can see why they do it.
But yes, most first world country legal systems do need a serious look at.
