Reply With Quote
It depends on who you ask.
But prison isn't death. You can rehabilitate yourself in prison, even if you're spending the rest of your life there.
Then what's the point of prison again?
It depends on who you ask.
But prison isn't death. You can rehabilitate yourself in prison, even if you're spending the rest of your life there.
Then prison is for rehabilitation?
It was. At least, that was the late 19th century model. Since then we've regressed to our Anglo-Saxon roots.
Oh, come on. Punishment has never been intended for ONE purpose only.
There are at least 4 legitimate purposes that simultaneously apply:
(1) Deterrence - deter potential criminals from committing crimes
(2) Prevention - prevent prisoners from committing further crimes during their incarceration
(3) Rehabilitation - make prisoners less likely to commit crimes after their release
(4) Justice - satisfy society's expectations of fairness with proportional punishment (he got what he deserved!)
Revenge is, of course, an illegitimate purpose. The line between justice and revenge is a tough one to distinguish, but it's real.
Does the death penalty:
(1) Deter crime? Unclear. It's hard to try to prove one way or the other without stumbling into correlation/causation.
(2) Prevent crime? Yes, of those under sentence of death. They can't kill people on the streets if they're locked up or dead. No more effective than life without parole, though.
(3) Rehabilitate offenders? No, of course not.
(4) Do justice? In an eye-for-an-eye sense, yes. Many people really do believe that if you take a life, your life needs to be taken.
I'm against the death penalty for various reasons, but I'm not blind to the arguments in its favor.
Last edited by doobs; 01-05-2010 at 07:21 PM.
So what if it is the wrong guy?Didn't see that one coming
Among other things. I was pointing out that it's the main difference between a life sentence and a death sentence.
Practical failure?
Everyone who's ever been executed has not killed again... That's success by any measure.
some who were executed did not kill in the first place... that's a fail by any measure.
So the ones who didn't actually kill in the first place were successes as well?
By what measure?
A failure of the Criminal Justice System. Start holding prosecutors responsible for wrongful convictions and maybe they'll be a little more careful and a bit less political about their cases.
The Death Penalty has a 100% success rate against recidivism.
How would you hold them responsible for wrongful convictions prosecuted in good faith?
Would you kill them? That would mean there is a 100% chance they wouldn't do it again.
I think prosecutors have to ignore a lot of exculpatory evidence to relentlessly pursue a death penalty in a case where the defendant's guilt is in doubt.
If a prosecutor knowingly let an innocent person be executed? Yep. I'd make that a capital crime. It's murder. Worse, the prosecutor used the State to commit the crime.
How are you going to prove that?
Prove it.If a prosecutor knowingly let an innocent person be executed? Yep. I'd make that a capital crime. It's murder. Worse, the prosecutor used the State to commit the crime.
They're called trials.
Prove what?
What is the charge?
You don't know?Prove what?
Not surprising.
Capital Murder. If you had bothered to read the entire post, I said -- in the very next sentence -- "I'd make that a capital crime."
You asked me to prove that if I had the power I'd make it a capital crime for prosecutors to be charged with capital murder if they knowingly allowed an innocent person to be executed.
I guess that I wrote it is proof that I would.
I think you reflexively type "prove it," sometimes without thinking...but, on typing that, I realize you may do quite a bit without thinking.
No, how do you prove that a prosecutor didn't prosecute someone in good faith?
And whom do you get to indict the prosecutor?
You don't have to prove that.
In my scenario, you prove they allowed an execution to go forward when they had exculpatory evidence in their possession or had sufficient reason to believe the defendant may be innocent.
I suppose a Grand Jury could do it. I can't believe there's not a mechanism, already in place, for charging a prosecutor with a crime.
Are you suggesting prosecutors should be immune from criminal prosecution if they knowingly allow an innocent person to be executed?
And how do you know they have exculpatory evidence in their possession?
Directed by the prosecutor's office?I suppose a Grand Jury could do it.
I'm suggesting you don't know what you are talking about.Are you suggesting prosecutors should be immune from criminal prosecution if they knowingly allow an innocent person to be executed?
That's what investigations are for. Are you unfamiliar with how criminal cases are developed?
Directed by whomever is needed to see the process through. The do use special prosecutors from other jurisdictions when a District Attorney runs afoul of the law, I think.
What I know, is they don't let them off because they're a prosecutor.
Your responses seem to suggest a prosecutor is somehow untouchable.
I think prosecutors aren't above the law.
I think if a prosecutors actions lead to the death of someone they should be held accountable.
With which of those two statements do you disagree?
Who would investigate that if there is no knowledge of the alleged missing exculpatory evidence?
No, you are making a rather stupid assumption.Directed by whomever is needed to see the process through. The do use special prosecutors from other jurisdictions when a District Attorney runs afoul of the law, I think.
What I know, is they don't let them off because they're a prosecutor.
Your responses seem to suggest a prosecutor is somehow untouchable.
Duh.I think prosecutors aren't above the law.
The scenario you put forth seems pretty stupid. You would have to assume that every prosecutor must be investigated when he tries a capital case. It's yet another stupid assumption on your part.I think if a prosecutors actions lead to the death of someone they should be held accountable.
Your assumption is that in the years of appeals nothing will be discovered that might warrant such an investigation.
Of course, we're already talking about an innocent person being executed so, I'm thinking the first order of an investigation would be what did the prosecutor know and when did he know it?
Why would it be discovered? Most appeals have nothing to do with evidence, and again -- if the prosecution purposely hid that evidence, why would it magically appear later?
So immediately launch a criminal investigation of any prosecutor who wins a conviction in a capital trial?Of course, we're already talking about an innocent person being executed so, I'm thinking the first order of an investigation would be what did the prosecutor know and when did he know it?
That's rich.
Just one question.
For sure executing an innocent man is unjust.
But executing the guilty one, is that unjust?
That's what it boils down to.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
