Pav - would you please list all the offenses that you think should be punishable by death?
Sure:
Rape (In cases where there is physical and visual (eyewitness) evidence)
Child Molestation (In cases where there is physical evidence)
Distribution/Possession of child pornography (If a jury of 24 unanimously find the Defendant guilty)
Murder
Child Rape
DWI/DUI
Armed Robbery (I’m talking guns, not knives)
Felonious Assault
I think that’s it. I’d also like to mention that there are many crimes that I think should be not considered crimes at all as well as some crimes that I think should result in a lighter sentence than they currently do, Sir Faust.
You’re sounding a bit defensive, Pav.
So, the penalty is tied to the evidence, but not the crime.
Should deter anyone from raping in front of witnesses, anyway.
I know I’m not pav. But, theft of weed is one. I’m sure of it.
The penalty for rape of an adult would remain the same as it currently is now if the person is found guilty by a jury of twenty-four and there are no witnesses.
Obviously, with anything involving a child, the physical evidence is either there or is not there, if it is (and that gets proven to a jury) you die.
I think that my list of death penalty crimes is more or less reasonable, and if not, I at least have my own reasons.
As far as the defensiveness goes, I apologize for that, simply a spill-over from the other conversations I’ve been having.
So, if I rape an hundred women, and am found guilty, I get life (most places in the US).
You rape your ex-wife, in a highly disputed but witnessed rape, and you die.
It is what it is. I mean, when you draft a law it is nearly impossible to account for every contingency and every specific situation there is.
Now, when you are talking about a highly disputed, but witnessed rape, the jury of 24 is still going to apply.
I think that one problem with the law is that it is too easy to be found guilty if you are innocent. That is why as it relates to all laws that go to trial it would take a guilty verdict from all 24 jury members for the person to be found guilty. Also, hung juries would cease to exist, so if even one juror finds you innocent, then you are acquitted.
Or we could make it a simple majority, or 75% for a conviction, but I would probably prefer for it to be a unanimous decision of 24 jurors.
Which is an argument for keeping the convict alive, just in case.
Just in case a jury of twenty-four unanimously find you guilty when presented with conclusive witness and physical evidence?
Besides, couldn’t that same argument then be used for not imprisoning people at all?
No, it couldn’t. Wrongful imprisonment is more reversible than wrongful death.
Reversible? How is anything reversible? Time has passed, you cannot undo time in prison, unless of course they credit the time that you were wrongfully in prison to a future crime or something…
What you’re saying to the perp of the 100 unwitnessed rapes is, “We 're certain you did it, so you’re going to jail. Well, we’re not that certain. We’re more certain about the one-rape guy, so he’s toast. Hope you don’t mind that we’re not really that sure about you. Witnesses are often reliable, though.”
“Reversible? How is anything reversible? Time has passed, you cannot undo time in prison, unless of course they credit the time that you were wrongfully in prison to a future crime or something…”
Do I really have to answer that?
No, I was kidding.
You got me on that one, Faust, I’ll give that to you.
I honestly can’t answer except for to say that the legal system will never be perfect, so on occasion, if you’re going to have the death penalty a guy that did not actually commit the crime will fry. It sucks, but it is a consequence of having the death penalty and a potential consequence to anyone that lives in a death penalty allowing state.
And that’s as it is with anything else, we’re born into a country and born into laws that we may or may not agree with. There are some laws that one might not even necessarily be aware of! But, if you commit the crime and are found guilty, then you are subject to the punishment.
innocence is no excuse
kill 'em all
-Imp
I think innocence ceases to be an excuse and actually becomes a reason provided they are innocent.
Jack Bauer?
ps. this is crazy talk, by the way.
Crazy talk?
Relativity.
If there is a country somewhere where the current standard is a jury of six, I’m certain they would regard a jury of 12 as crazy talk.
I would just prefer to make absolutely sure of someone’s guilt if we are going to expand the death penalty.
I’ve got news for you, Pav - there’s no way to be “absolutely sure”. Dress this up in all the judiciary bullshit you like, but in the end it just comes down to making ourselves feel better.
That may be, but the way you make it sound there is no difference between a jury of twenty-four and one of twelve.
If that were so, there is no difference between a jury of 12 and one of six, or three, or one.
Of course there is no way to be absolutely sure, Matty, there are some that are not even philosophically sure of our own existence. We strive, certainly, to be as sure as possible, or as can reasonably be expected of us, though.
Assuming no prejudice, there is a big difference between a jury of twelve and one judge. The judge will get it right more often. The object of a criminal trial is not truth, but justice. And the trial is only one component of the criminal justice system. And the part the jury knows is only one part of the trial. Your view is naive at best, Pav. I’m glad you’re not my lawyer.