N
NewBirth
Guest
thought this wasnt going 2 b a debate 
The death penatly.
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
Help Support Loneliness, Depression & Relationship Forum:
Josh
Well-known member
Well it kind of has drifted away from main topic even but I don't see anything wrong with a nice debate like this it's more of a exchange of different ideas and beliefs everyone is being very civil so I think it's great I wish I could get discusions like this in real life.
N
NewBirth
Guest
change of plans... okay
Everyone makes very good points here. After reading all your comments I thought about this a little more. I don't think a person should be on death row unless you can prove 100% without a doubt that they are guilty. In the United States, that's how it's supposed to work, but i fully understand that corruption exists on all levels ( a perfect example being the Mumia Abu-Jamal Case).
To clear things up a little, I'm not a mean person, and if given the opportunity to stone a violent criminal, I would definately pass it up. On the other hand, I really do feel that there is no excuse and no forgiveness for a person who sexually abuses a child. Thankfully I had a wonderful and safe childhood, but i know many people who didn't. When you abuse a child, you are stealing their innocence. They can easily shut down emotionally...short-term or long-term. that's how killers are born. I'm not saying anyone who was sexually abused as a child will become a killer......I'm saying a huge percentage of violent criminals were sexually abused as children. I bet if they could stop crimes against children, in 20 years the crime rate will have gone down dramatically. You don't need to kill the killer, if the killer never killed. these are all just my thoughts......hope i didn't offend anyone.
To clear things up a little, I'm not a mean person, and if given the opportunity to stone a violent criminal, I would definately pass it up. On the other hand, I really do feel that there is no excuse and no forgiveness for a person who sexually abuses a child. Thankfully I had a wonderful and safe childhood, but i know many people who didn't. When you abuse a child, you are stealing their innocence. They can easily shut down emotionally...short-term or long-term. that's how killers are born. I'm not saying anyone who was sexually abused as a child will become a killer......I'm saying a huge percentage of violent criminals were sexually abused as children. I bet if they could stop crimes against children, in 20 years the crime rate will have gone down dramatically. You don't need to kill the killer, if the killer never killed. these are all just my thoughts......hope i didn't offend anyone.
A
Arianna
Guest
mimizu said:
No..mimizu that's not what I said. I didn't say forget about the innocent ones. Because if you think about it..the innocent ones are the victims..not the predator. If someone is caught..and there's obivious evidence of their guilt.( ie..video camera photos..for example). Then there is no recourse but to eliminate the animal. Think of how public officials react to a rabid beast. There's no difference between a rabid beast (intent on destruction) or a rabid human. Both need eliminating. As for me 'enjoying' the thought. No.. I do not enjoy such thoughts. But it is a necessary step to protect society - especially the children. As I've mentioned before..I have no forgiveness towards violent acts towards little ones. And feel no guilt in admitting this belief.
A
Arianna
Guest
jales said:
Sorry I disagree. The case I mentioned about the little girl. Well, the guy's DNA (sperm) was found inside her body. As well as her DNA (and his) - found within the closet where he repeated raped her for three days. And he was able to show the police exactly where he buried her body. Describing the smallest details in relation to the act. So yes..you can be 100% sure.
L
lonelygirl
Guest
I used to be gung ho for the death penalty--but only for murderers, torturers, etc.
Now I'm quite the opposite!
I think murder is ALWAYS wrong, period. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!
Those who harm children, though....NO human justice could ever make right what they have stolen from a child or that child's family. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I SHALL REPAY. (Bible quote).
Now I'm quite the opposite!
I think murder is ALWAYS wrong, period. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind!
Those who harm children, though....NO human justice could ever make right what they have stolen from a child or that child's family. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I SHALL REPAY. (Bible quote).
L
lonelygirl
Guest
Let's add to this debate with the question:
Would you rather let 10 men live than put to death ONE innocent man?
I say, yes.
Therefore, I would suggest that we just keep criminals alive. And we FORCE them to work for a living. If they don't work, they don't eat. They could be doing useful stuff in prison rather than sitting around watching Cable TV (which many free people can't even afford) eating, (yucky food, but still edible) and raping each other and plotting revenge on each other. They should be doing USEFUL work to PAY BACK society for the crime they inflicted on one or more of us.
I would say they should have prisons where people who killed another person HAVE to work to eat. And then they HAVE to be paid and the money HAS to go back to the families of the victims.
Would you rather let 10 men live than put to death ONE innocent man?
I say, yes.
Therefore, I would suggest that we just keep criminals alive. And we FORCE them to work for a living. If they don't work, they don't eat. They could be doing useful stuff in prison rather than sitting around watching Cable TV (which many free people can't even afford) eating, (yucky food, but still edible) and raping each other and plotting revenge on each other. They should be doing USEFUL work to PAY BACK society for the crime they inflicted on one or more of us.
I would say they should have prisons where people who killed another person HAVE to work to eat. And then they HAVE to be paid and the money HAS to go back to the families of the victims.
mimizu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 0
In addition, a DNA laboratory is made up of humans, and humans make mistakes. A tube misplaced somewhere. Or a few thousand bucks given to a certain person - "hey we really need to make a conviction... I hope the DNA analysis results will match. Wink."Cosmic Kid said:
There goes your 100% certainty about DNA analysis.
This is especially true in serial murderer cases. Someone that terrorizes the whole town. The police will often catch the closest "suspicious person" just so they can say "we caught the *******".
The problem with "beyond reasonable doubt" is that there have been many people whose guilt has been proven to be "beyond reasonable doubt" and yet they weren't guilty. It was just convenient to blame them. This is why I would prefer to stay away from the cruel punishments. Please think about this.
here is an excerpt from http://www.dna-geneticconnections.com/
All About DNA Testing Accuracy
Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?
In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved. In addition, it important to note that the certainty usually increases with the number of DNA loci (locations) analyzed. Look for a company that routinely checks at least 15 different loci and that will run additional tests on more locations if there are mutations or inconsistencies.
What does 99.99% probability really mean?
For paternity cases, if the alleged father is not the biological father, the result will be 100% exclusion. However, if the alleged father cannot be excluded as the biological father, the result will be a certain percent inclusion. Make sure you look for a lab that routinely provides at least 99.99% probability of inclusion. This means that there is only a 0.01% chance that another random individual in the same race population could have the same paternity test results. Consider that many companies provide 99.9999% probabilities of inclusion, meaning there is only a 0.0001% chance that another man could be the father.
You should pay close attention to how DNA testing companies describe their testing and results. Even if the test concludes that the alleged father is 100% excluded as the biological father, the test may not have been 100% accurate. False exclusions can occur if a laboratory mixes up the test samples, and the results are for individuals from more than one case.
False inclusions can also occur. If the result is 99.0% inclusion, the chance of a false inclusion is 100 times greater than a 99.99% inclusion.
On October 11, 2006 The Supreme Court issued The Rule on DNA Evidence.
If you would like to read the ruling, here is the link.
http://jlp-law.com/blog/rule-on-dna-evidence-full-text/
sections 8 & 9 are the most relavent to our discussion.
The rule took effect on October 15, 2007
All About DNA Testing Accuracy
Why will results claiming probable inclusion never equal 100%?
In paternity testing, no man will ever be 100% included as the biological father because there is always the slight possibility that the DNA profile of the alleged father matches the DNA profile of the child by mere chance. The likelihood of this happening is usually well below 0.001% (1 in 100,000), but it depends in large part on the ethnic origin of the individuals involved. In addition, it important to note that the certainty usually increases with the number of DNA loci (locations) analyzed. Look for a company that routinely checks at least 15 different loci and that will run additional tests on more locations if there are mutations or inconsistencies.
What does 99.99% probability really mean?
For paternity cases, if the alleged father is not the biological father, the result will be 100% exclusion. However, if the alleged father cannot be excluded as the biological father, the result will be a certain percent inclusion. Make sure you look for a lab that routinely provides at least 99.99% probability of inclusion. This means that there is only a 0.01% chance that another random individual in the same race population could have the same paternity test results. Consider that many companies provide 99.9999% probabilities of inclusion, meaning there is only a 0.0001% chance that another man could be the father.
You should pay close attention to how DNA testing companies describe their testing and results. Even if the test concludes that the alleged father is 100% excluded as the biological father, the test may not have been 100% accurate. False exclusions can occur if a laboratory mixes up the test samples, and the results are for individuals from more than one case.
False inclusions can also occur. If the result is 99.0% inclusion, the chance of a false inclusion is 100 times greater than a 99.99% inclusion.
On October 11, 2006 The Supreme Court issued The Rule on DNA Evidence.
If you would like to read the ruling, here is the link.
http://jlp-law.com/blog/rule-on-dna-evidence-full-text/
sections 8 & 9 are the most relavent to our discussion.
The rule took effect on October 15, 2007
A
Arianna
Guest
Cosmic Kid said:
A
Arianna
Guest
Arianna said:
mimizu
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 622
- Reaction score
- 0
You didn't convince me.. #_# I still don't think that criminals should be stoned or anything cruel like that. If they must be executed, then it should be a "humane" execution. An injection or such.
Your comment about 100% of people in prison claiming to be innocent is cynical. Sure, a criminal will claim that they are innocent. But there are still innocent people there. And I don't want an innocent person to be stoned. Even if the chance is 1 in a trillion, I still don't want them to be stoned.
Your comment about 100% of people in prison claiming to be innocent is cynical. Sure, a criminal will claim that they are innocent. But there are still innocent people there. And I don't want an innocent person to be stoned. Even if the chance is 1 in a trillion, I still don't want them to be stoned.
A
Arianna
Guest
mimizu said:
No..I am not cynical..just realistic. Are there innocent people in jail? I am certain there are. A large percent that are innocent? No., I highly doubt that..but just think. If it weren't for DNA testing - how many more innocent people would be incarcerated? You have a good heart..no doubt. I just happen to side with the lesser victim..the one that can't fight back through words or actions. Adults that are innocent and in jail at least have that advantage. I am signing off this thread. Not here to fight..just discuss. And I've said my peace so.. good night.
Cosmic Kid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
Arianna said:
N
NewBirth
Guest
i wonder if all this debating is helping with everybodys loneliness
nice us supreme court decision 2day. so many posters & nobody brought it up. so i thought i would
nice us supreme court decision 2day. so many posters & nobody brought it up. so i thought i would
L
lonelygirl
Guest
Hey Colette,
I just meant that as in the Bible it says, about those who harm children (molest, rape, beat, or murder kids):
It's better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and for them to be thrown into the deepest pit in the sea than to face what God has in store for them.
(Those who do that and who don't repent).
I do agree that we humans have the right to enforce laws and to ensure that people who prey on other humans go to prison. I just don't think it's right for humans to KILL other humans, period. Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
It's illogical and hypocritical. Now, please don't get me wrong. If it was my family member killed by some criminal, I know I'd be screaming for blood. I don't know that I could wait for God's vengeance. However, I would also like to think that logically, and generally, I know that killing people is always wrong, period, unless it's in self-defense.
I'm pro-life. I'm consistent. That means that I: am against wars (unless in self-defense), against abortion (deliberately killing a human life) and I"m against death penalty.
I just meant that as in the Bible it says, about those who harm children (molest, rape, beat, or murder kids):
It's better for them to have a millstone tied around their neck and for them to be thrown into the deepest pit in the sea than to face what God has in store for them.
(Those who do that and who don't repent).
I do agree that we humans have the right to enforce laws and to ensure that people who prey on other humans go to prison. I just don't think it's right for humans to KILL other humans, period. Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
It's illogical and hypocritical. Now, please don't get me wrong. If it was my family member killed by some criminal, I know I'd be screaming for blood. I don't know that I could wait for God's vengeance. However, I would also like to think that logically, and generally, I know that killing people is always wrong, period, unless it's in self-defense.
I'm pro-life. I'm consistent. That means that I: am against wars (unless in self-defense), against abortion (deliberately killing a human life) and I"m against death penalty.
user 139760
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Messages
- 5,581
- Reaction score
- 2,249
As a principle, I'm against the death penalty. However, there are certain examples I feel should be made concerning certain very haineous or hatefull crimes. Mass murderers for example, or rapists, who failed to be rehabilitated.
