News Should we bring back Capital punishment for premeditated murder?

[MarcoD]

Were you thinking about the "poor black person of age 18 who lacks role models and believes that he is repressed by a racist capitalist society takes up a gun" presented in your response to me - or are you setting me up with a strawman?

Uh? I was just responding to your comment on impulse. It seemed irrelevant to the debate?

[ Actually, the only legal system which I know which really takes into account impulse, is the French system which recognizes the 'crime passionelle.' Though I assume some judicial systems make some provisions for impulse. ]

 

[Jack21222]

For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence.

You would have killed Kirk Bloodsworth then, who had 5 eyewitnesses testify against him.

 

[WhoWee]

You would have killed Kirk Bloodsworth then, who had 5 eyewitnesses testify against him.

I'm really not familiar enough with the "Kirk Bloodsworth" to comment. My full post was (my bold):

"IMO - the punishment should fit the crime. However, there is a flaw in our system whereby the penalty for killing a person along with all of the witnesses is the same.

I think each case should be considered on it's own merits. A life sentence might be appropriate in a situation where circumstantial evidence leads to a conviction. In clear cut cases where an act is on tape or witnessed by a large group - a death sentence might be more appropriate. For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence."

Again, I don't know the case - only posted my opinions.

 

[MarcoD]

I think each case should be considered on it's own merits. A life sentence might be appropriate in a situation where circumstantial evidence leads to a conviction. In clear cut cases where an act is on tape or witnessed by a large group - a death sentence might be more appropriate. For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence."[/I]

So the previous post dealt with what would be a large group. Now the tape,

I have a tape where someone shoots three persons through the head.

Clear case, he should be put to death.

Problem is his statement: "These three are family members of a woman I dated and objected to that. I shot them, because they made it clear to me that they would torture and kill me for that reason." Self-defense?

Or worse: "A man has no money and his wife is dying. In despair, he tries to rob a bank. Disturbed, the man freaks out and shoots the guard, in more despair, he shoots a woman and kid standing in front of him, the witnesses. It's all on tape." Temporary insanity?

 

[WhoWee]

So the previous post dealt with what would be a large group. Now the tape,

I have a tape where someone shoots three persons through the head.

Clear case, he should be put to death.

Problem is his statement: "These three are family members of a woman I dated and objected to that. I shot them, because they made it clear to me that they would torture and kill me for that reason." Self-defense?

Or worse: "A man has no money and his wife is dying. In despair, he tries to rob a bank. Disturbed, the man freaks out and shoots the guard, in more despair, he shoots a woman and kid standing in front of him, the witnesses. It's all on tape." Temporary insanity?

I'll post my comment again: my bold
"I think each case should be considered on it's own merits. A life sentence might be appropriate in a situation where circumstantial evidence leads to a conviction. In clear cut cases where an act is on tape or witnessed by a large group - a death sentence might be more appropriate. For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence."

Each case on it's own merits - and "might" be more appropriate - where is the confusion?

 

[MarcoD]

I'll post my comment again: my bold
"I think each case should be considered on it's own merits. A life sentence might be appropriate in a situation where circumstantial evidence leads to a conviction. In clear cut cases where an act is on tape or witnessed by a large group - a death sentence might be more appropriate. For the most vile offenders and situations where witnesses are murdered - I favor a long sentence of hard labor followed by a death sentence."

Each case on it's own merits - and "might" be more appropriate - where is the confusion?

There is no confusion. I just don't know what "the tape" or "a body of witnesses" would add to judging a case on its merits.

[ I mean. When a judge convicts a person, there is legally, no question whatsoever anymore about who committed what, and what he/she is guilty about. The 'tape' or 'body of witnesses,' actually can be seen as doubts towards that fundamental principle. ]

 

[WhoWee]

There is no confusion. I just don't know what "the tape" or "a body of witnesses" would add to judging a case on its merits.

[ I mean. When a judge convicts a person, there is legally, no question whatsoever anymore about who committed what, and what he/she is guilty about. The 'tape' or 'body of witnesses,' actually can be seen as doubts towards that fundamental principle. ]

A tape can be useful if it clearly shows an armed robber (for instance) first killing an unarmed clerk - then executing witnesses. A large group of people (such as in AZ recently) that first witnesses an event then captures the killer is very helpful to the prosecution.

 

[Evo]

I don't think there is any doubt that Loughner was guilty either, he was caught in the middle of the act.

There is no possible way to have a serious discussion on this matter when people continue to go off topic with "what about this case, what about that case?"

My question to these people is, why don't you back up a step and ask "what's wrong with the legal trial system that convicted these people in the first place?" or the pressure on police to solve a case as quickly as possible? It's not ok if an innocent person if falsely convicted and spends their entire life in prison or gets killed in prison. That's been the problem, IMO.