APP - I'm now anti-death penalty

Socrtease said:
I am not sympathetic of murderers at all. The guy that was convicted of the home invasion and murder of the two little girls (by burning them to death) and their mother deserves no sympathy. However, the story of Keezer puts not to fine a point on what is wrong with our system and why killing people convicted of heinous crimes is not justice. People want swifter sentences with less appeals. Keezer is fortunate in one aspect because he was not sentenced to death. Even more fortunate in that those not sentenced to death get less attention because people wrongly convicted and sentenced to die take more resources. If sentences were carried out in a swifter manner many of the 140 convicted and sentenced to death only to later be found innocent would be dead and NO ONE would take the time to prove they were wrongly convicted. 16 years behind bars for a crime you did not commit is hard to ever overcome. You become institutionalized. You get abused by other inmates. You have to abandon your own humanity and act like the men you are imprisoned with. How much is 16years of your life worth to you? I believe that every state should have a criminal statute that subjects prosecutors to the same amount of time their victims served. This might deter prosecutors from hiding evidence and relying on jail house informants. Only a prosecutor can talk out of both sides of his mouth claiming at one that felons cannot be trusted to tell the truth AND that juries should believe them when they say they "heard" the defendant confess. Almost every time those jailhouse informants are promised a lesser sentence or early parole. But they wouldn't lie for that. RIght?
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it should be statutory regardless of intent?

And it shouldn't be equal to the amount of time the innocent served, it should be one uniform sentence. You shouldn't get less time in prison just because your lie happened to be found out earlier.

Conservatives are so much like little children, in that intent is irrelevant to the blame they place. If there's logically no one to hurt to give them sadistic pleasure when something's gone wrong they'll invent something. They are unthinking sadistic monsters who have no concern other than hurting other human beings so that they can derive pleasure from their suffering. The purpose of the death penalty is not justice, it's entertainment. Some people watch TV, some people masturbate, conservatives kill.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
Are you saying that it should be statutory regardless of intent?

And it shouldn't be equal to the amount of time the innocent served, it should be one uniform sentence. You shouldn't get less time in prison just because your lie happened to be found out earlier.

Conservatives are so much like little children, in that intent is irrelevant to the blame they place. If there's logically no one to hurt to give them sadistic pleasure when something's gone wrong they'll invent something. They are unthinking sadistic monsters who have no concern other than hurting other human beings so that they can derive pleasure from their suffering. The purpose of the death penalty is not justice, it's entertainment. Some people watch TV, some people masturbate, conservatives kill.
Click to expand...

"Some people watch TV, some people masturbate, conservatives kill."

And you suck cock.
 
Watermarx said:
Are you saying that it should be statutory regardless of intent?

And it shouldn't be equal to the amount of time the innocent served, it should be one uniform sentence. You shouldn't get less time in prison just because your lie happened to be found out earlier.

Conservatives are so much like little children, in that intent is irrelevant to the blame they place. If there's logically no one to hurt to give them sadistic pleasure when something's gone wrong they'll invent something. They are unthinking sadistic monsters who have no concern other than hurting other human beings so that they can derive pleasure from their suffering. The purpose of the death penalty is not justice, it's entertainment. Some people watch TV, some people masturbate, conservatives kill.
Click to expand...
Dude intent is often irrelevant to a case at hand. That;d be like saying because I shot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artry, and they bleed to death, that I shouldn't be charged with murder because I didn't 'intend' to kill them. I'm not saying this is a blanket statement to cover every possible situation, but honestly why someone intends to commit a crime shouldn't affect their sentencing.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Dude intent is often irrelevant to a case at hand. That;d be like saying because I shot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artry, and they bleed to death, that I shouldn't be charged with murder because I didn't 'intend' to kill them. I'm not saying this is a blanket statement to cover every possible situation, but honestly why someone intends to commit a crime shouldn't affect their sentencing.
Click to expand...

Not according to Apple.
His reasoning is: If a man is trying to feed his family and that man decides that you have more then you need; then it's OK for him to steal from you, or even murder you, to get what he NEEDS.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Not according to Apple.
His reasoning is: If a man is trying to feed his family and that man decides that you have more then you need; then it's OK for him to steal from you, or even murder you, to get what he NEEDS.
Click to expand...
Good for Apple, a poster not present in this thread who I wasn't talking to in the first place.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
That;d be like saying because I shot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artery, and they bleed to death, that I shouldn't be charged with murder because I didn't 'intend' to kill them.
Click to expand...

There are different degrees of intent. If you intentionally shoot someone in the leg it's, at best, being reckless with that other persons life, and recklessness is generally considered the same as intent if it results in death.
 
Last edited:
Watermarx said:
There are different degrees of intent. If you intentionally shoot someone in the leg it's, at best, being reckless with that other persons life, and recklessness is generally considered the same as intent if it results in death.
Click to expand...
That's why I avoided a blanket statement, but in general intent is meaningless. The action and the subsequent reaction are of most importance and should be the main focus of our criminal justice system (outside of constitutionality).
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
That's why I avoided a blanket statement, but in general intent is meaningless. The action and the subsequent reaction are of most importance and should be the main focus of our criminal justice system (outside of constitutionality).
Click to expand...

I disagree. The degree of intent should be pretty much the only thing that matters in criminal law. Civil law should still function primarily on restitution for damages.
 
Watermarx said:
I disagree. The degree of intent should be pretty much the only thing that matters in criminal law. Civil law should still function primarily on restitution for damages.
Click to expand...
Intent is only relevant in attempt and conspiracy, where the intent IS the crime, otherwise what someone intended doesn't affect what they did.
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Intent is only relevant in attempt and conspiracy, where the intent IS the crime, otherwise what someone intended doesn't affect what they did.
Click to expand...

It doesn't serve much deterrent purpose to punish an unintentional act. Having a person serve time for an unintentional act would therefore just be punishment for the sake of punishment, which I can't support. Negligence should be punished less than recklessness, and recklessness less than pure intent. For most crimes this doesn't really apply, though.
 
Socrtease said:
I am not sympathetic of murderers at all. The guy that was convicted of the home invasion and murder of the two little girls (by burning them to death) and their mother deserves no sympathy. However, the story of Keezer puts not to fine a point on what is wrong with our system and why killing people convicted of heinous crimes is not justice. People want swifter sentences with less appeals. Keezer is fortunate in one aspect because he was not sentenced to death. Even more fortunate in that those not sentenced to death get less attention because people wrongly convicted and sentenced to die take more resources. If sentences were carried out in a swifter manner many of the 140 convicted and sentenced to death only to later be found innocent would be dead and NO ONE would take the time to prove they were wrongly convicted. 16 years behind bars for a crime you did not commit is hard to ever overcome. You become institutionalized. You get abused by other inmates. You have to abandon your own humanity and act like the men you are imprisoned with. How much is 16years of your life worth to you? I believe that every state should have a criminal statute that subjects prosecutors to the same amount of time their victims served. This might deter prosecutors from hiding evidence and relying on jail house informants. Only a prosecutor can talk out of both sides of his mouth claiming at one that felons cannot be trusted to tell the truth AND that juries should believe them when they say they "heard" the defendant confess. Almost every time those jailhouse informants are promised a lesser sentence or early parole. But they wouldn't lie for that. RIght?
Click to expand...
Prosecutors should absolutely be held to a higher standard. It is their mission to protect the public from violent criminals but when they victimize an innocent person through their own misconduct they should be held accountable to the highest degree. What is bizarre to me is that a prosecutor could embezzle state funds and face harsher consequences then if they were to conspire to have an innocent person executed.
 
Watermarx said:
Anyone who thinks that another human deserves to die is, by definition, evil, and I will gladly remove evil inhuman monsters like Mott from the earth.
Click to expand...
I wonder how many days of being locked up in Parchman it would take for you to change your mind.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txp8B4ek_kk"]YouTube - Richard Pryor: PRISON[/ame]
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Dude intent is often irrelevant to a case at hand. That;d be like saying because I shot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artry, and they bleed to death, that I shouldn't be charged with murder because I didn't 'intend' to kill them. I'm not saying this is a blanket statement to cover every possible situation, but honestly why someone intends to commit a crime shouldn't affect their sentencing.
Click to expand...
Yea actually it should. If In cold blood I called you up to meet you someplace, brought a gun and shot you in the leg, you bled to death and I voted for W, I should be punished far more harshly then if I fucked up, voted for Obama, got buck fever, and accidently shot you hunting because I mistook you for an armadillo.
 
Rana said:
Oh, I like rap!
Click to expand...
Yea but you a hood rat home girl from greater down town metropolitan Moose Pass, Alaska and besides girlfriend you got that negro thing goin on! I seen Bud's video!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2DTjHyPQ9k&feature=related"]YouTube - Alaska Farmer Rap[/ame]
 
Duplicity and Guile said:
Dude intent is often irrelevant to a case at hand. That;d be like saying because I shot someone in the leg, hit their femoral artry, and they bleed to death, that I shouldn't be charged with murder because I didn't 'intend' to kill them. I'm not saying this is a blanket statement to cover every possible situation, but honestly why someone intends to commit a crime shouldn't affect their sentencing.
Click to expand...

intent is very important in terms of mens rea

intent is actually an element of many modern codified laws and in homicide (murder) it is wholly relevant in terms of degree of murder you can be convicted of.

if you shot someone in the leg thinking you would only wound them, should you be charged with first degree or should you be charged with second or manslaughter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top