• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Family participation in the death penalty

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There are cases built on circumstantial evidence and then there are cases that are irrefutable. I agree with some of your notion but the cases that are absolute should continue forward with the full extent of punishment allowed by the laws.
And who decides where that line get's drawn? Either way, that's not the point I'm making in this thread.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
And who decides where that line get's drawn? Either way, that's not the point I'm making in this thread.

We'll, you're moving the subject.

If the subject was a guity verdict with no reasonable doubt then the punishment should be allowed.

Punishment is subjective. Most that are against capital punishment argue that it is cruel and unusual punishment. Locking up people into cages for life, I consider cruel and unusual but I don't mind the cruel and unusual condition on criminals.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
If the subject was a guity verdict with no reasonable doubt then the punishment should be allowed.
That's the alleged standard now, and yet we know innocent people are wrongfully convicted, so my point stands. Saying "with no reasonable doubt" is all well and good, but until you actually come up with a way to ensure everyone you want to put to death is actually guilty, my objection to the death penalty remains.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
But that 'satisfaction' may be short lived and remorse may later set in. It won't heal the emptiness of the loss.
I'd leave that decision up to the family member who wants that option.
You'd expect remorse, but many wouldn't.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
That's the alleged standard now, and yet we know innocent people are wrongfully convicted, so my point stands. Saying "with no reasonable doubt" is all well and good, but until you actually come up with a way to ensure everyone you want to put to death is actually guilty, my objection to the death penalty remains.

Please understand my point about the subjectivity concerning punishments because we're bypassing that and are now repeating the same dialog.

Again, the next severe punishment is life in prison. That can be considered as cruel yet we allow it.

Another way to put this, is that if you are against capital punishment due to potential mistakes in the conviction system, then you should be against all punishment since we can not prove 100% accuracy.

And, I also brought up the notion that some cases can be proven with 100% accuracy.

The typical argument of an inaccurate justice system is more to debase the justice system and not the form of punishment. Punishment is only a small portion of the entire justice system.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Please understand my point about the subjectivity concerning punishments because we're bypassing that and are now repeating the same dialog.

Again, the next severe punishment is life in prison. That can be considered as cruel yet we allow it.

Another way to put this, is that if you are against capital punishment due to potential mistakes in the conviction system, then you should be against all punishment since we can not prove 100% accuracy.

And, I also brought up the notion that some cases can be proven with 100% accuracy.

The typical argument of an inaccurate justice system is more to debase the justice system and not the form of punishment. Punishment is only a small portion of the entire justice system.
And I say again, who gets to draw the line? Who decides which convictions are "100% accurate"?

I'm not thrilled about the idea of putting an innocent person in prison, either, but at least there's a chance of release after exoneration.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
In the case of a murder conviction and death sentence for a child rapist/murderer, should a family member have the option of pulling the switch or administrating the needle?

No. Smacks too much of revenge in my mind. Heck I think watching an execution is just weird in itself let along being the one to flip the switch.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Why do you think our criminal system should be concerned with the victim or their family at all?

The criminal system is concerned about a/the victim at least as said victim is one of a crime. No victim means a lot of crimes do not exist. In trials the victim is constantly referenced.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
What's so dystopian about it?
We already have the premise of a government executing people.
The populace would be just fine with the killing.
But what bothers you is my cost cutting measure?
If you can't see what's dystopian about auctioning off killing people to rich people for amusement, I can't help you.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Purely subjective opinions which you're entitled to. Thanks
That's pretty dismissive from someone who goes on to say that some things are irrefutable.
There are cases built on circumstantial evidence and then there are cases that are irrefutable. I agree with some of your notion but the cases that are absolute should continue forward with the full extent of punishment allowed by the laws.
If we knew which cases were irrefutable there'd be no false conviction, no false imprisonment, no false execution.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Another way to put this, is that if you are against capital punishment due to potential mistakes in the conviction system, then you should be against all punishment since we can not prove 100% accuracy.

Life or long sentences provides "room" for errors which death penalties do not. If a life sentence is overturned the person lost X years and suffered whatever occurred between being charged and acquitted. They are often compensated. Someone that is dead being acquitted is still dead. So there is no room for error at all.

I would add that death penalties are carried out by a warrant not merely the court case. This warrant only lasts for so long thus must be reissued when expired. Convicts can make a number of challenges such as an appeal which places a hold on a death warrant thus the warrant can expire. There are number of checks that do exists which hinder an execution for years.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Life or long sentences provides "room" for errors which death penalties do not. If a life sentence is overturned the person lost X years and suffered whatever occurred between being charged and acquitted. They are often compensated. Someone that is dead being acquitted is still dead. So there is no room for error at all.

I would add that death penalties are carried out by a warrant not merely the court case. This warrant only lasts for so long thus must be reissued when expired. Convicts can make a number of challenges such as an appeal which places a hold on a death warrant thus the warrant can expire. There are number of checks that do exists which hinder an execution for years.

That's a fair assessment to suggest that life in prison is better than a death sentence. I'll agree with that.

However, like I said before, there are cases that can be 100% true. Some cases are based on circumstantial evidence which places conviction on a probability. Those cases that are 100 percent can be allowed maximum punishment including capital punishment.
 
Top